If you had checked what the anesthesiologist in question works with, it's actually in part the topic physical stress during exercise. And irrespective of that it's rather safe to say an anesthesiologist has a solid basis for judging the literature on the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical.
That said, it's true that such general comments aren't the same as a scientific evidence base itself. It does (or should) however add some perspective to some of the more poorly argued claims I have seen in this debate, such as the notion that meldonium must necessarily be super dope just because so many used it etc.
And this — sorry to point this out — is a nice attempt at a rather classic and much ridiculed variant of
appeal to emotion
I wouldn't to happy about slimy old men forcing my hypothetical children to much of anything really. But you miss my point: my point is that I haven't seen the appropriate amount of evidence I would need to properly judge the risk/benefit ratio of young athletes being given meldonium, and it seems that the rest of ye here do not have the appropriate information to make a precise judgement of that either, but still it seems that most are willing to go quite far in that direction.
Now, I'll gladly agree to a more principled stance that younglings shouldn't be forced to take pharmaceuticals to aid their sporting performance in either case — my point is that the extent to which this particular instance was so horribly evil is seemingly not clear to us.
