HGH and steroids aside, what is the difference between someone taking epo and maintaining a haematocrit of 50% and achieving the same result through use of a hypoxic tent or living at altitude? I liken it to getting all your vitmains and minerals through food versus taking supplements (natural vs. artificial).

Discuss. or flame on. whichever your maturity level dictates.

HGH and steroids aside, what is the difference between someone taking epo and maintaining a haematocrit of 50% and achieving the same result through use of a hypoxic tent or living at altitude? I liken it to getting all your vitmains and minerals through food versus taking supplements (natural vs. artificial).

Discuss. or flame on. whichever your maturity level dictates.
The New York Times had a good article last Sunday asking,
But if baseball players are cheating, is everyone else, too?

After all, Americans are relying more and more on a growing array of performance enhancing drugs. Lawyers take the anti-sleep drug Provigil to finish that all-night brief, in hopes of concentrating better. Classical musicians take beta blockers, which banish jitters, before a big recital.Is the student who swallows a Ritalin before taking the SAT unethical if the pill gives her an unfair advantage over other students? If a golfer pops a beta blocker before a tournament, is he eliminating a crucial part of competition - battling nerves and a chance of choking?
...
[Bioethicist Arthur] Caplan mocks the handwringing over self-enhancement drugs. To him, it is all technology: "The lawyer who's taking a pill to stay up is also carrying a computer or P.D.A. to help his brain remember things. Are we going to throw away our calculators?"

The full article appears at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/weekinreview/20zern.html

HGH and steroids aside, what is the difference between someone taking epo and maintaining a haematocrit of 50% and achieving the same result through use of a hypoxic tent or living at altitude? I liken it to getting all your vitmains and minerals through food versus taking supplements (natural vs. artificial).

Discuss. or flame on. whichever your maturity level dictates.

One is against the rules and one isn't. This isn't a moral judgement.- TF

One is against the rules and one isn't. This isn't a moral judgement.- TF
But when Juan Antonio Samaranch said, as head of the Olympics, that the rules meant that any performance-enhancing drug that didn't hurt the athlete's health was not doping, he got a storm of criticism. The anti-doping movement is indeed about moral judgments because it objects to rules that permit performance enhancing drugs, even if they're safe.

I agree with this moral stance against doping because we don't always know the effects of drugs until we actually see people's health being harmed by them, but I want it to be clear that the only reason we have these rules on doping is because people object morally to performance-enhancing drugs.

HGH and steroids aside, what is the difference between someone taking epo and maintaining a haematocrit of 50% and achieving the same result through use of a hypoxic tent or living at altitude? I liken it to getting all your vitmains and minerals through food versus taking supplements (natural vs. artificial).

Discuss. or flame on. whichever your maturity level dictates.

Well, at least one issue is that with a hypoxic tent you provide the stimulus for EPO production (just like going to altitude), and thus it is a natural process. Also, presumably recovery could be potential decreased while you're spending time in the hypoxic state.

With EPO injection you bypass the bodies natural adaptive processes and you don't have to worry about compromised recovery with using a hypoxic tent.

But when Juan Antonio Samaranch said, as head of the Olympics, that the rules meant that any performance-enhancing drug that didn't hurt the athlete's health was not doping, he got a storm of criticism. The anti-doping movement is indeed about moral judgments because it objects to rules that permit performance enhancing drugs, even if they're safe.

I agree with this moral stance against doping because we don't always know the effects of drugs until we actually see people's health being harmed by them, but I want it to be clear that the only reason we have these rules on doping is because people object morally to performance-enhancing drugs.
I agree that the "storm" was from the "morally superior" that are judging and believe that all "drugs" (definition unclear - somehow alcohol escapes) are equally bad.

I do think, however, that those who are setting the rules are trying to eliminate the performance enhancement at the cost of the athlete's health and are not making a moral judgment. For instance they pulled caffeine from the list.

TF

HGH and steroids aside, what is the difference between someone taking epo and maintaining a haematocrit of 50% and achieving the same result through use of a hypoxic tent or living at altitude? I liken it to getting all your vitmains and minerals through food versus taking supplements (natural vs. artificial).

Discuss. or flame on. whichever your maturity level dictates.

A teammate had a hypoxic tent and one thing she pointed to me is that she had to be careful on the hypoxic setting. She said that she didn't dare to try a setting where the equivalent altitude was 10,000 ft. She had had altitude sickness before so she didn't want to run the risk of causing the something similar to altitude sickness.

One side note that I found is that EPO in certain studies, can protect the brain neurons from damage, according to http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021109/bob8.asp

My impression was that hematocrit level is tested and if found over 50% then you are suspended for your own good, and the method of reaching that level isn't what is at issue, it's an assumption that over 50% you're not fit for racing. Or has this changed? FWIW I don't care if an athlete uses high altitude training, hypobaric chambers, or EPO...aren't all three "unfair" at some level? What about the poor flatland racer who can't afford to travel and train at altitude, or afford a hypobaric tent---why couldn't he be allowed to boost his EPO, preferably under medical supervision, with a supplement? Maybe if everyone truly had a level playing field, including money, food & training methods, then I'd care...

My impression was that hematocrit level is tested and if found over 50% then you are suspended for your own good, and the method of reaching that level isn't what is at issue, it's an assumption that over 50% you're not fit for racing. Or has this changed? FWIW I don't care if an athlete uses high altitude training, hypobaric chambers, or EPO...aren't all three "unfair" at some level? What about the poor flatland racer who can't afford to travel and train at altitude, or afford a hypobaric tent---why couldn't he be allowed to boost his EPO, preferably under medical supervision, with a supplement? Maybe if everyone truly had a level playing field, including money, food & training methods, then I'd care...

It is true that the 50% level is considered the upper level, unless you can prove that you have a naturally higher hematocrit level. For instance, Cunego has a 51 or 52% level and the authorities tested his dad, just to be sure. They found that Cunego's dad also had the higher level.