For someone who has just joined the discussion and doesn't necessarily know what people are debating here, I think that the school of Dutch rEPO-skeptics summarize pretty well the problems with the existing rEPO-research from the elites vs. recreational athletes viewpoint in their review of the literature a few years ago:
It is, however, clear that in no study reported subjects are at a ‘competing’ level of cycling performance. This highlights a very problematic aspect, which is that the studies do not use well-trained cyclists, still less elite or world-class cyclists, who would be expected to have Vo2MAX values above 70 ml/kg/min (5 l/min) and power outputs above 5 W/kg... The studied subjects may not have reached a plateau in Vo2MAX, confounding the interpretation as explained above. Cyclists classified as ‘well trained’ or higher differ in factors contributing to endurance performance from ‘trained’ or ‘untrained’ cyclists The Vo2 kinetics are very different even between ‘well-trained’ and ‘world-class’ cyclists...
[research paper by] Hopkins et al. state that: 'the results of a research study apply with reasonable certainty only to populations that have similar characteristics to the sample under study. Elite athletes almost certainly have genetic endowment, training history, and training programs that differ from those of subelite athletes. A treatment may therefore produce different effects on performance in these two groups. It follows that the subjects in a study have to be elite athletes for the results to apply convincingly to elite athletes'.
While I generally do sympathise with the Dutch approach, the review isn't perfect. If one goes beyond the rEPO research and takes a look also on the autotransfusion studies, there actually does exist scientific research that some parameters (Vo2MAX, time-to-exhaustion) are elevated when national elite runners are subjected to blood doping. There were two Canadian studies in late 1970s (published in 1980 and 1986) where national elite level athletes were recruited as subjects, with some participants being national record breaking runners and some individuals having relative Vo2MAX figures as high as 86 ml/kg/min. The subjects were reinfused with 900 ml and 1350 ml of earlier stored blood and their Vo2MAX values were elevated by 5 % and by some 6.5 % respectively. By visually going through the meta-analysis chart provided by Sawka (1987), it seems that even the participants with the highest initial Vo2MAX figures had their values elevated, in some case beyond 90 ml/kg/min.
The intrepretation of the results isn't that easy for several reasons:
- There are a few strange anomalies in the research papers and any type of endurance test (time-to-exhaustion) was a part of the conduct in only another one the papers, so it isn't that clear how relevant the Vo2MAX increase actually is.
- Sawka actually used some of the same data in his meta-analysis of 30 athletes and concluded that they responded less to blood reinfusion that participants with lower aerobic capabilities.
- Even when the participants fit the "Dutch skeptic" criterion of elite athlete (>70ml/kg/min) and regardless of high aerobic capability, the Canadian elite runners aren't necessarily that elite in the end, even when there were some good mile runners in late 1970s (Dave Hill, Peter Spir). There is a good deal of data (age/height/weight) on some of the participants, so perhaps someone interested could reconstruct back who they actually were.