Why is altitude training acceptable but EPO isn't?

Because health risks, moran. You can't have a heart attack just from too much altitude. Also, EPO use is far easier to regulate than altitude exposure.

Greta Runberg wrote:

Wouldn't it be better for the environment if athletes didn't fly to altitude camps and just took EPO? Also, I'm pretty sure going to altitude is just a cover for taking EPO anyway, so let's stop the charade.

You can’t pick up altitude training at your local pharmacy.

Okay, I asked, you answered. Thanks. I can never see a time when one monthly flight to a destination that we now have multiple flights a day to can happen. Lots can be done remotely but sometimes you just have to be there, professional athletes who have a competition scheduled for example. Other times you just want to be there.

I think that if you want to solve a problem you really don't want to waste time thinking about solutions that will never happen. There's going to be more, not less, air travel in the future unless we keep having COVID outbursts or something similar. Living standards and incomes are going up, people get jobs and spouses that are a long way from their families. I have a friend with a Chinese daughter in law. The daughter in law and her parents visit each other about once or twice a year. We'll see more of this in the future and it's going to increase the number of people flying.

WADA bans stuff that is dangerous to an athlete’s health. They aren’t just trying to protect “the spirit of fair sports”. EPO turns a healthy athlete’s blood into sludge, and they can die.

Caffeine is ubiquitous. It is not a regulated drug like EPO, used to treat diseases.

CopperRunner wrote:

Wow.

My brain cells

Help

Please

If athletes are allowed to lift weights and consume protein, they should be allowed to take steroids as well right?

Maybe since we can take caffeine before a run or workout, we should just jump the shark and start taking crack-cocaine as well?

This is such a dumb dumb dumb thread oh my goodness.

I have never seen so many idiots not have any idea what they are talking about pretend to know what they are talking about at once. EPO is a very dangerous drug, helps more than altitude training ever could, and makes the playing field completely unleveled.

Thank you! The degree of stupidity is as amazing as it is sad. It's a brave new world of alternative facts which seems to have robbed people of all common sense including a total inability to spot obvious logical fallacies.

stan the corgi wrote:

The one tiny little glitch not mentioned here re EPO is that if it is not closely monitored, the viscosity of the blood may become too thick resulting in death.

This.

EPO is for sick people.

It can kill healthy people.

It all comes down to asking yourself one question: will this make me faster regardless of whether or not I train. If the answer is “yes” you’re cheating.

Living at altitude isn’t going to make you faster. It’s not like if you just move to 7,000 ft you’re instantly going to run a 4 minute mile. I would even bet that living at altitude w/o training won’t even make you a second faster.

How ‘bout epo or testosterone. They did a study with test where they had 3 groups of lifters. 1 took test and trained, 1 trained w/o test, and the last just took test. The first group gained the most muscle (obviously) but out of the other two groups, the group that just took test gained more muscle than the group that just trained.

Taking peds allows athletes to gain a huge advantage with 0 work. Of course the athletes benefit more by putting in the work but they’re gaining with less. This is the difference.

Yusef Scummm wrote:

Greta Runberg wrote:

Wouldn't it be better for the environment if athletes didn't fly to altitude camps and just took EPO? Also, I'm pretty sure going to altitude is just a cover for taking EPO anyway, so let's stop the charade.

You can’t pick up altitude training at your local pharmacy.

Excellent.

It is a fair question what type of methods should be allowed if the goal is same, ie. the surplus of red blood cells.

When the ethicacy of old school transfusions was debated in the 1970s, it was also pointed out (even by opponents of the method) that blood doping made the game more fair and equal in the sense that not all athletes could spend weeks or months in far away countries with no regular income from work during the training period, but transfusions were more accessible method to reach a similar(ish) end result.

From purely health perspective, hypoxia is by a magnitude more difficult (if not impossible) to "overdose" than EPO/transfusions with serious health hazards. In addition, the increase in Hb mass with banned methods is of a different magnitude than that what is possible with the hypoxic methods.

Here's my take wrote:

Great question for rekrunner.

Why me?

What is acceptable is subjectively decided by a WADA committee of experts, and regularly reviewed, considering 3 factors: performance, health, and spirit of the sport.

If performance enhancement were the only factor, we should consider banning training completely, and ban all consumption of proteins and carbs.

Generally speaking, natural ways to achieve desired physical changes are preferred over artificial ways, and a committee decides where to draw the line, balancing and compromising between enhancement, health, and spirit on a case by case basis.

So what is the optimal number of red blood cells?

Based on the Lance Armstrong documentary, EPO is not dangerous if administered properly.

It’s well known that a majority of pro cyclists were taking it when Lance was at his peak. Either his body responded to it better or he was just a better athlete than everyone else on EPO.

It does create a slippery slope where college and even high school kids without the right doctors and budget could get hurt or die.

So what's the optimal number of red blood cells?

Peds such as epo can easily have negative short term and long term health implications. We don't want to encourage and incite athletes using these substances due to that and obviously the unfair playing field it creates.

Everyone's an expert wrote:

So what's the optimal number of red blood cells?

Ask Dr. Michele Ferrari

Rainy Day wrote:

Everyone's an expert wrote:

So what's the optimal number of red blood cells?

Ask Dr. Michele Ferrari

He would say some ridiculous number. What do you think it is and why?

If performance enhancement were the only factor, we should consider banning training completely, and ban all consumption of proteins and carbs.(quote)

Training has never been considered for a ban and neither has food, because no one in WADA is so moronic as to consider performance enhancement per se is the problem, but only when it is achieved through drugs. That is why altitude-training is not banned but EPO is.

Yet if altitude-training isn't banned, why should EPO be banned, when we have it on rekrunner's authority that it isn't performance enhancing of elite altitude-trained athletes? WADA clearly doesn't know what he does.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yet if altitude-training isn't banned, why should EPO be banned, when we have it on rekrunner's authority that it isn't performance enhancing of elite altitude-trained athletes? WADA clearly doesn't know what he does.

You really enjoy being humiliated by rekrunner. You even tease him, waiting for him to school you.