Was talking this over with some guys recently. Is using artificial altitude (like retrofitting your room to simulate 10,000 feet) cheating? You're using technological means to boost your RBC levels, same as EPO or blood doping for that matter. But maybe we want to make a distinction that it's only cheating if you actually ingest a performance-enhancing chemical. I can see both sides, and don't really know the answer. I mean, simulated altitude is legal, but is it moral?
If you get in your car and drive to altitude you are using technological means to boost your RBC. Is that moral.
Since this is a debate of international scope, it is helpful to understand how other countries view this. Everyone has been focused on drugs verses the overall concept of performance enhancement. Tents were banned at the complex in Sydney in 2000. A third world country, needless to say a typical individual runner from a third world country, would consider a tent an unfair advantage.
A typical American or Nike probably would not consider a tent unfair. So morals are relative. When an official is placed at IAAF or IOC, it is important that they are objective.
in my opinion, cheating. you get way more benefits living at altitude (sleeping, doing housework, etc) and training at sea-level than you would living and training at altitude or living and training at sea-level. to drive to altitude to live and back down to sea-level to train is unrealistic . . . i don't know anyone who could make the trek everyday to get the benefits. so if you have a tent or a special room and you stay there all the time that you're not running you have an unfair advantage. i know you're not putting drugs in your body, but the benefits just kind of appear if you use the tent/alt. room ;)
-- kk
Included in this area of discussion should be blood doping. Should it be illegal just because the IAAF says so? Disregarding the danger, what is wrong with putting MY OWN BLOOD back into MY BODY??? It's mine, I made it, I own it, shouldn't I be allowed to do with it as I wish. It is a natural substance, and somehow still seems to be more legit than, say, anything foriegn, including the mildest stimulant, like just one single cup of coffee. Just my thought process when it comes to EPO, altitude tents, etc.
Have a Nice Day!
katyk,
Lots of elite runners "live high / train low". This is not an uncommon or impossible feat. Those who live in New Mexico, Arizona and a few other places can accomplish the task. If you're a full-time runner, it's not a big deal to drive an hour or two twice per day to train. The altitude tent just allows you to do this without having to relocate to a different part of the country.
Mr Philosopher,
You seemed to be interested in this topic, I have a good thread that could answer your question and will give you a good deep thought about this problem.
Read the thread in
www.mariusbakken.com/forum2000/default.asp
In the training section, open page 2.
Author : Waz
Subject : what is cheating ?
Number of replies : 115 posts
Number of readers : 1207 people
Summary:
The dicussion about the tent only leaded to EPO, the tent is just a hiding place for elites to get away from EPO. Tent would raise the blood cells and in this respect it has the same effect like EPO. And this was the last posted by Roadrunner :
<<...taking EPO which is advantageous for endurance will last much longer because red blood cells have a life span of around 120 days. The effects of EPO are quite long lasting in this respect.>> Jerome
This can explain (correct me if i was wrong)the reason why EPO is used mainly training periods, than just a mere drug before competion(s) period(s). They take it, they train hard, and they stop it, 3 weeks before competiton to nort accuse positive. But the effect is there, by reaching a training capacity that enables to great/top performances.
And this will eventually explain also why they test positive while they are not in great shape condition for the moment the accuse positive. They are working for the future
-Roadrunner