three make one wrote:
Sure, the point is that altitude adaptations over generations continue despite relocation. But it is the altitude adaptation that is the primary driver for increased running performance.
. . .
Simply, it is fairer to allow both sea level and altitude athletes benefits of altitude by not banning the tent.
Again, you're just making stuff up and asserting it as scientific fact. What basis do you have for asserting that "altitude adaptation" is the "primary driver for increased running performance"? The fact that many of the world's best distance runners are from tribes whose members happen to be located largely in high-altitude regions in East Africa does not mean that "altitude adaptation" is the "primary driver for increased running performance," any more than the fact that virtually all of the world's best sprinters have genetic roots in western or central Africa means that adaptation to some particular aspect of the climate of western or central Africa (heat? humidity? an abundance of mosquitoes?) is the "primary driver for increased sprinting performance." In fact, even within the various tribes of Kenya, there are all kinds of hypotheses about why, for example, the Nandi tend to produce more world-class runners than other high-altitude Kalenjin tribes (one theory is that there was a vigorous "natural selection" of better runners among the Nandi because, as a tribe, they survived for many generations largely by running around and stealing cattle from other tribes) or why the Kalenjin tend to produce many more world-class runners than the much more populous Kikuyu, whose homeland is primarily in the high-altitude region between Nairobi and Mt. Kenya. Moreover, as I've already pointed out, a number of world-class distance runners from East Afica, such as those from Djibouti, have no obvious high-altitude origins.
Your final statement that it is "fairer" to allow the use of altitude tents is typical of the unanalytical nature of so many arguments about the regulation of performance-enhancing practices. Permitting the use of so-called "altitude tents" (a more accurate description might be "EPO-stimulating devices") simply benefits a particular group of competitors -- those who have a combination of extraordinary wealth (by world standards) and the physiological predisposition to benefit more than others from the use of such devices.
As I've indicated before, a proper analysis of these kinds of issues involves the consideration of many factors. One significant factor that I haven't yet mentioned here is the use of regulations (or "bans") to increase what economists sometimes refer to as "x-efficiency" and philosophers typically refer to as "utility." Simply put, regulations and bans can reduce costs to the competitive pool as a whole through collective action; if everyone is going to spend thousands of dollars or take certain health risks in an unregulated competitive environment, it can make sense in certain situations to reach a collective agreement not to allow anyone to proceed down that expensive or risky path, thereby benefiting everyone. Of course, the economic model for "collective action" solutions assumes certain parities among competitors that are highly imperfect approximations of the real world. In practice, rich competitors will typically prefer regulations that permit the use of monetary advantages while discouraging the use of advantages that are not easily purchased, while poor competitors will prefer a different set of regulations (for example, tighter regulations on expensive practices, and looser regulations on payments for athletic performance). Men with naturally high testosterone levels may prefer bans on testosterone supplements, while men with low testosterone levels may prefer no regulation of testosterone supplements. Regulations tend to be most easily justified when they provide substantial benefits to all competitors. The use of protective helmets in ice hockey is a good example of this, as Thomas Schelling (who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his application of game theory to real-world problems) has pointed out.
Regarding "altitude tents," I don't have superstrong views about bans, although I'll admit that I've become increasingly sympathetic to a ban as I've read all of these whiny protestations by pampered athletes from rich societies about the need to compete on an equal footing with people from such unfairly advantaged countries as Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Uganda, and Sudan.