I want to clarify my position, since too many people don't understand what I mean.
a) I'm TOTALLY and COMPLETELY against any type of doping. Not only, but my athletes don't get any LEGAL supplement, because I think the mental strength of an athlete can't depend on the idea to have some external support. This was my position with ALL my athletes, of EVERY Country, strong or less strong. If an athlete asks for some help, I repeat, ALSO LEGAL, he is no longer with me in training, because I refuse to work with athletes having this kind of mentality.
b) I fully agree with Antonio : all the discussions about if EPO works or not, and about who can have advantages or not, ARE COMPLETELY A LOSS OF TIME. The reality is that EPO, like other substances, are illegal, so athletes don't have to get them.
c) However, I don't agree the way used for facing this big problem. We live in a CHEMICAL and PHARMACOLOGICAL society, where we have plenty messages in TV explaining we NEED absolutely some support, also if our activity is to be seated all the day, otherwise we cant survive. This is a normal message, and the most part of people thinking everything TV can show is the truth, go to form their mentality following these messages (that are total bullshits, of course are part of the strategy for increasing the number of users, BECAUSE THE PHARMA BUSINESS IS THE THIRD IN THE WORLD). So, the general knowledge about this problem doesn't combine with the reality.
d) I have an EDUCATIONAL behavior about doping. I don't want to scare the athletes speaking about the risks for their health : of course there are, however mostly depending on a factor NEVER considered in the antidoping war : THE DOSAGE. In any medical situation, the dosage of a pharmac is "conditio sine qua non" for knowing if you are inside an area of aid, or inside an area of risk. And this not only about pharmacs, but about other legal but very dangerous human activities, such as smoking or drinking alcohol : one glass of wine can have positive effects, two bottles every day destroy your liver.
And also, I don't want to use moralist aspects, such as who uses doping doesn't respect the "par condicio", that is the possibility to offer the same situation to everybody. This because, practically, this "par condicio" doesn't exist, since is not only connected with doping, but with all the different situations we have in our life. Which par condicio there is for two boys having the same talent, one rich one poor, one living where there is a good coach and good facilities, the other where there is nobody able to help him, with the closest track 100 miles far ? Which par condicio when Ethiopia and Eritrea were in war, and people didn't have food to eat ? And after many years there are still misinformed (and also a little bit stupid) people speaking that 35 years ago American went to defeat Ethiopians, so if now Ethiopians are better is because of doping.
Instead, I want to fight THE IDEA OF DOPING teaching the importance of moral values INSIDE the individual minds. I don't tell to a boy "don't go to plunder a Bank, because when you go outside can find Police aresting you or shooting and you can be killed" (don't get drugs because you can be banned). I want to teach the RESPECT FOR OTHER PEOPLE, FOR THEIR PROPERTIES AND THE FRUITS OF THEIR WORK. I want to create better persons, NOT THREATENING THEM, BUT EDUCATING THEM.
And I NEVER CATCH THIS ASPECT IN THE ACTION OF THE ANTIDOPING AGENCIES.
e) After this preamble, I cannot accept thye widespread idea that ALL THE TOP PERFORMANCES ARE FROM DIRTY ATHLETES, because this means a lack of respect for who is able, in virtue of his talent combined with very hard work, to win in clean way and to beat the records that the most part pof people think not in the human possibilities. I had, and I have, some of these athletes, and, differently from people speaking WITHOUT ANY DIRECT EXPERIENCE (including the researchers of WADA that did this ridicolous research), I well know where it's possible to arrive with training only, completely clean.
f) For that reason I try every time to explain, may be in empiric way, that blood doping doesn't work with the best african at the top of the World. I don't say NOBODY gets doping : I say ALL THE BESTS don't get, and if the bests don't get but somebody running slower gets, or if somebody AFTER getting runs slower than before (such as Kisorio), the logoic conclusion is that DOPING DOESN'T WORK. This is for me a fact : the scientific explanation about WHY doesn't work for these athletes there is not, BECAUSE NOBODY DID ANY RESEARCH INVOLVING THIS SPECIFIC LEVEL. So, our discussion is useless, because in any case blood doping is illegal, as Antonio says. But, at the same time, EVERY FINAL CONCLUSION based on different situations (cyclists, ski crossers, normal people, athletes of medium talent improving a lot, athletes of 1500m when we speak about long distances, researches connected with sick people, etc...) doesn't have ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, because the tested sample is different from the object of the discussion. If I have evidence that is possible to beat WR and to win WCh while clean (for me is a fact I KNOW), nobody has evidence the same athletes could run faster getting EPO.