epo/tents/radcliffe, why no press?

Hey, all you smart fellas.

How you gunna test if somebody been sittin' in a tent?

If the hypoxic tent is a legal method to offset or counter the benefits of the illegal methods (EPO, steroids) then practitioners of the latter will have little cause to celebrate the proliferation of tents. Not only that, with Radcliffe perhaps being a tent's most accomplished long term uses, it may be showing a way to close the gap between the altitude and non-altitude runners.

I don't know if the tents work that well, at all, mind you. But where some peoples' incomes are based on chemically induced advantages or even living at altitude advantages, there will be anit-tent sentiments for obviously

self-serving motivations.

But the point that you raise regarding potential danger with prolonged use is well taken. If the tent proves harmful to health, the use of it must be banned.

Here is a link to the principal "sleep high-train low" study that has been done.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/1/102

WAZ, you are making a point here that has been, and will probably continue to be overlooked for a while. If what you are saying about the gases in the tent being totally "artificial", than your argument is 100% valid. The problem is the perception of what should be illegal in sport. It's easy to ban AAS(steroids), as you can see them in the vial right in front of you, you can feel them if somebody spilled some on you, you can test for the metabolites(although sometimes the drug will no longer be popular when good tests are out), etc. With the tent, you can't see the illegal stimulant, can't spill it on yourself to feel, can't test for it, etc. This seems to have the effect on ones mind that nothing wrong is being done. Wow, it looks like in a couple years this may be a serious can of worms, especially if Dr. Rosa of all people has said it should be illegal.

This leads me to some other questions...

Can anybody do an IPaddress check on waz to see if he/she is a rep for CAT?

Can the extra nitrogen being released in the tent be replaced with THC?

Can I buy one of these things on credit?

Can we make a pact that states no matter the outcome of this tent business we won't bash Radcliffe's accomplishments in the future?

So sleeping in tent kinda like in gray area, seems

to easy. However, actually run (artifical hilly trail)

on treadmill on incline in artifical hi altitude

envir. since to go to college in lo envirn. okay?

level playing field.

ps. are they thinking of outlawing batting cages

(artifical pitcher) as you know not all hitters

can afford or have access to one.

as for harmful. how can be harmful? just can't imagine

how...it air, albeit a different mix...no additives tho.

So we ban sleeping in tents...what next?

Do we ban Wejo from sleeping in his car at the top of Pikes Peak? thats artificial too.

While i read te message boards and often feel like replying, i often don´t. However people should get their facts right. P Radcliffe, was supplied with a tent, she did try it and has admitted this - hey it is no secret. However, she tried it in 2001 for a few weeks discovered the dehydration issues they bring, disrupted sleep and general fatigue and decided against it.Hell, camping in Colorado - is that cheating?? Please get yours facts straight.

--discovered the dehydration issues they bring, disrupted sleep and general fatigue and decided against it--

just looking for verification. Is there accessible

documentation to the above claims either by Radcliffe

or others.

HK, if you go altitude and increase red blood cell count

and lactate buffering, etc., and then return to sea level

for more training, you have these augmented systems.

Does being able to overload with these enhanced systems

allow you to create changes in other systems?

Is the enhanced performance due to altitude training really

due to enhanced training at sea level and not just more

red blood cells? If you can train faster you might get

alterations in the signal pathway betweeen motor end plate

and brain.

With individual variation it must be complex working out

all the details of altitude/sea level training.

What if the steroids could be made in a gas form? And what if the nitrogen could lower oxygen intake by means of a mouthpiece attached to some headgear hooked up to a tank, hence no tent, but the same effect...reduced oxygen, more kidney manipulation/natural EPO production and lastly more red blood cells! We have just removed the tent! The problem is still the same, a desire to add more red blood cells. Just blood-dope with your own cells and be done with it. Makes more sense.

A Fan!

That got me to thinking, why is doping with one's own blood illegal? You train high for 2-3 months, take out some blood separate the red blood cells, and reintroduce it during a low alt. training/racing period. Basically what have you done wrong? It was yours in the first place, and it isn't artifical. This seems to satisfy all the ethical problems of most on the board. I really don't see a problem with it other than the health risks involved with thickening and dehydration. The IAAF is not resposible for health concerns so basically it should be a moral choice. I say it is not a big deal. Any old timers out there think differently?

A Fan!

Tigerlily wrote:

While i read te message boards and often feel like replying, i often don´t. However people should get their facts right. P Radcliffe, was supplied with a tent, she did try it and has admitted this - hey it is no secret. However, she tried it in 2001 for a few weeks discovered the dehydration issues they bring, disrupted sleep and general fatigue and decided against it.Hell, camping in Colorado - is that cheating?? Please get yours facts straight.

Personally, I'm sick of everyone on this board trying to bring everyone else down. They'll attack people on any grounds. Not training hard enough, training too hard, won't race enough, race too much, etc.

Now, Paula Radcliffe reaches the pinnacle of the sport so she must be attacked. And in this case, as the post says above, most people don't even have the facts straight. Paula apparently tried an altitude tent for a few weeks and then gave it up.

But I wouldn't care if Paula was in an altitude tent 24 hours a day. Altitude tents are not banned. There is a big difference between them and everything else out there that people try and create some moral equivalence with. The other substances are strictly forbidden and outlawed by WADA. Altitude tents, living at altitude, doing high low training, are all legal. And it's not like an altitude tent is some unknown new wonder drug like Aranesp that the cheats move to once a test comes up for EPO. So please do not try and bring paula (who apparently doesn't even use a tent anymore, but was very open about it when she first got one) or anyone else down who uses one down. These people are operating well within the guidelines of our sport. The line is clearly drawn somewhere and it is drawn by the world anti-doping agency (WADA)

PS I've never heard or seen a study saying that altitude tents are more effective that high low training contraty to what people are saying in this thread.

Alberto strapped on a plastic contraption called an

Altitude Simulator in the 80's. My buddy and I had one.

We called it the attitude stimulator. No one whined about

it, then, except for old ladies who were startled.

The reason doping is banned is because it is a way to gain a huge unfair advantage on your competitors and more importantly because it is DANGEROUS. This is obvious. Tents are a grey area, but I doubt they will be banned unless IOC gets totally asinine about every little training detail and I highly doubt they will. Tents will not be banned because they, although artificial, simulate something totally natural. It does not allow you to gain an unfair advantage against your competitors because anyone can simply go live somewhere higher and gain the same effects. If tents are banned, then so should vitamin supplements since they are unnatural.

So what if doping is dangerous, it is the athletes choice, that is not the domain of the I.O.C. or the IAAF! They regulate the competitions. They aren't watching peoples lives to see if they speed in their cars, and likewise have no business in a life decision like re-injecting oneself with ones own blood that was thickened in hard training...for God's sake! It is a natural substance from one's own body! Anyone can do it. If tents aren't banned neither should blood doping. I mean if the tents cause hypoxemia....that is, slow suffocation, what is the difference...that sounds dangerous....depriving oneself of oxygen while sleeping....while not conscious...at least with blood doping you are awake and fully aware of your surroundings. In a tent if something goes wrong, you could go to sleep and never wake up! I mean what the hell are we really talking about here folks!

A Fan!

>>What if the steroids could be made in a gas form?

It will be banned in no time with no question,man.Even if the gas is found in nature.of course of course...

>>The problem is still the same, a desire to add more red blood cells.

Quite same as high altitude training.All right?Maybe you can ask yourself before you post .

And contrary to what Ron Clark said, some reserchers began to say there's no such things as the difference between the altitude people and non altitude people(which only means there's not special effect to just live at high altitude).

I thought tent or high low altitude training didn't much effect.You know,some researchers say it's special and other reserchers say it doesn't have much effect.So who believe either side will gain that effect.I regard those as such kinda thing.You know in Japan too,some elite go to high altitude but other's don't do that,even if they can do it financially,and they run as fast as high altitude trainer.But seems rather effective by nature's article(Though I can't understand much what is difficult written in English).

>>Tigerlily

Really,I didn't know that at all.And quite diffent from many articles I read.Thanks for info and I'm sorry to spread milunderstood info.And it's interesting info.

Why blood doping is banned is also becanuse it's DANGEROUS.blood doping is absolutely dangerous.But even if not,most people say it's grey of black at first glance, genetic engineering also(of course it's against medical ethic ,too).

Seems many people began to think it's grey...good post,maybe...After all,it's our feeling what matters.Using the terms 'breathing artificial gas or synthesized gas and just sit and wait'make people worried and feel grey than using 'sleeping in altitude tent like sleeping at high altitude and feel uncomfortable and struggle to adjust environments'.It became difficult matter.But still I bet even grey thought IAAF can't ban (if it is not dangerougs or is even safer as reserchers said).and don't have to accuse users, I think.

You are another fan of Let's be on dope ?seems not a few Americans are interested in that plan,you can pay money to bulid that party.

While the creator of this topic did bring up a interesting

point it is nontheless not important-since the subject matter is NOT banned and will not be in the foreseeable

future! The most interesting thread was from DUMB BUBBA,

I laughed something fierce at dat dere!!

Some experiments we have done on human cells do show that intermittent hypoxia (in the order of a few days of eg 1/2hr on 1/2hr off) does give a larger inductuction of hypoxically regulated genes such as EPO compared to continuous exposure to hypoxia. This is the LATEST research results. My guess as to why this is that some of the gene transcripitional and translational machinery which is responsible for the expression of these genes does not actually operate as well under continuous anaerobic conditions. Some of parts of these pathway do need oxygen and I guess that the intermittent bouts of normoxia will help them work better and hence produce a bigger genetic response.

Hope this makes waz's statement more clear.