You are mixing up two things: 1) what are the rules, and appropriate consequences for breaking them? and 2) what is the magnitude of effect on performance?
The WADA Prohibited List may include any substance and methods that satisfy any two of the following three criteria:
It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;
It represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;
It violates the spirit of sport (this definition is outlined in the Code).
WADA does not burden itself, or any anti-doping organization or body, with proving effect on a case by case basis. It is much more cost effective to determine, a priori, that the potential for enhancement is enough to forbid its use completely, regardless of sport, event, or actual effect. Therefore, an actual doping sanction does not constitute a proof, in and of itself, that there was or could have been any positive benefit. You need to consider other factors.
I support bans for ADRVs within WADA guidelines. I do not argue, and have never argued, that we should relax the sanctions or unban EPO. I support athletes following the rules they agreed to be bound by.
My "platform" is that the effect of EPO, for elite distance running, is largely over-estimated, in forums like this, and in the press. This ultimately has many negative consequences for the sport, including believing that performances like Kiptum's can only be achieved with EPO, while casting doubt, or ignoring, other realities. It is a question of separating what is fact, from what is fiction.
Imagine someone argued, "EPO makes one immortal". Do you find it weird that someone could find this outlandish claim nonsense, yet still support a WADA ban on EPO?
Are you sure? wrote:
WADA bans a substance based on a premise that it only has "potential to improve performance?" Do you have any evidence from WADA to support this? (if I recall correctly, doesn't their site state somewhere that EPO improves performance in distance events - or something along those lines?)
- WADA bans a substance based on a "potential" to improve performance, leaving the question of whether any benefit actually occurred as a result of doping, on a case by case basis, unasked, unanswered, and unproven. Evidence of the presence or effect of banned doping or methods is enough to ban results, even if the annulled performances were significantly slower (e.g. rocket fuel Ramzi)
Furthermore, didn't WADA double the ban on an EPO positive from 2 to 4 yrs? (sometime maybe around 2007 or 08?). Doubling the time frame of a sanction on a certain PED suggests it's more than just "potential" to improve performance, wouldn't it?
Do you support WADA's ban on EPO and sanctions for ABP hematological anomalies? If you do, then what's with your platform that 02-vector doping is ineffective, or marginally effective with elites? You can be very ambiguous with your position on this. At times it sounds like you don't support WADA's punitive action on EPO positives/ABP sanctions, but yet you have stated that you do. Or do you have a position that EPO/blood manipulation is ineffective for the most part with elites but should be banned nonetheless? (kind of a weird position but I've talked to other people who believe that).