When is blood doping not blood doping?

[smutchin]

They were chosen to present an "ethical dilemma" it is on record as being an enhancement and against the spirit of sport.

And yet the decision was not to ban them?

Something doesn't add up there.

 

[ufkacbln]

And yet the decision was not to ban them?

Something doesn't add up there.

The WADA Ethics Committee found against them, but the overall decision was to await further research into side effects such as altitude-sickness, sleep disturbance and a possibly adverse effect of the immune system...presumably looking at the third of the "big three" to fall into place.

Oxygen Tents fall foul of the "Potential to enhance sporting performance", and also have been judged (as above) to be "Contrary to the spirit of sport"

A health risk would have meant that the third of the criteria for the banned list would have closed the deal.

Perhaps the failure to revisit is a lack of conclusive proof of harm, and the continued inability to match all three criteria

 

[ufkacbln]

Well, the key words in that statement are "legitimate medical treatment".

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it as an excuse but in Kittel's case the procedure was ostensibly used as treatment for a cold and was administered by a proper doctor. But I presume the appeal against the Kittel ruling is questioning the legitimacy of the treatment on the same grounds as that earlier case.

Which opens up another question as to whether he could have claimed a TUE if he was being treated for an illness with a legitimate treatment even if on the banned or monitored list?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Just me or does it not appear that the riders and/or teams will do whatever it LEGALLY takes to win.

Is it still ethical to use any legal means to enhance performance if not everyone has the technology or science?
Of course it is unless somewhere down the line it becomes an illegal practise. One would not frown upon a driver not wearing a seatbelt before 1983 would they?

IMO this an area that resembles a mixture of both black and white.

​

 

[smutchin]

Perhaps the failure to revisit is a lack of conclusive proof of harm, and the continued inability to match all three criteria

QED