Deleted

When you put it like that, then yes I agree.

This is why autologous blood doping is illegal:
When you remove blood from your body, less oxygen gets to your muscles, and there is more CO2 in your bloodstream. This causes the kidneys to produce EPO (Erythropoetin) which stimulates the bone marrow to produce more red blood cells, bringing your body back to homeostasis (a relatively standard state). Then you add the stored blood back to your blood stream, which increases your hematocrit (the percentage of red blood cells in a given volume of blood). Atheletes with high hematocrit, especially those who live at or train at high altitude, perform better in endurance sports (like cycling or running) because they can transport more oxygen to the muscles. This is because red blood cells transport oxygen by means of Hemoglobin, so more red blood cells means more oxygen transport.
Therefore, atheletes who engage in autologous blood doping are cheating because they are enhancing their performance in an artificial manner
Hope that clears it up!
A little biology never hurt anyone.....

football.guardian.co...

It seems to be a grey area but one which is likely to come under greater scrutiny.

So the effect of taking EPO is similar to doing altitude training then? Although it artificially enhances your performance in relation to not spending time at altitude, if you went to Columbia to live or train for a few weeks instead it would deliver a similar effect.

What I'm getting at is going to Columbia to live or train can't be banned so some would argue neither should EPO.

Anyone ever read a book called The Natural Athlete?? Similar concept.

It is perhaps the difference between something achieved naturally and something achieved synthetically.

What takes weeks to achieve with altitude training can be achieved in hours with an EPO shot.

This is an interesting thread.
I've had more time to think about this one (can't think straight about non-work subjects when I'm in the office).

I don't argue the fact that transfusions are cheating (under current rules), although I think this has to be decided after agreement on what is acceptable/legal.
However, should it be allowed?

Drugs generally tend to get banned because they cause the body harm.
EPO, steroids, amphetamines, etc are all banned because of the risk that riders can use them by themselves, resulting in a likely "more is better" strategy which can lead to overdose with resultant side effects.

I don't suppose that blood transfusions can be done by yourself on yourself?
Are they that dangerous that they should be banned?
Does it increase the likelyhood of blood clots, similar to EPO?

What constitutes high risk?

...but how do you keep the dopers from competing in the clean race?

Wouldn't that lead to the same problem that we have now?
=o]

That's true naspa!
I hadn't factored in the operational risks that could occur with the transfusions.

Often happens to me at work...giving my colleagues the wrong tea, etc...

I wonder whether these sorts if things can really be monitored though.
It may be possible to monitor the use of drugs based on scientific tests but can you monitor rider actions?
Perhaps the UCI/WADA/etc should just say "ok" to transfusions and let the cyclists take on some of the responsibility for a change so that the authorities can just concentrate on use of drugs in the sport.

Anyway I don't have a solution.

I have to say that this reminds me of Kimmage's story.

The only bit I'd disagree with though is when he says that the "rider is the least person responsible".
I can understand it must be difficult but I think everyone has a voice (within the team).
If most riders said "no" I think it would be team managers/directors/coaches/soigneurs on the backfoot.

So this could mean either:
1) most people accept the use of drugs and will not say no (ie everyone has to live with it)
or
2) Most people say "no" to drug use - in which case that rider should change teams

Still doesn't help the whistleblower though...