Doping or no, what these guys accomplish is simply astonishing.
Now, here is a
real question about doping.
There is a
well documented case of a Finnish family who carry a gene variant that makes their bodies act as though they are doping with EPO. Their EPO receptors - the molecules in their bodies that detect EPO - are intrinsically hyperactive.
The result is that members of this Finnish family have an elevated hematocrit (red blood cell count). As a consequence, they excel in endurance sports. One of them, in fact, was an unusually good cross country ski racer. How good? He won two World Championships and three Olympic Gold Medals, that's how good. Because of his high red blood cell count, he was incorrectly accused of blood doping. This is a spontaneous, naturally-inherited gene variant that we are talking about.
Now, here is the question: how is this fair? Why should those not lucky enough to be born with this variant gene not be allowed to supplement with EPO?
Some of you probably think that's an easy question to answer.
So answer me this. Why is it acceptable for genetically less-gifted athletes to wear glasses? Why was it acceptable for Tiger Woods to have laser surgery performed which gave him better than 20/20 vision? How is this "surgical doping" fair to the large number of golfers who
were born with exceptional eyesight?
You can't argue that we mustn't allow athletes to take risks. Surgery carries risks. Bike racing and football and downhill skiing carry big risks.
So, what aids are fair, and what aids are not? Eyesight is as important for a golfer's performance as height is for a basketball player or VO2 max is for a cyclist, a cross country skiier, or a triathlete.
This gets us to a deeper question: what is athletics about? Is it about hard work? Is it about the genetic luck of the draw? Is it about defining the limits of human performance? Where do we draw the line? Where
should we draw the line? The answers are not so simple as many would wish, or imagine.
