What confuses the subject for me is that what they now mean by “doping” doesn’t seem to mean what it used to mean. When I think of doping I’m thinking of the use of anabolic steroids and such very strong drugs that cause all sorts of extreme physical changes. It appears though now what they mean by “doping” amounts to little more than taking some extra vitamins on game day. I think I need to know more about what they’re really accusing before I decide to care. Then, if indeed they were all doing it too... Where’s the advantage?
Transfusions sound pretty extreme. I’ll stipulate that. I suppose it’s done to get the RBC count up? Though after all his chemo I’m not sure it’s the massive advantage it’s cracked up to be.
Then I’d like to know what the -legal- means are. What sorts of body chemistry is acceptable?
Those are all great points, and I agree. Except....I don’t think transfusions should be illegal, because I don’t see a downside either to the competitor or to the public who might follow the example of the competitors.
Of course if I were in charge, I’d de-regulate the whole thing and say, “let the fastest bike rider win. Period.”
But that’s sort of a non-starter......