Brian Mack

food for thought on the doping war...

The "red blood cell ratio" method might seem like a good way to even things out and prevent doping. But the natural hematocrit between different trained cyclists can vary from 40-55. Some people naturally have more, some less. This means that some would have physiological "room" to dope and some would not. It is also unfair to cyclists who may be near the limit, but go over because of dehydration or other issues.

This concept also raises serious problems for the biological passport. Our scientific understanding of markers for doping (elements of the endocrine / cardiovascular / pulmonary) systems is probably too limited to accurately interpret them without thousands of data points and years of study across many riders.

It will never work to try to even the playing field by having riders adhere to standards of hormone/blood/cocaine levels, because those levels mean different things to different bodies.

This is where the related human body/ race car analogy breaks down, e.g., equal doses of EPO don't mean equal improvements in performance. It also raises serious problems for the very notion of "level playing field", by which I assume advocators of such standards are motivated.

Ironically, with gene doping on the horizon, we might be closer than ever to achieving equal chances for all athletes, regardless of their genetic endowment.

Michael O'Hair wrote:

An interesting article. Scientific American did a cover story on genetic manipulation in the last year or so.

As far as EPO doping of any kind, it seems to make sense to go back to the "red blood cell ratio" approach: If you have over 50% red blood cells, you are disqualified. Period.