@hanca ITA with @WildRose - there's no reason to give anyone a medication they don't need. As much as we hate to think about it, literally every medication has some sort of side effect or possible adverse effect that can happen to pretty much anyone no matter how rare. There's no reason to risk giving a young healthy athlete an abnormal heart rhythm (which can be deadly), high blood pressure, etc. for no reason at all. Not only that, but we have no idea what complications (short and long term) this medication has from long term use. Most of the athletes using it were using it on a long term basis, when it's only recommended to be used for a max of 6-8 weeks - even in the small group that would benefit from this medication.
@Tinami Amori I wonder what the suspicious tests are and what are adaptation? Or what range they're using? The bodies of people who come from populations that live at low altitudes (so most Europeans), will produce a higher number of Red Blood Cells when at higher altitudes - and skiing is a sport typically done at high altitudes. So while it may be doping, it may be the scientists are using the sea level RBC range and applying it to RBC counts that may be within a normal range for us lowlanders at altitude. Hemoglobin levels also increase in the same manner at altitude.
So until we know if these athletes have Hgb and RBC levels above what should be expected of typical European or Korean athletes when at the altitude of ski courses, we'll have no idea if they were doping or simply using an inappropriate measure of these ranges to compare athletes to.
Not that I'm saying this isn't doping - it seems like this sport has a huge doping problem and is ripe for erythropoietin doping - just that I'm not sure what they consider unusual and if that unusual is appropriate.
Interestingly, those in populations acclimatized to higher altitudes - most famously Native Tibetans - can survive at high altitude with the same RBC count as most people need at sea level! So regardless of the range they'd probably pass this test.
@Tinami Amori I wonder what the suspicious tests are and what are adaptation? Or what range they're using? The bodies of people who come from populations that live at low altitudes (so most Europeans), will produce a higher number of Red Blood Cells when at higher altitudes - and skiing is a sport typically done at high altitudes. So while it may be doping, it may be the scientists are using the sea level RBC range and applying it to RBC counts that may be within a normal range for us lowlanders at altitude. Hemoglobin levels also increase in the same manner at altitude.
So until we know if these athletes have Hgb and RBC levels above what should be expected of typical European or Korean athletes when at the altitude of ski courses, we'll have no idea if they were doping or simply using an inappropriate measure of these ranges to compare athletes to.
Not that I'm saying this isn't doping - it seems like this sport has a huge doping problem and is ripe for erythropoietin doping - just that I'm not sure what they consider unusual and if that unusual is appropriate.
Interestingly, those in populations acclimatized to higher altitudes - most famously Native Tibetans - can survive at high altitude with the same RBC count as most people need at sea level! So regardless of the range they'd probably pass this test.
