May I jump into the conversation at this point to question the general policy against all forms of doping? Why do these rules exist? Is it because players who dope have an unfair advantage over those who don't? But doesn't that apply in other situations, too?
For instance, suppose it was discovered that eating certain foods prior to an event increased an athlete's ability to perform. For the sake of argument, suppose it was discovered that eating carbohydrate-rich foods [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbo-loading] (Wikipedia) enhanced an athlete's performance. Wouldn't, then athletes who used such a "carbo-loading" diet regimen have an unfair advantage over those who ate nothing but twinkies, ho-hos, and ding dongs before an event? I suppose, then, that all athletes could adopt this designer diet to be on equal footing, but doesn't the same apply to doping?
My understanding is that doping is not allowed because of the inherent health risks of the drugs, such as steroids. To allow them in competition would mean that athletes who subject their bodies to unhealthy behaviors have an advantage. Since we would (presumably) want to allow athletes who like to lead healthy lifestyles to compete effectively, we would ban harmful drugs from the sport.
But how does this relate to blood doping? What is unhealthy about injecting yourself with your own blood? From reading the Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping#Negative_effects], it seems that it isn't particularly unhealthy:
The simple act of increasing the number of red blood cells in blood raises its viscosity, which can cause it to clot or coagulate more readily. This increases the chances of heart attack, stroke, and pulmonary embolism, which has been seen in cases where there is too much blood reintroduced into the blood stream. Among factors that govern blood flow, however, viscosity is of relatively minor importance except in extreme circumstances or in patients with vascular disease. The Hagen-Poiseuille equation for blood flow states that any change in blood viscosity affects blood flow 16-fold less than a proportionate change in vessel radius, and therefore polycythemia is unlikely to be harmful except in certain circumstances.
In fact, the biggest health risk seemed to be the risk of infection from improper storage of the blood, and injecting the blood in a non-clinical setting, which is only a problem because it isn't allowed. Also, blood doping has been approved in the Australian military (I know, the military isn't exactly designed for health and longevity).
So can someone explain to me why certain performance-enhancing drugs and procedures shouldn't be allowed, so long as all competitors have access and it is not an excessive health risk? Does blood doping pose a health risk greater than that inherent with sports?
Related: SNL's All-Drug Olympics. [http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/update-all-drug-olympics/1198068] (NBC.com)
