Having problems with message search?
Prof Benjamin D. Levine, director of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine at Presbyterian Hospital and a professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School in Dallas, has been leading a response to the proposal of the World Anti-Doping Agency that altitude tents and rooms may be banned in 2007. He asked me if, on his behalf, I could circulate widely the following email and urge you to add your name to the list of those who oppose it.
Chris Gore,
Australian Institute of Sport
chris.gore@...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Rip Young [ mailto:ryoung@...]
Posted At: Saturday, 22 July 2006 9:34 AM
Subject: Facts on WADA's hypoxic conditions proposal - please review and reply
As athletes, sport scientists, and promoters of a rational drug policy in sports, we do not support WADA’s proposed ban against altitude tents and hypoxic training.
As WADA moves forward in defining the spirit of sports, it is essential that it differentiates between true doping and advances in environmental training. Environmental manipulations (e.g. heat, cold, altitude, humidity etc.) are frequent elements of an athlete’s training plan, and cannot be considered unethical. An environmental change is fundamentally different than the use of drugs or blood doping.
True doping takes the body outside its natural limits. The use of dangerous performance enhancing drugs or blood doping are in an entirely different category than altitude or hypoxic training, which constitutes only an environmental change to which the athlete’s body naturally responds within normal limits. As such the use of altitude simulation technology is an ethical means of training.
Simulated altitude environments have been used for more that 12 years with a perfect safety record. No athlete has been harmed or reported ill effects from more than ten million hours of athlete use. This makes altitude tents among the safest training methods ever employed. This cannot be said for even the most benign of training methods. The vast majority of sport scientists and their published studies concur that altitude simulation systems are safe. As such they should not be banned.
Not all hypoxic environments are designed for passive use. Hypoxic exercise rooms are a rapidly growing part of altitude simulation. However, there is no basis for an ethical difference between active and passive interaction. Passive interaction with technology has been allowed without question for years including the use of air conditioning, saunas, hot tubs, cooling vests, and passive interaction with practices has also been allowed including massage, icing injuries, chiropractic adjustment, and complex nutritional regimens. A principle of banning “passive benefit” is not rational and cannot be consistently applied.
Altitude tents provide a training stimulus no different than that of terrestrial altitude. They make the same training modalities available more conveniently to athletes at a lesser cost. Because the hypoxic conditions of altitude are now easily duplicated in an athlete’s home, athletes no longer have to suffer separation from peers, career, community, or family during long trips to mountain environments. Athletes generally spend only the time of sleep in an altitude tent, thus allowing athletes to maintain a high quality and balanced life while dedicating themselves to training. Whether hypoxic conditions are from terrestrial altitude or from a hypoxic tent is no ethical significance.
Bans on true methods of doping have generally garnered the broad support of the scientific and athletic communities. The proposed ban on altitude tents lacks popular support. The public, most athletes, coaches, and nearly the entire medical community oppose the ban. Altitude tents have been lauded in the popular and scientific press as a benefit to athletes and an ethical means of training. Many athletes including mother-to-be Paula Radcliffe and WADA member Beckie Scott have seen their use of altitude tents as a badge of honor and demonstration of their commitment to the “Play True” philosophy of WADA. Altitude tents and altitude training promote safe and drug free sports.
Many key groups have already expressed opposition to the ban including:
- Scientists and Bioethicists - 76 scientists and bioethicists from 24 countries have signed a letter in opposition to the proposed ban, stating, “In our opinion, the passivity argument is biologically naïve, logically inconsistent, and scientifically untenable.”
- Athletes – A poll of 2,800 athletes shows that 85% are in opposition to the proposed ban. One athlete commented, “Hopefully WADA will be intelligent enough to drop this. There is a huge doping problem that needs to be addressed and distractions like this contribute to the credibility problems that WADA has created, opening doors for dopers to attack the system as prosecutorial and ridiculous.”
- Legal Experts– The Duke University Center for Sports Law and Policy, states, “The distinction the (WADA) panel draws between ‘active’ and ‘passive’ uses of technology fails as a rule to determine whether something violates “the spirit of sport” because it is overbroad and otherwise impossible to sustain.”
- Medical Experts – In research and in practice altitude tents have been proven to be safe. Athletes have logged more than 10,000,000 hours of use with no reports of health problems or side effects. A leading physician in the field of altitude physiology stated “…there is no evidence that simulated altitude environments pose any medical risk when properly used.”
- Ethicists – Respected ethicists from several countries have written to WADA stating, “We disagree strongly with the scientific and ethical aspects of the ‘passivity’ argument and contend that the use of real or simulated high altitude environments as adjuncts to training are highly ethical and consistent with other environmental manipulations widely used in sport.” A presentation in June at the American College of Sports Medicine Conference in Denver concluded that altitude simulation does not take the body beyond “authentic physiology” and is ethical.
What is at stake is the future of anti-doping policy. A ban on an ethical, safe, and popular training method sets a dangerous precedent that makes a mockery of the term “doping”, and risks leading sports into a chaos of arbitrary and inconsistently applied principles. The credibility and moral authority of WADA are at risk.
WADA states, “The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is characterized by the following values: ethics, fair play, and honesty; health; excellence in performance; character and education; fun and joy; teamwork; dedication and commitment; respect for rules and laws; respect for self and other participants; courage; and community and solidarity.” We support this statement and believe that altitude tents, and other environmentally based technologies (heat, air conditioning, etc.) are consistent with all of these principles as well the attainment of the Olympic ideal of "Citius, Altius, Fortius". Altitude simulation technology represents latest progress in the development of ethical training of the body and promotes principles of fair play and safe competition.
Please let us know immediately that you oppose this ban by replying to this email with the following information so we may be organized in our opposition. We are working with WADA board members who oppose this ban and who can make your opinion heard. Please respond to info@...
Name:
Address:
Title:
Phone Number:
Comments:
Offline 
Send Email