# Is this cheating?



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Don't know how many of you are Motocross fans, but I've often wondered why this is not considered cheating. Arm Pump surgery. They go in and cut the sheath inside the riders forearms to allow them to expand without pain. Most professionals have it done. What’s the difference between this and epo in cycling?

Or… Peyton Manning using HGH to repair his neck? 

I’m curios what you guys think.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

It's legal to use HGH to rehab from injury.


----------



## svrider (Jan 14, 2009)

The two issues you describe are injury related and the measures taken are corrective measures.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

mpre53 said:


> It's legal to use HGH to rehab from injury.


Andy Pettite took a lot of grief for that.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Arm pump is not injury related.


----------



## svrider (Jan 14, 2009)

YamaDan said:


> Arm pump is not injury related.


Not per se, but it is a physical ailment in which surgery is the treatment.

It corrects a physical problem. It doesn't inflate one's ability.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

svrider said:


> Not per se, but it is a physical ailment in which surgery is the treatment.
> 
> It corrects a physical problem. * It doesn't inflate one's ability*.


I guess that's the question, without the surgery, or presurgery, your arms become the limiting factor, eg you can't hold on to the bars, you can't continue at that pace. Post surgery, you can hold on to the bars, you can hold the throttle open and go faster. 

In my view, this would be a performance enhancing surgical modification.

Then with the HGH, if a racer is injured, can they use HGH to "recover" from it? How long are they allowed to continue "recovering?" Racer uses HGH for a whole season, and comes back stronger that he left..

I honestly don't know, I don't know if it's even plausable.. But I would think that as drugs become more identifible, racers are going to strech the legal ways they can use them.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

I race enduros and harescrambles,so I know that arm pump sucks! LOL Anyways, IMHO, a one time operation to correct a physical limitation is not the same as PED usage. Especially when that surgery is readily affordable and available to anyone without fear of running afoul of the law. I can go get it next week if I want, the same can't be said about PEDs.


----------



## svrider (Jan 14, 2009)

YamaDan said:


> Post surgery, you can hold on to the bars, you can hold the throttle open and go faster.


Yes, faster than they went when they had arm pump. But not faster in relation to where they were before the issue. Or faster in relation to the competition. They go faster than they went when they were hurt. Which is obvious.

The surgery allows a rider to ride to his potential. It doesn't determine his potential. It doesn't inflate his potential. You aren't going to get arm pump surgery and magically turn into James Stewart or Chad Reed.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

svrider said:


> You aren't going to get arm pump surgery and magically turn into James Stewart...


Heck, anyone can be James Stewart now. You don't need arm pump surgery to crash your brains out! Stewart circa 07-08 was a different story, too bad he lost focus.


----------



## svrider (Jan 14, 2009)

CBus660R said:


> Heck, anyone can be James Stewart now. You don't need arm pump surgery to crash your brains out! Stewart circa 07-08 was a different story, too bad he lost focus.


Haha, you're right about that.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

svrider said:


> You aren't going to get arm pump surgery and magically turn into James Stewart or Chad Reed.


That's true enough!!


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

svrider said:


> The surgery allows a rider to ride to his potential. It doesn't determine his potential. It doesn't inflate his potential. You aren't going to get arm pump surgery and magically turn into James Stewart or Chad Reed.


It would appear to me that they are riding pass their potential if they require surgery to ride harder/longer. Taking EPO won't turn any of us into Lance.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

88 rex said:


> It would appear to me that they are riding pass their potential if they require surgery to ride harder/longer. Taking EPO won't turn any of us into Lance.


I don't agree. Arm pump isn't an issue of fatigue or weakness that can be improved upon with more training. It's an issue where the fascia restricts the blood flow out of the muscle. It's a relatively simple procedure. Along similar lines, shin splints are caused by the same thing. My teammate in college had a fascia release for that and the NCAA didn't care.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

CBus660R said:


> I don't agree. Arm pump isn't an issue of fatigue or weakness that can be improved upon with more training. It's an issue where the fascia restricts the blood flow out of the muscle. It's a relatively simple procedure. Along similar lines, shin splints are caused by the same thing. My teammate in college had a fascia release for that and the NCAA didn't care.


Could he perform better than he could without it? 

If yes, then it is performance enhancing. 

Just a question of whether the powers that be decide they like it or not.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

NJBiker72 said:


> Could he perform better than he could without it?
> 
> If yes, then it is performance enhancing.
> 
> Just a question of whether the powers that be decide they like it or not.


I get what you're saying, but it's not better living through chemistry that has serious, potentially fatal side affects. We could go the other way and say that even practicing and working out is performance enhancing. Same goes for healthy eating and getting a good night of sleep. Where do you draw the line?


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

CBus660R said:


> I get what you're saying, but it's not better living through chemistry that has serious, potentially fatal side affects. We could go the other way and say that even practicing and working out is performance enhancing. Same goes for healthy eating and getting a good night of sleep. Where do you draw the line?


Exactly. Although any surgery has risks. 

When debating this in baseball, my argument is that lasix surgery is legal. It is unquestionably performance enhancing for a hitter. 
One of the reasons I do not care for the whole outrage of some. What is prohibited or not is pretty arbitrary. 

And I have no problem taking supplements. Whey, Argenine. I drink amino vital on my rides. When i lifted i used creatine.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

NJBiker72 said:


> What is prohibited or not is pretty arbitrary.


No doubt. For me, I look at side effects and off the field legal issues. Obviously doping has it's own set of issues with the law, so it's easy to say that's a no no. Arm pump surgery, Lasik, and similar types of procedures are fine by me. Minimal risk and no issue with cops.


----------



## Bruce372 (Mar 8, 2009)

i ride motocross, and as a fan, i am more concerned that a fitness trainer can come in from pro-cyling and train up some little fat kid and turn him into the greatest rider the sport has ever seen.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

Bruce372 said:


> i ride motocross, and as a fan, i am more concerned that a fitness trainer can come in from pro-cyling and train up some little fat kid and turn him into the greatest rider the sport has ever seen.


But he had red hair, that's key. Villopoto has it too! 

BTW, I to am a ginger lol 

I do get where you're going with that. Does Aldon Baker have some cycling skeletons in his closet?


----------



## svrider (Jan 14, 2009)

NJBiker72 said:


> Could he perform better than he could without it?
> 
> If yes, then it is performance enhancing.


That's just semantics.

I ride better when my leg isn't broken. So treating a broken leg must be performance enhancing.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

svrider said:


> That's just semantics.
> 
> I ride better when my leg isn't broken. So treating a broken leg must be performance enhancing.


It is. It's allowed but it is performance enhancing. Easier example would be in baseball, something like Tommy John surgery to replace an Ulnar Collateral Ligament. Before they did the surgery on John, a UCL tear was career ending. Now it is almost routine. 

I am not as familiar with cycling injuries, but something that lets an athlete of today continue to compete, whereas an athlete of yesteryear would be finished? That is performance enhancing. Just something the powers that be feel is ok.


----------



## svrider (Jan 14, 2009)

NJBiker72 said:


> .....but something that lets an athlete of today continue to compete


Here is where the distinction lies. 

There is enhancing in regards to making someone's performance better. Like EPO does.

And there is enhancing in regards to allowing someone to continue in their sport. Like surgery.

That's the distinction. One allows you to play. One allows you to play above your natural level.

Plus, surgery doesn't enhance your ability to the point it's above everyone else's. It only enhances it relative to your degraded performance due to the physical barrier.

You can't count correcting someone's bad eyesight as performance enhancing just because they play better when they can see.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

svrider said:


> Here is where the distinction lies.
> 
> There is enhancing in regards to making someone's performance better. Like EPO does.
> 
> ...


False distinction. Then HGH should be fine as athletes age. Even steroids. I mean it is just getting them to remain at the level they were at in their 20's? 

Athletes have used Lasix to perform better than they naturally were capable of. Wade Boggs originally had 20/10 vision. As he aged it slipped, all the way to 20/20. Horrifying. he used Lasix to get it back to the level where he had an abnormal ability to see the spin on a ball as it was released from a pitchers hand. I believe 20/15 from the article. 

Is that fair? Ty Cobb could have never had that.


----------



## svrider (Jan 14, 2009)

NJBiker72 said:


> False distinction. Then HGH should be fine as athletes age. Even steroids. I mean it is just getting them to remain at the level they were at in their 20's?


Well, the distinction isn't absolute. Just in the context of the question in the original post. Surgery to mitigate a physical barrier isn't the same as drugs used to elevate someone's hematocrit. One restores function while the other artificially inflates performance. I mean it's easy to see the difference. 

As far as HGH and steroids to combat aging. That's a pretty interesting concept. I've never heard of an athlete use that as a defense. It would be interesting to see how it would hold up.

If an athlete was shown to have a below average testosterone level, and used testosterone to elevate his count to an average level, I don't consider it cheating. I don't know if you can provide a medical waiver for that or not. But I could see it being allowed.

In the past substances have been allowed with waivers. Lance got by with cortisone in 1999 because the levels were suposedly low and he had a (now fraudulent) perscription. So the rules allow for some substances in certain cases if medically necessary.

It's when levels are above average and provide a boost that its a problem.





NJBiker72 said:


> Athletes have used Lasix to perform better than they naturally were capable of.


Sure. But does it provide an advantage against their peers? Its not simply about enhancement. Its about advantage. Lasix may allow a player to perform better but it doesn't provide an advantage over his peers. 






NJBiker72 said:


> Is that fair? Ty Cobb could have never had that.


Who says it has to be fair to Ty Cobb? Every athlete plays by the rules in place during their era. Ty Cobb didn't have access to lasix....but neither did his peers. So they were on a level playing field with each other. His performance was measured against their's. 

You can't look to the past to determine what's fair. Every sport advances.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

NJBiker72 said:


> It is. It's allowed but it is performance enhancing. Easier example would be in baseball, something like Tommy John surgery to replace an Ulnar Collateral Ligament. Before they did the surgery on John, a UCL tear was career ending. Now it is almost routine.
> 
> I am not as familiar with cycling injuries, but something that lets an athlete of today continue to compete, whereas an athlete of yesteryear would be finished? That is performance enhancing. Just something the powers that be feel is ok.


If there was an electronic neuro-stimulator, or another surgical implant that could somehow add 10 mph to a healthy pitcher's fastball, do you think that MLB would allow it? My guess is no. That would really be "performance enhancing".


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

CBus660R said:


> I get what you're saying, but it's not better living through chemistry that has serious, potentially fatal side affects. We could go the other way and say that even practicing and working out is performance enhancing. Same goes for healthy eating and getting a good night of sleep. Where do you draw the line?


The whole practice of EPO usage is insanely easy to administer and monitor under the car of a physician. It is no more lethal than riding in a car down the street. And, it's not even permanent like this surgery.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

So for those who think surgery is OK...What about if you could have surgery that would raise your HCT levels to 49.9% and keep them there forever, regardless of how hard/long you work out?

It's a one time surgery but takes away a limiting factor to your performance...just as the hand pump issue does.

The simple fact is when it comes to cheating...everybody has their own definition. Some see anything other than the bodies "Natural" abilities as cheating...others feel surgery is OK...others feel supplements are OK and for some the use of chemicals are OK.

Isn't the natural limiting factor of one person's body the issue here? If you have to perform surgery on your body to perform better or longer isn't that perforance enhancing? EPO doesn't help you ride faster...it helps you ride longer, which allows you to train longer and harder...such as the hand pump surgery...which is what makes you better/faster. The EPO, nor the hand pump surgery make you faster...it's the extra work you can do after using/having that allows you to be better.

Everybody has their own view...but in the end...anything that you change to your body to give you an advantage over it's basic physical make up, surgery or other is performance enhancing.

The arm pump surgery may not make you a better rider...but it does make you as good of a rider, for a much longer period of time...Kind of like EPO does.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

svrider said:


> Well, the distinction isn't absolute. Just in the context of the question in the original post. Surgery to mitigate a physical barrier isn't the same as drugs used to elevate someone's hematocrit. One restores function while the other artificially inflates performance. I mean it's easy to see the difference.
> 
> As far as HGH and steroids to combat aging. That's a pretty interesting concept. I've never heard of an athlete use that as a defense. It would be interesting to see how it would hold up.
> 
> ...


Did EPO provide any cyclist an advantage over their peers when everyone was doing it?

Look at MLB players who performed so well past their primes. The names Clemens and Bonds should strike a tone.

Lasix will provide an advantage over peers with worse eyesight in sports where that is a problem.

Why does it have to be fair to Ty Cobb? Well if we are comparing cyclists over history do we want a level playing field to compare the greats? Who is the greatest American cyclist? Or cyclist period. Yes Armstrong had advantages that Lemond or Merckx did not. But so did his competition. Which field is level? Even for the allowed medicines. If Lance was allowed to use some, would that have been available to Merckx in his day if he needed it. 


There are so many variables. What is the standard of what should be allowed to improve performance.


----------



## NJBiker72 (Jul 9, 2011)

mpre53 said:


> If there was an electronic neuro-stimulator, or another surgical implant that could somehow add 10 mph to a healthy pitcher's fastball, do you think that MLB would allow it? My guess is no. That would really be "performance enhancing".


What about simply lifting weights? Does it matter if you do free weights versus a high tech machine? Getting in shape could certainly improve that fastball. Could improve a cyclists efforts too.


----------



## svrider (Jan 14, 2009)

NJBiker72 said:


> Did EPO provide any cyclist an advantage over their peers when everyone was doing it?


The question was EPO vs surgery. In which case I see them differently. As do the various sanctioning bodies. 

But EPO when everyone else is on EPO is another matter. In that case there are two ways to look at it. Legal and moral. It is prohibited therefore it's cheating.

Did it provide an advantage if everyone else was on it? Not likely. I was never outraged by the cheating as I figured they were all doing it. 

But in the end its still cheating because it's prohibited. You play by the rules in place.




NJBiker72 said:


> Lasix will provide an advantage over peers with worse eyesight in sports where that is a problem.


But lasix is not prohibited. So other players can get lasix. Or wear glasses. Or contact lenses. Its a common physical condition that is easily remedied. It completely different than doping.

If I walk off the field having been beat by lasix I'd find another sport. 



NJBiker72 said:


> Well if we are comparing cyclists over history do we want a level playing field to compare the greats?


Who said we were comparing cyclists over history? They question was surgery vs dugs and what is/isn't cheating. 

But in regards to comparing athletes across eras you can't. Too many advances in training and equipment to keep track of. Unless you're going to ban the carbon bikes, aero equipment, the race radios, power meters, etc then it's a futile attempt.

When it comes to a level playing field you can't look to level it with the past. You just have to make sure current era athletes are all on the same field. Impossible to level things off with the past.



NJBiker72 said:


> There are so many variables. What is the standard of what should be allowed to improve performance.


I agree. Which is why there is a rule book. The sanctioning body determines where the line is. At least in those regards it's clear. We can debate back and forth about it but according to the rule book the line is very clear.


----------



## svrider (Jan 14, 2009)

NJBiker72 said:


> What about simply lifting weights? Does it matter if you do free weights versus a high tech machine? Getting in shape could certainly improve that fastball. Could improve a cyclists efforts too.


That touches on an interesting point in regards to doping.

EPO, altitude training, and altitude tents all achieve the same thing.

But one is prohibited while the others aren't.

Unless your hematocrit level exceeds the limit.

In which case it doesn't matter which method you used. You're no longer in compliance with the rules.

So is it the method that's in question or the result?


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> So for those who think surgery is OK...What about if you could have surgery that would raise your HCT levels to 49.9% and keep them there forever, regardless of how hard/long you work out?
> 
> It's a one time surgery but takes away a limiting factor to your performance...just as the hand pump issue does.


IMHO, a surgery that messes with the endocrine system is not the same as arm pump surgery. Again, just my HO. Skeletal muscle issues are different than messing around with hormones.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

svrider said:


> EPO, altitude training, and altitude tents all achieve the same thing.


One of these is not like the others. 2 of the 3 are not illegal for the average citizen to partake in. EPO use for performance enhancing is not only illegal within sport, but also illegal in regular society. If I get pulled over with an altitude tent, the cop will think I'm a nut job. If I get pulled over with EPO vials, the cop will arrest me for having possession of a controlled substance.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

I read something about some athletes have self inflicted fractrues to incerase red blood cells.

It's interesting to me how somethings are "ok." In a perfect competitive world, it should be the person who puts in the most effort who wins. I keep on thinking about racing again, but after a visit to the doping forum, there's no way it will be fair. And I'm not taking anything or having surgery to make me faster to do something for fun. I guess I'll just have to suck at it


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

YamaDan said:


> I read something about some athletes have self inflicted fractrues to incerase red blood cells.


That was brought up during the Paralympics. If you can't feel your leg and you can't use your leg, why not? LOL Also, even when you can't feel it, an injury in a paraplegic still stimulates endorphins and adrenaline. BTW, it is a banned practice, but pretty hard to enforce.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

CBus660R said:


> IMHO, a surgery that messes with the endocrine system is not the same as arm pump surgery. Again, just my HO. Skeletal muscle issues are different than messing around with hormones.


So then it would be just fine if you had a surgery that allowed you to run faster, jump higher, etc. as long as it was just skeletal muscle changes.

This could make the difference between somebody being a pro football, basketball, baseball, etc. player. No dope, just a surgery to make them a better athlete.

To me...still cheating. Hand pump surgery...still cheating.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

CBus660R said:


> IMHO, a surgery that messes with the endocrine system is not the same as arm pump surgery. Again, just my HO. Skeletal muscle issues are different than messing around with hormones.


The skeletal muscle scenario isn't an "issue," it's natural. You are altering the body to allow it to function beyond it's natural limits. Whether it is harmful to the body is another topic, but it clearly is not "natural." FWIW, I don't have a problem with the surgery, but I do see it as performance enhancing.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> So then it would be just fine if you had a surgery that allowed you to run faster, jump higher, etc. as long as it was just skeletal muscle changes.
> 
> This could make the difference between somebody being a pro football, basketball, baseball, etc. player. No dope, just a surgery to make them a better athlete.
> 
> To me...still cheating. Hand pump surgery...still cheating.





88 rex said:


> The skeletal muscle scenario isn't an "issue," it's natural. You are altering the body to allow it to function beyond it's natural limits. Whether it is harmful to the body is another topic, but it clearly is not "natural." FWIW, I don't have a problem with the surgery, but I do see it as performance enhancing.



1st, when surgeries come about that can actually increase the performance of the muscle beyond it's natural abilities, we'll have that discussion. As of right now, I don't know of one that exists. If there is one, feel free to enlighten me. If I am wrong, I want to know. It may change my opinion, it may not, but I'm always open to learning more.

The arm pump surgery doesn't do anything to increase the muscle's ability beyond it's natural level, what it does, is by relieving the fascia, it allows the muscle to perform up to that natural ability. I agree it does enhance performance, because if you suffer from severe arm pump, you can't race effectively. But to me, I see it as corrective surgery, allowing the competitor to compete with the majority of racers who don't have this issue. It's not giving them an unnatural boost elevating their performance beyond that of their fellow competitors. I view asthma medicine the same way. Are you guys against allowing an asthmatic from using an inhaler or other medication? Is it your opinion that it should be "sorry about your luck, go watch from the sidelines"? What about scoliosis surgery? If a person had surgery for that as a child and that allows them to then develop into an athlete, are they now a cheater?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

CBus660R said:


> 1st, when surgeries come about that can actually increase the performance of the muscle beyond it's natural abilities, we'll have that discussion. As of right now, I don't know of one that exists. If there is one, feel free to enlighten me. If I am wrong, I want to know. It may change my opinion, it may not, but I'm always open to learning more.


The point is if it's possible...given your insistence that since it's not drug related, it must be OK .



> The arm pump surgery doesn't do anything to increase the muscle's ability beyond it's natural level, what it does, is by relieving the fascia, it allows the muscle to perform up to that natural ability. I agree it does enhance performance, because if you suffer from severe arm pump, you can't race effectively.


Isn't that kind of the point here...an individual that needs to have surgery to be better is doing something their body wasn't capable of doing "Naturally". Performance at top levels of the sport is who is the best "Natural" athlete using their "God Given Talents" ... not who can excel after having surgery.

Physical limitations are 99% of why people don't make it to the top level of sports...if they can enhance performance and negate physical limitations through surgery, that is performance enhancing...whether the governing body wants to admit it or not, it's performance enhancing and allowing those that wouldn't "Naturally" succeed, succeed after surgery.



> But to me, I see it as corrective surgery, allowing the competitor to compete with the majority of racers who don't have this issue. It's not giving them an unnatural boost elevating their performance beyond that of their fellow competitors.


However, it is giving them an unnatural boost...not having to deal with hand pump issues allows them to ride longer, get more practice in, hone their skills more and in the end become better riders.

How is this different from EPO? If somebody not training takes EPO it's worthless...however if somebody is training and takes EPO it allows them to ride longer, get more time on the bike, train harder and eventually gain the physical skills to succeed.



> I view asthma medicine the same way. Are you guys against allowing an asthmatic from using an inhaler or other medication? Is it your opinion that it should be "sorry about your luck, go watch from the sidelines"? What about scoliosis surgery? If a person had surgery for that as a child and that allows them to then develop into an athlete, are they now a cheater?


Good questions and by the "Letter of the doping/cheating law" yes...the should not make it because their physical limitations are holding them back and they are using unnatural means to improve their abilities. They make for great stories, but in the end they are gaining an advantage that others are not allowed to use.

With that said...I could give a rip about athletes doping and actually feel it makes for more fun races/sporting events to watch...but in the context of this discussion, the hand pump surgery is performance enhancing and could (and likely has) made the different from somebody making a living off of riding motorcycles and somebody not ... so by having the surgery they took the place (or money out of the pocket) of somebody that had the natural ability to begin with.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

Wookiebiker said:


> However, it is giving them an unnatural boost...not having to deal with hand pump issues allows them to ride longer, get more practice in, hone their skills more and in the end become better riders.


Actually, this is where you're wrong when it comes to this particular affliction. You'll get arm pump during your 1st practice session, then you take a break for 5-10 minutes, then it'll be gone for the rest of the day, so it doesn't really affect training, practice, and doing everything else that your competitors are doing. Where arm pump is an issue is in the race. If you get pump 5 minutes into the moto, you're screwed for the rest of the moto since you can't pull over and wait for it to go away. The second moto, you'll most likely be fine. If you're an enduro racer like me, you get a bit in the first section, then at the reset where you have a few minutes to stretch out your arms and get some of the excess blood out of them, you're fine the rest of the day. Also, for a lot of guys, including myself, it will go away after a few weeks. I usually suffer the first couple rides after winter when I haven't been on the bike for weeks at a time. Once I get a few good rides in, I'm fine for the rest of the season and don't get it at all. If I could ride at least once a week year round, I'd never have to deal with it again. I guess that's why I don't see it as cheating for the pros who do get to ride year 'round and multiple times a week. Most of them are like me and don't deal with it, but the few that do are at a disadvantage that ultimately doesn't involve a major skill to racing a motorcycle when it's working properly.

Anyways, I can see that you're a hardliner and I'm not. Those are just our opinions, nothing I'm gonna say will change yours and vice versa, with regards to this specific issue.


----------



## akamp (Jan 14, 2009)

Epo is a natural compound. It is a hormone that is secreted by the body. If I am slightly anemic why shouldn't I be allowed to use it to bring my hematocrit back up to what the pro peloton is. Let's say it just brings me up from 34 to even a modest 40. It could be under the care of a physician and I am sure I could find a physician who would order it for me. 

What is to stop a parent from having their children's femurs lengthened other than ethical issues. That is just allowing their children to live up to their natural abilities. What of just one leg was shorter than the other by a couple of inches, would it be ok to even them out?


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

No but it would be ok to cut a little off everyone else's leg, to compensate. 

Like in horse racing.


----------



## CBus660R (Sep 9, 2011)

akamp said:


> Epo is a natural compound. It is a hormone that is secreted by the body. If I am slightly anemic why shouldn't I be allowed to use it to bring my hematocrit back up to what the pro peloton is. Let's say it just brings me up from 34 to even a modest 40. It could be under the care of a physician and I am sure I could find a physician who would order it for me.
> 
> What is to stop a parent from having their children's femurs lengthened other than ethical issues. That is just allowing their children to live up to their natural abilities. What of just one leg was shorter than the other by a couple of inches, would it be ok to even them out?


EPO in your scenario is something I'm OK with, EPO under the guidance of Dr. Ferrari (or similar) to keep you right at 50 I'm not. 

Surgery to correct a shorter limb to be equal to the longer limb I'm OK with, lengthening both I'm not.

Seems pretty obvious that there are lots of corrective procedures that can be abused to provide an advantage and therefore should be banned when used in that manor, but when used properly as a corrective procedure as initially conceived my medical professionals should not automatically be considered cheating. 

As noted before, the line is arbitrary and can be hard to define, especially if you isolate the procedure without looking at the big picture and how it affects the total performance. Pretty much anything we do "enhances performance". The test is whether it gives you an unfair advantage over your fellow competitors. I don't feel arm pump surgery does. I do feel that working with Dr. Ferrari to develop a micro dosing strategy with EPO to keep your hematocrit right at 50 does.


----------

