Let's talk first why banning doping at all: I see two main reasons:
1) It is immoral and unfair
2) It poses serious health risks
Ad 1) Some may tell: Why immoral/unfair? Because competitors usually train intensively many years since childhood, invest incredible amount of time, effort, energy, and often also finances into their passion, just to be overtaken by someone who used doping to get to the top.
Well, you can tell: he/she can take doping too if he/she wants to get to the top. But letting aside the simple fact that not everyone is willing to dope (whether for moral or health reasons), or has the material possibility to do so (some types of doping require huge and very expensive medical or scientific backing), it is apparent that once we consider doping acceptable, it would quickly spiral out of proportions.
While today doping is undeniable part of many sport disciplines, thanks to improving anti-doping measures, its practical effect is quite seriously limited - I think only few of us can imagine the consequences if doping was allowed. It would not stop at using huge amounts of all possible chemical substances - it would go on to genetic manipulation, operations, implants, intentional malformations and mutations, etc. I can barely imagine that anyone reasonable would want to see it happening (though I do not doubt there are such people).
And even if you allow doping "just" for the top pro competitors (as some may want to propose), it would have extremely negative impact on the amateur mass sport too. Kids, and hobby sportsmen would easily either lose motivation, seeing their performance are nowhere comparable even to fraction of the performance of the pro chemical monsters; or they would much easily start doping too just to get closer to their idols, or to have a chance becoming professionals.
Well, I think it is not necessary to rehash this topic more - I assume that most of DB users would probably agree about the immorality/unfairness of doping.
Ad 2) Most of doping methods (when not all) pose serious health risk. By allowing or tolerating doping we would actually push practically every ambitious sportsman to doping. We would actually condemn them to an almost sure premature death, because only those who would risk taking more and stronger doping would have a chance to success.
Now back to blood doping. I have studied the topic little bit in the past days, so you may profit from the research I did and the links I sorted out. There are indeed some quite interesting ones:
World Anti-Doping Agency
Welcome to Science and Industry Against Blood doping website
ALTDIRT adventure sports intelligence » Blog Archive » Blood doping
www.cyclingnews.com - the world centre of cycling
Principally, there are three groups of blood doping:
1) Blood transfusions (autologous and homologous)
2) Red blood cell production stimulants (i.e. EPO)
3) Synthetic oxygen carriers (HBOC, PFC, ...)
Basically all of these methods improve the oxygen stocking and transporting capacity, and also increase the buffering of acid lactic (the byproduct of anaerobic metabolism in muscles).
Blood transfusions are likely being abused in the sport since 60's, but due to their disadvantages (risks of infections at homologous transfusions, complicate handling and negative impact on training capacity at autologous transfusions), the chemical blood doping methods prevailed in 80's - 90's. Lately, the old-fashioned transfusions are becoming more popular again, because of stricter, more frequent, and improving anti-doping testing methods.
However, purely technically, all of the doping methods are detectable:
1a) Homologous transfusions (competitor receives blood of the same group from another person) are quite well detectable, and appropriate testing methods were already developed.
1b) Autologous transfusions (blood is removed from the body, stocked for several weeks, and then re-infused) are a harder nut, because the cells have identical genetic signature, but methods are being developed that focus on cell transformation that necessarily happens during the stocking (the blood must be cooled/frozen).
2) EPO (currently best known red blood production stimulant) is already being tested for, but the test method is not efficient enough, unless surprise tests are done during the training too - the tests can only detect EPO used in the last hours. There are new much more efficient EPO test methods in works - they need scientific validation (to exclude false positives) and fine-tuning the technology to allow inexpensive testing.
3) Synthetic oxygen carriers are also detectable, but the efficiency of the available tests differs.
So purely technically all of the above mentioned doping methods are detectable, but the available testing methods are not yet always sufficiently efficient, available, or affordable. However, WADA and (World Anti-Doping Agency) and SIAB (Science and Industry Against Blood doping) work on improving the methods and making them cheaper. In the linked documents they also discuss other strategies to keep blood doping under the control (i.e. the Haematologic Passport - analyzing and monitoring the blood of competitors over long periods also during training)
Cheaters will certainly always find a way to get an advantage despite improving tests and stricter controls, but hopefully thanks to the effort of the anti-doping agencies, the impact and extent remain under control. Also, thanks to new legislation measures in many countries, doping abusers or dealers may get prosecuted and spent up to several years in prison - hopefully it will deter some of those who are on the edge, and hesitate about doping. And since anti-doping laboratories stock samples for several years, it is quite probable that those who cheat today relying on the current holes in laboratory tests, will be detected and punished later.
I do not know if blood doping is already present in our sport, but until someone is proven to be doping, I firmly trust that all of freediving record holders are clean. It is absolutely baseless telling about someone that he is doping just because he did a new record ("he/she is better than me = he/she must be doping"). Also, in my mind, spreading hoaxes that freediving competitions are certainly full of doping is quite damaging the sport, and rather then pointing out an existing problem, it can trigger it, and bring some of confused individuals to experiment with it.
In any way, I think that apart from homologous transfusion, the other methods of doping are currently not too probable in freediving. Homologous transfusions are quite risky (infections), especially if done in amateur conditions. Autologous transfusions are practically excluded without having access to quite expensive technology. I am not quite sure about the accessibility of EPO and the synthetic oxygen carriers, but from what I understood, I assume that they are highly controlled substances, and hence may be difficult or expensive for a competitor in such a forgotten sport as freediving is. I admit I may be wrong, though, here.
Generally, the common health risk of all mentioned blood doping methods (aside from the mentioned danger of infections, immune reactions, and the de-equilibrating of the organism) is the fact that extremely high red blood cell content thickens the blood, and leads so to an increased risk of several deadly diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, and cerebral or pulmonary embolism. This actually brings back up the question I already asked myself earlier - whether intensive long-term freediving training does not damage the organism too much (in similar way as doping does). Not only higher Hb content is to be expected at intensively training freedivers, but additionally the cerebral and cardiac blood pressure extremely and quickly fluctuates during freediving, increasing so the risk of a cerebral or cardiac stroke. I'd love to see some scientific research done on this topic, but so far did not manage to find any interesting documents. If any of the physiologists subscribed on DB looks for topics to study, I believe this one is very interesting and rather crucial.
1) It is immoral and unfair
2) It poses serious health risks
Ad 1) Some may tell: Why immoral/unfair? Because competitors usually train intensively many years since childhood, invest incredible amount of time, effort, energy, and often also finances into their passion, just to be overtaken by someone who used doping to get to the top.
Well, you can tell: he/she can take doping too if he/she wants to get to the top. But letting aside the simple fact that not everyone is willing to dope (whether for moral or health reasons), or has the material possibility to do so (some types of doping require huge and very expensive medical or scientific backing), it is apparent that once we consider doping acceptable, it would quickly spiral out of proportions.
While today doping is undeniable part of many sport disciplines, thanks to improving anti-doping measures, its practical effect is quite seriously limited - I think only few of us can imagine the consequences if doping was allowed. It would not stop at using huge amounts of all possible chemical substances - it would go on to genetic manipulation, operations, implants, intentional malformations and mutations, etc. I can barely imagine that anyone reasonable would want to see it happening (though I do not doubt there are such people).
And even if you allow doping "just" for the top pro competitors (as some may want to propose), it would have extremely negative impact on the amateur mass sport too. Kids, and hobby sportsmen would easily either lose motivation, seeing their performance are nowhere comparable even to fraction of the performance of the pro chemical monsters; or they would much easily start doping too just to get closer to their idols, or to have a chance becoming professionals.
Well, I think it is not necessary to rehash this topic more - I assume that most of DB users would probably agree about the immorality/unfairness of doping.
Ad 2) Most of doping methods (when not all) pose serious health risk. By allowing or tolerating doping we would actually push practically every ambitious sportsman to doping. We would actually condemn them to an almost sure premature death, because only those who would risk taking more and stronger doping would have a chance to success.
Now back to blood doping. I have studied the topic little bit in the past days, so you may profit from the research I did and the links I sorted out. There are indeed some quite interesting ones:
World Anti-Doping Agency
Welcome to Science and Industry Against Blood doping website
ALTDIRT adventure sports intelligence » Blog Archive » Blood doping
www.cyclingnews.com - the world centre of cycling
Principally, there are three groups of blood doping:
1) Blood transfusions (autologous and homologous)
2) Red blood cell production stimulants (i.e. EPO)
3) Synthetic oxygen carriers (HBOC, PFC, ...)
Basically all of these methods improve the oxygen stocking and transporting capacity, and also increase the buffering of acid lactic (the byproduct of anaerobic metabolism in muscles).
Blood transfusions are likely being abused in the sport since 60's, but due to their disadvantages (risks of infections at homologous transfusions, complicate handling and negative impact on training capacity at autologous transfusions), the chemical blood doping methods prevailed in 80's - 90's. Lately, the old-fashioned transfusions are becoming more popular again, because of stricter, more frequent, and improving anti-doping testing methods.
However, purely technically, all of the doping methods are detectable:
1a) Homologous transfusions (competitor receives blood of the same group from another person) are quite well detectable, and appropriate testing methods were already developed.
1b) Autologous transfusions (blood is removed from the body, stocked for several weeks, and then re-infused) are a harder nut, because the cells have identical genetic signature, but methods are being developed that focus on cell transformation that necessarily happens during the stocking (the blood must be cooled/frozen).
2) EPO (currently best known red blood production stimulant) is already being tested for, but the test method is not efficient enough, unless surprise tests are done during the training too - the tests can only detect EPO used in the last hours. There are new much more efficient EPO test methods in works - they need scientific validation (to exclude false positives) and fine-tuning the technology to allow inexpensive testing.
3) Synthetic oxygen carriers are also detectable, but the efficiency of the available tests differs.
So purely technically all of the above mentioned doping methods are detectable, but the available testing methods are not yet always sufficiently efficient, available, or affordable. However, WADA and (World Anti-Doping Agency) and SIAB (Science and Industry Against Blood doping) work on improving the methods and making them cheaper. In the linked documents they also discuss other strategies to keep blood doping under the control (i.e. the Haematologic Passport - analyzing and monitoring the blood of competitors over long periods also during training)
Cheaters will certainly always find a way to get an advantage despite improving tests and stricter controls, but hopefully thanks to the effort of the anti-doping agencies, the impact and extent remain under control. Also, thanks to new legislation measures in many countries, doping abusers or dealers may get prosecuted and spent up to several years in prison - hopefully it will deter some of those who are on the edge, and hesitate about doping. And since anti-doping laboratories stock samples for several years, it is quite probable that those who cheat today relying on the current holes in laboratory tests, will be detected and punished later.
I do not know if blood doping is already present in our sport, but until someone is proven to be doping, I firmly trust that all of freediving record holders are clean. It is absolutely baseless telling about someone that he is doping just because he did a new record ("he/she is better than me = he/she must be doping"). Also, in my mind, spreading hoaxes that freediving competitions are certainly full of doping is quite damaging the sport, and rather then pointing out an existing problem, it can trigger it, and bring some of confused individuals to experiment with it.
In any way, I think that apart from homologous transfusion, the other methods of doping are currently not too probable in freediving. Homologous transfusions are quite risky (infections), especially if done in amateur conditions. Autologous transfusions are practically excluded without having access to quite expensive technology. I am not quite sure about the accessibility of EPO and the synthetic oxygen carriers, but from what I understood, I assume that they are highly controlled substances, and hence may be difficult or expensive for a competitor in such a forgotten sport as freediving is. I admit I may be wrong, though, here.
Generally, the common health risk of all mentioned blood doping methods (aside from the mentioned danger of infections, immune reactions, and the de-equilibrating of the organism) is the fact that extremely high red blood cell content thickens the blood, and leads so to an increased risk of several deadly diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, and cerebral or pulmonary embolism. This actually brings back up the question I already asked myself earlier - whether intensive long-term freediving training does not damage the organism too much (in similar way as doping does). Not only higher Hb content is to be expected at intensively training freedivers, but additionally the cerebral and cardiac blood pressure extremely and quickly fluctuates during freediving, increasing so the risk of a cerebral or cardiac stroke. I'd love to see some scientific research done on this topic, but so far did not manage to find any interesting documents. If any of the physiologists subscribed on DB looks for topics to study, I believe this one is very interesting and rather crucial.
