Athletic Overseers Are Skating on Thin Ice with Tent Objection
Art writes in the San Jose Mercury News:Should the bureaucrats who set the rules for the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports extend their critical eye to where athletes are allowed to sleep? This past weekend in Montreal, the bureaucrats, otherwise known as the World Anti-Doping Association, indicated that they are going to try to do exactly that. Bad idea.[Read the Rest at the San Jose Mercury News]
WADA has done a good job in setting the rules and overseeing compliance concerning what drugs athletes can and cannot take. They are the drug police for all 28 summer and seven winter Olympic sports federations. Their efforts have led to much safer athletic competitions as the steroids and the growth hormone users have been bounced out of competition. WADA's reach is extending into professional sports as well, with WADA drug prohibitions likely to be imposed on all athletes in the upcoming soccer World Cup. So why is an organization skilled at finding illegal drugs trying to get into the bedrooms of athletes?
When it comes to sports, altitude matters. Many athletes in amateur endurance sports such as skiing, running and cycling use altitude tents. These tents simulate thin mountain air. By sleeping in them, athletes who live at sea-level can get the benefits enjoyed by those who live in mountainous areas. Mountain air has less oxygen, so the body makes more red blood cells to compensate. Those extra red blood cells can provide a slight boost if you are running a marathon or skiing cross-country for 15 miles. That is one of the reasons the U.S. Olympic training facility is located in the Rocky Mountains at Colorado Springs, Colo.
So why is WADA worried about tents? There seems to be one main reason -- sleeping in a tent is a passive activity producing benefits that athletes do not ``earn'' or ``merit.'' The idea that athletes ought to train to gain improvements in performance, not just lie snoozing in an artificial environment while their bodies make more red blood cells, is at the core of WADA's concern. WADA is worrying about tents not for reasons of safety or even fairness but on ethical grounds -- athletes should strive, not snooze, to succeed.
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
Hi.
I am a retred Olympic rower, who included sleeping in an altitude tent as part of my training prior to 2004.
I am appalled and disgusted at WADA's intentions with this move to ban tents. It opens up a huge can of worms--none of which, I am sure, will be acknowledged or addressed.
1) Does WADA intend to monitor where athletes sleep geographically / vertically, sanctioning all those who happen to live above a certain point?
2) Given that there are no safety or health concerns associated with tent use, and that any athlete may purchae one, the only way in which tents could be considered unfair is because of their high cost, and therefore the fact that only some athletes will be able to afford them.
To ban a training device for this reason immediately takes us over the edge to the absurd.
I spent ten years living hand-to-mouth. Rowing is not a sport blessed with money. I was not able to:
a) afford to pay a coach. I relied on volunteers. Does this mean that those athletes who had the funds to hire professional coaches, sports scientists, etc. had an advantage over me? Yes, of course, but no one would say it was an *unfair* advantage.
b) get regular therapeutic or sports massage. I got one once or twice a year, usually as a gift. Had I been able, I would have gotten daily massge. It is a proven aid to intensive training. Shall we now ban the use of massage therapy? It's recipients certainly aren't "earning" any benefit they gain.
c) afford to always buy the latest and best eqipment, or repair mine promptly when it was damaged. I had a neighborhood fundraiser to buy my boat, and used it for eight years, well past its elite competitive life.
Shall we now issue identical equipment to all competitors, and monitor its use? Shall we force all runners to wear the same shoe, cyclists to use the same bike, bobsledders the same sled, etc? Those competitors who can afford to buy the best equipment are not "earning" the edge it gives them.
c) eat an ideal diet, for the simple reason that I could not afford to buy the foods and dietary supplements I would have liked to.
Does an athlete who live sin a prosperous nation, with access to fresh fruits and vegetables, quality meat,clean water, and vitamins and minerals, enjoy an advantage over one who does not? Of course. It may be a small, and less obvious one, but I think few would deny it was there. I wonder how WADA will remedy this glaring and unearned unfairness?
WADA has shown clearly with this move to ban altitude chambers that they have lost sight of their purpose. I fervently hope that they come to their senses and continue to devote their efforts to pursuing those who gain an advantage by using doping /cheating metods which have negative side effects. The real issue is, or should be, that athletes should not have to make Achilles' choice to succeed.
Adam
PS
My use of the tent meant that I slept every night in what was essentially a swelteringly hot plastic bag, in a different room from my wife, for almost a year. I think I can say that I did not come by the benefits of the tent "passively". :)
- by Adam Holland on May 22, 2006 at 11:44 PM | link