With the multitude of non-red blood cell related (RBC) performance enhancing drugs and technologies the term “doping” may be too restrictive for Olympic use.

1. What's "Doping" Anyway?
With the multitude of non-red blood cell related (RBC)
performance enhancing drugs and technologies the term
“doping” may be too restrictive for Olympic use.
“Doping” initially described only the transfusion of red
blood cells (RBCs) into athletes’ veins to gain an endurance
edge. In the late 80s a hormone, erythropoietin (EPO),
given by injection was introduced to boost an anemic
patient’s blood count. Because it was easier and safer than
blood transfusions, endurance athletes snapped it up. It
seemed an easy choice to term this new technology as blood doping, as it achieved the same biologic
result.
Today’s anti-cheating tests search for body-building steroids and related drugs, stimulants, human
growth hormone (HGH), etc., while sports officials also check equipment to be sure it bestows no unfair
advantage to its users. Likely, “doping” will prevail as the buzzword that encompasses all performance
enhancement techniques a while longer, but we should recognize its expanded, very inclusive meaning.
For example, one double amputee, Oscar Pistorious, with his springy Cheetah blade-runner lower legs,
will likely qualify to run against able-bodied 400m sprinters in this summer’s London Olympic Games.
His entrance will push hard against conservative interpretations of the International Associations of
Athletic Federations’ (IAAF) rule against devices which provide the user with a competitive advantage.
Surely, this challenge pushes the boundaries of what constitutes doping.
About the Author:
Harvey has been an award winning TV commentator, researcher, author, mayor of
Del Mar, and is an avid cyclist. He served as a Doping Control Officer in Utah's 2002
Winter Olympics and lives in Park City and San Diego.
Please visit the website for more information on doping and the book, Morphed:
http://www.harveyshapirobooks.com