There is a strong case for legalising banned substances in sport and allowing blood doping, a Scottish academic and adviser to US cycling has claimed.
Paul Dimeo, who is chair of the USA Cycling Anti-Doping Committee, said that the current rules enforced by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) were ‘products of the 1960s’ and could do more harm than good.
Mr Dimeo, who works as a lecturer at the University of Stirling, said that cyclists and tennis players should be allowed to use non-medical blood transfusions, which are currently banned under anti-doping rules.
He also claimed that erythropoietin (EPO), a hormone taken by disgraced American cyclist Lance Armstrong that boosts red cell production, could have medical benefits and may help increase athletes’ recovery and performance if used correctly.
Mr Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles in 2012 after admitting to using EPO, testosterone, blood doping and human growth hormones.
Dr Dimeo, who has received research grants from Wada, told The Times: “We’ve been brought up to believe that Ben Johnson was a cheat, that Lance Armstrong was a cheat and that many of the Russians are cheats.
Read more: Anti-doping chief warns of EPO abuse in football
“If that’s the argument that’s officially presented then, of course, it’s difficult to challenge that.
“There has to be some kind of control, but it should take a middle ground between making a big deal over relatively harmless drugs – and punishing people who have done relatively little wrong - and catching organised, systematic cheats.
“There is a potential for the reconsideration of some drugs and that’s a debate we need to have.”
Read more: Doping scandal - Russian athletes set to miss World Indoor Championships
A spokesperson for Sportscotland said: “We fully support Wada’s vision for a world where athletes can compete in a doping-free sporting environment. We do not agree that the use of EPO and blood transfusions should be allowed in sport and unreservedly condemn the use of performance-enhancing drugs.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel