Alex Simmons/RST wrote:and so on along a spectrum of greyness
I'm probably way over-simplifying, but it seems to me the necessary sunlight is provided by answering the question "is it safe, or will its use have adverse consequences for the rider's health in the long run?"
I appreciate that is often difficult due to a lack of data, in which case should not the default position be to knock it back? We only have one body. If we damage this one you can't buy a replacement. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own life?
Sorry, that's probably a bit deep and meaningful...
Alex Simmons/RST wrote:You know, so far no one has actually produced any documented evidence of all these supposed deaths being directly attributed to the misuse of EPO. Not that I'm saying we should be using it or that it's not dangerous, but running a line devoid of evidence/facts does not help the cause IMO.
The smoking gun argument.
You're right, of course, and it's why I said linked rather than caused. There isn't one, but then there wasn't one demonstrating that tobacco caused lung cancer for many years either, despite it being known to most everyone except the tobacco industry, its lobbyists and apologists they were highly correlated. And it turns out that the tobacco industry did in fact know, they just lied through their teeth.
Similarly there was a correlation between unexplained cardiac deaths among athletes and their being on teams known to be using the juice, according to some (eg, Lemond). The omerta being in full flight while the deaths I am aware of occurred doesn't help with transparency. Obviously I don't have first hand knowledge of it, but I'm not sure running an argument that the assertion is devoid of facts/evidence is wise.
I agree with most of the rest of your analysis, though. The parallel to speed limit compliance is astute.
While we may disagree on some elements of this subject matter, I do very much appreciate your contribution to the forums and the considered thoughtful opinions you express.