Here's an in interesting thought.
Doping products are designed, built and manufactured for sick and infirm people. That's why EPO was designed and made, same with all these other drugs that athletes take, actually. They went through clinical trials before hitting the market. Most of these drugs when they hit the marketplace are tested just enough to get approval, and expensive.
But along that way something else happens. They are "stolen" by healthy athletes, who guinea pig themselves in non-controlled situations. While this is not what the drugs were designed for, there can be no doubt that they are consumed quite a bit by athletes across the planet.
So, the question/thought is this. By doping, are athletes actually helping the pharmaceutical companies, and the patients who desperately need the drugs, by not only testing themselves free of charge, but by creating an larger market, thus driving the manufacturing costs down?
This does not take into the account that there is a real possibility that some of these drugs are indeed drained from supplies that were intended for people who really need them to stay alive, and may not get them. That's another, much more serious topic worthy of discussion, and maybe it's own thread.
Doping products are designed, built and manufactured for sick and infirm people. That's why EPO was designed and made, same with all these other drugs that athletes take, actually. They went through clinical trials before hitting the market. Most of these drugs when they hit the marketplace are tested just enough to get approval, and expensive.
But along that way something else happens. They are "stolen" by healthy athletes, who guinea pig themselves in non-controlled situations. While this is not what the drugs were designed for, there can be no doubt that they are consumed quite a bit by athletes across the planet.
So, the question/thought is this. By doping, are athletes actually helping the pharmaceutical companies, and the patients who desperately need the drugs, by not only testing themselves free of charge, but by creating an larger market, thus driving the manufacturing costs down?
This does not take into the account that there is a real possibility that some of these drugs are indeed drained from supplies that were intended for people who really need them to stay alive, and may not get them. That's another, much more serious topic worthy of discussion, and maybe it's own thread.