Eden said:I said the article was interesting, but believe me neither me nor the article advocates using EPO, heck I don't even like to take non prescription medications, much less anything like that. The guy who wrote the article tried a lot of things including HGH, various hormones and steroids and EPO. He was very impressed with the athletic results, but the side effects were very nasty. I said I was suprised about what you could get legally and I still am. I was always under the impression that a doctor could get into trouble for prescribing things unneccesarily, but I guess that only holds true for schedule 1 narcotics.
Read the article - it is definitely does not advocate doping and is really very interesting.
Didnt think for a minute you were advocating use of EPO.
Just a word of caution to the guy who asked.
I read the Outside article when it came out and found it NOT a persuasive argument not to dope. I think he said he was stronger, faster, his eyesight improved, old scars vanished, hemorrhoids went away, sex life improved, etc etc.
I dont recall the down sides except some rhoid induced irritability?
And yes, many of these substances are "controlled" meaning the government tracks them like narcotics, but they can choose what to do.
I mean if pediatric endocrinologists prescribe a bunch of HGH for their short patients who are missing GH for one reason or another, that is legit. But how much work would it take to track down all the rx and the docs...probably a lot.
T
