the centre of recent controversy, s

the centre of recent controversy, such that WADA considered its inclusion on the 2007 prohibited list (Levine 2006; Miah 2006; Kutt 2005; Savulescu et al. 2004). In essence, each of these treatments is designed to increase the level of haematocrit in the bloodstream, which enhances the body’s capa-city to transport oxygen to the working muscles, thereby improving an athlete’s endurance capacity. Each shares the same health risks, as the increased cellular density increases the blood’s viscosity, which prompts the heart to work harder to circulate blood. Coupled with dehydration, this can heighten the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism, and deaths have been recorded (Tokish et al. 2004).

Although there are clearly risks associated with an increase in haemato-crit, not all of these technologies are prohibited, and there is no useful physiological reason why this might be the case. Yet, if the discussion is removed from the medical sphere and regarded as a cultural or social con-struct, it becomes clear that the ‘natural’ body and the protection of its integrity is a critical issue. These technologies are divided carefully into ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ enhancements based largely on the manner in whichthey interact with, and their potential effects are transferred to, the body. In this example, the re-injection of blood and rEPO are essentially mechanical actions, whereby a substance penetrates the body’s outermost layers to gain entry. Transgressing the body’s boundaries in this way is considered mate-rially different from training in real or simulated altitude environments, which, rather than introducing a foreign agent, encourages the body to increase its production of endogenous EPO. This outcome is considered more ‘natural’ as it relies on the body’s adaptive capacity, rather than the ‘unnatural’ approach of injecting rEPO or blood, which provokes a specificand certain outcome by ‘bypass[ing] all the body’s natural feedback control mechanisms and overwhelm[ing] the normal adaptive responses’ (Levine 2006: 298). By contrast, Benjamin Levine (2006: 298), in defence of this new technology, likens altitude training and hypoxic chambers to ‘a component of training’ whereby bodily responses to the intervention are ‘quite variable and unpredictable’, depending on a host of other physical and environ-mental factors. The ‘naturalness’ of such physiological responses, according to Levine (2006), is what distinguishes these techniques from one another and justifies the prohibition of artificial substances, like rEPO, and methods, such as blood doping.

It is clear then that health is not always the determining factor in the prohibition of particular performance technologies. Rather, cultural con-ceptions of the body as pure, natural and discrete are significant. Yet, according to Kristeva (1982), the desire to preserve an untainted body is negated by the fact that the body is never, and will never be, isolated from other individuals or the world. The body is always open, always porous and thus always exposed to potential adulteration, and the intake of sustenance and the excretion of waste across its borders, whilst necessary, are a con-stant reminder of the body’s incompleteness. These transgressions expose

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Pusat kontroversi baru-baru, seperti bahwa WADA dianggap dimasukkan pada daftar 2007 dilarang (Levine 2006; Miah 2006; Kutt 2005; Savulescu et al. 2004). Pada dasarnya, masing-masing perawatan ini dirancang untuk meningkatkan tingkat haematocrit dalam aliran darah, yang meningkatkan tubuh capa-city untuk mengangkut oksigen ke otot bekerja, sehingga meningkatkan kapasitas ketahanan atlet. Masing-masing berbagi risiko kesehatan yang sama, seperti kepadatan selular peningkatan meningkatkan kekentalan darah, yang mendorong jantung untuk bekerja lebih keras untuk melancarkan peredaran darah. Ditambah dengan dehidrasi, ini dapat meningkatkan risiko stroke, serangan jantung dan paru-paru emboli, dan kematian telah tercatat (Tokish et al. 2004).Although there are clearly risks associated with an increase in haemato-crit, not all of these technologies are prohibited, and there is no useful physiological reason why this might be the case. Yet, if the discussion is removed from the medical sphere and regarded as a cultural or social con-struct, it becomes clear that the ‘natural’ body and the protection of its integrity is a critical issue. These technologies are divided carefully into ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ enhancements based largely on the manner in whichthey interact with, and their potential effects are transferred to, the body. In this example, the re-injection of blood and rEPO are essentially mechanical actions, whereby a substance penetrates the body’s outermost layers to gain entry. Transgressing the body’s boundaries in this way is considered mate-rially different from training in real or simulated altitude environments, which, rather than introducing a foreign agent, encourages the body to increase its production of endogenous EPO. This outcome is considered more ‘natural’ as it relies on the body’s adaptive capacity, rather than the ‘unnatural’ approach of injecting rEPO or blood, which provokes a specificand certain outcome by ‘bypass[ing] all the body’s natural feedback control mechanisms and overwhelm[ing] the normal adaptive responses’ (Levine 2006: 298). By contrast, Benjamin Levine (2006: 298), in defence of this new technology, likens altitude training and hypoxic chambers to ‘a component of training’ whereby bodily responses to the intervention are ‘quite variable and unpredictable’, depending on a host of other physical and environ-mental factors. The ‘naturalness’ of such physiological responses, according to Levine (2006), is what distinguishes these techniques from one another and justifies the prohibition of artificial substances, like rEPO, and methods, such as blood doping.Jelas kemudian kesehatan itu adalah tidak selalu faktor penentu dalam larangan tertentu kinerja teknologi. Sebaliknya, con-ceptions budaya tubuh sebagai murni, alami dan diskrit signifikan. Namun, menurut Kristeva (1982), keinginan untuk mempertahankan tubuh yang murni ditampik oleh fakta bahwa tubuh tidak pernah, dan tidak pernah akan, terisolasi dari orang lain atau dunia. Tubuh selalu terbuka, selalu berpori dan dengan demikian selalu terbuka untuk potensi pemalsuan, dan asupan rezeki dan ekskresi limbah di seluruh perbatasan negaranya, sementara diperlukan, adalah pengingat tubuh ketidaklengkapan con-stant. Mengekspos pelanggaran-pelanggaran tersebut