There is absolutely no proof that Paula or Ritz ran their great times because of Altitude Tents!
As to the ethics of this issue read this excerpt from A Practical Approach to Altitude Training
Edmund R. Burke, Ph.D.
Director Exercise Science
University of Colorado at Colorado Springs:
ETHICS OF ALTITUDE TRAINING AND USE OF ALTITUDE SIMULATORS
There is some concern among coaches, athletes and the scientific community that the use of high altitude tents and rooms may be unsafe and unethical for use in sports. A legitimate concern in these days of increased drug use by athletes in many sports.
International governing bodies of sports will declare a sporting practice banned if it causes injury, or it gives the athlete a technological advantage that is too expensive or too new for most other competitors to use. There have been discussion recently as to whether the different methods of altitude exposure are dangerous or offer a technological advantage that should be banned for use by athletes (Baker and Hopkins, 1998).
Nitrogen houses, hypoxic rooms and tents would be dangerous if the simulated altitude was high enough and long enough to raise the viscosity (thickness) of blood to an unsafe level. For example, an individual using a hypoxic tent might set the altitude to high, but so far there have been no reports for banning these devices on the grounds of health, safety or medical incidences.
It also seems unlikely they will be banned as an expensive innovation, because they are no more expensive than the high-tech equipment used in training or performance by many athletes in sports such as cycling, skiing, bobsled, etc.
If they aren't unsafe, are they unethical? No, because you can't ban normal altitude training, so it's unfair to ban a safe practice that makes it easier or cheaper for athletes to achieve the same effect. There is no physiological difference between altitude in a tent or in the mountains - it is the same oxygen level. Recently, the Norwegian Olympic Committee has come forward with a position statement supporting the use of altitude houses falls within the ethical norms which sport follows (Norwegian Olympic Committee, 1998).
Recently Dr. David Martin, physiologist at Australia Institute of Sports gave a summary of his thoughts on the use of altitude training and use of altitude tents for training by athletes.
He states that he and his colleagues at the Australia Institute have read many scientific studies published in reputable journals suggesting that some moderate altitude exposure protocols are beneficial for the elite athletes. The use of a simulated altitude chamber is safe, legal and potentially effective. Many of the coaches and athletes I work with would consider me unethical if I did not do everything in my power (legally of course) to ensure that they were not at a disadvantage at major competitions because they did not use altitude effectively.
Further, he points out that injecting EPO bypasses the stimulus - physiological response association and this is the problem because the stimulus - physiological response association and the genetic and environmental factors that influence this relationship is essentially what training for sport is all about.
The basic goal of training is to use a variety of external stimuli (exercise, environmental conditions, nutritional therapies, etc.) to produce a physiological adaptation.
The key point is that injecting EPO bypasses the training stimulus, and the same goes for taking any other drug. Also, it is easily possible to increase athletes' EPO concentrations beyond their natural limits using an injection. However, an altitude chamber does not do this, although it does make it a lot easier for athletes to increase their EPO levels - just not beyond their natural limits.
In summary, governing bodies are unlikely to outlaw altitude simulation for 4 reasons:
Regulations are motivated by a concern for safety. When used properly hypoxic tents/rooms are completely safe and creates no ill side effects.
Altitude is a natural alternative to drugs. Many officials at Governing Bodies see altitude simulation as a godsend that improves performance without risk to the athletes' health. Altitude training may supplant the use of illegal and dangerous drugs.
Governing bodies seldom like to pass unenforceable regulations. Enforcing a ban on altitude or altitude simulation would be nearly impossible . There are no tests for altitude or altitude simulation. Unless governing bodies institute midnight raids on residences, it would be difficult to enforce a rule that essentially regulates where a person sleeps, or trains.
There are no intellectual arguments to distinguish between true altitude and altitude simulation - both work by inducing low oxygen levels in the blood, triggering the body's natural acclimatization response.