This is an interesting read, and a nice account of how a received wisdom can take hold. For me, the pattern mirrors fairly standard foibles in human reasoning, so i'd steer away from thinking the wisdom was cynically encouraged.

Also, i think there's something circular in the assertion that EPO doesn't kill, its abuse does. The definition of abuse would be taking enough to harm yourself. Though perhaps what's really being questioned is whether the doctors knew what was a safe level to provide to athletes.

It's not too surprising that there's no direct evidence that a certain dosage causes death: it's going to be hard to justify studying healthy individuals by giving them bucketfuls and seeing if they keel over. It could be argued that this is effectively what legalising EPO in pro sport would be. Even if a precise safe limit was known, there would be huge temptation to push it (assuming, of course, that the benefits don't max out at a safe level (anyone know?)).

Of course, this argument can be applied to all things new. It sounds to me like the blood thickening theory gives adequate grounds for caution. (And that all deaths fall within "statistical" norms for genetic conditions gives a reason to be optimistic, modulo small numbers and me not knowing if anyone really did the maths.)

For things like smoking, there was already a wealth of statistical data available before people realised there was a problem, and more continues to be generated despite us knowing there's a problem. Perhaps, as EPO becomes more popular with amateurs, the same statistical data might arrive in the future. There's an ethical minefield out there...

Ultimately, some rules in sport are about avoiding a mutually destructive arms race. Allowing EPO could in theory be one such race, while also undermining fans' enjoyment of the sport. Perhaps it's not a bad thing if everyone agreed to leave it alone for now.