On the basis of qualitative literature data, the ethical value of hypoxic training in sports is subject to debate. The objective of the present empirical study was to map various ethical positions with regard to how individuals mentally combined several factors (the hypoxic training's objective, fairness, planning/monitoring, and method) when judging the acceptability of holding a hypoxic training camp before an event. Two hundred and sixteen participants (including 126 men and 90 women, and 186 athletes and 30 non-athletes) specified their judgement of acceptability in 36 scenarios created by cross-referencing the four factors. A cluster analysis was applied to the whole dataset. Repeated-measures analyses of variance with a 2 x 3 x 3 x 2 factorial design were then applied to each cluster. Lastly, the relationship between the clusters and the participants' characteristics was assessed in chisquared tests. The analyses showed four ethical positions: "Moderately acceptable" for 26% of the participants, "Acceptable, depending mainly on monitoring" for 38% of the participants, "Always acceptable" for 20% of the participants, and "Never acceptable unless planned with an expert in hypoxic training and monitored by a physician" for 16% of the participants. Contrary to female participants and non-athletes, male participants and athletes tended to accept the coach's decision to organize a hypoxic training camp easily. Our study confirmed empirically that hypoxic training does not violate the spirit of sport. Sports stakeholders might refer to our study's findings to set up a public relations plan that highlights the ethical value of hypoxic training.