Doping and game theory
steve
is pretty obvious that the equilibrium state will be - everyone
dopes.
Consider the 4 possibilities
You dope and no one else does
We know this isn’t the case
You dope and everyone else does
everyone is on an even if unethical footing
You don’t dope but everyone else does
No results no contract back to flippin burgers
Nobody dopes
We know this isn’t true.
This assumes that doping works but I’m not even convinced that that
has to be true. I understand most cyclists routinely take supplements
and the evidence that they work is pretty thin. Blood doping, EPO and
steroids I don’t think there is much doubt about.
So where does this leave us. From my perspective, the real losers are
the cyclists. Blood doping, EPO, steroids are dangerous especially if
done w/o a doctors supervision.
I do get a little short with those who go on about how what a terrible
person Lance, Floyd, Tyler, Ricco, Riis, insert you favorite doper
here, for playing the game to win.
Also I don’t much care for negating results and giving the next doper
in line the pink/yellow or whatever jersey. Are we suppose to be
happy if Lances tour victories are given to Ulrich, Basso, hey what
about Vino he’s my guy
Anton Berlin
Wallace Beery)
EPO ? I f taken like the Belgian's eat chocolate and potatoes -
harmful.
If microdosed and Dr. supervised no harm that we know about other than
'frothing at the mouth" and unhappy face syndrome.
Here's a photo of young Lance and young Dr Ferrari testing EPO.
http://kid-steam.com/imagesKS/foam_machines/BoyFoamPartyGoggle.jpg
Brad Anders
> Steroids probably harmful - look at football and rassling (post
> Wallace Beery)
Fairly easy to detect, so regular monitoring could eliminate most of
this.
> EPO ? I f taken like the Belgian's eat chocolate and potatoes -
> harmful.
>
> If microdosed and Dr. supervised no harm that we know about other than
> 'frothing at the mouth" and unhappy face syndrome.
Agree. Same with low-level testosterone.
Legalization, monitoring, and having docs manage the process makes a
lot more sense than what's going on today.
Ryan Cousineau
If you commit to sufficient monitoring and doctor-management to prevent people from using unsafe doses, 1. how is that easier than not letting them dose at all? 2. How is it better than not letting them dose at all? 3. How are the incentives biased in favor of your proposal?
(Answer key: 1. not at all; 2. not at all; 3. not at all)
Brad Anders
1. Why does it have to be easier?
2. Better because it's out in the open (end of the big lie), docs are
directly monitoring the process (e.g. avoid infection, contaminants,
keeping dosages in control, etc.), sponsors know up front what they're
paying for (and can't give us BS later on, a la USPS), potential pro
cyclists know what they're getting into, etc.
3. Incentives are that athletes know what they're up against instead
of guessing (exact drugs, dosage levels, costs, etc.), event results
aren't dependent on court rulings, but best of all, being kicked out
of the Olympics to avoid IOC corruption.
Ryan Cousineau
> On Jun 2, 1:32 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 2 June 2011 07:22:11 UTC-7, Brad Anders wrote:
Your comparison is erroneous. You are proposing a doctor-supervised monitoring process which, right now, does not exist. If it were to exist, it would require regular documentation, routine testing to make sure nobody was gaming the system by dosing above legal limits, a mechanism for ensuring the doctors were not given incentives to help racers dose above legal(probably by having UCI/WADA choose the doctors and pay the doctors), and a documentation system (which is already there, in the form of the bio passport, more or less).
OK, so that's the system you need to ensure that the riders are allowed to use EPO/your own blood/hgh/whatever (steroids?) at a safe, "legal" dosage.
Now, change the rule so the legal dosage is no EPO, no blood, no hgh, except in the case of a TUE. What do you need to change about your regulatory regime (independent doctors, monitoring, the whole deal), as described above?
I'm arguing NOTHING has to change. And all other things being equal, I see no advantage to racing where all riders are on a legal level of EPO instead of racing where riders are on no EPO. All of this stuff is already in dose-response land: as we well know, several of these drugs or procedures (EPO and steroids, notably) are more and more effective even as they are pushed to dangerous doses.
So, in one way, you have invented a plausible cure for doping, albeit one that would cost a ton of cash, be far more invasive than the current quite-invasive system, and only be remotely feasible at the ProTour level.
This isn't even me rubbishing your idea, or the idea of clean cycling. I'm pretty much rubbishing the possibility of pro cycling as a reasonably fair sport. It has no culture for it, and doping tactics are better established than an anti-doping sentiment. The only thing sadder and more ghoulish than pro cycling as it is now would be pro cycling where you were GUARANTEED the riders were all on drugs, and dosed to the legal limits, and ready to go. It would be powerlifting plus crashes.
I'm pretty much OK with the futility of pro cycling. I'm the guy who has repeatedly said that pro cycling is stupid, but amateur ability-grouped cycling is fun. I'm the guy who suggested pro cycling should embrace its natural virtues as a great spectacle, and go to a fully pro-wrestling format: scripts, beefs, run-ins, the whole enchilada. You could get Krabbe to work up some ripping plots, I bet ("Tim, we like this idea for a race through a snow-covered mountain pass, but having a Dutchman win deflates the narrative. Can we make him American?")
Semi-doped pro cycling is a stupid idea. Once you suggest a "legal" limit to any or all doping, you have to explain why that limit should not be "0", and why your limit would be easier to enforce than "0".
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> OK, so that's the system you need to ensure that the riders are allowed to use EPO/your own blood/hgh/whatever (steroids?) at a safe, "legal" dosage.
>
> Now, change the rule so the legal dosage is no EPO, no blood, no hgh, except in the case of a TUE. What do you need to change about your regulatory regime (independent doctors, monitoring, the whole deal), as described above?
>
> I'm arguing NOTHING has to change. And all other things being equal, I see no advantage to racing where all riders are on a legal level of EPO instead of racing where riders are on no EPO. All of this stuff is already in dose-response land: as we well know, several of these drugs or procedures (EPO and steroids, notably) are more and more effective even as they are pushed to dangerous doses.
>
> So, in one way, you have invented a plausible cure for doping, albeit one that would cost a ton of cash, be far more invasive than the current quite-invasive system, and only be remotely feasible at the ProTour level.
>
> This isn't even me rubbishing your idea, or the idea of clean cycling. I'm pretty much rubbishing the possibility of pro cycling as a reasonably fair sport. It has no culture for it, and doping tactics are better established than an anti-doping sentiment. The only thing sadder and more ghoulish than pro cycling as it is now would be pro cycling where you were GUARANTEED the riders were all on drugs, and dosed to the legal limits, and ready to go. It would be powerlifting plus crashes.
>
> I'm pretty much OK with the futility of pro cycling. I'm the guy who has repeatedly said that pro cycling is stupid, but amateur ability-grouped cycling is fun. I'm the guy who suggested pro cycling should embrace its natural virtues as a great spectacle, and go to a fully pro-wrestling format: scripts, beefs, run-ins, the whole enchilada. You could get Krabbe to work up some ripping plots, I bet ("Tim, we like this idea for a race through a snow-covered mountain pass, but having a Dutchman win deflates the narrative. Can we make him American?")
>
> Semi-doped pro cycling is a stupid idea. Once you suggest a "legal" limit to any or all doping, you have to explain why that limit should not be "0", and why your limit would be easier to enforce than "0".
Dumbasses,
You're both wrong.
First of all, Ryan, for god's sake please explore what
browser or user-agent you are using and how it manages
to defeat Google Groups' line-wrapping, or start hitting
carriage return yourself.
Second, you're both wrong, because there is an example:
the UCI 50% hematocrit limit. This limit is not really a
fairness limit, in the sense that it does not allow all the riders
to dope equally. Some can improve more over their natural
state than others. However, it also is a counterexample
to Ryan's argument. It is relatively easily administered,
and it both improves rider health, and limits the degree to
which riders can distort competition by boosting HCT.
Far fewer deaths from sludgy blood, far fewer absurd
instances of Gewiss-Ballan style domination or previously
untalented riders charging their way onto the podium.
One major good about the HCT limit is that it is quickly and
unambiguously administered. You test over the limit, you
get a two week sit down to "protect the rider's health." No B
samples, no drawn-out appeals to the CAS, no multi-year
suspensions.
We need more of this: better (including more frequent) testing,
smaller and more frequently administered penalties, no cumbersome
procedure, no whining about appeals to the CAS or the legal system.
Unfortunately, it is never going to happen, in part because
of the ridiculous appeals to purity that go along with being
an Olympic sport, and the need for WADA to justify its
existence.
Fredmaster Ben
Brad Anders
world with the kind of doping agents and methods that are currently
available is probably absurd, if you want to assure any assurance at
all of rider health (the motivation behind my suggested monitoring
scheme). Perhaps the solution isn't what I propose, but instead what
you suggest, a complete elimination of any dope testing or monitoring,
with utter free-for-all rules. However, because of the puritanical
views of sport that Ben mentioned, the chances of that happening are
zero. So, what are we left with? Continuation of the current system
with various refinements that assure absolutely nothing in the long
run.
As for the HCT limit, I think it's a good thing, even if it's widely
abused. I also like the concept that a failure means you're
"unhealthy" and have to sit out for two weeks, instead of draconian
measures. However, I think that similar tests for anabolic agents
aren't as ambiguous, and any detection would be a clear indication of
intended use. The same is true for other tests and tests for exogenous
blood doping. Maybe the way to go is to eliminate all testing EXCEPT
for the HCT test - which, yes, will never happen.
Frederick the Great
<00c7f6df-daf4-4224...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com
>,
Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
Follow the lead of IOC, FIFA, NFL, MLB, et al.
--
Old Fritz
A. Dumas
> You could get Krabbe to work up some ripping plots, I bet
> ("Tim, we like this idea for a race through a snow-covered mountain
> pass, but having a Dutchman win deflates the narrative. Can we make
> him American?")
Unsubscribe.
Ryan Cousineau
> On Jun 2, 5:22 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > OK, so that's the system you need to ensure that the riders are allowed to use EPO/your own blood/hgh/whatever (steroids?) at a safe, "legal" dosage.
> >
> > Now, change the rule so the legal dosage is no EPO, no blood, no hgh, except in the case of a TUE. What do you need to change about your regulatory regime (independent doctors, monitoring, the whole deal), as described above?
> >
> > I'm arguing NOTHING has to change. And all other things being equal, I see no advantage to racing where all riders are on a legal level of EPO instead of racing where riders are on no EPO. All of this stuff is already in dose-response land: as we well know, several of these drugs or procedures (EPO and steroids, notably) are more and more effective even as they are pushed to dangerous doses.
> >
> > So, in one way, you have invented a plausible cure for doping, albeit one that would cost a ton of cash, be far more invasive than the current quite-invasive system, and only be remotely feasible at the ProTour level.
> >
> > This isn't even me rubbishing your idea, or the idea of clean cycling. I'm pretty much rubbishing the possibility of pro cycling as a reasonably fair sport. It has no culture for it, and doping tactics are better established than an anti-doping sentiment. The only thing sadder and more ghoulish than pro cycling as it is now would be pro cycling where you were GUARANTEED the riders were all on drugs, and dosed to the legal limits, and ready to go. It would be powerlifting plus crashes.
> >
> > I'm pretty much OK with the futility of pro cycling. I'm the guy who has repeatedly said that pro cycling is stupid, but amateur ability-grouped cycling is fun. I'm the guy who suggested pro cycling should embrace its natural virtues as a great spectacle, and go to a fully pro-wrestling format: scripts, beefs, run-ins, the whole enchilada. You could get Krabbe to work up some ripping plots, I bet ("Tim, we like this idea for a race through a snow-covered mountain pass, but having a Dutchman win deflates the narrative. Can we make him American?")
> >
> > Semi-doped pro cycling is a stupid idea. Once you suggest a "legal" limit to any or all doping, you have to explain why that limit should not be "0", and why your limit would be easier to enforce than "0".
>
> Dumbasses,
>
> You're both wrong.
>
> First of all, Ryan, for god's sake please explore what
> browser or user-agent you are using and how it manages
> to defeat Google Groups' line-wrapping, or start hitting
> carriage return yourself.
I use multiple browsers, most regularly a bunch of Webkit-based ones (Safari/Chrome/Rockmelt) but also Firefox. I don't think it's the browsers, but I do notice that your posts are hard-wrapped at a really narrow width. Don't think the problem is with my posting.
> Second, you're both wrong, because there is an example:
> the UCI 50% hematocrit limit. This limit is not really a
> fairness limit, in the sense that it does not allow all the riders
> to dope equally. Some can improve more over their natural
> state than others. However, it also is a counterexample
> to Ryan's argument. It is relatively easily administered,
> and it both improves rider health, and limits the degree to
> which riders can distort competition by boosting HCT.
> Far fewer deaths from sludgy blood, far fewer absurd
> instances of Gewiss-Ballan style domination or previously
> untalented riders charging their way onto the podium.
>
> One major good about the HCT limit is that it is quickly and
> unambiguously administered. You test over the limit, you
> get a two week sit down to "protect the rider's health." No B
> samples, no drawn-out appeals to the CAS, no multi-year
> suspensions.
>
> We need more of this: better (including more frequent) testing,
> smaller and more frequently administered penalties, no cumbersome
> procedure, no whining about appeals to the CAS or the legal system.
You've "solved" the HCT problem. But not all doping techniques are as tractable, as others have already pointed out.
> Unfortunately, it is never going to happen, in part because
> of the ridiculous appeals to purity that go along with being
> an Olympic sport, and the need for WADA to justify its
> existence.
There's a certain perverse normalcy, as others have pointed out, in the way other sports handle drug testing, but the other issue is that in most sports*, drugs can be dismissed as a sideshow, helping some performers, but not really able to substitute for talent and training. Cycling, like distance running and cross-country skiing, is about winning at exercising. So athletic performance is THE dominant characteristic separating great riders from all others.
As a result, drugs work really well in cycling.
Maybe clarity can be achieved if I just predict what I think will happen in anti-doping in cycling: the bio-passport will become the standard, and testing will be as frequent as is feasible. Riders will be put on notice about unusual changes in their readings, and we may see a suspension in a year or two based entirely on inexplicable readings, maybe for "health" reasons.
This would actually look much like Brad's proposed system: dopey riders may learn from the system what kinds of doping they can get away with, but the top-line stuff (large EPO doses, autologous transfusions, T, steroids) will go away, replaced by subtler doping techniques that may eventually be seen as not worth the trouble (or may become the new de facto standard for the pro peloton): hgh, microinfusions of EPO, ?).
This isn't nothing: it reduces doping down to a level where safety is probably much greater. It limits the performance enhancement even the dirtiest rider can achieve. It doesn't, however, guarantee a level playing field. I don't know what could. It is arguably an inexcusably hypocritical system, but "doping, yeah!" would just be sad and stupid, and as I've said before, would require the same level of enforcement as now to keep it safe.
In conclusion, pro cycling is a stupid sport, amateur cycling is awesome.
*football linemen are arguably an exception, given the importance of size and power in those positions. Home run hitting is another notable situation: steroids don't make batters hit the ball more often, but nothing more than a strength increase will transform a certain number of fly outs into home runs. I don't know if it works for pitching.
Frederick the Great
<5c02947f-1deb-4424...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com
a bunch of long lines in a non-complying usenet message.
--
Old Fritz
Simply Fred
> In conclusion, pro cycling is a stupid sport, amateur cycling is awesome.
Do you really think amateur cycling is clean ? Perhaps you'd better ask
Schatzi to be your personal trainer.
Ryan Cousineau
Better, I don't CARE if amateur cycling is clean. Here's why.
Amateur cycling, at least locally, is mainly ability-categorized. Your competitors are riders of about the same performance level, and if you manage to improve your performance sufficiently that you dominate, you get upgraded to a new category.
This system creates competitive racing for hopeless beer-league cyclists such as myself.
Now add doping to the mix, and what happens? Nothing. If you dope your way from Cat 4 to Cat 3, or even up to Cat 1, you're just...sad. As a competitor, I care much less how you got where you are and much more about whether you are competing at the correct level.
I can race clean, and I know I'm racing at my potential (well, I would be better if I lost weight, but food is sooo delicious). Someone who is racing against me is racing at the same level, no matter how they got there (training, talent, discipline at the dessert table, who cares).
The key thing is that the purpose of amateur racing is different. We don't pretend to be a contest of elites, or even age-groupers. We are in a big ladder tournament of bike racing, and the only thing doping gets you is into a faster ladder.
OK, I care a small amount about the philisophical and exemplary (think of the children!) implications of doping in amateur cycling, but I don't think it affects the quality of the competition.
You know what's better than being a rider who has doped their way out of Cat 3? Not being retarded.
Simply Fred
> You know what's better than being a rider who has doped their way out of Cat 3? Not being retarded.
I plan on doping my way to the special olympics.
Ryan Cousineau
OK, I'm actually going to try to fix this problem and see if I can get the lines to wrap at 70-80 columns. This is a first test; can you read this paragraph normally? It looks correct to me from here, and in this text field is about four lines of text, wrapped at "lines/paragraph/four/[last line short]"
This is a second paragraph which is not very long at all. I'm getting tired of typing, so this is only two lines. I'm using Chrome on XP for this test.
Ryan Cousineau
The Spaniards beat you to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_at_the_Paralympic_Games#Intellectual_disability
In fairness, it was the Special division of the Paralympics,
Ryan Cousineau
This is a second paragraph which is not very long at all. I'm getting tired of typing, so this is only two lines. I'm using Safari on XP for this test.
Ryan Cousineau
OK, I'm actually going to try to fix this problem and see if I can get the lines to wrap at 70-80 columns. This is a third test; can you read this paragraph normally? It looks correct to me from here, and in this text field is about four lines of text, wrapped at "lines/paragraph/four/[last line short]"
This is a second paragraph which is not very long at all. I'm getting tired of typing, so this is only two lines. I'm using Firefox on XP for this test.
BTW, is anyone else using Google Groups? Is it working for you?
A. Dumas
> OK, I'm actually going to try to fix this problem and see if I can
> get the lines to wrap at 70-80 columns.
Didn't work in all your test messages. They display fine in TB because
the lines are just wrapped to fit the window but when I reply it becomes
apparent that every paragraph is just one long line: all behind one
quote character. So I need to use Edit->Rewrap.
References header also still missing.
> BTW, is anyone else using Google Groups? Is it working for you?
Lots of people are, right?
Frederick the Great
<c7f6952e-5e10-408e...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com
So what you are saying in your long-line way is that amateur racing is clean.
--
Old Fritz
Michael Press
<7e2e2489-8145-454f...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com
> On Monday, 6 June 2011 12:17:14 UTC-7, Frederick the Great wrote:
> > In article
> > <5c02947f-1deb-4424...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com
> > >,
> > Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > a bunch of long lines in a non-complying usenet message.
>
> OK, I'm actually going to try to fix this problem and see if I can get the lines to wrap at 70-80 columns. This is a first test; can you read this paragraph normally? It looks correct to me from here, and in this text field is about four lines of text, wrapped at "lines/paragraph/four/[last line short]"
>
> This is a second paragraph which is not very long at all. I'm getting tired of typing, so this is only two lines. I'm using Chrome on XP for this test.
Your message has these header lines.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I ran telnet to port 119 of my news server
and downloaded your message directly;
then got a hex dump. Here is a portion.
00007b0: 747a 0d0a 0d0a 4f4b 2c20 4927 6d20 6163 tz....OK, I'm ac
00007c0: 7475 616c 6c79 2067 6f69 6e67 2074 6f20 tually going to
00007d0: 7472 7920 746f 2066 6978 2074 6869 7320 try to fix this
00007e0: 7072 6f62 6c65 6d20 616e 6420 7365 6520 problem and see
00007f0: 6966 2049 2063 616e 2067 6574 2074 6865 if I can get the
0000800: 203d 0d0a 6c69 6e65 7320 746f 2077 7261 =..lines to wra
0000810: 7020 6174 2037 302d 3830 2063 6f6c 756d p at 70-80 colum
0000820: 6e73 2e20 5468 6973 2069 7320 6120 6669 ns. This is a fi
0000830: 7273 7420 7465 7374 3b20 6361 6e20 796f rst test; can yo
0000840: 7520 7265 6164 2074 6869 7320 7061 723d u read this par=
0000850: 0d0a 6167 7261 7068 206e 6f72 6d61 6c6c ..agraph normall
0000860: 793f 2049 7420 6c6f 6f6b 7320 636f 7272 y? It looks corr
0000870: 6563 7420 746f 206d 6520 6672 6f6d 2068 ect to me from h
0000880: 6572 652c 2061 6e64 2069 6e20 7468 6973 ere, and in this
0000890: 2074 6578 7420 6669 656c 6420 693d 0d0a text field i=..
00008a0: 7320 6162 6f75 7420 666f 7572 206c 696e s about four lin
00008b0: 6573 206f 6620 7465 7874 2c20 7772 6170 es of text, wrap
00008c0: 7065 6420 6174 2022 6c69 6e65 732f 7061 ped at "lines/pa
00008d0: 7261 6772 6170 682f 666f 7572 2f5b 6c61 ragraph/four/[la
00008e0: 7374 206c 696e 6520 7368 6f3d 0d0a 7274 st line sho=..rt
The line breaks you put in are there;
but encoded as soft line breaks by
equal sign---carriage return---line feed
I think your interface (google) is out of bounds in doing so.
They probably do it so they can display the message in their
http documents
My newsreader ignores them; or at least with
any preference I set it to so far. Sorry for the confusion.
You can read up on quoted printable at
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2045.txt>
6.7(4)-(5)
To get an idea of quoted-printable fragility see
the NOTE to 6.7.
For an overview
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoted-printable>
--
Michael Press
Ryan Cousineau
> In article
> <c7f6952e-5e10-408e-a242-1609570c5...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
Ha ha no. Or yes. Or doping in amateur racing is its own punishment.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> I use multiple browsers, most regularly a bunch of Webkit-based ones (Safari/Chrome/Rockmelt) but also Firefox. I don't think it's the browsers, but I do notice that your posts are hard-wrapped at a really narrow width. Don't think the problem is with my posting.
>
It sounds like we're figuring this problem out,
but in case there were any questions, my posts are
hard-wrapped because I'm reading Usenet on an Apple II+.
(Actually, it's because in the old Google interface,
I preferred wrapping the lines myself to having
Google wrap them at a length I couldn't predict, often
leaving orphan words alone on a line unless I gave
up using <CR> entirely. I do a lot of code mongering
and my default mental mode is to have auto word wrap off.)
I think the difference is rather that we can _tell_ that
drugs work really well in cycling.
Take soccer, American football, or basketball. It's
clear that being faster and having more endurance helps
any of those, and being bigger helps the latter two a
lot - look at how football-player sizes have increased
(even apart from the linesmen) or how much more muscular
basketball players are now than 20-40 years ago.
Of course these are all skill sports and no amount of drugs
will turn a clumsy person into a skill player. So it's
not as obvious to the viewer that drugs would distort
the competition, but in reality they must. You can't
play pro basketball anymore without rippling muscles,
so you have to get those either with or without drugs,
and we know that some drugs will make it easier. Same
with soccer endurance and speed, etc.
But as you go on to say, reducing rather than
eliminating doping is not nothing. It affects both
health and the quality of competition. Reducing blood
manipulation in cycling means that there's no more
turning obscurities into world-beaters (if not exactly
donkeys into racehorses). I mean, I have skepticism
about Contador, and about other riders in the Giro,
but I suspect that if they were all magically forced
to race clean, Contador would still kick everyone
else's ass. Perhaps not quite as reliably, but he
would. Same with LANCE during his ascendancy.
The problem we have is that a system designed to
eliminate doping doesn't do a particularly good
or fair job of reducing doping.
Fredmaster Ben
Robert Chung
> The problem we have is that a system designed to
> eliminate doping doesn't do a particularly good
> or fair job of reducing doping.
That's cuz we don't have a system designed to eliminate doping. We
have a system designed to punish doping.
A. Dumas
> On Jun 9, 9:42 pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>> The problem we have is that a system designed to
>> eliminate doping doesn't do a particularly good
>> or fair job of reducing doping.
>
> That's cuz we don't have a system designed to eliminate doping. We
> have a system designed to punish doping.
And your ideas would be best described as: punish the facilitation or
acceptance of doping? Ideal would be to reward non-doping, I guess, but
it would get silly really quick: if you DON'T test positive you get,
what, a time bonus? An extra team mate next race? Use of radios? Wifi
access at the hotel?
Robert Chung
Nope. My ideas are to reduce the incentive to dope, and to punish
sporting violations with sporting penalties.
Robert Chung
But to add to my statement a couple of posts above, we don't have a
system designed to eliminate doping. We have a system that usually
rewards doping and occasionally punishes doping.
steve
Exactly!
If you begin with the assumptions that
1 - Doping works. Is there any doubt?
2 – The advantage gained by doping is greater than the small
differences between riders at the top level.
Then no amount of training, equipment or whatever will allow the
“clean” athlete to win.
This inevitably leads to everyone doping. See my original post.
I hope this isn’t true but look at the list of past podiums at the
Tour. Or the Giro and Veelta. How many do you think were clean?
The sad part of this, to me, is that to be competitive you are forced
to “cheat” and then lie about it. I personally don’t this is good for
either the physical or mental health of riders.
What should be done. I’m not sure I have any great ideas. But I do get
a little short with people who go on about X Y or Z doper. And then
make heroes about rider who have been caught loudly proclaimed
innocence and then years afterwards finally “fess up” often when there
is some economic advantage to “bare all”. Where were they 10 years ago
when they made the deal with the devil?
Another question ? Suppose Lance decided to take the ethical rode and
refused to dope knowing full well that this is what it takes to win.
Where would that have put the USPS investment? Would that have been a
wise use of their money? Then would that be grounds for US Postal to
try to recover losses because Lance obviously didn’t do what it takes
to win? I’m not is anyway condoning doping by Lance or anyone else but
I think it only fair to consider the context.
Robert Chung
> If you begin with the assumptions that
> 1 - Doping works. Is there any doubt?
> 2 – The advantage gained by doping is greater than the small
> differences between riders at the top level.
>
> Then no amount of training, equipment or whatever will allow the
> “clean” athlete to win.
>
> This inevitably leads to everyone doping. See my original post.
It is inevitable, Mr. Anderson -- under the current system. So if you
think it's important that things change you'll need to change the
system so it's no longer inevitable.
Frederick the Great
<8edff82d-1d26-49d1...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>,
steve <SJger...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think performance enhancing drugs taken as recommended
by a physician are not harmful.
The proper attitude for an athlete toward the hypocrisy
of cycling's anti-doping programs and witch hunting
civilians is disdain.
--
Old Fritz