|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
On May 27, 11:13 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
If some dope and some don't, there's an obfuscating asymmetry. Yup. But that's always been the case. You just didn't know it before. Well, I'll take that. The question you seem to be asking is "what does doping take away from the sport?" The question I ask is "what does it add?" You mean, besides informational asymmetry? I'm not sure -- in part, because I don't know who dopes and with what level of effectiveness. But then, I don't know who trains hardest, or who sleeps in an altitude tent, or who has naturally high hematocrit, or who's been reading Coggan's book. All of those things are potentially performance enhancing If we let the pros use libre bicycles, there would be 4 kg bikes going up the hillclimbs, and Varna Diablos would be the standard TT machine. We don't, for some pretty good reasons. I think of drugs as in the same category as 4 kg road bikes: not a good plan. Hmmm. The 6.8kg limit on UCI bikes is crazy: it was intended to prevent stupid light bikes that are unsafe. A better standard is one that would ensure safety, and let bike manufacturers do whatever they need to do to be safe. |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
On May 27, 12:51 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
wrote: On May 27, 6:59 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote: But "how far is too far?" How far is too far with alcohol? Well, this is the problem. Even at the amateur level, I don't want cycling to be a sport where one has to say "good, you have shown ability enough to get this far. Now retire, because to go further is to compromise your ethics and reputation." Why would going further compromise ethics? Well, the key case I envision is where the kid shows enough talent to enter the pro or Div-III ranks, but finds that there is tremendous pressure from teammates and DSes to "maximize his potential" so to speak. I mean, the reason drugs are widespread, despite huge penalties for use, is because they work. Would you encourage a kid to study mathematics, knowing that math is hard, that not many of the people who study it make it to a PhD, not many of those become practicing academic mathematicians, and that the path to becoming successful may eventually require personal, professional, and ethical compromises that a naive youth would not anticipate on opening her first calculus textbook? Plus, although there's relatively little physical danger, you might turn out a total geek. Look at Chung. Sports are important. I took up cycling very late (commuter at age 28, racer at age 30) and I think it has added immensely to my life. What is important if not being healthy, generating endorphins, and creating excuses to have the aprés-race beers? Pro sports are entertainment, for sure, and not important in and of themselves. The problem is that any sport or game, whether pro or amateur, is primarily interesting because of the shared rules. This allows us to work within the context of the game, and the rules (at least for well-structured games) are there primarily to keep the game fun and from being too serious. There's a lot of schizophrenia in cycling (and more generally, in sports) right now. Doping is widespread, part of the culture, and absolutely forbidden by extremely strict penalties. I understand the temptation to suggest that it's the last part that we should get rid of, but I would caution that just because the lid of Pandora's Box is easy to open, doesn't mean that's a good idea. I'm not a fan of doping. I'm more not a fan of very naive ideas about getting rid of doping, though. I think the present extremely strict penalties are an expression of naive ideas. As Bart v.H. pointed out once, criminologists will tell you that strictness of penalty is not nearly as big a deterrent against crime as the likelihood of getting caught (and, I think, the uniformity of catching and penalization). What we have now are haphazardly applied infrequent strict penalties, which are the worst possible case. The strictness is one of the reasons we have rampant hypocrisy and omerta. The tendency has been to make the penalties stricter (2+2 year suspensions from ProTour) and I don't think it is helping. Ben No amount of dope can turn a mathematician into a racehorse. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
On May 27, 8:24 pm, "
wrote: I'm not a fan of doping. I'm more not a fan of very naive ideas about getting rid of doping, though. I think the present extremely strict penalties are an expression of naive ideas. As Bart v.H. pointed out once, criminologists will tell you that strictness of penalty is not nearly as big a deterrent against crime as the likelihood of getting caught (and, I think, the uniformity of catching and penalization). What we have now are haphazardly applied infrequent strict penalties, which are the worst possible case. The strictness is one of the reasons we have rampant hypocrisy and omerta. The tendency has been to make the penalties stricter (2+2 year suspensions from ProTour) and I don't think it is helping. dumbass, that seems true. one thing i got out of the joe papp testimony was the fatalistic attitude he had towards doping. if you're caught you deny, deny, deny (or even 'fess up) and take your lumps and either leave the sport or serve a suspension. but you probably got further in the sport than you would have otherwise. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
wrote in message oups.com... Would you encourage a kid to study mathematics, knowing that math is hard, that not many of the people who study it make it to a PhD, not many of those become practicing academic mathematicians, and that the path to becoming successful may eventually require personal, professional, and ethical compromises that a naive youth would not anticipate on opening her first calculus textbook? Plus, although there's relatively little physical danger, you might turn out a total geek. Look at Chung. Interesting analogy. My husband swears his UCBerkeley roommate was turned on to dropping acid by his Math Teaching Assistant, who told him there was no way to see the fourth dimension without pharmiceutical help. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
In article
, Ryan Cousineau wrote: The actual racing isn't really helped by drugs, or at least not helped enough. What are we talking about, a 1-2 km/h improvement in typical racing speeds? You can't see that, it doesn't make the racing better, and for that matter, the faster the race speed the harder it is for a breakaway to succeed, for aerodynamic reasons. As you say we cannot see speed until we read the timed results. The fun of watching races is in strategy and tactics. So let's stop chasing dopers. Only enforce against the drugs with extremely high detection rates, and minuscule false positive rates. Let's test most riders all the time. Dozens every day. Three month suspensions and no record rewriting. -- Michael Press |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
In article
.com , " wrote: Would you encourage a kid to study mathematics, knowing that math is hard, that not many of the people who study it make it to a PhD, not many of those become practicing academic mathematicians, and that the path to becoming successful may eventually require personal, professional, and ethical compromises that a naive youth would not anticipate on opening her first calculus textbook? The thing about a mathematics degree is the number of high paying jobs the degree holder can step into. In college I knew an unwashed guy in the dormitory whose room was utterly rank take a bachelor's mathematics degree directly into a programmer's job for a high priced government contractor at a ten-year veteran's salary. A doctorate in mathematics is often parlayed into extremely high salaries these days. Academics is not the only option. -- Michael Press |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
On May 25, 1:05 pm, Jeff Jones wrote:
But it's changed, with cycling being one of the first targets. I wonder if there's enough money and power to keep things quiet about some of the bigger sports like football and tennis? Dumbass - I think it will stay quiet in the bigger sports. There are powerful entities that will lose $$$$ if there are big doping controversies. What powerful entities will gain dollars from big doping controversies? Newspapers? Doubtful, they can't afford to alienate the big advertisers. Prediction: it will not disappear, but it will be "contained", at least from a publicity standpoint in the major sports. The way cycling has handled it illustrates the incompetence of the UCI. There is more talk of the doping soap opera than there is about the actual racing. thanks, K. Gringioni. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
In article .com,
" wrote: On May 27, 12:51 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote: wrote: On May 27, 6:59 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote: But "how far is too far?" How far is too far with alcohol? Well, this is the problem. Even at the amateur level, I don't want cycling to be a sport where one has to say "good, you have shown ability enough to get this far. Now retire, because to go further is to compromise your ethics and reputation." Why would going further compromise ethics? Well, the key case I envision is where the kid shows enough talent to enter the pro or Div-III ranks, but finds that there is tremendous pressure from teammates and DSes to "maximize his potential" so to speak. I mean, the reason drugs are widespread, despite huge penalties for use, is because they work. Would you encourage a kid to study mathematics, knowing that math is hard, that not many of the people who study it make it to a PhD, not many of those become practicing academic mathematicians, and that the path to becoming successful may eventually require personal, professional, and ethical compromises that a naive youth would not anticipate on opening her first calculus textbook? I would say that while it is possible to be an ethically compromised mathematician, it is quite easy to enter the realm of the successful mathematical career without um, cheating the rules of mathematics. Or of the profession. I should say this is not theoretical, though. If math is generally less susceptible to academic fraud (harder to fake and obfuscate your data like those naughty soft-science academics occasionally do), I did once work for a math-research group where a disgruntled member of the group publicly accused the director and another mathematician of improperly taking credit for his work (long boring story: the three were listed as co-authors, disgruntled mathematician now claims the other two added almost nothing to his original work, and went and hogged all the credit). And there were also behind-the-scenes intrigues that I only have half-heard rumors of, so there you go. But that's about as bad as math gets, it's the kind of story that is considered bad form (though the problem of marginal co-authors and credit haunts all of academia), but it's considered an unusual case, not the norm. The great mathematicians the discipline are almost never heralded for disputed work: for all I know there are credit-and-attribution whispers about one or two of Erdös' papers, but nobody disputes that he did a ton of good mathematics. Math doesn't seem to have an inverse relationship between the number of ethical shortcuts a mathematician takes and the success of their career. Indeed, in math if you cut corners once too often you're likely to find your job offers dry up and nobody wants to write papers with you or publish your stuff. Math is also a broader, more useful, and bigger field than pro cycling. Lots of people do undergrad math studies which don't lead to a math degree, but do lead to satisfying and useful careers. Many more successful careers than the semi-pros and not-quites who become coaches, DSes, or bike shop owners. There are surely more tenured math jobs globally than there are pro cyclists making as much as a tenured math prof. Also, the best mathematicians make way, way more money than the best pro cyclists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harris_Simons Jim Simons, multi-billionaire. Suck it, Lance. I also don't think there's a lot of moral hazards in grad school that lead to unnatural deaths. Well, maybe frat hazings, but a major in mathematics is almost invincible proof against that danger. Plus, although there's relatively little physical danger, you might turn out a total geek. Look at Chung. That's not the goal? Ben No amount of dope can turn a mathematician into a racehorse. There is that. But if it could (and eventually, it probably will...) we may have an ethical dilemma on our hands. This isn't entirely theoretical, either. Virtually every person I know is convinced I have ADHD (drug ads work!). I've never sought a formal diagnosis. Somehow, I've managed to hold down a job, not kill my dog, and not been smothered in my sleep by my wife, so I guess the coping strategies work. But damn, every time I read about Ritalin or Adderall, they sure sound like kick-ass drugs. The thought of being able to just finish what I start as if I had a natural instinct for doing so (as my wife does...) is really tempting. And yet I don't. Partly because that is some serious **** with serious side effects, and I don't want to toy with those unless it becomes clear I can't live a normal life. The trade-off seems unreasonable. Moreover, even if I had a script, I don't think I would be tempted to use it during a race, any more than I'm tempted to try to cheat the free-lap rule in a crit or draft during a TT. It's Cat 4: who would I be cheating? What would I win? What would be the point? Now, that may reflect as much the fact that for me, cycling is basically an especially masochistic hobby. Pros do id for a living, and while I love to pretend that I'm so all "honest in small things, honest in great things" that I don't cheat, if some rider is right on the margins of being sent home to get a job at the box factory and the opportunity to get an advantage outside of the rules presents itself, well, one could sympathize with a cheater even as one could condemn them. -- Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Big Mig - honest, dishonest?
In article ,
"Cathy Kearns" wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Would you encourage a kid to study mathematics, knowing that math is hard, that not many of the people who study it make it to a PhD, not many of those become practicing academic mathematicians, and that the path to becoming successful may eventually require personal, professional, and ethical compromises that a naive youth would not anticipate on opening her first calculus textbook? Plus, although there's relatively little physical danger, you might turn out a total geek. Look at Chung. Interesting analogy. My husband swears his UCBerkeley roommate was turned on to dropping acid by his Math Teaching Assistant, who told him there was no way to see the fourth dimension without pharmiceutical help. Cathy, that's ridiculous. Amphetamines are the drug of choice for mathematicians. -- Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why Are Mountain Bikers So Dishonest? | keydates | Social Issues | 0 | August 6th 04 03:38 PM |
Why Are Mountain Bikers So Dishonest? | p e t e f a g e r l i n | Mountain Biking | 2 | August 4th 04 03:17 PM |
Dishonest "Christian" Uses the Bible to Justify Habitat Destruction! | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 3 | June 22nd 04 07:01 PM |
Typical Dishonest Mountain Biker Tries to Justify Their Selfish,Destructive Sport | bkr | Social Issues | 2 | February 27th 04 03:10 AM |
Typical Dishonest Mountain Biker Tries to Justify Their Selfish, Destructive Sport | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 0 | February 24th 04 12:19 PM |