Psychology of doping denials?

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:30:21 -0800, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:

Well, people want to believe. Even I want to believe Tyler. I'm trying
to figure out how I could believe him, but I certainly wish for a world
where Tyler in specific, and racers in general, didn't cheat.

Well, people cheat on their taxes and run stop signs every day. People
screw aliens working on work visas and drive 2-3,000 pound vehicles
right on your bumper at 55 mph. There is a long lineof changes for a
better world.

OTOH, if Hamilton is guilty, I'm trying to get around how stupid some
people in the line of responsibility would have to be. If you cheat on
your taxes, don't do it on a red flag item. If you are going to
tailgate, don't do it to a car with light bars attached to the roof.
If you have a multi-million dollar operation going, don't do something
that will leave one of your titular leaders hung out to dry.

And I can't see two riders doing this with a shared bag and a couple
of needles. If there isn't a successful appeal, then the Phonak team
management shouldn't need a lifetime ban - people should simply refuse
to hire them on the grounds of incredible stupidity.

You can change your ways, but you can't get over dumb.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Horribly said. Look douchebags, Tyler wasn't found guilty of anything
so right now you are the one who needs a psychological analysis to find
out why you condemn people BEFORE their hearing.

Second most cyclists caught doping actually DO admit to it: Camenzind,
Kraft, Meirhaeghe, and that other MTB world champion a few years back...

Third, people are defending Tyler and Santi because, based upon their
reputations in the sport, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that they would engage
in this. If your wife tested positive for opiates in an employee drug
screening, would you defend her if she said she didn't do it, or would
you like some asshole making an analysis of your denial like you did
below when in fact all she did was eat a poppy seed bagel the day before
her drug screening?

You'd make horrible jurors, both of you. Neither one of you mentioned
the possibility that the test could be wrong - you just categorically
dismiss Tyler's entire defense WITHOUT KNOWING ANY FACTS and then pat
yourselves on the back like you're real insightful people.

You guys are pretenders with this psycho-babble.

Magilla



John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:13:04 +0100, "Jonathan v.d. Sluis"
wrote:



I think it's because of the moral issue that is made out of doping. It is
seen as something completely reprehensible which can only be done by bad
persons. The world doesn't work that way, ofcourse - sometimes good people
do bad things, or sometimes good people have different ideas about what is
acceptable behaviour.

Hamilton's fans don't want to see him as an evil guy, yet they believe that
admitting he took dope is the same as admitting that he is evil. I think a
good example is what Ryan Cousineau wrote in this thread: "...if you're the
kind of racer who is willing to dope, you're not likely the kind of person
who will feel much shame about lying about it." That implies that there are
two kinds of people - those who lie, cheat and don't feel any compulsions
about those things, as opposed to people who behave like good people and are
good by nature. If you dope, you're also likely to lie, all your
achievements are suspect, etc. In some cases this is justified - I too was
more inclined to believe Prentice Steffen when Hamilton tested positive,
thinking that if he did one thing, he was more likely to be the guilty party
in another case as well.

So Hamilton's defenders would rather view the facts in the light that is
most favorable to their hero, rather than adopt a nuanced view of his
behaviour. Perhaps this is because those same fans were incredibly harsh
when, for example, Richard Virenque was concerned. He is still considered to
be an asshole to the center of his being, even though he might be a very
kind-hearted person, who wouldn't hurt a soul. It's as if people feel the
need to be completely consequent in their judgement of someone's character.
Such a view is bound to collapse at some stage, because people are too
complicated to be viewed in such a simplistic fashion.



Very, very well said.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Horribly said. Look douchebags, Tyler wasn't found guilty of anything
so right now you are the one who needs a psychological analysis to find
out why you condemn people BEFORE their hearing.

Second most cyclists caught doping actually DO admit to it: Camenzind,
Kraft, Meirhaeghe, and that other MTB world champion a few years back...

Third, people are defending Tyler and Santi because, based upon their
reputations in the sport, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that they would engage
in this. If your wife tested positive for opiates in an employee drug
screening, would you defend her if she said she didn't do it, or would
you like some asshole making an analysis of your denial like you did
below when in fact all she did was eat a poppy seed bagel the day before
her drug screening?

You'd make horrible jurors, both of you. Neither one of you mentioned
the possibility that the test could be wrong - you just categorically
dismiss Tyler's entire defense WITHOUT KNOWING ANY FACTS and then pat
yourselves on the back like you're real insightful people.

You guys are pretenders with this psycho-babble.

Magilla



John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:13:04 +0100, "Jonathan v.d. Sluis"
wrote:



I think it's because of the moral issue that is made out of doping. It is
seen as something completely reprehensible which can only be done by bad
persons. The world doesn't work that way, ofcourse - sometimes good people
do bad things, or sometimes good people have different ideas about what is
acceptable behaviour.

Hamilton's fans don't want to see him as an evil guy, yet they believe that
admitting he took dope is the same as admitting that he is evil. I think a
good example is what Ryan Cousineau wrote in this thread: "...if you're the
kind of racer who is willing to dope, you're not likely the kind of person
who will feel much shame about lying about it." That implies that there are
two kinds of people - those who lie, cheat and don't feel any compulsions
about those things, as opposed to people who behave like good people and are
good by nature. If you dope, you're also likely to lie, all your
achievements are suspect, etc. In some cases this is justified - I too was
more inclined to believe Prentice Steffen when Hamilton tested positive,
thinking that if he did one thing, he was more likely to be the guilty party
in another case as well.

So Hamilton's defenders would rather view the facts in the light that is
most favorable to their hero, rather than adopt a nuanced view of his
behaviour. Perhaps this is because those same fans were incredibly harsh
when, for example, Richard Virenque was concerned. He is still considered to
be an asshole to the center of his being, even though he might be a very
kind-hearted person, who wouldn't hurt a soul. It's as if people feel the
need to be completely consequent in their judgement of someone's character.
Such a view is bound to collapse at some stage, because people are too
complicated to be viewed in such a simplistic fashion.



Very, very well said.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

matabala wrote:

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...


I am not saying that Tyler's case is one of inadvertant contamination. I
was just saying that in all those cases where athletes appealed, the vast
majority of them simply said they didn't take the illegal substance
INTENTIONALLY. What Tyler is doing in his case is somewhat ra he is
saying the test is actually wrong.

Obviously, it would be very difficult to have your blood accidentally
contaminated with someone else's blood, so inadvertant contamination is
not a plausible defense that appears to be in the cards for Tyler, nor
would it even matter due to strict liability rules.

Also, your question is wrong when you claim that the test determines Tyler
has a different set of antigens. It CLAIMS to test for that, but in fact
may actually be detecting something else like a genetic anonmaly that
causes Tyler's red blood cells to have slight affinity differences that
the test MISINTERPRETS as a red blood cell from another person.

That would be one possible explanation for why Tyler has failed ALL the
blood transfusions test he's been administered.

Magilla


and I've got a great piece of tropical bottom land going cheap...lifetime
supply of bananas for the credulous.



Don't ever serve on a jury, loser.

Magilla

matabala wrote:

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...


I am not saying that Tyler's case is one of inadvertant contamination. I
was just saying that in all those cases where athletes appealed, the vast
majority of them simply said they didn't take the illegal substance
INTENTIONALLY. What Tyler is doing in his case is somewhat ra he is
saying the test is actually wrong.

Obviously, it would be very difficult to have your blood accidentally
contaminated with someone else's blood, so inadvertant contamination is
not a plausible defense that appears to be in the cards for Tyler, nor
would it even matter due to strict liability rules.

Also, your question is wrong when you claim that the test determines Tyler
has a different set of antigens. It CLAIMS to test for that, but in fact
may actually be detecting something else like a genetic anonmaly that
causes Tyler's red blood cells to have slight affinity differences that
the test MISINTERPRETS as a red blood cell from another person.

That would be one possible explanation for why Tyler has failed ALL the
blood transfusions test he's been administered.

Magilla


and I've got a great piece of tropical bottom land going cheap...lifetime
supply of bananas for the credulous.



Don't ever serve on a jury, loser.

Magilla

"Ryan Cousineau" schreef in bericht
...
....
If any racer has taken dope, that needs to be seen as a fiendish act,
one with grave consequences upon their fellow racers, much as if they
were riding dangerously in the bunch or initiated a major crash through
negligent riding.

I do not want to claim that doping isn't wrong. It is. What I doubt is that
someone who uses dope and denies it is also more likely to lie about other
things, or beat his kids, worship Satan, or does anything that you might
consider unethical. I object to the notion that guilt in doping is somehow
seen as indicative of a character that is rotten to the core. Hamilton can
still be a nice guy, even though I would agree that he can (and should) be
held in part responsible for the trends that you explain in the part I
snipped (sorry).

But I would like to mention that the evil done by dopers is more a kind of
general evil in which they participate, rather than being responsible as
individuals. Just like a society lets people die by spending money on
entertainment rather than medicines for third-world countries, for example.
It's unethical by any standard, but how can you hold a single person
responsible? In my estimate, doping is present in such a way to be
comparable, which is why I am not in favor of incredibly harsh punishments
or strong ridicule. The facts should be bared, however.


There are accepted risks in this sport: training hurts; riders get badly
injured and killed racing bikes. But I don't think necessary doping
ought to be added to the pile of hazards. Dopers, however inadvertently,
do just that.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

"Ryan Cousineau" schreef in bericht
...
....
If any racer has taken dope, that needs to be seen as a fiendish act,
one with grave consequences upon their fellow racers, much as if they
were riding dangerously in the bunch or initiated a major crash through
negligent riding.

I do not want to claim that doping isn't wrong. It is. What I doubt is that
someone who uses dope and denies it is also more likely to lie about other
things, or beat his kids, worship Satan, or does anything that you might
consider unethical. I object to the notion that guilt in doping is somehow
seen as indicative of a character that is rotten to the core. Hamilton can
still be a nice guy, even though I would agree that he can (and should) be
held in part responsible for the trends that you explain in the part I
snipped (sorry).

But I would like to mention that the evil done by dopers is more a kind of
general evil in which they participate, rather than being responsible as
individuals. Just like a society lets people die by spending money on
entertainment rather than medicines for third-world countries, for example.
It's unethical by any standard, but how can you hold a single person
responsible? In my estimate, doping is present in such a way to be
comparable, which is why I am not in favor of incredibly harsh punishments
or strong ridicule. The facts should be bared, however.


There are accepted risks in this sport: training hurts; riders get badly
injured and killed racing bikes. But I don't think necessary doping
ought to be added to the pile of hazards. Dopers, however inadvertently,
do just that.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

"MagillaGorilla" schreef in bericht
...
Horribly said. Look douchebags, Tyler wasn't found guilty of anything
so right now you are the one who needs a psychological analysis to find
out why you condemn people BEFORE their hearing.

We're not judges or juries and free to make up our minds about what did or
did not happen. I think that Hamilton is probably guilty, with a very high
likelihood. Just as I think humans descended from apes and black holes
exist, without hearings. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong, but as this is just a
debate without real consequences, that would not matter a lot. A clean
Hamilton would be a joy for all, I suppose.Que sera, sera.


Second most cyclists caught doping actually DO admit to it: Camenzind,
Kraft, Meirhaeghe, and that other MTB world champion a few years back...

I think you mean Bas van Dooren. What can I say? Hamilton still has time to
admit he took dope.


Third, people are defending Tyler and Santi because, based upon their
reputations in the sport, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that they would engage
in this. If your wife tested positive for opiates in an employee drug
screening, would you defend her if she said she didn't do it, or would
you like some asshole making an analysis of your denial like you did
below when in fact all she did was eat a poppy seed bagel the day before
her drug screening?

You mean Hamilton ate a bloody steak?


You'd make horrible jurors, both of you. Neither one of you mentioned
the possibility that the test could be wrong - you just categorically
dismiss Tyler's entire defense WITHOUT KNOWING ANY FACTS and then pat
yourselves on the back like you're real insightful people.

No, if I were a juror I'd probably ignore my subjective estimate of the
situation and judge on the evidence, perhaps reaching a conclusion that
might not sit well with me, but does meet the criteria of reasonable doubt
etc.

"MagillaGorilla" schreef in bericht
...
Horribly said. Look douchebags, Tyler wasn't found guilty of anything
so right now you are the one who needs a psychological analysis to find
out why you condemn people BEFORE their hearing.

We're not judges or juries and free to make up our minds about what did or
did not happen. I think that Hamilton is probably guilty, with a very high
likelihood. Just as I think humans descended from apes and black holes
exist, without hearings. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong, but as this is just a
debate without real consequences, that would not matter a lot. A clean
Hamilton would be a joy for all, I suppose.Que sera, sera.


Second most cyclists caught doping actually DO admit to it: Camenzind,
Kraft, Meirhaeghe, and that other MTB world champion a few years back...

I think you mean Bas van Dooren. What can I say? Hamilton still has time to
admit he took dope.


Third, people are defending Tyler and Santi because, based upon their
reputations in the sport, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that they would engage
in this. If your wife tested positive for opiates in an employee drug
screening, would you defend her if she said she didn't do it, or would
you like some asshole making an analysis of your denial like you did
below when in fact all she did was eat a poppy seed bagel the day before
her drug screening?

You mean Hamilton ate a bloody steak?


You'd make horrible jurors, both of you. Neither one of you mentioned
the possibility that the test could be wrong - you just categorically
dismiss Tyler's entire defense WITHOUT KNOWING ANY FACTS and then pat
yourselves on the back like you're real insightful people.

No, if I were a juror I'd probably ignore my subjective estimate of the
situation and judge on the evidence, perhaps reaching a conclusion that
might not sit well with me, but does meet the criteria of reasonable doubt
etc.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:59:26 -0800, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:


One of the reasons I see doping as a moral issue is because of the
penalties it imposes on fellow competitors, which are severe in the
extreme.

What if many or even most of your competitors are cheating too?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************