Doping and game theory

On Thursday, 2 June 2011 15:42:13 UTC-7, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jun 2, 1:32*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
On Thursday, 2 June 2011 07:22:11 UTC-7, Brad Anders *wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:30*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
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.

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)

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.

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".

On Jun 2, 5:22*pm, Ryan Cousineau 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.

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

I agree in general, the concept of a "fair" pro cycling sport in a
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.

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
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.