Doping and game theory

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)

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.

In article

,
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

On Thursday, 2 June 2011 07:22:11 UTC-7, Brad Anders wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:30Â*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 ? Â*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)

Follow the lead of IOC, FIFA, NFL, MLB, et al.

--
Old Fritz