Doping and game theory

On Monday, June 6, 2011 11:09:36 AM UTC-7, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

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.)

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.

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



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.

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.

Robert Chung wrote:
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?

On Jun 12, 1:22*am, "A. Dumas" wrote:
Robert Chung wrote:
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?

Nope. My ideas are to reduce the incentive to dope, and to punish
sporting violations with sporting penalties.

On Jun 12, 7:46*am, Robert Chung wrote:
On Jun 12, 1:22*am, "A. Dumas" wrote:

Robert Chung wrote:
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?

Nope. My ideas are to reduce the incentive to dope, and to punish
sporting violations with sporting penalties.

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.

On Jun 12, 8:46*am, Robert Chung wrote:
On Jun 12, 7:46*am, Robert Chung wrote:









On Jun 12, 1:22*am, "A. Dumas" wrote:

Robert Chung wrote:
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?

Nope. My ideas are to reduce the incentive to dope, and to punish
sporting violations with sporting penalties.

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.

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.

On Jun 12, 12:54*pm, steve wrote:

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.