Doping and game theory

On Monday, 6 June 2011 13:05:35 UTC-7, Simply Fred wrote:
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In conclusion, pro cycling is a stupid sport, amateur cycling is awesome.

Do you really think amateur cycling is clean ? Perhaps you'd better ask
Schatzi to be your personal trainer.

Better, I don't CARE if amateur cycling is clean. Here's why.

Amateur cycling, at least locally, is mainly ability-categorized. Your competitors are riders of about the same performance level, and if you manage to improve your performance sufficiently that you dominate, you get upgraded to a new category.

This system creates competitive racing for hopeless beer-league cyclists such as myself.

Now add doping to the mix, and what happens? Nothing. If you dope your way from Cat 4 to Cat 3, or even up to Cat 1, you're just...sad. As a competitor, I care much less how you got where you are and much more about whether you are competing at the correct level.

I can race clean, and I know I'm racing at my potential (well, I would be better if I lost weight, but food is sooo delicious). Someone who is racing against me is racing at the same level, no matter how they got there (training, talent, discipline at the dessert table, who cares).

The key thing is that the purpose of amateur racing is different. We don't pretend to be a contest of elites, or even age-groupers. We are in a big ladder tournament of bike racing, and the only thing doping gets you is into a faster ladder.

OK, I care a small amount about the philisophical and exemplary (think of the children!) implications of doping in amateur cycling, but I don't think it affects the quality of the competition.

You know what's better than being a rider who has doped their way out of Cat 3? Not being retarded.

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
You know what's better than being a rider who has doped their way out of Cat 3? Not being retarded.

I plan on doping my way to the special olympics.

In article

,
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

On Monday, 6 June 2011 13:05:35 UTC-7, Simply Fred wrote:
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In conclusion, pro cycling is a stupid sport, amateur cycling is awesome.

Do you really think amateur cycling is clean ? Perhaps you'd better ask
Schatzi to be your personal trainer.

Better, I don't CARE if amateur cycling is clean. Here's why.

Amateur cycling, at least locally, is mainly ability-categorized. Your competitors are riders of about the same performance level, and if you manage to improve your performance sufficiently that you dominate, you get upgraded to a new category.

This system creates competitive racing for hopeless beer-league cyclists such as myself.

Now add doping to the mix, and what happens? Nothing. If you dope your way from Cat 4 to Cat 3, or even up to Cat 1, you're just...sad. As a competitor, I care much less how you got where you are and much more about whether you are competing at the correct level.

I can race clean, and I know I'm racing at my potential (well, I would be better if I lost weight, but food is sooo delicious). Someone who is racing against me is racing at the same level, no matter how they got there (training, talent, discipline at the dessert table, who cares).

The key thing is that the purpose of amateur racing is different. We don't pretend to be a contest of elites, or even age-groupers. We are in a big ladder tournament of bike racing, and the only thing doping gets you is into a faster ladder.

OK, I care a small amount about the philisophical and exemplary (think of the children!) implications of doping in amateur cycling, but I don't think it affects the quality of the competition.

You know what's better than being a rider who has doped their way out of Cat 3? Not being retarded.

So what you are saying in your long-line way is that amateur racing is clean.

--
Old Fritz

On Jun 9, 2:41*am, Frederick the Great wrote:
In article
,

*Ryan Cousineau wrote:





On Monday, 6 June 2011 13:05:35 UTC-7, Simply Fred *wrote:
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In conclusion, pro cycling is a stupid sport, amateur cycling is awesome.

Do you really think amateur cycling is clean ? Perhaps you'd better ask
Schatzi to be your personal trainer.

Better, I don't CARE if amateur cycling is clean. Here's why.

Amateur cycling, at least locally, is mainly ability-categorized. Your competitors are riders of about the same performance level, and if you manage to improve your performance sufficiently that you dominate, you get upgraded to a new category.

This system creates competitive racing for hopeless beer-league cyclists such as myself.

Now add doping to the mix, and what happens? Nothing. If you dope your way from Cat 4 to Cat 3, or even up to Cat 1, you're just...sad. As a competitor, I care much less how you got where you are and much more about whether you are competing at the correct level.

I can race clean, and I know I'm racing at my potential (well, I would be better if I lost weight, but food is sooo delicious). Someone who is racing against me is racing at the same level, no matter how they got there (training, talent, discipline at the dessert table, who cares).

The key thing is that the purpose of amateur racing is different. We don't pretend to be a contest of elites, or even age-groupers. We are in a big ladder tournament of bike racing, and the only thing doping gets you is into a faster ladder.

OK, I care a small amount about the philisophical and exemplary (think of the children!) implications of doping in amateur cycling, but I don't think it affects the quality of the competition.

You know what's better than being a rider who has doped their way out of Cat 3? Not being retarded.

So what you are saying in your long-line way is that amateur racing is clean.

Ha ha no. Or yes. Or doping in amateur racing is its own punishment.