Doping and game theory

On Thursday, 2 June 2011 20:32:09 UTC-7, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

In article

,
Ryan Cousineau wrote:


a bunch of long lines in a non-complying usenet message.

--
Old Fritz

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.