Doping and game theory

Doesn't seem to get the point of the WADA process being independent? Although it takes its funding from sports so can never be truly independent. But yes, every governing body has the incentive not to reveal dopers, I do not see that change happening anytime soon. Which is exactly why the UCI should have nothing to do with the testing and sanctioning process.

For the athletes there will always be great rewards for a doped up victory. The only way you can change that is by dramatically increasing the risk/lowering their ability to dope (it's a trade-off) or by destroying omerta. Would also help if sponsors etc stopped glorifying people who almost certainly dope, instead supporting those who go beyond what is necessary to be transparent.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
nepetalactone said:
Interesting article about modeling an athlete's likelihood to dope. I'd love to see the actual paper.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21581978-sportsmen-who-take-drugs-may-be-prisoners-different-game-athletes-dilemma
have not read it yet.

but couple this with goldman dilemma.

and then read the op-ed pieces that professor charles yesalis has written. and professor julian savulescu.

it defies credulity that these athletes caught are bad apples, versus the more sound and rational position they are perfectly reflective of the norms.

and all your marginal gains in aggregation will never make a rounding error on the type of doping program armstrong or an east european lady was on in the 70s/80s.
 
Jul 13, 2012
76
0
0
nepetalactone said:
Interesting article about modeling an athlete's likelihood to dope. I'd love to see the actual paper.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21581978-sportsmen-who-take-drugs-may-be-prisoners-different-game-athletes-dilemma
Here is the paper: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/44627/1/MPRA_paper_44627.pdf

One of the principal conclusions is that there must be believable "negative tests" that provide an incentive not to dope - in the current climate, the presumption is that everyone is doping, anyway, so a rider who is actually clean has no benefit. If the public (sponsors / fans) think you are doping, you might as well dope. The biological passport was meant to provide such a "believable negative", but imho, it has only dealt with one issue, red blood cell boosting.
 
Jun 27, 2013
44
0
0
enCYCLOpedia said:
Here is the paper: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/44627/1/MPRA_paper_44627.pdf

One of the principal conclusions is that there must be believable "negative tests" that provide an incentive not to dope - in the current climate, the presumption is that everyone is doping, anyway, so a rider who is actually clean has no benefit. If the public (sponsors / fans) think you are doping, you might as well dope. The biological passport was meant to provide such a "believable negative", but imho, it has only dealt with one issue, red blood cell boosting.
Thanks for pointing towards this. The psychology of doping is very interesting...
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
You would be better off reading the chapter..... "Society and the Individual" in Nietzsche's The Will to Power. Sounds a bit over the top when applied to real life, but apply it to cycling and suddenly it all makes sense. So for the inner workings of cycling this is suggested reading:)

Welcome back clinic:D..... looks like we're not being censored and done for liable just yet!
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
You would be better off reading the chapter..... "Society and the Individual" in Nietzsche's The Will to Power. Sounds a bit over the top when applied to real life, but apply it to cycling and suddenly it all makes sense. So for the inner workings of cycling this is suggested reading.

Welcome back clinic..... looks like we're not being censored and done for libel just yet!
 
Jul 15, 2013
22
0
0
Jesus wept, this 'game theory' paper is a load of pseudo-scientific ********. It resembles post-modernist philosophy in its desire to add mathematical 'rigour' to something that is fundamentally unsuitable to such an application.

Anybody with a mediocre knowledge of sports doping could arrive at similar conclusions, they just don't need to add a bunch of x = (2v =xy2 -3/4 p2r) to pretend that they are intellectuals with a 'scientific' basis for their thoughts.

Rewrite that paper with zero maths in it and it basically resembles an enlightened internet forum post.
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
si botak said:
Jesus wept, this 'game theory' paper is a load of pseudo-scientific ********. It resembles post-modernist philosophy in its desire to add mathematical 'rigour' to something that is fundamentally unsuitable to such an application.

Anybody with a mediocre knowledge of sports doping could arrive at similar conclusions, they just don't need to add a bunch of x = (2v =xy2 -3/4 p2r) to pretend that they are intellectuals with a 'scientific' basis for their thoughts.

Rewrite that paper with zero maths in it and it basically resembles an enlightened internet forum post.
I leave out the numbers anyway, as to me it is like reading Japanese.

"enlightened internet forum post"? who, where, what examples please...
 
Jul 15, 2013
22
0
0
horsinabout said:
I leave out the numbers anyway, as to me it is like reading Japanese.

"enlightened internet forum post"? who, where, what examples please...
The paper is flawed as it misses out the factor of 'power'. This is a flaw of mathematical economic theory as opposed to 'political economy' as the subject used to be (mathematical economic theories like to ignore things that don't fit into mathematical models.)

The paper also overplays the role of and accuracy of 'information' in the marketplace, as mathematical economics also does.

Basically the paper says, 'it would be better if there there was more transparency in doping controls' and adds some equations for effect.

What do you take from this article that is original and hasn't already been said over and over again?
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
si botak said:
The paper is flawed as it misses out the factor of 'power'. This is a flaw of mathematical economic theory as opposed to 'political economy' as the subject used to be (mathematical economic theories like to ignore things that don't fit into mathematical models.)

The paper also overplays the role of and accuracy of 'information' in the marketplace, as mathematical economics also does.

Basically the paper says, 'it would be better if there there was more transparency in doping controls' and adds some equations for effect.

What do you take from this article that is original and hasn't already been said over and over again?[/QUOTE]

Your conclusion is pretty good. That allegedly you are a fool if you don't dope........and Nietzsche is the missing link.
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
si botak said:
The paper is flawed as it misses out the factor of 'power'. This is a flaw of mathematical economic theory as opposed to 'political economy' as the subject used to be (mathematical economic theories like to ignore things that don't fit into mathematical models.)

The paper also overplays the role of and accuracy of 'information' in the marketplace, as mathematical economics also does.

Basically the paper says, 'it would be better if there there was more transparency in doping controls' and adds some equations for effect.

What do you take from this article that is original and hasn't already been said over and over again?
Your conclusion is pretty good. That allegedly you are a fool if you don't dope........and Nietzsche is the missing link.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9
Invicituz The Clinic 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY