How certain are you LA doped? Your money on the line

I know that for most posters here, the question of whether LA doped was settled a long time ago, is beyond argument. But I'm an idiot scientist, for whom almost nothing is certain; most things are a matter of probability.

So my question for all of you is: what is the degree of certainty you have that LA doped? To assess this, I'm putting the question in the form of a bet. If you're right, you win $1000, which, for most people, should be enough to make them willing to make the bet. Your certainty of being right, then, is determined by the amount of money you're willing to risk if you lose.

Here are the categories:

1) Certain beyond any reasonable doubt: You are as certain as you would be if you were on a jury in a murder trial, and voted to convict. Let's say, 99.9% certain. So if you lose, you fork over 1000 x $1000, or $1 million. For the sake of this argument, let's assume you have $1 million—because if you don't, you shouldn't be betting on anything except maybe that the sun will come up tomorrow. Let's also assume that you don't have an enormous amount more than $1 million, so the loss really hurts.
2) Certain beyond most reasonable doubt: you lose $100,000
3) Very certain but not positive: $10,000
4) Preponderance of evidence suggests he doped. $2000-$5000.
5) Even money: $1000
6) Don't think he doped. Anyone in this camp can pick one of the first four categories, with the odds reversed.

On an internet forum, it's easy to make any claim, since there are rarely consequences. But I hope all of you will really try to imagine yourself in this position, and answer as honestly as possible. I'm assuming, of course, that there is some way the truth, one way or the other, comes out in a fashion that makes it undeniably the truth. A confession by LA would serve as proof that he doped. So possibly would certain tests on old samples. I'm not sure at this point what would constitute proof that he didn't, but let's suppose that some such proof could emerge.

I think I would bet $10,000, mostly on the strength of those EPO samples. All that other evidence seems very strong to me, but not strong enough to induce me to risk $100,000 or more.
 
I find it very difficult to say "100% clean" for basically any cyclist.

At the same time, not every cyclist who is suspicious is "100% dirty".

But in this case, I would be happy to risk all my savings (the equivalent of $1,000,000 if I had that much).

Of course I wouldn't really bet that much if I didn't know when I would get paid out. I would be happy to bet that much if I knew that when I wake up tomorrow there would be a definitive result. As such we may never know the 100% answer, unless he comes out and admits. Even the courts may not say one way or the other that he was/wasn't doped.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
To make that bet I would take all of the cash and securities that I have, sell everything that I own down to one pair jockey shorts and a pair of sandals, borrow as much as I could, pimp my girlfriend, and spend every free moment pan handling for a few dollars more, so I could put it all on the "Armstrong doped" side of the table.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Thoughtforfood said:
All of it, and any future earnings.
BroDeal said:
To make that bet I would take all of the cash and securities that I have, sell everything that I own down to one pair jockey shorts and a pair of sandals, borrow as much as I could, pimp my girlfriend, and spend every free moment pan handling for a few dollars more, so I could put it all on the "Armstrong doped" side of the table.
I'm with these two on this bet. I like their credibility. I'll say yes. Bet everything, all of it.
 
Ferminal said:
I find it very difficult to say "100% clean" for basically any cyclist.

At the same time, not every cyclist who is suspicious is "100% dirty".

But in this case, I would be happy to risk all my savings (the equivalent of $1,000,000 if I had that much).

Of course I wouldn't really bet that much if I didn't know when I would get paid out. I would be happy to bet that much if I knew that when I wake up tomorrow there would be a definitive result. As such we may never know the 100% answer, unless he comes out and admits. Even the courts may not say one way or the other that he was/wasn't doped.
+1

Within a definitive time frame, Absolutely All In.

Wouldn't want to float the mortgage for the inevitable appeals charade.

I'd also bet that fibiani would make the same bet, hush hush - to play both sides i.e publicly earn his 30k an hour/day + make the back-end deal.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
I would choose number 1. Firstly the EPO, secondly the backdated TUE both are already proof that he used doping,k and that is technical proof, not even taking into account eye witness testimony. Perhaps it cannot be proven in the Novitsky trial (if it even comes up there), but really there is a lot of evidence already
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
speaking of money to bet he is guilty, lots, all of Bernie Madoff's:D

alos i bet he starts a 'fight the lies' campaign to pay his lawyers for all this:rolleyes:
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,811
0
0
I wish I had anything of substance to put on the Lance Doped side of the table. I can throw in some semi-essential organs.

Just 2 years ago, I was a fan boy. Then I started reading (already did Lance's books, but no-one else's), and thinking for myself.

If one would bet serious money on Lance Is Clean, the money was most probably donated back and forth before landing in their bank account (as in : stolen). I wouldn't even bet stolen money on Lance, I'd spend it Robin Hood style.
Would there be one fanboy left with an IQ over 100, betting as much as their next meal on Lance to be clean?
 
Jul 13, 2010
185
0
0
Merckx index said:
I know that for most posters here, the question of whether LA doped was settled a long time ago, is beyond argument. But I'm an idiot scientist, for whom almost nothing is certain; most things are a matter of probability.

So my question for all of you is: what is the degree of certainty you have that LA doped? To assess this, I'm putting the question in the form of a bet. If you're right, you win $1000, which, for most people, should be enough to make them willing to make the bet. Your certainty of being right, then, is determined by the amount of money you're willing to risk if you lose.

Here are the categories:

1) Certain beyond any reasonable doubt: You are as certain as you would be if you were on a jury in a murder trial, and voted to convict. Let's say, 99.9% certain. So if you lose, you fork over 1000 x $1000, or $1 million. For the sake of this argument, let's assume you have $1 million—because if you don't, you shouldn't be betting on anything except maybe that the sun will come up tomorrow. Let's also assume that you don't have an enormous amount more than $1 million, so the loss really hurts.
2) Certain beyond most reasonable doubt: you lose $100,000
3) Very certain but not positive: $10,000
4) Preponderance of evidence suggests he doped. $2000-$5000.
5) Even money: $1000
6) Don't think he doped. Anyone in this camp can pick one of the first four categories, with the odds reversed.

On an internet forum, it's easy to make any claim, since there are rarely consequences. But I hope all of you will really try to imagine yourself in this position, and answer as honestly as possible. I'm assuming, of course, that there is some way the truth, one way or the other, comes out in a fashion that makes it undeniably the truth. A confession by LA would serve as proof that he doped. So possibly would certain tests on old samples. I'm not sure at this point what would constitute proof that he didn't, but let's suppose that some such proof could emerge.

I think I would bet $10,000, mostly on the strength of those EPO samples. All that other evidence seems very strong to me, but not strong enough to induce me to risk $100,000 or more.

I believe it would be rational to wager more but i am risk averse.

$10,000

BUT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,394
0
0
I'd bet $10,000, mainly because for $100,000 I can get a better, very low risk return on my investment from the banks.
 
Mambo95 said:
I'd bet $10,000, mainly because for $100,000 I can get a better, very low risk return on my investment from the banks.
Excellent point, I hadn't thought of that. Or maybe I did unconsciously, and that's why I said $10,000 for myself, even though I think the probability of his having doped is much greater than 90%.

Of course, at this point I could bring out the heavy artillery. Would you be willing to risk going to jail for several years if you were wrong? Losing your wife and kids? Getting disfigured and/or paralyzed in a horrible accident? Death?

It seems there are some here who would take those bets, if not for $1000, surely for a little more.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
all in!

and this is not necessarily the answer i would have given had he not returned to the sport... (sorry for the double negative)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
microdose said:
sure as long as I get Halle Berry in that orange swimsuit.....
deal!

(The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9
Invicituz The Clinic 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY