JV talks, sort of

[Mad Elephant Man]

Mr. Vaughters. I do not know why you post here, it makes no sense. However thank you and please do not stop, what you post is very interesting.

Dr. Horrible the Mad Elephant Man.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

The problem confronting riders has been modeled as a Prisoner's Dilemma, whose structure is quite intuitive. What I haven't seen is an extension of that model for the problem facing a DS - encouraging doping dominates there too and helps determine the payoffs for riders (a DS who threatens to fire riders for non-results, etc.). The game usage is illustrative, but the real-world problem ought to be to focus on management structural incentives as much if not more than rider-level incentives, which is what I was asking JV about.

Paradoxically, I would argue that in the case of T & R, and indeed doping. The Nash Equilibrium is normally in the confess/confess area, if we assume that the players are rational and follow Nash's basic formula that 'neither of them should have any regrets about their choice, having seen how the other player has chosen.'

Staying silent, while having the maximum payoff if the other holds to the same strategy, has the highest cost, if the other breaks omerta. If the players are rational, then confessing is in the riders interest as they can not regret their strategy based on what the other rider has done. ie if the stay silent and the other confesses then they are ****ed (life ban), if they both confess then they get a medium ban (3 years), if the rider confesses and the other stays silent then he gets a minimum ban (2 years) and the other gets a lifetime ban. (ie ex-USPs (6 months), Armstrong (lifetime))

If we look at doping as a bargaining game - at the moment riding clean represents a cost to the riders. The are obviously not going to play. We don't have the resources to offer then a sidepayment to get them to play. Their current threat point is to stay at the status quo or to at best tone down the doping. My view is that you need to find a way to use go it alone power to take away their threat point. Which is where T & R would come in. Once the threat point is removed you can restart the bargaining game.

Yes/No?

 

[skidmark]

There are a lot of posters here that seem to forget that ALL ex-USPS/Disco riders stopped doping in 2006 at the latest. Of course that would also mean any RS riders in 2009.

After all, I read it in the reasoned report and heard in on Oprah so its gotta be true.

Right, does the fact that you capitalized "ALL" somehow mean that it excludes Levi Leipheimer, who detailed his doping all the way through the 2007 season, and indicated that when he went back to Brunyeel that year he was treated much differently in terms of how willing the team was to support his 'program'? It doesn't seem like the internal memo got to him, which either means that yes, guys did stop doping independently because teams left them to do it on their own and the heat was on, or Levi is much like his character in Toto, forever left out of the cool kids' circle.

I am skeptical too and try to critically analyze everything I read, but making broad, incorrect generalizations for hyperbole's sake tends to undermine the argument you're trying to make.

 

[Ferminal]

But it'd be funny as hell if I weren't.

Best post in the thread, well done.

 

[Ferminal]

Not true. The WADA code utilizes strict liability for athletes and the principle has been upheld by CAS. I was asking whether there has been any exploration of this principle as applied to management or whether JV would be open to exploring/advocating for it.

That an individual is ultimately responsible for everything they put in their system is a fair way from the idea that team managers should be responsible for everything every individual puts in their system.

Cannot see that making it into a Code which doesn't even outlaw working with banned personnel. A better angle would be to provide incentives (or remove disincentives) to banned riders so they can toss their managers under the bus.

 

[howsteepisit]

It would seem that in attempting to look at doping from a game theory standpoint you have to make an assumption of rationality, and I am not sure that I am willing to accept the behaviors of a great number of pro cyclists or their management as rational.

 

[blackcat]

And herein I stop engaging with you. Silly nonsense and not deserving of a reply, unlike Blackcat's post, which I addressed in a measured way as a poster I respect. Unlike you

you're wasting your time respecting that blackcat poster. hes not to be taken seriously, just a harlequin in this court

MJM tho' mucho respect. he needs to be given his props.

 

[blackcat]

What I meant was the 'American dream' sort of thing (British society is a bit like this too) in that if you want something bad enough and do enough work then you can achieve what you want. However sports and especially endurance sport like cycling is not like this.

cheers

read it differently now. but I own the cryptic, nebulous, rhetoric on this board, so you are stepping into my territory

 

[blackcat]

sources?

....

none currently. pm or tweet race radio for his take

 

[blackcat]

Not really no. Only a 5 year old would believe what the riders are saying, and if you believe it then you are either delusional or a 5 year old.

They can't tell the truth because they've lost all sight of what the truth is - well they know what the truth is but they can't admit it because it'll expose their fraud. They've been lying for so long they can't even keep their lies straight. Each new lie contradicts an old lie and exposes their hypocrisy and lying further.

in a parallel universe

I
think I

wrote



that

 

[blackcat]

It would seem that in attempting to look at doping from a game theory standpoint you have to make an assumption of rationality, and I am not sure that I am willing to accept the behaviors of a great number of pro cyclists or their management as rational.

how about you alter the input of "testing effectiveness"

let us assume that this metric encompasses many factors. but what if "testing effectiveness" goes from above 50%, to less than 1%.

And the personality input, Type A personalities can have a skewed focus on goals, and attainability.

I think I read an article on doping by a professer or associate professor from a college like Penn Stm about 5 years ago. I have not been able to find it over the past years when I have trawled for it, should have saved it you idiot blackcat.

the Prof was saying that the sheer numbers (doping +s) indicated, that a group will have altered there behaviour, and when you have the peloton not protesting or resenting when their due deserts are deprived of them, this is instructive, no, its patently obvious.

only when you have a few village idiots like Ricco, will the peloton give a smackdown.maybe some on Dr Dave Bruylandts but very few riders cop an earful from their fellow competitors, and indeed, are welcomed back into the peloton.

why is this so?

sometimes they are hypocritical, like Ricco, and the laudation of Lance (lol) and then the polemic on Lance (pol)

but most of the time, they are simply supporting the status quo. its not doping if it does not show up

 

[blackcat]

If you get caught later on for something else, life ban.

see, I dont agree with this. I can see how singling out individuals, be they Ricco, Schumacher, or even Valverde, and making them pay the price for all of the riders who can navigate the loopholes. It is injust to punish individuals, when the overwhelming majority at the pointy end are doing the same.

I dont have an answer or a solution for you neither.

Have you read the paper from Hardie's group "I wish I was 21 today". I would have a strong suspicion, actually, I do, that some of those he got confidential interviews were Australians who had ridden in argyle.

 

[frenchfry]

Right, does the fact that you capitalized "ALL" somehow mean that it excludes Levi Leipheimer, who detailed his doping all the way through the 2007 season, and indicated that when he went back to Brunyeel that year he was treated much differently in terms of how willing the team was to support his 'program'? It doesn't seem like the internal memo got to him, which either means that yes, guys did stop doping independently because teams left them to do it on their own and the heat was on, or Levi is much like his character in Toto, forever left out of the cool kids' circle.

I am skeptical too and try to critically analyze everything I read, but making broad, incorrect generalizations for hyperbole's sake tends to undermine the argument you're trying to make.

The problem, as I see it, is that doping in pro cycling is an exercise in hyperbole. Just when you think it can't be that bad - we find out that it is even worse.

I admire JV's efforts and imagine that he is sincere (and funny as well). I just see that a majority of the actors in pro cycling are still living in that parallel world where the reality is the lie. Doping is certainly less rampant than in the 90's and 00's, but given the reaction of many pros lately it would be ignorant to think that the problem is anywhere near being solved. Any talk of a T&R process make me laugh. There is no organisation that is structurally sound enough or empowered enough to make it work, and there will never be consensus on how to administer punishment vs amnesty. For now it is a PR gimmick and a pretext for the UCI to escape much needed scrutiny.

The rash of confessing riders that admit to doping but who miraculously stopped in 2005, 2006 or 2007 (sorry if I generalised too much and didn't account for Leipheimer's difference) is just an example of how it will be difficult or impossible to actually get the whole truth from a group who have been lying so much and for so long that even they might not know what the truth really is.

 

[Mr.38%]

If you get caught later on for something else, life ban.

Not it Europe. Our courts will not allow lifetime occupational bans.

 

[sniper]

Do you have a point? Any quote can seem funny when taken out of context to a child snickering in the corner.

Lim and San Milan barely know each other and are not friends. At all.

And insinuation stuff about San Milan is truly petty. He's a guy that got punched in the face trying to prevent doping on Saunier Duval. Far more than an anonymous guy named "sniper" has ever done to prevent doping.

Once again, this is proving pointless. Once again, I've been defeated. I need to go back to the evil PR cave.

agree, there wasn't much of a point in my post.
to be fair though, it's not my fault that all this medical talk about marginal gains in cycling sounds rather farcical.
I'm not insinuating anything about SM (well, not in that post, at least). My point was about how flawed it is to rely on data, seeing that much of the data you (plural) rely on apparently stems from dirty riders who never get/got caught.

other points remain:
you're defending the passport, even though its obviously flawed. why? care to tell us why you invite Walsh over for barbecue and tell him how clean Sky is? Even a few glasses of wine couldn't tempt you into being a bit more realistic? What did you tell Walsh? You know there's honestly no way you can vouch for Sky. So why are you bothering with Walsh? Why not tell him the truth, the truth being that you don't know?

With the passport so obviously flawed, your cycling is cleaner message needs a bit more foundation.
I don't believe you really believe it. You don't strike me as that naive.
Not to mention the message doesn't help cleaning up cycling, as it is more likely to prevent guys like Walsh from being more investigative and inquiring, and, more problematically: guys like Pat are trying to take credit for it.

p.s. +1 to frenchfry's post above.

 

[arjanh]

Not it Europe. Our courts will not allow lifetime occupational bans.

If you've become ineligable to take out a license, there's precious little any court can do (except CAS, of course).

 

[pmcg76]

agree, there wasn't much of a point in my post.
to be fair though, it's not my fault that all this medical talk about marginal gains in cycling sounds rather farcical.
I'm not insinuating anything about SM (well, not in that post, at least). My point was about how flawed it is to rely on data, seeing that much of the data you (plural) rely on apparently stems from dirty riders who never get/got caught.

other points remain:
you're defending the passport, even though its obviously flawed. why? care to tell us why you invite Walsh over for barbecue and tell him how clean Sky is? Even a few glasses of wine couldn't tempt you into being a bit more realistic? What did you tell Walsh? You know there's honestly no way you can vouch for Sky. So why are you bothering with Walsh? Why not tell him the truth, the truth being that you don't know?

With the passport so obviously flawed, your cycling is cleaner message needs a bit more foundation.
I don't believe you really believe it. You don't strike me as that naive.
Not to mention the message doesn't help cleaning up cycling, as it is more likely to prevent guys like Walsh from being more investigative and inquiring.
Meanwhile, you're not saying anything substantial about the guys we should be talking about: Leinders, brailsford, wiggins, contador, Riis, pat mcquaid. To be sure, I fully understand you can't or don't want to talk about them. But then what's the point in claiming you dedicated your life to anti-doping?



p.s. +1 to frenchfry's post above.

Did I miss something here. Did JV say that he talked to David Walsh about SKY and told him they were clean. Is this you making things up again sniper?? When did he last talk to Walsh, a week ago, a month, a year ago??

Secondly, just because someone doesn't approach things in the way you want them to don't mean they ain't dedicated to something. You invent things in your head just to feed your sad obsession with JV cos that is clearly what it is.

 

[Mr.38%]

If you've become ineligable to take out a license, there's precious little any court can do (except CAS, of course).

Sorry, you are overestimating the legal powers of sports courts. Does "Bosman" ring a bell? This is professional sports, not a hobby.

Basically there are civil liberties which cannot be revoked on a contract basis. These are considered legally void ab initio.

Did you follow the discussion about ADAMS? Ever wondered why drug testing isn't carried out during the night?

 

[JimmyFingers]

agree, there wasn't much of a point in my post.
to be fair though, it's not my fault that all this medical talk about marginal gains in cycling sounds rather farcical.
I'm not insinuating anything about SM (well, not in that post, at least). My point was about how flawed it is to rely on data, seeing that much of the data you (plural) rely on apparently stems from dirty riders who never get/got caught.

other points remain:
you're defending the passport, even though its obviously flawed. why? care to tell us why you invite Walsh over for barbecue and tell him how clean Sky is? Even a few glasses of wine couldn't tempt you into being a bit more realistic? What did you tell Walsh? You know there's honestly no way you can vouch for Sky. So why are you bothering with Walsh? Why not tell him the truth, the truth being that you don't know?

With the passport so obviously flawed, your cycling is cleaner message needs a bit more foundation.
I don't believe you really believe it. You don't strike me as that naive.
Not to mention the message doesn't help cleaning up cycling, as it is more likely to prevent guys like Walsh from being more investigative and inquiring, and, more problematically: guys like Pat are trying to take credit for it.

p.s. +1 to frenchfry's post above.

Maybe David Walsh believes Sky are clean because of the interview he had with Dave Brailsford in the flesh, from which he came away tweeting that he 'believed [DB] is committed to clean cycling'. Any hypothetical conversations JV had with him over ribs and wine is superfluous, and JV is as free to voice his belief that Sky is clean as you are to say they are not.

Remember this is a forum, not a court of law. We are exchanging opinions based on the evidence and information available to us and our analysis of that. Some of course are more informed than others.

You seem to be angry with him for talking to Walsh about Sky. JV had stated he believes Sky are clean, as has Millar and Talansky, and all have been derided here for doing so because it undermines the 'Sky are the new USPS' narrative so entrenched here.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

none currently. pm or tweet race radio for his take

a, typical hoggie

 

[sniper]

Maybe David Walsh believes Sky are clean because of the interview he had with Dave Brailsford in the flesh, from which he came away tweeting that he 'believed [DB] is committed to clean cycling'. Any hypothetical conversations JV had with him over ribs and wine is superfluous, and JV is as free to voice his belief that Sky is clean as you are to say they are not.

Remember this is a forum, not a court of law. We are exchanging opinions based on the evidence and information available to us and our analysis of that. Some of course are more informed than others.

You seem to be angry with him for talking to Walsh about Sky. JV had stated he believes Sky are clean, as has Millar and Talansky, and all have been derided here for doing so because it undermines the 'Sky are the new USPS' narrative so entrenched here.

agree with the first two paragraphs.

as for the narrative: it's not a narrative, it's something you wouldn't be able to deny with dry eyes, unless (a) you've got an agenda or (b) you've been living in a cave in the past 20+ years.

 

[blackcat]

a, typical hoggie

sry ryo Hz

 

[blackcat]

sry ryo Hz

there was a bit about on the fora (not this one) a coupla years back. I did not make this anecdote up.

 

[webvan]

agree with the first two paragraphs.

as for the narrative: it's not a narrative, it's something you wouldn't be able to deny with dry eyes, unless (a) you've got an agenda or (b) you've been living in a cave in the past 20+ years.

Well I haven't been living in a cave for 20 years, actually I've been following cycling for 35 years (Vuelta '78), called Dopestrong as early as the '99 prologue and I find Sky and Wiggins credible, like many others here. So who's the one with an agenda?

 

[JimmyFingers]

agree with the first two paragraphs.

as for the narrative: it's not a narrative, it's something you wouldn't be able to deny with dry eyes, unless (a) you've got an agenda or (b) you've been living in a cave in the past 20+ years.

It's a far more complex situation than that though, this is too black and white. You say JV can't know they are clean, I'd say you can't know 100% that they aren't.

Personally I think the comparison to USPS are anecdotal, nothing more. If Sky are doping then they are doing something very different to USPS. The sport has changed, the drugs have changed. JV points out the numbers are different, lower, meaning those results can be achieved clean and clean riders can be competitive, which is a massive change from the Armstrong era. This means the doping has changed, perhaps more focus on recovery over speed, or weight loss perhaps.