Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[mastersracer]

Who is this "we" you refer to?
And there are Plenty of threads here to discuss your theories and attempts to understand doping - everything from amateur masters doping up to top level Pro's.

As this is a Wiggins thread - perhaps your cognitive skills could be better served in explaining what disincentives he has not to dope?

There's a link to disincentives. Kimmage, like most other people, views doping to win a major event as a far worse moral action than doping to win a minor event or to place midpack. But the act of cheating is the same in both cases. It's true that the payoffs are different, but I don't know if we treat the act of robbery that much differently morally depending on the loot the robber gets. So, why is it so much more morally blameworthy to cheat to win the Tour than to come in 65th? If we think the temptation to cheat to win is greater, then the asymmetry in blame could be the result of norm enforcement mechanisms by which we increase the cost of cheating in terms of social sanctions (moral blame). If you know you're going to be strongly sanctioned morally for cheating, then it provides a disincentive. It's a strategic move. These are informal sanctions, such as social scorn. The effectiveness of these sanctions depends on a person's sensitivity to social sanctioning (we know there's a lot of individual variability in this - we've actually measured it in a part of the brain called the insula). We could test for these differences among riders to get a sense of whether they provide strong disincentives, etc. We could also design more salient social sanctions. My guess is that Wiggins would test as strongly sensitive to these (whereas Armstrong wouldn't).

 

[BroDeal]

There's a link to disincentives. Kimmage, like most other people, views doping to win a major event as a far worse moral action than doping to win a minor event or to place midpack. But the act of cheating is the same in both cases. It's true that the payoffs are different, but I don't know if we treat the act of robbery that much differently morally depending on the loot the robber gets. So, why is it so much more morally blameworthy to cheat to win the Tour than to come in 65th? If we think the temptation to cheat to win is greater, then the asymmetry in blame could be the result of norm enforcement mechanisms by which we increase the cost of cheating in terms of social sanctions (moral blame). If you know you're going to be strongly sanctioned morally for cheating, then it provides a disincentive. It's a strategic move. These are informal sanctions, such as social scorn. The effectiveness of these sanctions depends on a person's sensitivity to social sanctioning (we know there's a lot of individual variability in this - we've actually measured it in a part of the brain called the insula). We could test for these differences among riders to get a sense of whether they provide strong disincentives, etc. We could also design more salient social sanctions. My guess is that Wiggins would test as strongly sensitive to these (whereas Armstrong wouldn't).

Someone who in public calls people who questions him ****ing ****ers and ****s will not care much about what the public thinks of him.

You lose again.

 

[Neworld]

Not even close.

What I was suggesting was more like the lawyer thing about not asking a question if you aren't certain of the answer. You may have a strong opinion, but you may want to be a bit more certain about all the facts.

Dave.

Dave,

Tell me, with respect to doping in the pros, beyond the 'tested positive' pool of cheaters, what questions do you or I have absolutely certain answer(s) for?

We ALL have strong opinions in here Dave not sure where you're going with that ... oh ya, facts. What facts would you like?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

There's a link to disincentives. Kimmage, like most other people, views doping to win a major event as a far worse moral action than doping to win a minor event or to place midpack. But the act of cheating is the same in both cases. It's true that the payoffs are different, but I don't know if we treat the act of robbery that much differently morally depending on the loot the robber gets. So, why is it so much more morally blameworthy to cheat to win the Tour than to come in 65th? If we think the temptation to cheat to win is greater, then the asymmetry in blame could be the result of norm enforcement mechanisms by which we increase the cost of cheating in terms of social sanctions (moral blame). If you know you're going to be strongly sanctioned morally for cheating, then it provides a disincentive. It's a strategic move. These are informal sanctions, such as social scorn. The effectiveness of these sanctions depends on a person's sensitivity to social sanctioning (we know there's a lot of individual variability in this - we've actually measured it in a part of the brain called the insula). We could test for these differences among riders to get a sense of whether they provide strong disincentives, etc. We could also design more salient social sanctions. My guess is that Wiggins would test as strongly sensitive to these (whereas Armstrong wouldn't).

That was swift kick right to my Medula Oblangata... OUCH!

More artsy, less fartsy. You may be too smart for this thread...

Or, less fartsy, more artsy...

 

[TubularBills]

The doping allows people to work harder or in other words take less time recovering. Maybe some of these guys forget that, attributing their improvement to working harder than they were capable of before. It would be an easy justification.

Throw in the naturally addicting endorphins, add in a dash of 'roid rage, a liberal sprinkling of sociopathic arrogance and you get the perfect storm:

"Everybody wants to know what I'm on. What am I on? I'm on my bike busting my *** six hours a day. What are you on? "

A true and in this context, obvious and symptomatic statement.

"Snowball Effect" seems like the appropriate term.

 

[TubularBills]

In the spirit of the thread let's just call the latest iteration:

SKYballing.

 

[Maxiton]

There's a link to disincentives. Kimmage, like most other people, views doping to win a major event as a far worse moral action than doping to win a minor event or to place midpack. But the act of cheating is the same in both cases. It's true that the payoffs are different, but I don't know if we treat the act of robbery that much differently morally depending on the loot the robber gets. So, why is it so much more morally blameworthy to cheat to win the Tour than to come in 65th? If we think the temptation to cheat to win is greater, then the asymmetry in blame could be the result of norm enforcement mechanisms by which we increase the cost of cheating in terms of social sanctions (moral blame). If you know you're going to be strongly sanctioned morally for cheating, then it provides a disincentive. It's a strategic move. These are informal sanctions, such as social scorn. The effectiveness of these sanctions depends on a person's sensitivity to social sanctioning (we know there's a lot of individual variability in this - we've actually measured it in a part of the brain called the insula). We could test for these differences among riders to get a sense of whether they provide strong disincentives, etc. We could also design more salient social sanctions. My guess is that Wiggins would test as strongly sensitive to these (whereas Armstrong wouldn't).

Well, you get no points for clear thinking, and no points for clearly expressing your murky thought, so that pretty much leaves you with both no points and no point; i.e., not mid-pack but autobus, and that's being generous.

If you had doped your brain to arrive mid-pack, you'd have cheated a few. But if some hi-test designer drug, on the other hand, had propelled you to head of the "race", you'd have taken this and subsequent threads, and been bestowed with a glory you had no right to. And in that way you'd have cheated everyone, thus proving that there is a qualitative difference between cheating to place, and cheating to win.

 

[TubularBills]

Well, you get no points for clear thinking, and no points for clearly expressing your murky thought, so that pretty much leaves you with both no points and no point; i.e., not mid-pack but autobus, and that's being generous.

If you had doped your brain to arrive mid-pack, you'd have cheated a few. But if some hi-test designer drug, on the other hand, had propelled you to the head of the "race", you'd have taken this and subsequent threads, and been bestowed with a glory you had no right to. And in that way you'd have cheated everyone, thus proving that there is a qualitative difference between cheating to place, and cheating to win.

I would only add, cheating to work.

Which to MR's point is the least morally objectionable, not that he actually made that point...

The Clinic provided that nuance to his well reasoned argument...

Correlation. The sticky wicket and the downfall of many thesis.

 

[Maxiton]

I would only add, cheating to work.

Which to MR's point is the least morally objectionable, not that he actually made that point...

The Clinic provided that nuance to his well reasoned argument...

Correlation. The sticky wicket and the downfall of many thesis.

As near as I could make out, his point is that all cheating is morally equivalent. And we know that's not true. Most of these guys, when they do cheat, are as you say cheating to work, which barely qualifies as cheating at all, at least in my book.

As for Wiggo, he's cast in the role of winner by the marketing and money making machine. I suppose we can't fault him for that, too much, but it isn't what it's held up to be. It's a huge insult to us, to him, and to the sport.

 

[Ferminal]

So Kimmage is a bad guy because he writes about the biggest winners in the sport, and not about the dodgy-ness of the Iranian teams?

Yet at the same time it's perfectly acceptable for billions of bits to be used celebrating the success of the biggest winners in the sport, whilst dedicating nothing to the other winners?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

So Kimmage is a bad guy because he writes about the biggest winners in the sport, and not about the dodgy-ness of the Iranian teams?

Yet at the same time it's perfectly acceptable for billions of bits to be used celebrating the success of the biggest winners in the sport, whilst dedicating nothing to the other winners?

Nicely stated.

 

[Benotti69]

There's a link to disincentives. Kimmage, like most other people, views doping to win a major event as a far worse moral action than doping to win a minor event or to place midpack.

Wrong. You have not read his book then. He left the sport than rather dope to be midpack.

But the act of cheating is the same in both cases. It's true that the payoffs are different, but I don't know if we treat the act of robbery that much differently morally depending on the loot the robber gets. So, why is it so much more morally blameworthy to cheat to win the Tour than to come in 65th? If we think the temptation to cheat to win is greater, then the asymmetry in blame could be the result of norm enforcement mechanisms by which we increase the cost of cheating in terms of social sanctions (moral blame). If you know you're going to be strongly sanctioned morally for cheating, then it provides a disincentive. It's a strategic move. These are informal sanctions, such as social scorn. The effectiveness of these sanctions depends on a person's sensitivity to social sanctioning (we know there's a lot of individual variability in this - we've actually measured it in a part of the brain called the insula). We could test for these differences among riders to get a sense of whether they provide strong disincentives, etc. We could also design more salient social sanctions. My guess is that Wiggins would test as strongly sensitive to these (whereas Armstrong wouldn't).

Again wrong about Kimmage. He has made it clear on lots of occasions he views all doping as cheating whether to win or survive. This is plainly evident in his book if you have read it. Kimmage rarely writes about cycling these days and when he does it is to take to task the biggest cheaters.

Why are you not moaning at CN for not going after Di Gregorio and investigating his doping? Midpack fodder Di Gregorio doping to keep his job?

But you are here to obfuscate the thread and nothing more.

 

[Franklin]

Your argument fails if you expand your sample to include riders that do not have the natural talent to be pro riders.

Pro's are the best amateurs who more than likely were among the best juniors etc. Now even if for arguments sake I'll go with "Amateurs dope as much as pro's", even you will realize that the younger sporters are, the less likely for dope they are.

Now you will see a big correlation between youth performance and eventual pro-contracts

The reason for this is simple;
A non-talented junior is less inclined to put in the training hours.
A non-talented junior won't get the coaching
A non-talented Amateur simply has to work/go to school to put in the training hours. Those who make the gamble are top of the pack.
A non-talented amateur won't get a place in the squad to ride the important international classics (where he shows his metal)

That pro sport is biased from junior level has been shown in a different test wherein the point was made that pro's usually get born in the first three months of a year.

- At a young age they are older than those born later in the same year. yet usually the cohorts are calender year based.
- This translates in an advantage in growth (strength/speed).
- Hence they get singled out by the coach and get extra training.

From this we can assume that most pro's are indeed the most talented/hard working cyclists from the start of their career (the novice/junior years).

 

[Franklin]

Why do we focus on the winners as the most likely dopers?

Your derailment of the Sky threads finally boiled down to : "but the others do it too!"* It's the playground defense and as such not relevant at all.


* As 99% of the threads here deal on a different subject than Sky/Wiggins, knock yourself out. Admitted Lance takes up 50% of the board, but nobody stops you creating threads about other teams if they don't exist yet.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There's a link to disincentives. Kimmage, like most other people, views doping to win a major event as a far worse moral action than doping to win a minor event or to place midpack. But the act of cheating is the same in both cases. It's true that the payoffs are different, but I don't know if we treat the act of robbery that much differently morally depending on the loot the robber gets. So, why is it so much more morally blameworthy to cheat to win the Tour than to come in 65th? If we think the temptation to cheat to win is greater, then the asymmetry in blame could be the result of norm enforcement mechanisms by which we increase the cost of cheating in terms of social sanctions (moral blame). If you know you're going to be strongly sanctioned morally for cheating, then it provides a disincentive. It's a strategic move. These are informal sanctions, such as social scorn. The effectiveness of these sanctions depends on a person's sensitivity to social sanctioning (we know there's a lot of individual variability in this - we've actually measured it in a part of the brain called the insula). We could test for these differences among riders to get a sense of whether they provide strong disincentives, etc. We could also design more salient social sanctions. My guess is that Wiggins would test as strongly sensitive to these (whereas Armstrong wouldn't).

If you spend more time questioning Kimmages motives for questioning Sky (& then getting them wrong) I can see why you struggle to understand what would be a disincentive to dope.

To help you out - the answer will always be firstly bassed on the likelihood of getting caught, there are few negative consequences if you don't get caught.

 

[Franklin]

To help you out - the answer will always be firstly bassed on the likelihood of getting caught, there are few negative consequences if you don't get caught.

And may I add that in general the enabler doesn't face negative consequences at all.

Coni nailed Ferrari after the list of testimonies, evidence and implications was higher than the peak of Everest. And this was after his standing of doping doctor was at least ten year in the public domain. And even if the rare instance of judicial rulings happen.... Fuentes still works in sport. Saiz works in sport etc. etc. etc.

The only ones who can stop this are the UCI and the teams.

 

[WillemS]

etc. etc.

The only ones who can stop this are the UCI and the teams.

Well, now, there you've got a gigantic example of a hard to crack prisoner's dilemma.


On topic:

The sky-case is a hard case. Like pointed out, there is one major problem and that is lack of evidence. Even with someone in your staff previously implicated in dirty business, you can still run a clean team. There might even be legitimate reasons to employ someone with expert knowledge in doping masking and/or making sure that doping tests come back negative. In other branches, it is not uncommon for the once criminal to start selling his knowledge of the business in a legitimate way: think of the hackers working for security companies and burglars installing and designing anti-theft systems.

Would I bet one something like this happening? Hiring a known doping expert for legitimate reasons, like keeping a team clean while being able to spot and repair individual riders going outside the team? No, I don't. However, that doesn't mean it is not plausible or that it has never happened. Clearly, it is not enough to convict team sky based on this alone.

So, should we? And why? There is no evidence.

 

[Benotti69]

Well, now, there you've got a gigantic example of a hard to crack prisoner's dilemma.


On topic:

The sky-case is a hard case. Like pointed out, there is one major problem and that is lack of evidence. Even with someone in your staff previously implicated in dirty business, you can still run a clean team. There might even be legitimate reasons to employ someone with expert knowledge in doping masking and/or making sure that doping tests come back negative. In other branches, it is not uncommon for the once criminal to start selling his knowledge of the business in a legitimate way: think of the hackers working for security companies and burglars installing and designing anti-theft systems.

Would I bet one something like this happening? Hiring a known doping expert for legitimate reasons, like keeping a team clean while being able to spot and repair individual riders going outside the team? No, I don't. However, that doesn't mean it is not plausible or that it has never happened. Clearly, it is not enough to convict team sky based on this alone.

So, should we? And why? There is no evidence.

Again with the demand of no evidence! What do you call Leinders?

It is hardly like Leinders did a Bjarne Riis, admitted his doping past and says he is sorry but everything is different now!

This guy was forced to leave Rabobank due to his programs for the riders and now is at Sky. What has changed for Leinders is simply the team!

 

[sniper]

Again with the demand of no evidence! What do you call Leinders?

It is hardly like Leinders did a Bjarne Riis, admitted his doping past and says he is sorry but everything is different now!

This guy was forced to leave Rabobank due to his programs for the riders and now is at Sky. What has changed for Leinders is simply the team!

this i'm not fully sure. i read somewhere -- and if true, it's even more telling of Leinders' real intentions -- he voluntarily left because he was unwilling to accept the new zero-tolerance policy Rabo stipulated in the post-Chicken era.
As we now know, Leinders then voluntarily switched to another "zero-tolerance" team. What are the odds!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, now, there you've got a gigantic example of a hard to crack prisoner's dilemma.


On topic:

The sky-case is a hard case. Like pointed out, there is one major problem and that is lack of evidence. Even with someone in your staff previously implicated in dirty business, you can still run a clean team. There might even be legitimate reasons to employ someone with expert knowledge in doping masking and/or making sure that doping tests come back negative. In other branches, it is not uncommon for the once criminal to start selling his knowledge of the business in a legitimate way: think of the hackers working for security companies and burglars installing and designing anti-theft systems.

Would I bet one something like this happening? Hiring a known doping expert for legitimate reasons, like keeping a team clean while being able to spot and repair individual riders going outside the team? No, I don't. However, that doesn't mean it is not plausible or that it has never happened. Clearly, it is not enough to convict team sky based on this alone.

So, should we? And why? There is no evidence.

You can take off your black gown and put away the wig - this is not a Court, no charges have been filled.

This is however a forum - where things are discussed and debated.
And just to assist you - the dodgy Doctor count is up to two - which begs the question why would a clean team replace 2 well respected Doctors for 2 questionable ones and why has BWs attitude changed.

 

[D-Queued]

Dave,

Tell me, with respect to doping in the pros, beyond the 'tested positive' pool of cheaters, what questions do you or I have absolutely certain answer for?

We ALL have strong opinions in here Dave not sure where you're going with that ... oh ya, facts. What facts would you like?

Facts:

Positive test
Admission
Personally tells me they doped
Personally observed them doping
A trusted party (teammate, etc.) tells me they doped

Opinion:

Strange performances

Ok?

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

this i'm not fully sure. i read somewhere -- and if true, it's even more telling of Leinders' real intentions -- he voluntarily left because he was unwilling to accept the new zero-tolerance policy Rabo stipulated in the post-Chicken era.
As we now know, Leinders then voluntarily switched to another "zero-tolerance" team. What are the odds!

Well he 'voluntarily' left with a full brown paper bag, which is what happens in order to get rid of someone in a dirty business.

 

[mastersracer]

If you spend more time questioning Kimmages motives for questioning Sky (& then getting them wrong) I can see why you struggle to understand what would be a disincentive to dope.

To help you out - the answer will always be firstly bassed on the likelihood of getting caught, there are few negative consequences if you don't get caught.

This is untrue. People typically do not commit crimes or break social rules even when the likelihood of getting caught is very low or zero. Legal theorists have shown that society would quickly fall apart if law/norm compliance depended on the disincentive of strategic calculations of the probability of getting caught. Read Posner, Law and Social Norms, Bicchieri, The Grammar of Society. Not paying attention to the nature of informal social norms in cycling is a barrier to effective practices. The most effective anti-doping practice would be to change the informal norms among riders.

E.g., from Posner, Law & Social Norms:

"The positive branch of law and economics assumes that the individual goes about satisfying his preferences, subject to a budget constraint, but unaffected by the attitudes of others. Preferences may be egoistic or altruistic or both, but nothing, other than the state, prevents individuals from preying on each other when it serves their interests. A person will steal, or drive carelessly, or murder, or lie, unless the state erects a deterrent in the form of laws against theft, negligence, murder, and fraud. This description of the world is partly true, but mostly false. Most people refrain most of the time from antisocial behavior even when the law is absent or has no force. They conform to social norms. The question left unanswered by law and economics is why people conform to social norms." p.4

 

[Ferminal]

Doping in cycling is a social norm.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is untrue. People typically do not commit crimes or break social rules even when the likelihood of getting caught is very low or zero. Legal theorists have shown that society would quickly fall apart if law/norm compliance depended on the disincentive of strategic calculations of the probability of getting caught. Read Posner, Law and Social Norms, Bicchieri, The Grammar of Society. Not paying attention to the nature of informal social norms in cycling is a barrier to effective practices. The most effective anti-doping practice would be to change the informal norms among riders.

E.g., from Posner, Law & Social Norms:

"The positive branch of law and economics assumes that the individual goes about satisfying his preferences, subject to a budget constraint, but unaffected by the attitudes of others. Preferences may be egoistic or altruistic or both, but nothing, other than the state, prevents individuals from preying on each other when it serves their interests. A person will steal, or drive carelessly, or murder, or lie, unless the state erects a deterrent in the form of laws against theft, negligence, murder, and fraud. This description of the world is partly true, but mostly false. Most people refrain most of the time from antisocial behavior even when the law is absent or has no force. They conform to social norms. The question left unanswered by law and economics is why people conform to social norms." p.4

Where your Law & Order lesson falls down is that you lump people in to a social norm.

Remember we are talking about Pro cycling here (Mr Wiggins et al) - one could argue that most people do not make it to Pro level because they do not cheat.
Indeed history has shown us that the Pro level is populated with those who cheat and in particular Tour winners, so again why would Wiggins be the exception to that rule?