Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[Square-pedaller]

No you're wrong. Imagine that the range in clean performance is 80-100 performance units, and that the range of doping levels gives a performance boost of 10-20 units depending on how much you dope.

Now, those who start out at 80 end up at 90-100. Those who start out at 90 wnd up at 100-110. Those who start out at 100 end up at 110-120.

Anybody with a performance of 120 has to have been doping the largest amount. Anybody with a peformance of 90 has to have been doping the minimum amount. In between the average level of doping increases from the minimum (at post-PED performance of 90) to maximum (at post-PED performance of 120).

Or pin it down to actual numbers:

Imagine there are three levels of talent (poor, medium, good), which have clean performances of 1, 2 or 3.
Then imagine that there are three levels of doping, which give boosts in performance of 1, 2 or 3 performance units.

Now we have 9 riders, 3 of each talent level.
At each level, 1 rider dopes at each of the three levels, so mean and variance in doping level is the same at each level of talent.

The poor riders have performances of 2(doped 1 unit), 3(2) and 4(3)
The medium riders have performances of 3(doped 1 unit), 4(2) and 5(3)
The good riders have performances of 4(doped 1 unit), 5(2) and 6(3)

Now let's look at post-doping performance:
In performance level 2, there's one rider who doped 1 unit -> average doping level = 1.0
In performance level 3, there's 2 riders who doped 2 (the poor rider) and 1 (the medium rider) unit -> average doping level = 1.5
In performance level 4, we have 3 riders who doped 3, 2 and 1 units -> average doping level = 2.0
In performance level 5, we have 2 riders who doped 2 and 3 units -> average doping level = 2.5
In performance level 6, we have 1 rider who doped 3 units -> average doping level = 3.0

So: the mean and variance in doping level is the same for all talent levels, but after doping the average doping level increases with performance: the winners will have doped more on average than the losers.

 

[armchairclimber]

Or pin it down to actual numbers:

Imagine there are three levels of talent (poor, medium, good), which have clean performances of 1, 2 or 3.
Then imagine that there are three levels of doping, which give boosts in performance of 1, 2 or 3 performance units.

Now we have 9 riders, 3 of each talent level.
At each level, 1 rider dopes at each of the three levels, so mean and variance in doping level is the same at each level of talent.

The poor riders have performances of 2(doped 1 unit), 3(2) and 4(3)
The medium riders have performances of 3(doped 1 unit), 4(2) and 5(3)
The good riders have performances of 4(doped 1 unit), 5(2) and 6(3)

Now let's look at post-doping performance:
In performance level 2, there's one rider who doped 1 unit -> average doping level = 1.0
In performance level 3, there's 2 riders who doped 2 (the poor rider) and 1 (the medium rider) unit -> average doping level = 1.5
In performance level 4, we have 3 riders who doped 3, 2 and 1 units -> average doping level = 2.0
In performance level 5, we have 2 riders who doped 2 and 3 units -> average doping level = 2.5
In performance level 6, we have 1 rider who doped 3 units -> average doping level = 3.0

So: the mean and variance in doping level is the same for all talent levels, but after doping the average doping level increases with performance: the winners will have doped more on average than the losers.

There's a lot of "imagining" going on there isn't there.

 

[Square-pedaller]

short answer: you are assuming talent is normally distributed. I didn't make this assumption (because I don't think it's a good one for this sample).

By chance, the example I was typing as you posted shows that it is irrelevant whether the distribution is normal.

The distribution of talent can be any shape you want, if the performance boost is related to the doping level, and doping level has the same shape distribution (any shape you want) at each talent level, the average doping level will be positively correlated with post-doping performance.

 

[Square-pedaller]

There's a lot of "imagining" going on there isn't there.

Yes, but they're just specific examples of the assumptions that Cerberus made.

The example shows that what Cerberus claimed is true:
1) even if the mean and variance of doping level is the same at all levels of talent, and
2) the argument doesn't require a normal distribution of talent.

If my maths notation was better, I could probably provide a general proof.

The example might just help mastersracer to understand why, what s/he obviously finds countertuitive, is nevertheless true.

 

[mastersracer]

No you're wrong.

Say there's a normal distribution of talent, and that without PEDs performance (and hence success) is perfectly correlated with talent. Now take half of the riders drawn uniformly uniormly from the talent distriibution and give them PEDs. If we assume that PEDs increase their performance by some fixed amount, that will displace half the performace distribution by that amount to the right. Now if you look at the numbers of clean and doping riders at any point along the performance distribution, the ratio of clean to doping will be high if you choose a low performance, and gradually decrease as the performance level you choose increases - which is what Cerberus claimed.

I was rushing out the door earlier and did not have a chance to respond re what I meant re distribution. I'll start with the above argument here, since it is the only one that actually overlaps with my original statement about the distribution of doping among pro racers. Your claim is a result of an artifact of the way you've chosen to populate your distribution (that is, a selection bias). Obviously, if you start with a sample in which the lowest talented segment has the minimum talent required to be a pro rider and then take half the riders and move them right, post-PED talent will shift right and doping will be clustered among more talented riders. However, that begs the question because you are making an assumption about the distribution of talent that is exactly what is brought into question by the empirical distribution - namely that all pro riders have the minimum natural talent to be pro riders (more generally, you've hand picked your sample to take advantage of the rightward shift by locating it exactly where it would depopulate the lowest segment).

Your argument fails if you expand your sample to include riders that do not have the natural talent to be pro riders. With this broader distribution, pre-PED riders would fall below the sample you considered, but would be shifted into it post-PED. The result would be a ~uniform distribution in the post-PED sample. You can argue re whether this is a realistic assumption. Certainly the prevalence of poor-performing positives suggests that many riders do in fact dope simply in order to become professional, the incentive structure exists, doping protocols are easy and not expensive, etc.

Your arguments about levels of doping, response, etc. are equivalent to spherical cows. That is, there are simply too many obviously false assumptions to make them credible. Besides, it was not my argument - I was simply arguing about the rate of doping across the peloton according to performance/talent.

 

[Square-pedaller]

Your argument fails if you expand your sample to include riders that do not have the natural talent to be pro riders. With this broader distribution, pre-PED riders would fall below the sample you considered, but would be shifted into it post-PED. The result would be a ~uniform distribution in the post-PED sample. You can argue re whether this is a realistic assumption. Certainly the prevalence of poor-performing positives suggests that many riders do in fact dope simply in order to become professional, the incentive structure exists, doping protocols are easy and not expensive, etc.

You're trying to move the goal post again. I'm only talking about your claim that Cerberus was wrong. You're wrong about that.
You're also wrong about what happens if there is some threshold level of performance to become elite, if riders of all talent levels dope with the same mean and variance in doping level. It's like taking the example I gave in #253 and saying that only riders with a performance of 4 or more make it as elite riders. There's still a positive correlation between performance and doping level.

Your arguments about levels of doping, response, etc. are equivalent to spherical cows. That is, there are simply too many obviously false assumptions to make them credible. Besides, it was not my argument - I was simply arguing about the rate of doping across the peloton according to performance/talent.

No, this is what you said:

This is demonstrably false. The distribution I indicated is an empirical one and disconfirms this view. If there is a distribution of talent, and if riders along that distribution have access to PEDs, then the effect is simply to shift the entire distribution, not a riders place along that distribution.

in reply to this:

Originally Posted by Cerberus
Nope, it's consistent with the view that doping use is independent of pre-doping result. If however one makes the radical assumption that performance enhancing drugs actually enhance performance that naturally lead to the conclusion that if PED use is uncorrelated with pre-PED result, PED use will be correlated with post-PED results. In fact logic dictates that every performance boosting factor (talent, training hard, low risk of injury, racing smart, PEDs and even dumb luck) is found more commonly in the top tier, because the people who have the most or best combination of those factors will by definition win.

And what I'm saying is that you are wrong in saying that Cerberus is wrong. It's you that's trying to change the subject.

Anyway, it's time I was in bed. See you tomorrow.

 

[TubularBills]

I found the article particularly compelling in its construction of the timeline and the evolution or devolution of BW's soundbites.

+ the particular quote he chose to reflect the current statements within this retrospective is brilliant.

Nowhere in this quote does BW confirm or deny any position, its just pure spin ala LA:

‘I do believe the sport is changing,’ he wrote. ‘As that change has happened, my performances have gone up, and at the same time I’ve begun to work far harder than I did before.

‘I’m not claiming the sport is out of the woods but doping in the sport is less of a worry to me personally, it’s less at the forefront of my mind, because I’m no longer getting beaten by people who then go on and test positive or whatever (that's what happens when you place first.). If there is a difference in my attitude now to back then, it’s that I’m more focused on what I am doing, I pay less attention to what’s going on outside my bubble because I’m not coming second to riders who dope.’

Kimmage included this because he is making fun of BW, using his own words... brilliant.

In it he reveals the pinnacle of BW's ego and arrogance, it's about me and I win. Full stop.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-drug-demons--Paul-Kimmage.html#ixzz21lir3bRy

 

[Benotti69]

I found the article particularly compelling in its construction of the timeline and the evolution or devolution of BW's soundbites.

+ the particular quote he chose to reflect the current statements within this retrospective is brilliant.

Nowhere in this quote does BW confirm or deny any position, its just pure spin ala LA:

‘I do believe the sport is changing,’ he wrote. ‘As that change has happened, my performances have gone up, and at the same time I’ve begun to work far harder than I did before.

‘I’m not claiming the sport is out of the woods but doping in the sport is less of a worry to me personally, it’s less at the forefront of my mind, because I’m no longer getting beaten by people who then go on and test positive or whatever (that's what happens when you place first.). If there is a difference in my attitude now to back then, it’s that I’m more focused on what I am doing, I pay less attention to what’s going on outside my bubble because I’m not coming second to riders who dope.’

Kimmage included this because he is making fun of BW, using his own words... brilliant.

In it he reveals the pinnacle of BW's ego and arrogance, it's about me and I win. Full stop.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-drug-demons--Paul-Kimmage.html#ixzz21lir3bRy

I agree and have said so. It is a fantastically crafted article. I bet every time Wiggins reads it he gets angrier and i bet he has read it a few times. That article really got under his and Team Sky's skin.

BW's next book will be interesting to compare to the ego trips of Armstrong's pulp fiction.

 

[TubularBills]

I agree and have said so. It is a fantastically crafted article. I bet every time Wiggins reads it he gets angrier and i bet he has read it a few times. That article really got under his and Team Sky's skin.

BW's next book will be interesting to compare to the ego trips of Armstrong's pulp fiction.

Hey 69 - must have missed your post. But it is the only conclusion isn't it? As I read through the discussion over the last week and realized that most people were taking it literally - I couldn't resist.

Kimmage having a bit of fun, glad it's rankling the SKY camp - can't wait for more from him... next up foiling the SKY Olympic Campaign - I hope he found a way inside the secret recovery camp!

 

[AngusW]

history is not on your side. Taken from here

<snip>

1965 Felice Gimondi Never tested positive

<snip>

that list makes me sad 8(

Gimondi did test positive twice, at the 1968 Giro and the 1975 Tour.

 

[Kender]

Gimondi did test positive twice, at the 1968 Giro and the 1975 Tour.

as i said i got that from the link i posted. but that's one more in the list.

doesn't really paint a rosy picture of cycling unfortunately

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

To mastersracer et al:

Doping is not something that has uniform results across any sample.

"Talent" in any sport is something that may not be quantifiable for a number of years, if at all.

To assume uniform results from doping based on an assumed sample that doesn't take into account the manifold variables that make up an athlete-sample is rough-shod in the extreme.

I'm not sure what you're up to, but it sounds more and more like a doping apologist...

Mind you, I'm guessing you're actually a Masters racer...

 

[mastersracer]

To mastersracer et al:

Doping is not something that has uniform results across any sample.

"Talent" in any sport is something that may not be quantifiable for a number of years, if at all.

To assume uniform results from doping based on an assumed sample that doesn't take into account the manifold variables that make up an athlete-sample is rough-shod in the extreme.

I'm not sure what you're up to, but it sounds more and more like a doping apologist...

Mind you, I'm guessing you're actually a Masters racer...

well, you could ask me what I'm up to instead of making insinuations. As I've stated elsewhere, I'm a cognitive neuroscientist with an interest in decision-making. We use game-theoretic models in some of our experiments, which has raised my interest in them to model the problem of doping in sports (e.g., Berentsen, The Economics of Doping). My motivation is based on the notion that if we better understand the issue of doping in terms of its structure as a decision problem, the structure of incentives, etc., this might recommend more effective anti-doping policies.

Kimmage's article raises an important issue (albeit indirectly). Why do we focus on the winners as the most likely dopers? Is it because (as some of the responses here) we believe only dopers are capable of winning (this is what squareP's examples suggest), and what is the rate or incidence of doping across the peloton? Doping positives suggest that many riders of low rank dope, so obviously the lure of winning is not the only incentive. Knowing more about the distribution of doping (incidence rate) across the peloton would provide a broader understanding of the structure of incentives.

 

[Ferminal]

Who focuses on winners as themost likely dopers? If you took the high performers of every UCI race then I agree, there probably wouldn't be a stronger proportion of dopers in that group than across the entire sample of participants. The Grand Tours and Monuments on the other hand...

We are simply talking about the winners because it's a far more interesting topic than talking about the likelihood of systematic doping at Champion Systems. Although if anyone has information they'd like to share on random ****ty teams I'm sure we would all like to read and further our knowledge.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

well, you could ask me what I'm up to instead of making insinuations. As I've stated elsewhere, I'm a cognitive neuroscientist with an interest in decision-making. We use game-theoretic models in some of our experiments, which has raised my interest in them to model the problem of doping in sports (e.g., Berentsen, The Economics of Doping). My motivation is based on the notion that if we better understand the issue of doping in terms of its structure as a decision problem, the structure of incentives, etc., this might recommend more effective anti-doping policies.

Kimmage's article raises an important issue (albeit indirectly). Why do we focus on the winners as the most likely dopers? Is it because (as some of the responses here) we believe only dopers are capable of winning (this is what squareP's examples suggest), and what is the rate or incidence of doping across the peloton? Doping positives suggest that many riders of low rank dope, so obviously the lure of winning is not the only incentive. Knowing more about the distribution of doping (incidence rate) across the peloton would provide a broader understanding of the structure of incentives.

I apologize for the broad strokes.

You're obviously interested in the problem of doping in top-echelon sport, and that's great.

From my experience, you're going to find a larger sample of "survival dopers" in the middle of the field. The top guys are going to be the top guys. There is a whole population of riders that want to be able to make it professionally who are on the bubble. They will do what they have to.

It beats the shoe factory in Lithuania (no offense to Lithuania).

By equating doping to a leveling of the field, really misses a key point of the discussion.

And it's also a soft acceptance of doping being acceptable. Not so.

Doping should not be acceptable because it's cheating, and it utterly negates what the nature of sport is resting upon - They with the greatest gifts win, and allow humanity to revel in that awesomeness.

Totally romantic? Yes. But Idealism has its place. That place should be sport, that's the only place left....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

well, you could ask me what I'm up to instead of making insinuations. As I've stated elsewhere, I'm a cognitive neuroscientist with an interest in decision-making. We use game-theoretic models in some of our experiments, which has raised my interest in them to model the problem of doping in sports (e.g., Berentsen, The Economics of Doping). My motivation is based on the notion that if we better understand the issue of doping in terms of its structure as a decision problem, the structure of incentives, etc., this might recommend more effective anti-doping policies.

Kimmage's article raises an important issue (albeit indirectly). Why do we focus on the winners as the most likely dopers? Is it because (as some of the responses here) we believe only dopers are capable of winning (this is what squareP's examples suggest), and what is the rate or incidence of doping across the peloton? Doping positives suggest that many riders of low rank dope, so obviously the lure of winning is not the only incentive. Knowing more about the distribution of doping (incidence rate) across the peloton would provide a broader understanding of the structure of incentives.

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?

 

[Neworld]

You sure you want to go there? It is off topic. (nod, nod, wink, wink.)

Dave.

Dave, did I miss the memo about you being the CN 'off topic ombudsman"? I take it from your winking and nodding that you're just joking, cool.

Threads have momentary 'off topic' slants...um every day. Did you miss the earlier posts from Noddy and D Avoid and their trist over 3 pages about alcoholism and sanity? That was off topic.

 

[Neworld]

it was a joke - I grew up in Canada (racing against the fenwick flyer).

Ahh, cool. I bet you can beat the Fenwick flyer now. (probably not) Never give up man.

As for Kimmage, I applaud him.

Yes, he is raising questions and doubt about SKY, but he does with all riders and teams that display either untrustworthiness or performances consistent with outright doping. And, he's usually right.

If you (sky) don't like his questions then prove him wrong. That massive quiet sound surrounding the SKY bus only amplifies the suspicion.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Dave, did I miss the memo about you being the CN 'off topic ombudsman"? I take it from your winking and nodding that you're just joking, cool.

Threads have momentary 'off topic' slants...um every day. Did you miss the earlier posts from Noddy and D Avoid and their trish over 3 pages about alcoholism and sanity? That was off topic.

I agree. And also dedicate my self to being on-topic only as much as necessary, while being off-topic as much as physically possible...

That all rests on how long it takes for Susan to put her foot up my @ss, of course...

 

[Neworld]

I agree. And also dedicate my self to being on-topic only as much as necessary, while being off-topic as much as physically possible...

That all rests on how long it takes for Susan to put her foot up my @ss, of course...

LMAO...I will stop after this.

Susan has stomped on me like a defiant ant a couple of times before too: "Susan the Steadfast Shoe" ...just joking Susan, you do a great job.

Ok, I'm done.

 

[thehog]

I agree and have said so. It is a fantastically crafted article. I bet every time Wiggins reads it he gets angrier and i bet he has read it a few times. That article really got under his and Team Sky's skin.

BW's next book will be interesting to compare to the ego trips of Armstrong's pulp fiction.

Cyclists and Wiggins included always associate the term "hard work" when they enter a real program. I think that's what jusifies it. They believe they're working harder and not doping to cut corners.

 

[D-Queued]

Dave, did I miss the memo about you being the CN 'off topic ombudsman"? I take it from your winking and nodding that you're just joking, cool.

Threads have momentary 'off topic' slants...um every day. Did you miss the earlier posts from Noddy and D Avoid and their trist over 3 pages about alcoholism and sanity? That was off topic.

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.

 

[BroDeal]

Cyclists and Wiggins included always associate the term "hard work" when they enter a real program. I think that's what jusifies it. They believe they're working harder and not doping to cut corners.

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.

 

[Runitout]

Cyclists and Wiggins included always associate the term "hard work" when they enter a real program. I think that's what jusifies it. They believe they're working harder and not doping to cut corners.

When you dope, you can train harder. That's half the point.

Instead of overtraining, and possibly suffering from chronic fatigue or simply underperformance, doped athletes can continue to put out the miles, day after day after day. HGH and testosterone (and other steroids) are wonderful for giving an athlete the ability to recover and therefore increase their training load.

I have spoken to professional athletes who believe that their training programs were devised for doped athletes, and still suffer from the effects of trying to replciate that training load when undoped.

It's one reason why I think that doped athletes think that they are getting their results through working harder than everyone else. To an extent they are right...

 

[Runitout]

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.

Great minds, etc etc.