Hamilton blood test shows 'inconsistencies'

Roadie_scum

I agree that there are substances that are the subject of clinical trials that would be advantageous to sports performance. I just don't think that the athletes get their drugs via these channels. It's more likely to be a backdoor route into the drug company or researcher.

Roy Gardiner

No.

It is well established that the main deterrent to crime is fear of detection, not fear of punishment.

Steal $10, punishment $11 fine, detection 100% = no crime.

It's dope detection that's lacking - no shyte, Sherlock!

__________________
Roy Gardiner, Hainault Roads Club

run_and_ride

Well, we will never know in this instance until someone gets a lifetime ban and then we will see how the others react.

No one disagrees that better detection is a must, Sherlock.

But real punishments must go with it and not these little slaps on the wrist,

Roy Gardiner

This is not opinion, it is established criminology over a wide variety of offences. We don't need to test it in the cycling world. And indeed there have been life bans, World Masters sprint champion Gary Edwards, for instance.

So for what reason other than deterrence, which does not work, do we need 'real' punishments?

__________________
Roy Gardiner, Hainault Roads Club

run_and_ride

So what are you saying, Sherlock? That there should be no punishment, because punishment is not a deterrant?

Why even test then?

Roy Gardiner

Don't be sarcastic, I haven't been to you.

No. That going from 1 year to 2 year to life ban will not reduce doping, because it is established that punishment beyond simply making the crime unprofitable does not significantly deter, as I've said in my earlier posts.

So, again, why do we need 'real' punishments?

__________________
Roy Gardiner, Hainault Roads Club

run_and_ride

My apologies. You started the "Sherlock" thing. I thought you were being sarcastic with that. My apologies if I misintrepreted.

Okay, I can somewhat see your point. So, how about "real" bans to protect the integrity of the sport and to send a clear message to those that are not doping that they are the real sportsman (if there are any of them really left).

Roadie_scum

Wouldn't the calculus be - chance of detection X profit + (small increment) = effective punishment?

So if there is a low chance of detection you need a high punishment to effectively deter people? But this would have ethical issues attached... using the person caught to achieve a greater goal rather than punishing them specifically for their actions.

meb

I think your general layout of the equation is right, but small increment fails to factor in that 1) there is a misperception on the chance of being caught; 2 a gamble at otherwise unattainable super-success needs a substantial cost deterence to get one to settle for moderate success.

Roy Gardiner

As I understand it, it simply does not work that way. If there's a reasonable chance of gettting away with it, the criminal simply does not consider what happens if they are caught, hence punishment is no real deterrent.Which IMO is why pro riders consider themselves victims, however bizarre that may look to us. Very few are caught, those that are get heavy punishment, the soigneurs and managers who pushed them into it get nothing. Again, as the chances of being caught get lower, the punishment loses relevance.

Which is why I say that we must concentrate on detection and the other people involved in the scandal, not concentrate on hammering riders.

OK no offence taken, and I think I owe you an apology, too; I meant the phrase one way, but you didn't see it the same. Lesson: I should use plainer language, not try for 'smart', in the future. Will do.

__________________
Roy Gardiner, Hainault Roads Club

Roadie_scum

Too true. Assuming rational analysis, or the possibility of full knowledge, is where many economic theories break down. I'm interested to see Roy says empirical evidence shows it breaks down here too.