Hamilton blood test shows 'inconsistencies' - Page 2

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

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

Why even test then?

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

Red blood cells last about 60-90 days so any transfusion longer than this would not be evidenced. I don't know the science behind the new test or if it legit. If you take blood out you have to do something to preserve it, maybe the effects of preserving the blood cells cause some effect that can be measured.

__________________
Happiness is a choice that requires effort at times.