Hamilton blood test shows 'inconsistencies'



Roy Gardiner

New Member
Sep 15, 2003
119
0
0
run_and_ride said:
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?
 

run_and_ride

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
47
0
0
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).


Roy Gardiner said:
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?
 

Roadie_scum

New Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,288
0
0
Roy Gardiner said:
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!


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

New Member
Aug 21, 2003
1,219
0
36
Roadie_scum said:
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.
 

Roy Gardiner

New Member
Sep 15, 2003
119
0
0
Roadie_scum said:
So if there is a low chance of detection you need a high punishment to effectively deter people?
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.
But this would have ethical issues attached... using the person caught to achieve a greater goal rather than punishing them specifically for their actions.
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.
meb said:
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.
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.

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

Roadie_scum

New Member
Nov 14, 2003
1,288
0
0
meb said:
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.

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.
 

donhix1

New Member
Nov 28, 2003
314
0
0
61
hawkes said:
Saw someone on another posting said he is blaming surgery he had earlier in the year. Having had surgery about two years ago after an accident and having to receive a blood transfusion could this be a cause? and I don't remeber him having a surgery and not all surgery requires a blood transfusion.

On the other post I asked this same question how does the new test (in use at this year's TDF and since then) show that recycled your own blood (espiacially if the blood you take out is not enhanced but merely stored and put back in)?

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.
 

Similar threads