In article <[email hidden]>,
Jason Spaceman said:From the article:
Quoted message said:* Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional
cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as
difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high;
and as more riders use them, a “clean” rider may become so
noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team.
Quoted message said:Read it at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma
cynical rbr summary:
1) game theory
2) ???????
3) clean racing!
Less cynical summary:
Of "Neck" Shermer's five recommendations for creating clean racing, 1 is
honorable, 2 and 3 are essentially wishful thinking (as in, "maybe this
will work!"😉 for a problem that needs a little less wishful thinking,
and 4 utterly depends on "the system of arbitration and appeals [being]
fair and trusted," which merely sounds impossible.
Recommendation 5 not only sounds workable, it sounds exactly like the
Chung Solution from sometime last year.
Of course, it depends on actually being able to detect doping, at least
occassionally. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to depend on 4, despite what
Shermer thinks, because the collective-punishment solution already
imposes the substantial penalty needed to discourage doping.
Unless, of course, the entire team decides to do it together in an
organized fashion.
--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."