does exposure of russia's state-run doping show freemarket doping (western) is better?

Please, what do you mean by better?

Less likely to be caught? Minimal risk/reward ratio?

Better is as Better does wrote:

Please, what do you mean by better?

Less likely to be caught? Minimal risk/reward ratio?

Less likely to be caught would probably be the biggest reason. It would be hard to track down hundreds of different private doctors and clinics all at once as opposed to just target one centralized group. Also if athletes are caught, they can either say they put their trust in the wrong people, or admit to doping on their own, without the consent of the country they represent. This way, the state doesn't get in trouble. USA truly has the best doping system in the world, the whole cat and mouse game is a great show.

The advantages of the state-run system are to streamline everything, and get rid of inefficiencies. By having the Smartest Minds run the doping program for all (not just their exclusive clients), no athlete would be left behind.

USA truly has the best doping system in the world, the whole cat and mouse game is a great show.

Let's say you're a kid from the ghetto (USA), with great potential, but your coach doesn't know the right PED providers? Leaving things up to the free-market is just a lottery, while if the state runs the show, they can detect talent at an early age (prodigy) through standardised testing, and redirect resources as necessary. So the cream rises faster to the top.

what do i know ? wrote:

so we saw that russia got caught, and received a political punishment.

but doesnt that just mean the top down (statist) solution is wrong?

in a freemarket solution, no single target could bring down the whole system.

failure at one chokepoint is not possible, because other means still exist.

to spell it out, just because balco was caught, doesnt mean others cant go on.

this more level playing field, you are not dependent on apparatchiks for PEDs.

can this principle be applied more generally, not just to doping?

Yes. With the current set of rules sure.

Under a different set of rules state sponsored would be superior.

(See East Germany)

Evry advntage hasa disadvntag wrote:

The advantages of the state-run system are to streamline everything, and get rid of inefficiencies. By having the Smartest Minds run the doping program for all (not just their exclusive clients), no athlete would be left behind.

USA truly has the best doping system in the world, the whole cat and mouse game is a great show.

Let's say you're a kid from the ghetto (USA), with great potential, but your coach doesn't know the right PED providers? Leaving things up to the free-market is just a lottery, while if the state runs the show, they can detect talent at an early age (prodigy) through standardised testing, and redirect resources as necessary. So the cream rises faster to the top.

That depends on whether or not you believe doping begins as early in high school. People will be surprised how many small school football/track coachs have steroid connections and plenty of recreational gym rats who will never compete in a bodybuilding show know a lot about proper drug usage. Then you have high school kids like Norman and Lyles among others who come from schools with great programs, so what does that mean? They're not just getting great training, but also good PEDs.

Blood dEPOr wrote:

Yes. With the current set of rules sure.

but doesn't that just mean whoever writes the 'rules' is in charge?

so could athletics (IOC) be seen as a surrogate continuation of the cold war?

fighting to see how to control the system, with the CAS to 'vote' as a construct.

People will be surprised how many small school football/track coachs have steroid connections and plenty of recreational gym rats who will never compete in a bodybuilding show know a lot about proper drug usage.

But that's my point. These coaches know something about PEDs, but they're not the best minds on it. Now imagine instead that you had a system in place that matches the best athletes (potential) with the best PED minds? Would that not be more efficient than so-called "free-market" forces, when many athletes might not be able to afford them, either by money alone or by not having good connections (cronyism).

Another advantage is that the (state-paid) investigators are on the same page as everyone else. Only those who go against Fearless Leader will be prosecuted.

what could i know ? wrote:

Blood dEPOr wrote:

Yes. With the current set of rules sure.

but doesn't that just mean whoever writes the 'rules' is in charge?

so could athletics (IOC) be seen as a surrogate continuation of the cold war?

Pretty much

Top level PEDs > average PEDs wrote:

People will be surprised how many small school football/track coachs have steroid connections and plenty of recreational gym rats who will never compete in a bodybuilding show know a lot about proper drug usage.

But that's my point. These coaches know something about PEDs, but they're not the best minds on it. Now imagine instead that you had a system in place that matches the best athletes (potential) with the best PED minds? Would that not be more efficient than so-called "free-market" forces, when many athletes might not be able to afford them, either by money alone or by not having good connections (cronyism).

That would not.

what do i know ? wrote:

so we saw that russia got caught, and received a political punishment.

but doesnt that just mean the top down (statist) solution is wrong?

in a freemarket solution, no single target could bring down the whole system.

failure at one chokepoint is not possible, because other means still exist.

to spell it out, just because balco was caught, doesnt mean others cant go on.

this more level playing field, you are not dependent on apparatchiks for PEDs.

can this principle be applied more generally, not just to doping?

So you have 3 questions

1. Is the free-market system better- Yes USA. Jamaica etc.-Although one could argue talent is the factor for better results. Then you could argue the state run system is better because without their athletes would be horrible and the state system made them some what competitive, against the non state athletes.

2.top down solution wrong. I think yes.Easier to get caught and probably documents

3. Yes. Economics.

can this principle be applied more generally, not just to doping?

Applying it to organized crime, we find that having many mafia-like groups is better than the state running the whole shakedown/protection rackets itself. Unless it's like the Mafia Wars of early 80s Sicily.