Vegas and cycling

dennisn

No one likes a cheat? Right? No matter what the reason? Yet this has never stopped
anyone from trying to make a dollar or two, or engaging in "questionable" activities
to satisfy their desires. So, aren't we all being a bit naive in thinking that cycling, or any sport, will ever put an end to doping, etc.?
Las Vegas casinos are among the most monitored places in the world and, even still,
people think that they can "get over" on them. They catch their fair share of these people
but no one knows how many "get away" with it. So, in fact, cheating DOES pay(to a point). Years ago, if you were caught cheating a casino you would, at the very least,
have been "busted up a bit" and at worst, well....... Now days jail time is pretty much assured. Point being, none of this has stopped people from trying to scam money from
the people who have it. Sports is not much different. You cheat to get an edge and if
it works you get more money, prestige, etc.
Cycling must play it like Vegas. Work at it, catch who you can, and get on with the
games.

prawny

I wouldn't cycle in vegas though the traffic is mental! And it's too hot!

iainf72

What percentage of people who utterly take the house in Vegas through cheating would get away with it?

A tiny percentage.

What percentage in cycling who cheat to win would get caught.

A tiny percentage.

DavMartinR

I'm suprised the mafia haven't brought keirin racing to Vagas? Its a big money spinner in Japan.

Could be an openning there Dennis? You should have a word with Fat Tony.

markwalker

Ill take your epo and raise you HGH

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

What percentage of people who utterly take the house in Vegas through cheating would get away with it?

A tiny percentage.

What percentage in cycling who cheat to win would get caught.

A tiny percentage.

You say a "tiny percentage" in both cases, but, in both cases, how can you know?
No one knows how many try to cheat Vegas. Whether for a little or a lot. And probably
even less is known about how many get away with it. Cheating is such that
there is not much in the way of available statistics to review. If I cheat at cards I'm not telling anyone. You'll have to catch me and even then I would probably deny it.

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

No one knows how many try to cheat Vegas. Whether for a little or a lot. And probably
even less is known about how many get away with it. Cheating is such that
there is not much in the way of available statistics to review. If I cheat at cards I'm not telling anyone. You'll have to catch me and even then I would probably deny it.

The house knows Dennis. They're running a business. If they didn't win most of the time they'd know they're being had. Therefore, for what it's worth, gambling is a fairly "fair" business. If everyone cheated and won they'd go out of business. Therefore, cheating is minimal.

Got any other wierd arguments you'd like to share?

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

No one knows how many try to cheat Vegas. Whether for a little or a lot. And probably
even less is known about how many get away with it. Cheating is such that
there is not much in the way of available statistics to review. If I cheat at cards I'm not telling anyone. You'll have to catch me and even then I would probably deny it.

The house knows Dennis. They're running a business. If they didn't win most of the time they'd know they're being had. Therefore, for what it's worth, gambling is a fairly "fair" business. If everyone cheated and won they'd go out of business. Therefore, cheating is minimal.

Got any other wierd arguments you'd like to share?

I get what you're saying. Still, if cheating were minimal, why all the really sophisticated
surveillance? If, as you say, cheating is minimal, then the deterrent works????? So in
theory the testing in cycling will work as soon as everyone learns that the "surveillance"
is pretty damn effective. Maybe my "work at it, catch who you can, and get on with the games" is really all that can be done.
I agree, it is a weird argument but to me there seem to be some similarities. Especially
the fact that both are about people trying, and risking, just about everything to get an
edge.

iainf72

Bernie Kohl said he was tested over 200 times and should've been positive over 100 times.

Therefore, it's not effective.

Next.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

Bernie Kohl said he was tested over 200 times and should've been positive over 100 times.

Therefore, it's not effective.

Next.

I have to ask. Do you believe Bernie? Or could he be saying that to try and discredit testing for reasons that are somewhat obvious? I'm not so sure about your "ineffective".
Lately "they" seem to have "popped" more than a few people at or near the top.
What else can be done except "work at..........get on with....."?

Jez mon

Dennis, it's a fun little theory perhaps, but not much more.

It's clear one party has a clear economic incentive to prevent cheating, the casino can't really afford to leave itself open to cheating, as it would seriously impact their bottom line. The other party just doesn't have this economic incentive in the same fashion, sure, in some cases cycling has no doubt lost money because of cheating but that's only been the case in recent years. Furthermore it's not the cheating itself that causes the loss in money, but the bad press that results in it, therefore cycling just has an incentive to prevent bad press, meaning it can choose to sweep cheating under the carpet, in a way in which casinos simply can't.