Image: Joe Zeff Design, Inc.
In Brief
- An alarming number of sports—baseball, football, track and field, and especially cycling—have been shaken by doping scandals in recent years.
- Among the many banned drugs in the cycling pharmacopoeia, the most effective is recombinant erythropoietin (r-EPO), an artificial hormone that stimulates the production of red blood cells, thereby delivering more oxygen to the muscles.
- 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.
- The game theory analysis of cycling can readily be extended to other sports. The results show quantitatively how governing bodies and antidoping agencies can most effectively target efforts to clean up their sports.
More In This Article
For a competitive cyclist, there is nothing more physically crushing and psychologically demoralizing than getting dropped by your competitors on a climb. With searing lungs and burning legs, your body hunches over the handlebars as you struggle to stay with the leader. You know all too well that once you come off the back of the pack the drive to push harder is gone—and with it any hope for victory.
I know the feeling because it happened to me in 1985 on the long climb out of Albuquerque during the 3,000-mile, nonstop transcontinental Race Across America. On the outskirts of town I had caught up with the second-place rider (and eventual winner), Jonathan Boyer, a svelte road racer who was the first American to compete in the Tour de France. About halfway up the leg-breaking climb, that familiar wave of crushing fatigue swept through my legs as I gulped for oxygen in my struggle to hang on.
This article was originally published with the title The Doping Dilemma.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentEPO is a naturally occuring hormone released from the kidneys and stimulates the bone to release white and red blood cells. The fact that EPO is naturally occuring is why it makes it nearly impossible to know if someone is using an exogenous source. Rather, hematocrit and hemoglobin are measured to determine if there is an abnormal amount of red blood cells - but elevated Hct and Hb levelas can be masked as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso - the current theory on muscle fatigue has nothing to do with oxygen and is related to Ca++. Furthermore, oxygen has nothing to do with why a cyclists legs feel like they are burning.
The concept of game theory has been around since the 60s and is nothing new.
--
Edited by inkedprof at 03/17/2008 1:36 PM
I feel congress had better spend their time and our money in getting our troops out of Iraq. There is no moral issue as critically bad as using our integrity as a nation to interfere with another nation's government if it is not a proven threat to our people at home in our nation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer does not discuss sanctioned drug use in sport. Many athletes receive medical exemptions which allow them to treat conditions like asthma. But this process is abused, such that healthy people can improve their lung function legally. This is happening in swimming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I suspect Lance Armstrong must have medical exemptions to use testosterone as therapy for his cancer. The other riders of his generation just have to lump it.
There are reasonably good tests that distinguish rEPO from endogenous EPO. It is the claim to fame for the Chateney-Malabry laboratory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHematocrit etc. are indirect markers, and not conclusive of anything but a need to be suspicious.
-dB http://trustbut.blogspot.com
Drugs aka doping is an element on a continuium. Morals has essentially nothing to do with what is happening. Drugs, genetic engineering, breeding, performance enhancing surgery, they are all simply tools. The "rules" are political constructs. There is NO pure form of any sport. Drug press is just another form of free advertising, so someone gets sacrificed... It's just business. Rules are there to be manipulated. I've always been in favor of horse racing wherein the bet sheet handicapped the vets, there would be an astonishing display of truthfulness. All sports reward exceptional performance, both monitarily and socially. Therefore, the prisoners dilemma is most likely going to be powerless to shape events. Power and fame will trump rules in my experience. If purity is desirable eliminate the money and fame. The subject may be a nice academic forum for presentation of the prisoners dilemma, but the subject itself smacks of political correctness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe graph showing improvements in speed over the years is misleading. If all the years are plotted (not averages for some years and actual numbers for others), one can see that there is an improvement over the years, but also that there have been large drops in the past. Specifically, there are seven other drops in average speed larger than the 2005-2006 drop. Doesn't this undermine the writers' thesis?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you ever notice there's not "doping dilemma" in the world of kayaking or bird-watching despite these sports being extremely popular? Why is that? Well, obviously because of the money aspect but also because of the celebrity aspect, our craving for scandal, and the focus the electronic media puts on it. I'm personlly offended when our elected officials spend our tax money investigating what they claim is a "national sport" and players our youth supposedly idolize, but we all can see it's a blatant effort to share the spotlight and hob nob with zillionaires and presumably compensate for something profoundly lacking in the lives of those who would be our role models. As for steroids, I think they're fine for professionals and if the lawmakers would keep their goofey ideas and bankrupt ethics to themselves and stop foisting them upon us as a matter of "morality" we'd be better off AND professional athletes would make a nice testbed for biotechnology's latest research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorld classs sports are about finding the limits of human performance. If you can make it to the starting line, you should be eligible to compete. No more ridiculous accusations, probes, investigations, The playing field is then level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA couple of previous posters have alluded to the idea that the reason athletes want to dope is because of the incredibly high value we place on athletic performance. Too bad the best teacher in the country doesn't make what the poorest MLB player makes. I'd love to see an application of game theory to that issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen we value sports performance and entertainment above all else (just look at players' and actors salaries), we wind up seeing our values reflected in a distorted, hyperbolic way.
It is bad for athletes, (EPO has caused multiple heart failure deaths, early testosterone shuts down growth by hardening bones) it screws up the sport.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBody building is the most extreme case of doping in sport. They are all doing it now so much they are dying at 35.
But, I cannot see anything gained by making a federal case out of it. We have much bigger fish to fry.
Soon there will be gene doping. Then what?
--
Edited by John_Toradze at 04/01/2008 10:44 AM
That is quite an interesting claim you make, John.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCare to enlighten us which professional Body Builders have died at age 30 or below? Or how the sports' latest serial Champion, Ronnie Coleman, won the highest honor of "Mr. Olympia" 8 times in a row while being... erm... 43 the last time he won?
Fact of the matter is: Most body builders don't even reach their best conditioning until they ARE 35 or older. And no matter how much they shoot up - apparently they are not suffering from too many ill effects, hmm? (Some noteable exceptions, such as the late Andreas Münzer from Austria, don't invalidate that rule).
Sooo... maybe androgenic and anabolic drugs are not as bad as their reputation? Look it up, the science is out there!
- Blackpriester
Michael Shermer should be more skeptical about the foundations of contemporary economics. Homo Oeconomicus has been disproved by dozens (or hundreds) of experiments (c.f., Kahneman). Indeed, evolution scientists tell us that Homo Oeconomicus
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscould NOT have evolved (c.f., Platek). A Nash equilibrium does not exist except in the minds of economists!
As a person whose interest in sports approaches zero, I look on with amusement when yet another athlete drug scandal (professional and recreational) story makes the rounds. It also seems to me that if all of the drug use was out in the open then everything would be much easier. Pharmaceutical companies could go in for team sponsorship and then the athletes would be living advertisements for their products in the same way the shoe manufacturers operate. Then also it would be a matter of team ethics to use the sponsor's product and so drug use could be monitored and regulated more easily. We would of course have to keep those mechanically enhanced humans out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real problem for cycling in particular, is that of the public *perception* of the sport as being seriously degraded and 'un-sporting'. Therefore, the public begin to loose interest, commercial interests pull out, prize money drops, sponsorship deals dry up... and *all* the competitors loose out long term.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a shame none of the doping competitors can see beyond their own trophy cabinet to the future of their own sport.
The isssue of doping impacts us all more than you think. As a former MMA fighter and I have personal knowledge of several police officers and military personnel, whom I trained with, who were using steroids on a regular basis. How about that for scary? What happens when your coworker, or a fellow student starts using drugs such as Adderall and Provigil, to increase their cognitive abilities and performs twice as well as you? When your favorite ball player falls dead on the field when you take your family to a game. This problem is larger than just a few elite athletes. Rather than criticizing the idea of combating doping using game theory, we should be proposing ideas to combat this plague and coming up with the doping scenarios of the future, so that we can have strategies in place to combat them before they start.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by newobsolesence at 04/04/2008 2:29 PM
--
Edited by newobsolesence at 04/04/2008 2:30 PM
Before answering the question of how to discourage doping, maybe we should ask, "Why discourage it?" Most of us use performance-enhancers (e.g. coffee) and drugs (caffeine). What makes their use in sports different? Are we trying to protect athletes from harm? Then the question becomes, is doping dangerous? Clearly, some level of it is, but all substances are harmful if misused, even water. Where is the clinical (as opposed to anecdotal) evidence that the use of anabolic steroids or Human Growth Hormone or other substances with similar effects cause irreversible harm? If they do not, why ban their use?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarcel Daguerre writes: Where is the clinical (as opposed to anecdotal) evidence that the use of anabolic steroids or Human Growth Hormone or other substances with similar effects cause irreversible harm?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry the Mayo Clinic. www.mayoclinic.com
But listen to the anecdotes too. Qualitative research is the baby that should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
Doping in its current and past forms is an incredibly bad idea. The world is violent enough as it is. We don't want adolescent boys taking testosterone.
Just look at what Vaughters says: the pro cyclists would be very relieved to stop doping.
At Skillzy's suggestion, I visited mayoclinic.com to find the results of clinical studies on the side effects of performance enhancing drugs. I found the usual list - nothing new and nothing clinical. What the web site does not note is that these side effects disappear when one stops using. No permanent harm is reported. There may also be some misunderstanding regarding my position. I nowhere suggest that teens should be allowed to use performance enhancers, just as I do not recommend teens use any other regulated drugs without medical supervision. But it's curious that the argument against steroid use focuses on "the children" when no one makes the same argument regarding alcohol and nicotine, two drugs that will do far more damage to the nation's kids than steroids ever will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell done and very well written , from someone who knows the story, RAAM is the ultimate endurance event in USA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe doping problem in baseball should be handled solely by the baseball commissioner. Drugs ARE bad and using them to personally advance in sports is unethical. But this is a sports issue, not be a legal one. Besides being blatently unconstitutional, the "drug war" is also impractical, unwinnable and hyprocritical (last time I checked, alcohol, nicotine and caffeine are ALSO drugs).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose it is not surprising that with the topic of drugs in sports being so politicised that most are against the use of performance enhancers. I would expect more from Scientific American. Being of such a high calibre I would expect a more original and fair approach to the issue. If doping is regarded as cheating because of the unfair advantage that it gives the user over the non user, what should be made of the advantage that a genetically gifted athlete has over an average one? The genetic gifts that one pocesses are far more unattainable to the non gifted than drugs are to the non user. The other issue worth discussing is the notion that these drugs should be banned because of the health risks. I recently watched an episode of Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, and according to the reseach they did, there is no peer reviewed evidence so support the notion that steriods taken by adult men has been conclusively connected to any long term health risks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo use coming up with "miracle solutions", there will always be doping in sports, and maybe that is the way it should be. I think each athlete should decide what to take or what not to take and if other athletes are "clean", if there is such a thing in spots, then tough, they should have taken something, be in a better team or have had a better medical adviser.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing I do know, as a spectator, the guys that pay for their million dollar contracts, is that I refuse to see the performance in sports go down to the performances of the 60's or the 70's. I don't care how they do it, I just want them to do it. If they don't it will be like last year's Tour de France, I won't watch, nobody will watch and, above all, nobody will even know the name of the winner.
Let them dope. Split the competitions up into categories that account for doping. It's done with other performance activities. Auto racing is divided based on vehicle modifications. Why not do the same with humans? Simply have enhanced and non-enhanced categories. It is going to happen no matter how illegal, unethical or dangerous it is. There is simply too much money and prestige at stake for human nature to fully ignore - the draw is just too powerful. So, why not just go with it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat's is the name of the cyclist who tells this story?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat's the name of the cyclist telling this story?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorld Sports Law Report is holding its 2nd annual Tackling Doping in Sport conference in London on 24 February 2010. The event will examine all new developments in anti-doping, including the use of intelligence in the fight against doping; the use of biological passport programmes; the operation of illicit (recreational) drug programmes alongside the World Anti-Doping Code; the 'Whereabouts' requirements for athletes; blood doping in sport, and more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorld Sports Law Report is presenting a line-up of world-class speakers at this 2nd annual event including; Travis Tygart, CEO, US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), Pat McQuaid, President, International Cycling Union (UCI), Andy Parkinson, Chief Executive, UK Anti-Doping, Fran�oise Dagouret, Manager of Doping-Free Sport Unit, SportAccord/GAISF, Mike Earl, Doping Control Programme Manager, The FA, Iain Higgins, Company Lawyer, International Cricket Council (ICC), Ian Smith, Legal Director, Professional Cricketer's Association (PCA), Simon Bowden, Anti-Doping Officer, Rugby Football Union (RFU)and many more.
For more information, please contact erika.joyce@e-comlaw.com, or visit http://www.e-comlaw.com/tacklingdopingsport/
But you know what it costs us each year, the fight against doping?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://sportagel.blogspot.com/2011/04/quanto-costa-la-lotta-al-doping.html
An absurd figure, then do not fix it!
Before anyone starts blaming money or fame for the doping 'crisis' check out books such as "Blood Sports' Robin Parisotto, 'Positive" Werner Reiterer and Speed Trap by Charlie Francis - cyclists having been using caffeine and strychnine suppositories and dying from them since the end of the 19 century!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't care if anyone is doping in sports or not. Drugs are one of many things that enhance performance. Athleticism is never "pure".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is no longer about competition between athletes but competition between chemists to make the best cocktails of drugs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI no longer watch professional sports for this reason.
The issue of doping is far more complex than this article can go into but I found it informative.