Gaming Baseball: Why Players Dope

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Editors note: This story is part of a Feature "The Doping Dilemma" from the April 2008 issue of Scientific American.

A game theory model of doping in cycling applies to other sports as well, particularly baseball. For expert insight, I spoke with Lance Williams, an investigative reporter with the San Francisco Chronicle and co-author (with Mark Fainaru-Wada) of Game of Shadows, a revelatory book about how BALCO, the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, supplied baseball players and other athletes with performance-enhancing drugs. When I outlined my ideas about how game theory explains massive cheating in sports, Williams backed up virtually every point: “Athletes have a huge incentive to dope. There are tremendous benefits to using the drugs, and there is only a small chance that you will get caught. So depending on your sport and where you are in your career, the risk is often worth it. If you make the team, you’ll be a millionaire; if you don’t, you’ll probably go back to driving a delivery truck.”

Once the top competitors in a sport begin cheating, the rule breaking cascades down through the ranks until an entire sport is corrupted. In Williams’s estimation, based on wide-ranging reporting and numerous interviews with athletes, coaches, trainers, drug dealers and drug testers, between 50 and 80 percent of all professional baseball players and track-and-field athletes have been doping. Given that reality, Williams explained, for many athletes not only is doping not cheating, it is necessary. To illustrate his point, Williams cited Charlie “the Chemist” Francis, coach of the sprinter and (briefly) the 1988 Olympic gold medalist in the 100-meter run, Ben Johnson, who was busted for doping and stripped of his medals. The doping was “completely self-defensive,” Francis told Williams. “It was cheat or lose.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


How can leagues and governing bodies change the incentives in the game matrix for baseball? Williams suggested stronger penalties against both individual athletes and entire teams, along with stiffer legal sanctions. Ironically, Williams and Fainaru-Wada personally felt legal heat for refusing to reveal their sources to federal authorities: “We stood to serve more time behind bars [both faced 18-month sentences] than any of the steroid dealers convicted in the BALCO conspiracy and any of the athletes we reported on, including [longtime San Francisco Giants slugger] Barry Bonds.” You know a system is corrupt when the messenger is shot and the gun makers walk.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe