Doping u sportu

Dilema sportiste

Sportista koji uzima drogu može biti zarobljeni k drugačije igre

20. srpanj 2013 | Od tiskano izdanje

Dva sprintera možda su ih uhvatili ga radiš ovaj tjedan. I biciklist nije to učiniti, ali to je tako čest u svom sportu da je ono što je on učinio bez da ga radiš je još više začuđuje. "On" je uzimanje lijekova za poboljšanje izvedbe. Sprinterovih su TysonGay i AsafaPowell, koji su i propale droga testovi (premda obojica poriču zloporabe).Biciklist bio ChrisFroome, koji je bez pomoći lijekova uspjeli zapanjujući uspon na MontVentouxtijekomTour de France.

Profesionalni sport je prepuna droge-uzimanje. Početak uhvaćen će dobiti zabranjen, često za život. Ipak, ljudi nose na to radi bez obzira. Zašto?

Prikladno, odgovor možda leži u području matematike zove teorija igara. Ova se bavi sukobom interesa između stranaka koji znaju jedni druge preferencije, ali ne i njihove prave namjere ili odluke. To onda zaključuje najbolje tijekom akcije za bilo racionalno igrača.

Postojeći igra-teorija analize dopinga pogled na stvari ili na samo natjecatelja točaka gledišta, ili od točke gledišta oba natjecatelja i organizatora. Niti jedna od tih, međutim, stvara savršenu analizu onoga što se događa. Berno Buechel sa Sveučilišta u Hamburgu i njegovi kolege stoga su uveli i treći faktor-jednom koji omogućuje da se profesionalni sport na prvom mjestu. Ovaj čimbenik je klijent.

Najjednostavniji igra u teorije igara je "zatočenik dilema". U sportaša verziji, oba igrača će biti bolje ako se ne uzima lijekove, ali zato ne mogu vjerovati drugima, kako ih se kako bi bili sigurni da imaju šanse za pobjedu.

Predstavljamo autoritet, u ono što je poznato kao inspekcijskog igri, treba nositi s tim. Ako inspektor testira sportaša, a sportaši vjeruju inspekcijski postupak uhvatiti vara, strah od uzimajući je uhvaćen

treba ih držati na ravne i uske. Osim što nije ono što se čini da se dogodi u stvarnom svijetu. Jasno, sportaši ne mislim da će biti uhvaćeni. I dr. Buechel i njegovi kolege misle da znaju zašto.

U radnom papiru su počeli kruži među svojim vršnjacima ranije ove godine, oni sugeriraju da je prava igra koja se igra ovdje ima još jedan party u it-navijača i sponzora koji plaćaju za sve. Po njihovom mišljenju, inspektor ima nekoliko razloga štedjeti na testiranje. Jedan od njih je trošak. Drugi je poremećaj uzrokuje na već komplicirane živote sportaša.Treći, iako je strah kako će kupci reagirati ako temeljitije ispitivanje otkrilo je gotovo univerzalno varanja, koji dokazi ukazuju na to da je u nekim sportovima to bi moglo. Bolje testirati rijetko, i izlagati s vremena na vrijeme ono što je očito loše ak jabuke, nego obaviti posao temeljito i pronaći cijeli barel je razmažena i vaš sport je odjednom nestao u oluje, od diskvalifikacije.

Ovaj stav, međutim, će rezultirati upravo ishod testiranje bi trebalo izbjegavati. To bi se vratiti u dilemi zatvorenika. Svatko tko ozbiljno želi pobijediti morat će varati, čak i ako njegov nagib nije bio. U ovim okolnostima to bi se svecem ostati čista.

Kad su znanstvenici okrenuli hipotezu u matematici, činilo se da ustane.Jedini izlaz, matematike predložio, bio je za sve testove, i njihovih rezultata, kako bi se izvijestio-li negativni ili ne. To će dati kupcima pravi osjećaj kako je temeljita pretraga za doping bio, a time i koliko je raširena praksa. To bi također pomoći razbiti zarobljenikovu dilemu za sportaše.

Vlasti u bilo kojem sportu bez sumnje bi zanijekati da je dr. Buechel analiza primijeniti na njih. Oni su tvrdili da su njihovi testiranje režimi bili adekvatno-a će vjerojatno doista vjeruju ni sami. No, ljudska sposobnost za samozavaravanje je beskonačan. To tako mora biti da su pravi krivci u sportu doping nisu oni koji zapravo uzeti lijekove, ali oni koji su stvorili situaciju u kojoj samo budala ne bi.

Doping in sport

Athlete’s dilemma

Sportsmen who take drugs may be prisoners of a different game.

Jul 20th 2013 |From the printedition

TWO sprinters may have got caught doing it this week. And a cyclist didn’t do it, but it is so common in his sport that what he did do without doing it is even more astonishing. “It” is taking performance-enhancing drugs. The sprinters wereTyson Gay and AsafaPowell, who both failed drug tests (though both deny wrong doing). The cyclist was ChrisFroome, who without pharmaceutical assistance managed a stunning ascent of Mont Ventoux during the Tour de France.

Professional sport is rifewith drug-taking. Gettingcaughtwillgetyoubanned, frequently for life. Yetpeoplecarry on doingitregardless. Why?

In this section

Old soldiers?

Welcome to the plastisphere

Sensitive information

Athlete’s dilemma

Reprints

Appropriately, the answer may lie in a branch of mathematics called game theory. This deals with conflicts of interest between parties who know eachother’s preferences but not their actual intentions or decisions. It then deduces the best course of action for any rational player.

Existing game-theory analyses of doping look at things either from just the competitors’ points of view, or from the points of view of both competitors and organisers. Neither of these, though, produces a perfect analysis of what is going on. Berno Buechel of the University of Hamburg and his colleagues have therefore introduced a third factor—the one that allows sports to be professional in the first place. This factor is the customer.

The simplest game in game theory is “prisoner’sdilemma”. In the athletes’ version, both players will be better off if neither takes drugs, but because neither can trust the other, both have to take them to make sure they have a chance of winning.

Introducing anauthority figure, in what is known as aninspection game, should deal with this. If the inspector tests the athletes, and the athletes trust the inspection process to catch cheats, fear of getting caught should keep them on the straight and narrow. Except that is not what seems to happen in the real world. Clearly, athletes do not think they will get caught. And Dr Buecheland his colleagues think they know why.

In a working paper they started circulating among their peers earlier this year, they suggest that the real game being played here has yet another party in it—the fans and sponsors who pay for everything. In their view, the inspector has several reasons to skimp on testing. One is the cost. Another is the disruption it causes to the already complicated lives of the athletes. A third, though, is fear of how customers would react if more thorough testing did reveal near-universal cheating, which anecdotal evidence suggests that in some sports it might. Better to test sparingly, and expose from time to time what is apparently the odd bad apple, rather than do the job thoroughly and find the whole barrel is spoiled and your sport has suddenly vanished in a hailstorm of disqualifications.

This attitude, however, woul dresult in precisely the outcome testing is supposed to obviate. It would be back to the prisoner’s dilemma. Anyone who seriously wanted to win would have to cheat, even if his inclination was not to. In these circumstances it would take a saint to stay pure.

When the researchers turned their hypothesis in to maths, it seemed to standup. The only way out, the math ssuggested, was for all tests, and their results, to be reported—whether negative or not. That would give customers a real sense of how thorough the search for doping was, and thus how widespread the practice. It would also help break the prisoner’s dilemma for the athletes.

The authorities in any given sport would no doubt deny that Dr Buechel’s analysis applied to them. They would claim their testing regimes were adequate—and would probably truly believe it themselves. But human capacity for self-deception is infinite. It may thus be that the real guilty parties in sports doping are not those who actually take the drugs, but those who create a situation where only a fool would not.

From the print edition: Science and technology