Doping in High-Performance Sport—The Economic Perspective

Chapter

Abstract

Doping is a ubiquitous phenomenon in every type of sport. However, some cases appear particularly spectacular. In this article, we show that the elite sports framework provides strong incentives to use doping substances. These incentives are greatest for sports with precisely measurable results and they are weakest in the case of team sports. Although it is hard to justify a legal ban of doping methods, it makes sense for the organizer to hinder athletes who are using doping methods to take part in the contest. To fight against doping, a wide range of measures is available. A penalty-carrying ban based on the negative list comes closest to the objective; however, it also offers strong incentives to evade the negative list, in other words in favour of doping innovation. One way out of this dilemma is presented by the accompanying innovation bonus, which rewards the registration of doping innovations. The possibility of liberalizing doping for adult athletes should also not be totally ruled out: liberalization would presumably lead to across-the-board doping in elite sport, but not necessarily to higher health risks for athletes, since it would also permit better supervision and supply.

References

  1. Adams, C. P., & Brantner, V. V. (2006). Estimating the Cost of New Drug Development: Is It Really $802 Million? Health Affairs, 25, 420–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Author Unknown. (2017). The Championships, Wimbledon Prize Money per Programme, in http://www.wimbledon.com/pdf/prize_money_2017.pdf. Retrieved on May 21, 2017.
  3. Becker, G. (1976). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berentsen, A. (2002). The Economics of Doping. European Journal of Political Economy, 18(1), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bette, K.-H., & Schimank, U. (2006). Doping im Hochleistungssport: Anpassung durch Abweichung (2nd ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  6. Bird, E. J., & Wagner, G. (1997). Sports as a Common Property Resource. A Solution to the Dilemmas of Doping. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 749–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breivik, G. (1987). The Doping Dilemma—Some Game Theoretical and Philosophical Considerations. Sportwissenschaft, 17, 83–94.Google Scholar
  8. Brunner, K., & Meckling, W. H. (1977). The Perception of Man and the Conception of Government. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 9, 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crémer, J. (1986). Cooperation in Ongoing Organizations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daumann, F. (2003a). Staatlicher Handlungsbedarf bei Doping im Hochleistungssport? ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 54, 243–268.Google Scholar
  11. Daumann, F. (2003b). Doping im Hochleistungssport aus sportökonomischer Sicht. Sportwissenschaft, 33, 174–190.Google Scholar
  12. Daumann, F. (2003c). Doping im Hochleistungssport—Ursachen und Interventionsinstrumente aus ökonomischer Sicht. Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, 54, 214–230.Google Scholar
  13. Daumann, F. (2010). Die drei Grundprobleme des Dopingphänomens: Plädoyer für eine Liberalisierung des Dopings. In R. S. Kähler & S. Schröder (Eds.), Sportökonomie 11: Ökonomische Perspektiven von Sport und Gesundheit (pp. 229–250), Schorndorf: Hofmann.Google Scholar
  14. Daumann, F. (2011). Doping in Elite Sport from the Economic Perspective. In E. Emrich & E. Pitsch (Eds.), Sport and Doping. The Analysis of an Antagonistic Symbiosis (pp. 55–70). Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  15. Daumann, F. (2013). Die Ökonomie des Dopings. 2., neubearbeitete. Auflage. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
  16. Daumann, F., Wunderlich A., & Römmelt, B. (2015). Doping: Never-Ending story? Never-Ending Glory! Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1024233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dilger, A., & Tolsdorf, F. (2004). Doping als Wettkampfphänomen. In H.-D. Horch, J. Heydel, & A. Sierau (Eds.), Events im Sport—Marketing, Management, Finanzierung (pp. 269–280). Cologne: Institut für Sportökonomie und Sportmanagement.Google Scholar
  18. DiMasi, J. A. (2014). Cost of Developing a New Drug. http://csdd.tufts.edu/files/uploads/Tufts_CSDD_briefing_on_RD_cost_study_-_Nov_18,_2014..pdf. Retrieved on 21.05.2017.
  19. Eber, N. (2009). The Performance-Enhancing Drug Game Reconsidered. A Fair Play Approach. Journal of Sports Economics, 9, 318–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eber, N. (2012). Doping and Anti-Doping Measures. In W. Maennig & A. Zimbalist (Eds.), International Handbook on the Economics of Mega Sport Events (pp. 194–207). Nothampton: Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  21. Frenger, M., Pitsch, W., & Emrich, E. (2016). Sport-Induced Substance Use. An Empirical Study to the Extent Within a German Sports Association. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0165103.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Friedman, J. (1971). A Non Cooperative Equilibrium for Supergames. Review of Economic Studies, 38, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goetsch, A., & Salzmann, C. (2017). The Role of Ex Post Audits in Doping Enforcement. Journal of Sports Economics, 18, 1–17.Google Scholar
  24. Green, E., & Porter, R. (1984). Non Cooperative Collusion Under Imperfect Price Information. Econometrica, 52, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grupe, O. (1989). Doping und Leistungsmanipulation—Zehn Gründe für konsequente Kontrollen. Olympisches Feuer, 10–13.Google Scholar
  26. Grupe, O. (2002). Doping und Leistungsmanipulation aus sportethischer Sicht. In H. Digel & H.-H. Dickhut (Eds.), Tübingen: Doping im Sport. 58–76.Google Scholar
  27. Hoberman, J. (1992). Mortal Engines: The Science of Performance and the Dehumanization of Sport. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  28. Huybers, T., & Mazanow, J. (2012). What Would Kim Do: A Choice Study of Projected Athlete Doping Considerations. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 322–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keck, O., & Wagner, G. (1990). Asymmetrische Information als Ursache von Doping im Hochleistungssport. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19, 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirstein, R. (2014). Doping, the Inspection Game, and Bayesian Enforcement. Journal of Sports Economics, 15, 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lenk, H. (1999). Über die gesellschaftlichen Werte des Sports. Olympisches Feuer, Nr., 3(1999), 9–13.Google Scholar
  32. Maennig, W. (2002). On the Economics of Doping and Corruption in International Sports. Journal of Sports Economics, 3, 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olson, M., Jr. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pitsch, W., Emrich, E., & Klein, M. (2005). Zur Häufigkeit des Dopings im Leistungssport: Ergebnisse eines www-surveys. Leipziger Sportwissenschaftliche Beiträge, 46(2), 63–77.Google Scholar
  35. Pitsch, W., Emrich, E., & Klein, M. (2007). Doping in Elite Sports in Germany: Results of a www-survey. European Journal for Sport and Society, 4(2), 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pitsch, W., Maats, P., & Emrich, E. (2011). The Frequency of Doping in Elite Sport—A Replication Study. In E. Emrich & E. Pitsch (Eds.), Sport and Doping. The Analysis of an Antagonistic Symbiosis (pp. 17–33), Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  37. Robert Koch Institut (Ed.). (2006). Doping beim Freizeit- und Breitensport. Berlin.Google Scholar
  38. Rosen, S. (1983). The Economics of Superstars. The American Scholar, 52, 449–460.Google Scholar
  39. Ryvkin, D. (2013). Contests with Doping. Journal of Sports Economics, 14, 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Solberg, H. A., Hanstad, D. V., & Thoring, T. A. (2010). Doping in Elite Sport—Do the Fans Care? Public Opinion on the Consequences of Doping Scandals. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 11(3), 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tietzel, M., & Müller, C. (1999). The Peculiar Economics of Doping (Diskussionsbeiträge des Fachbereichs Wirtschaftswissenschaft der Gerhard-Mercator-Universität Gesamthochschule Duisburg, No. 266). Duisburg.Google Scholar
  42. Tietzel, M., & Müller, C. (2000). Wege aus dem Doping-Dilemma. Eine ökonomische Analyse. Homo oeconomicus, XVI(3), 277–286.Google Scholar
  43. WADA. (2017). 2015 Anti-Doping Testing Figures. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/laboratories/anti-doping-testing-figures. Retrieved on May 21, 2017.
  44. Wagner, G. (1994). Wie können die Doping-Zwickmühlen überwunden werden? In K.-H. Bette (Ed.), Doping im Leistungssport – sozialwissenschaftlich beobachtet (pp. 101–130). Stuttgart: Naglschmid.Google Scholar
  45. Wagner, G., & Keck, O. (1990). Ein Weg aus der Doping-Zwickmühle – Stellungnahme zum Beitrag „The Doping Dilemma“ von Gunnar Breivik. Sportwissenschaft, 20, 439–446.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations