Doping, or the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs, is an epidemic problem in sports ranging from the Olympics to high school athletics. This article presents a theoretical model of doping use in a contest environment. The authors show that, under fairly general conditions, the minimal frequency of random testing to prevent doping use increases in the number of contestants. The presence of even a small penalty, in addition to expulsion from the contest, makes random testing more effective, especially in large contests. For a given testing frequency, the minimal penalty to prevent doping can be nonmonotonic in the number of contestants.
AndrewsJ. (1998, June 4). Superhuman heroes: Does the end justify the means?Economist, Survey: The World of Sport, 10–4.
2.
BajariP.HortacsuA. (2003). Winner’s curse, reserve prices and endogenous entry: Empirical insights from eBay auctions. RAND Journal of Economics, 3, 329–355.
3.
BerentsenA. (2002). The economics of doping. European Journal of Political Economy, 18, 109–127.
4.
BirdJ.WagnerB. (1997). Sport as a common property resource: A solution to the dilemmas of doping. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 749–766.
5.
BreivikG. (1992). Doping games: A game-theoretical exploration of doping. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 27, 235–253.
6.
CarpenterJ.MatthewsP.SchirmJ. (2010). Tournaments and office politics: evidence from a real effort experiment. (Working paper). 100(1), 504–517.
7.
ChakrabortyI.KosmopoulouG. (2001). Auctions with endogenous entry. Economics Letters, 72, 195–200.
8.
CorchónL. (2007). The theory of contests: A survey. Review of Economic Design, 11, 69–100.
9.
CongletonR.HillmanA.KonradK. (Eds.). (2008). 40 Years of research on rent seeking (Vol. I and II). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
10.
CurryP.MongrainS. (2009). Deterrence in rank-order tournaments. Review of Law and Economics, 5, 723–740.
11.
DilgerA.FrickB.TolsdorfF. (2007). Are athletes doped? Some theoretical arguments and empirical evidence. Contemporary Economic Policy, 25, 604–615.
12.
EberN. (2008). The performance-enhancing drug game reconsidered: A fair play approach. Journal of Sports Economics, 9, 318–327.
13.
EberN.ThépotJ. (1999). Doping in sport and competition design. Recherches Economiques de Louvain (Louvain Economic Review), 65, 435–446.
14.
EpsteinG.HefekerC. (2003). Lobbying contests with alternative instruments. Economics of Governance, 4, 81–89.
15.
EvansM.GilpatricM.McKeeM.VosslerC. (2008). Managerial incentives for compliance with environmental disclosure programs. In CherryT.KrollS.ShogrenJ. (Eds.), Environmental economics, experimental methods. (pp. 243–260) New York, NY: Routledge.
GilpatricS. (2011). Cheating in contests. Economic Inquiry, 49, 1042–1053.
18.
HarbringC.IrlenbuschB. (2008). How many winners are good to have? On tournaments with sabotage. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65, 682–702.
19.
HaugenK. (2004). The performance-enhancing drug game. Journal of Sports Economics, 5, 67–86.
20.
HigginsR.ShughartW.II.TollisonR. (1985). Free entry and efficient rent seeking. Public Choice, 46, 247–258.
21.
Ivanova-StenzelR.SalmonT. (2008). Revenue equivalence revisited. Games and Economic Behavior, 64, 171–192.
22.
KonradK. (2000). Sabotage in rent-seeking contests. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 16, 155–165.
23.
KonradK. (2005). Tournaments and multiple productive inputs: The case of performance enhancing drugs. (IZA Discussion paper). Retrieved from ftp://repec.iza.org.
24.
KräkelM. (2007). Doping and cheating in contest-like situations. European Journal of Political Economy, 23, 988–1006.
25.
LazearE.RosenS. (1981). Rank-order tournaments as optimal labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 841–864.
26.
LevinD.SmithJ. (1994). Equilibrium in auctions with entry. American Economic Review, 84, 585–599.
27.
LockardA.TullockG. (Eds.). (2001). Efficient rent-seeking: Chronicle of an intellectual quagmire. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
28.
MaennigW. (2002). On the economics of doping and corruption in international sports. Journal of Sports Economics, 3, 61–89.
MünsterJ. (2006b). Contests with an unknown number of contestants. Public Choice, 129, 353–368.
31.
MyersonR.WärnerydK. (2006). Population uncertainty in contests. Economic Theory, 27, 469–474.
32.
PalfreyT.PevnitskayaS. (2008). Endogenous entry and self-selection in private value auctions: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 66, 731–747.
33.
PetrócziA. (2007). Attitudes and doping: A structural equation analysis of the relationship between athletes' attitudes, sport orientation and doping behavior. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention and Policy, 2, 34.
34.
PevnitskayaS. (2004). Endogenous entry in first-price private value auctions: The self-selection effect. (Working paper). Retrieved fromhttp://mailer.fsu.edu/~spevnitskaya
35.
RosenS. (1986). Prizes and incentives in elimination tournaments. American Economic Review, 76, 701–715.
36.
SchoonbeekL. (2009). Bribing potential entrants in a rent-seeking contest. Public Choice, 139, 153–158.
37.
StoweC. J.GilpatricS. (2010). Cheating and enforcement in asymmetric rank-order tournaments. Southern Economic Journal, 77, 1–14.
38.
SzymanskiS. (2003). The economic design of sporting contests: A review. Journal of Economic Literature, 41, 1137–1187.
39.
TaylorC. (1995). Digging for golden carrots: An analysis of research tournaments. American Economic Review, 85, 872–890.
40.
TullockG. (1980). Efficient rent seeking. In BuchananJ.TollisonR.TullockG. (Eds.), Toward a theory of rent seeking society (pp. 97–112). College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
