We analyze the impact of doping regulations on the doping decisions of athletes in a Tullock contest. We show that stricter anti-doping regulations may increase the profits of doped athletes, which makes doping more sustainable in the long run. Under certain conditions, a naturally more able athlete may receive a lower payoff than his naturally less able competitor, reversing the natural payoff order. We consider the case of different anti-doping agencies and show that harmonization of doping regulations may increase the doping intensity. We point out incentive problems that may arise in the case of strategic interaction between anti-doping agencies.
AndrewsJ. (1998). Superhuman heroes: Does the end justify the means. Economist, Survey: The World of Sport, 4, 10–14.
2.
BaudouinC.SzymanskiS. (2016). Testing the testers: Do more tests deter athletes from doping?International Journal of Sport Finance, 11, 349.
3.
BerentsenA. (2002). The economics of doping. European Journal of Political Economy, 18, 109–127.
4.
BirdE.WagnerG. (1997). Sport as a common property resource. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 749–766.
5.
BuechelB.EmrichE.PohlkampS. (2016). Nobody’s innocent the role of customers in the doping dilemma. Journal of Sports Economics, 17, 767–789.
6.
CisykJ.CourtyJ. (2017). Do fans care about compliance to doping regulations in sports? The impact of PED suspension in baseball. Journal of Sports Economics, 18, 323–350.
7.
EberN. (2008). The performance-enhancing drug game reconsidered—A fair play approach. Journal of Sports Economics, 9, 318–327.
8.
EberN.ThepotJ. (1999). Doping in sport and competition. Louvain Economic Review, 65, 435–446.
9.
ElaadG.KrumerA.KantorJ. (2018). Corruption and sensitive soccer games: Cross-country evidence. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 34, 364–394.
10.
FismanR.MiguelE. (2007). Corruption, norms, and legal enforcement: Evidence from diplomatic parking tickets. Journal of Political Economy, 115, 1020–1048.
11.
GächterS.SchulzJ. F. (2016). Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies. Nature, 531, 496–499.
12.
GilpatricS. M. (2011). Cheating in contests. Economic Inquiry, 49, 1042–1053.
13.
GoetschA.SalzmannC. (2018). The role of ex post audits in doping enforcement. Journal of Sports Economics, 19, 960–976.
14.
GoetschA.SalzmannC. (2019). The impact of contest dynamics on ex post doping audits. Journal of Sports Economics, 20, 411–427.
15.
HaugenK. (2004). The performance-enhancing drug game. Journal of Sports Economics, 5, 67–86.
16.
HirschmannD. (2017). May increasing doping sanctions discourage entry to the competition?Journal of Sports Economics, 18, 720–736.
17.
KraekelM. (2007). Doping and cheating in contest-like situations. European Journal of Political Economy, 23, 988–1006.
18.
KrumerA.ShavitT.RosenboimM. (2011). Why do professional athletes have different time preferences than non-athletes?Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 542–551.
19.
MohanV.HazariB. (2016). Cheating in contests: Anti-doping regulatory problems in sport. Journal of Sports Economics, 17, 736–747.
20.
PrestonI.SzymanskiS. (2003). Cheating in contests. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19, 612–624.
21.
WiesingU. (2011). Should performance-enhancing drugs in sport be legalized under medical supervision?Sports Medicine, 41, 167–176.
