- Mar 10, 2009
- 7,268
- 1
- 0
rhubroma said:... .
Great insight!
It sounds like a classic prisoner's dillemma (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma for explanation of the orginal problem), whereby two prisoner's, in this case cyclists, are facing some difficult choices, when they feel they are being played out against each other, either by a DS or 'the system'. The actual rational choice is to not dope (and stay healthy), but the contextually generated (suboptimal) rational choice is to dope.
If you don't dope, and the other one doesn't, both ride clean, create a clean peloton, fight each other with the same engines and make a living off doing exactly that. Optimal choice, for both.
If one dopes, and the other doesn't, someone will not be able perform at the 'highest level' and won't be able reap the rewards of his efforts/talent. Optimal choice fo one, because he eliminates competition, and gets a good contract.
Since both doubt the other will stay clean, in the light of getting signed and becoming a relatively well paid cyclist, both will decide to dope to achieve their goal and get that contract. Suboptimal choice, but very rational in these circumstances. It's suboptimal, because in a way they bite the hand that feeds them (cycling as a sport) by cheating the fans and detrimentally affect their health, while both still get a contract.
Perhaps that's also where the solution lies. Finding a way out of the strangle hold of a prisoner's dilemma?