PEDs serve as a good example of game theory’s prisoners’ dilemma.
If just one player took PEDs, it would give that player an advantage on the field. PEDs “work” only if few players use them.
However, if everybody took the PEDs, nobody would have an advantage; on the field, everybody would have about the same statistics as they would have if nobody took PEDs.
Better nutrition, of course, provides a similar advantage to everybody. However, there is a significant difference between better nutrition and PED use: PED use has terrible long-term effects on the human body.
Therefore, if all players were to use PEDs, there would be no improvement in overall on-field performance, while the athletes would fare very badly off the field.
We don’t want this to happen, so it makes sense to ban PEDs.
PEDs serve as a good example of game theory’s prisoners’ dilemma.
If just one player took PEDs, it would give that player an advantage on the field. PEDs “work” only if few players use them.
However, if everybody took the PEDs, nobody would have an advantage; on the field, everybody would have about the same statistics as they would have if nobody took PEDs.
Better nutrition, of course, provides a similar advantage to everybody. However, there is a significant difference between better nutrition and PED use: PED use has terrible long-term effects on the human body.
Therefore, if all players were to use PEDs, there would be no improvement in overall on-field performance, while the athletes would fare very badly off the field.
We don’t want this to happen, so it makes sense to ban PEDs.