performance enhancing drugs.

[jtfanclub]

What's the point in taking drugs anyway? If it's allowed and if everyone does it, there won't be much difference...

What if some of the drugs are harmful? Suppose crystal meth was found to have considerable benefits...do you really want to spend a weekend with a couple hundred crank addicts in a small space? Do you really want to be one of those crank addicts?

[mike777]

What's the point in taking drugs anyway?  If it's allowed and if everyone does it, there won't be much difference...

What if some of the drugs are harmful? Suppose crystal meth was found to have considerable benefits...do you really want to spend a weekend with a couple hundred crank addicts in a small space? Do you really want to be one of those crank addicts?

All drugs can be harmful. In fact living can be harmful.

 

If the rule is a chemical may do harm ban it, then ban everything.

If the rule is a chemical does "too much harm" then that is an argument for better, more effective chemicals.

Bridge and baseball should fight for safer chemicals and not be worried and putting all their energy into banning or testing for unsafe ones.

[mike777]

Wow 18 people would not take a safe chemical to improve their memory or concentration.

 

I wonder if they would ban eyeglasses if that made their vision better than 20/20 of if a compound made their heart and lungs stronger/cleaner than an 18 years old.

[nick_s]

Well there's "safe" and there's "safe". The FDA is not exactly batting 1000.

[hrothgar]

Wow 18 people would not take a safe chemical to improve their memory or concentration.

 

I wonder if they would ban eyeglasses if that made their vision better than 20/20 of if a compound made their heart and lungs stronger/cleaner than an 18 years old.

One phrase comes to mind: "Fen Phen".

 

I'll note in passing that said compound was brought to market by Wyeth - a leading pharma company.

 

I suspect that this entire discussion boils down to a symantic debate over the definition of "safe". Case in point: I don't think many people would argue in favor of banning eyeglasses because its hard to imagine situations where wearing eyeglasses would have a significant negative impact on my health. In the real world you can't say the same thing about drugs, surgical techniques, what have you. Case in point: I have two friends whose night vision got seriously screwed up because they had Lasik surgery.

 

Me, I tend to be a late adopter. Yes, I miss out on some wonderful stuff, but I've never been fond of the high risks and high price tags associated with the bleeding edge.

[mike777]

Well there's "safe" and there's "safe".  The FDA is not exactly batting 1000.

Yes, life is dangerous. You may die.

 

I just hope you do not ban it for all of us. You can have your choice options.

Lasik is a great example, it gives you better than 20/20 vision for many and for others makes them blind. Should bridge/baseball ban it or other things that are "safe" for memory or concentration or helps you improve how you run or throw? It seems this is just the nanny state run amok.

Nanny says you can have this surgery or drug to help your performance but you cannot have this other one.

 

If the FDA said a memory or concentration compound was safe and effective and your doc recommended to you I would be surprised if 60% of the bridge population said no thanks as reflected in the poll.

[hrothgar]

Well there's "safe" and there's "safe".  The FDA is not exactly batting 1000.

Yes, life is dangerous. You may die.

 

I just hope you do not ban it for all of us. You can have your choice options.

Lasik is a great example, it gives you better than 20/20 vision for many and for others makes them blind. Should bridge/baseball ban it or other things that are "safe" for memory or concentration or helps you improve how you run or throw? It seems this is just the nanny state run amok.

Nanny says you can have this surgery or drug to help your performance but you cannot have this other one.

Mike: Three simple questions

 

1. Do you know what the expression "Prisoner's dilemma" refers to?

 

2. Do you understand why performance enhancing drug might qualify as prisoner's dilemma?

 

3. Do you accept that prisoner's dilemma creates incentives for regulatory action?

[nick_s]

Well there's "safe" and there's "safe".  The FDA is not exactly batting 1000.

Yes, life is dangerous. You may die.

 

I just hope you do not ban it for all of us. You can have your choice options.

Well, I was speaking for myself here. You had two questions and one poll.

 

I might think differently if I was a bridge professional and my livelihood depended upon it... but I'd like to think I'd refuse.

[Echognome]

Well there's "safe" and there's "safe".  The FDA is not exactly batting 1000.

Yes, life is dangerous. You may die.

 

I just hope you do not ban it for all of us. You can have your choice options.

Lasik is a great example, it gives you better than 20/20 vision for many and for others makes them blind. Should bridge/baseball ban it or other things that are "safe" for memory or concentration or helps you improve how you run or throw? It seems this is just the nanny state run amok.

Nanny says you can have this surgery or drug to help your performance but you cannot have this other one.

Mike: Three simple questions

 

1. Do you know what the expression "Prisoner's dilemma" refers to?

 

2. Do you understand why performance enhancing drug might qualify as prisoner's dilemma?

 

3. Do you accept that prisoner's dilemma creates incentives for regulatory action?

Actually, this isn't such an apt application for PD.

 

Note that if no one read any bridge books or magazines or studied card combinations, then it would take much less effort to win. So in a sense, all of the hard work it takes to win, makes it a PD. (See the example in Mas Colell, Whinston, Green about studying and grades.)

 

I think it comes down to what we view is right or fair and what is not. My view is namely that if a drug can be bought over-the-counter then it's legal. If you need a prescription, then it should be legal if you have a prescription. If not, then it should be illegal in bridge too. However, I am not making any judgment on whether the drugs that are legal, or prescription, or illegal should be. That is for society to determine.

[hrothgar]

Actually, this isn't such an apt application for PD.

This is a perfectly valid application of Prisoner's Dilemma (we need to assume an appropriate playoff matrix, but this holds true for any example)

 

Lets assume the following:

 

1. We have a population of Bridge players with roughly equivalent skills

2. There exist drugs that

 

(A) Significantly enhance performance in a deterministic manner

(B) Have negative side effects

 

The optimal global solution for the population of players is for no one to take drugs and that everyone competes solely based on skill. However, each individual player will have an incentive to defect and take drugs.

 

The end result is that everyone will take the drugs, the expected placement will be identical to the case where no one takes drugs, and everyone is now suffering from negative side effects.

 

This is an obvious Prisoner's Dilemma

[Echognome]

I don't agree. But mainly because you are saying the set of actions is namely take drugs or do not. Abstracting from the fact that there are many different drugs. Abstracting from the fact that the payoff matrix is not clearly PD because drugs might affect different people in different ways. Abstracting from the fact that the harmful side effects might affect the longevity of success. I *still* don't think this is a great model, because there are so many factors besides drugs to the success of the players.

 

But that's all.

[CSGibson]

Lasik is a great example, it gives you better than 20/20 vision for many and for others makes them blind.

There has never been a documented case of Lasik making anyone blind in the United States. Facts, please, not fear-mongering.

[mike777]

Lasik is a great example, it gives you better than 20/20 vision for many and for others makes them blind.

There has never been a documented case of Lasik making anyone blind in the United States. Facts, please, not fear-mongering.

Really ok.....how about almost blind or legally blind, any cases of those, however rare?

 

My point being everything has dangerous side effects including life. :)

 

But if the doc says I may lose my memory, and a drug may help me and says it is "safe" I am surprised so many just vote no. I did not limit the poll to only those with perfect memory. That is why I mentioned age issues in my OP.

I have no idea what PD has to to do with my wanting to save or improve my old age memory or concentration even if it means my memory may end up better than yours. It may ban me from bridge.

[dburn]

I guess the question is: how did you feel about Ben Johnson? Or Barry Bonds? Or Bill Werbeniuk? They cheated, right? If not, why not?

[helene_t]

IMHO Richard's PD formulation is correct. Of course as Matt notes it's an (over)simplification, but even with a more realistic formulation, the idea that taking harfull drugs may improve the utility given contact strategies of the contesters still holds.

 

Oh well maybe it's trivial but so is PD. It's quite common that PD is used to give a flavour of the kind of effects that would be observed in a realistic model, not as a supposedly realistic model for anything.

[mike777]

I guess the question is: how did you feel about Ben Johnson? Or Barry Bonds? Or Bill Werbeniuk? They cheated, right? If not, why not?

Is my fighting age related memory or concentration loss, cheating? If the compounds, in some cases, improve my memory so it is better than yours, is that cheating?

 

How about heart disease and taking compounds? If my heart gets stronger and I play better bridge my performance has been enhanced. Hence a drug that enhances performance.

 

If you make terrible laws/rules that define cheating so capriciously, No. If the problem is the rules, change the rules and stop making silly ones or ban all pain relief. Pain relief enhances performance.

 

Ban a few performance enhancing drugs/surgery but allow almost all the others seems capricious? All the drugs and surgery have some risk.

IF the drugs are against the law or used in an illegal form, throw them in jail but all sport figures try and enhance performance. Does anyone really think 300-400 pound football players are just born that way?

 

1) Football players can load up on pain killers to improve performance

2) Baseball pitchers can have surgery that makes their throwing arms stronger than they ever were.

3) Tennis players can have cortisone shots in the middle of the match.

 

 

All football players suffer sever lifelong injures from simply playing football. Some have even suffered brain damage and some die.

 

If the rule is do no harm, then ban football. But my point is the fans could care less about the players and how hurt they are and I do mean all get hurt.

[Cascade]

What about caffine?

What about nicotine?

[Cascade]

I think it comes down to what we view is right or fair and what is not. My view is namely that if a drug can be bought over-the-counter then it's legal. If you need a prescription, then it should be legal if you have a prescription. If not, then it should be illegal in bridge too. However, I am not making any judgment on whether the drugs that are legal, or prescription, or illegal should be. That is for society to determine.

There are problems with this view when a drug is "over the counter" in one juristiction but "prescription only" or "illegal" in another.

 

Many many drugs are in this situation ...

 

pseudoephidrine

antibiotics

cannabis

etc etc

[Echognome]

I think it comes down to what we view is right or fair and what is not.  My view is namely that if a drug can be bought over-the-counter then it's legal.  If you need a prescription, then it should be legal if you have a prescription.  If not, then it should be illegal in bridge too.  However, I am not making any judgment on whether the drugs that are legal, or prescription, or illegal should be.  That is for society to determine.

There are problems with this view when a drug is "over the counter" in one juristiction but "prescription only" or "illegal" in another.

 

Many many drugs are in this situation ...

 

pseudoephidrine

antibiotics

cannabis

etc etc

I do not disagree. But there has to be someone to judge and whoever you select as judge (IOC, FDA, some health minisitry, etc) at least it's something determined for us.

 

I do think bridge is quite different from other sports though and think that the list of banned drugs for an athletic competition should be different than for a mind sport. For example, if an asthmatic is not allowed to take epinephrine, that would be a very strange rule for bridge.

[Apollo81]

As far as the bridge world goes, I think that if the drug is legal, it shouldn't be banned. In particular I think a caffeine ban would be utterly ridiculous.

[pclayton]

I will say if I cannot drink like 10 cokes a day my bridge will suffer.

Only if your restroom access isn't denied.

[pclayton]

Lets assume the following:

 

1. We have a population of Bridge players with roughly equivalent skills

 

(snip)

Richard:

 

I think your argument falls apart right here.

 

Even comparing the highest flight of players (Meckstroth, Fantoni, etc..) with the next flight (say a Wildavsky) there is a marked difference in talent.

 

Do you really think the skills of a burglar are as differentiated as bridge player?

 

Furthermore, how much of an 'edge' does drugs give a player? Compare someone like Brad Moss (top flight by definition) with a Meckstroth. Would drugs make Brad as good of a player, much less superior? I doubt it.

 

Stealing a necklace has a similar fence value for an experienced burglar as it does a novice. The experienced burglar might have a 5:1 better chance of not getting caught. OTOH, a novice player has a 0% chance chance of winning a NABC.

[hrothgar]

Lets assume the following:

 

1.  We have a population of Bridge players with roughly equivalent skills

 

(snip)

Richard:

 

I think your argument falls apart right here.

 

Even comparing the highest flight of players (Meckstroth, Fantoni, etc..) with the next flight (say a Wildavsky) there is a marked difference in talent.

 

Do you really think the skills of a burglar are as differentiated as bridge player?

 

Furthermore, how much of an 'edge' does drugs give a player? Compare someone like Brad Moss (top flight by definition) with a Meckstroth. Would drugs make Brad as good of a player, much less superior? I doubt it.

 

Stealing a necklace has a similar fence value for an experienced burglar as it does a novice. The experienced burglar might have a 5:1 better chance of not getting caught. OTOH, a novice player has a 0% chance chance of winning a NABC.

As Helene mentions, there is a significant difference between simplified models intended to illustrate basic concepts and what one uses in the real world.

 

For what its worth, I full agree with your comments about the differences between different flights of players. And yet, for some reason, the second, third, and even 10th tier players keep investing time and money trying to win...

 

As for your comments about skill levels of burglars, fence values, and the like...

None of this has anything to do with constructing the typical prisoner's dilemma example.

 

Prisoner's dilemma is defined by

 

The available strategy set (Cooperate or Defect)

 

The payoff matrix for the following cases

 

Cooperate - Cooperate

Cooperate - Defect

Defect - Cooperate

Defect - Defect

 

As is oft the case, Wikipedia has a good writeup

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

[pclayton]

I stand corrected.

 

I hadn't initially realized that this dealt with 2 accused ratting the other out. I haven't looked at this in awhile.

[Echognome]

As Helene mentions, there is a significant difference between simplified models intended to illustrate basic concepts and what one uses in the real world.

 

For what its worth, I full agree with your comments about the differences between different flights of players. And yet, for some reason, the second, third, and even 10th tier players keep investing time and money trying to win...

 

As for your comments about skill levels of burglars, fence values, and the like...

None of this has anything to do with constructing the typical prisoner's dilemma example.

 

Prisoner's dilemma is defined by

 

The available strategy set (Cooperate or Defect)

 

The payoff matrix for the following cases

 

Cooperate - Cooperate

Cooperate - Defect

Defect - Cooperate

Defect - Defect

 

As is oft the case, Wikipedia has a good writeup

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Well, even though they have a reference at the bottom to Tragedy of the Commons, it is not stated that the PD is really just a formal modelling of the concept.

 

One other thing to note if we model the problem as a PD is that we are certainly dealing with a repeated game. So if we assume homogeneity of time preferences, we can rely on the folk theorem for a multiplicity of equilibria. If we do not, then we may still achieve cooperation.

 

I've done some research in this area, but I will refrain from further comment as not to bore everyone out of their skulls.