The Game theory, which we learned in class, can be applied to athletes with doping. The game played is similar to prisoner’s dilemma. Say there are two athletes, A and B. A thinks if B doesn’t take any drugs, then it will be in A’s best interest to take them. A taking the drugs will give A performance edge against B; A has a better chance of winning.  On the other hand, if B takes drugs, it’s also in A’s best interest to take them. In that way B won’t have an edge over A. This results in A taking the drugs to be the dominant strategy.  The same can be applied to athlete B. So, if the game were to be played out, the Nash Equilibrium is (drugs, drugs).  If the two athletes trusted each other, then there would be no doping problems. This would lead to much better payoff, parallel to prisoner’s dilemma, where if the prisoners trusted each other, then the jail time would be much smaller for both prisoners. However, that is not the case in reality today. As we have learned in class, the Nash Equilibrium does not always give parieto optimal, nor maximum social welfare. Applying these terms to athlete’s dilemma, this pair of strategy (drugs, drugs) does not benefit either athletes, nor does it benefit the general population, who may be fans of such athletes. http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/08/71566BruceSchneier,Drugs: Sports’ Prisoner’s Dilemma