Money matters: The impact of prize money on doping behaviour

Westmattelmann, Daniel; Sprenger, Marius; Hokamp, Sascha; Schewe, Gerhard

doi:10.1016/j.smr.2019.09.005

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because we analyze news shocks, that is, future changes in anti-doping policy, the results of our calibrations cannot be directly compared with previous studies that analyzed the perceived values of decision parameters of current anti-doping policy. In particular, our results therefore do not contradict studies advocating for higher fines (e.g., Maennig, 2002) or more sophisticated rank-based sanctioning systems (Berentsen, 2002), differentiation of anti-doping policies across sports (Haugen, 2004), post-testing (Westmattelmann et al, 2014), a more even distribution of prize money (Westmattelmann et al, 2020), or studies emphasizing the role of history and culture, personality factors, and reference group influences (Breivik, 1992;Donovan et al, 2002;and Johnson, 2012). It should be noted that some studies question the effectiveness of improved testing (Haugen, 2004;Strelan and Boeckmann, 2006;Mohan and Hazari, 2016), while we find that news of anticipated improved doping technology reduces doping intensity.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…This is especially true for an anticipated change in the social capital and guilt aversion of the reference group (peer athletes) as suggested by game theoretically oriented analyses (for an overview cf. Westmattelmann et al, 2020). More generally, future analysis of news shocks in doping and anti-doping policy might seek to fill in the gaps regarding the other determinants of doping intensity, such as the role of ex post audits (Westmattelmann et al, 2014;Salzmann, 2018 and2019), or more even distributions of prize money.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevention Effect of News Shocks in Anti-Doping Policies

Maennig

Schumann

2021

Journal of Sports Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper contributes to the debate on anti-doping policies not by evaluating the policy itself but by evaluating the announcement of (new) policy measures. We develop a dynamic model for analyzing the effects of two different types of news shocks: (1) the preannouncement of improved drug testing technological opportunities and (2) the preannouncement of future increases in financial sanctions. We find that the anticipation of policy changes affects the behavior of potentially delinquent athletes. In both scenarios, our simulations show immediately reduced drug abuse among athletes. We conclude that authorities may consider news shocks as an anti-doping strategy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention Effect of News Shocks in Anti-Doping Policies

Maennig

Schumann

2021

Journal of Sports Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The nature of these sports means that the results are directly correlated to a certain physical attribute, whether that be speed, strength, or endurance, and it follows that they would be the sports where the enhancement of one or more of those attributes through doping can have the biggest influence on results. The total amount of money available in a sport is another factor thought to contribute to doping prevalence (Frenger et al, 2012 ; Westmattelmann et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Racing Clean in a Tainted World: A Qualitative Exploration of the Experiences and Views of Clean British Elite Distance Runners on Doping and Anti-Doping

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Doping has been a prominent issue for the sport of athletics in recent years. The endurance disciplines, which currently account for 56% of the global anti-doping rule violations in athletics, appear to be particularly high risk for doping.Objective: Using this high-risk, high-pressure context, the main purpose of this study was to investigate the human impact of doping and anti-doping on “clean” athletes. The secondary aim of the study was to better understand the reasons for, and barriers to, competing “clean” among this group of athletes.Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 elite distance runners from the UK to explore: (1) the reasons and motivations for competing clean. (2) Perceptions of the anti-doping system, and experiences of being part of that system. (3) Views on the prevalence and causes of doping and the impact of doping on the lives of clean athletes. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis.Results: Four major themes were identified: (1) The participants in this study have not been tempted to use prohibited substances or methods; they compete in their sport for the personal satisfaction of seeing how good they can be, rather than in pursuit of winning at all costs. (2) Anti-doping does not currently prevent doping effectively and is not implemented evenly across the globe. (3) Doping was perceived as a major issue and was felt to be borne out of certain sporting cultures in which doping is enabled. (4) Doping has impacted the careers of clean athletes in irreversible ways and presents a continuing challenge to the psychological preparation for competition.Conclusions: Clean athletes suffer negative consequences from both doping and anti-doping. ADOs must collaborate across borders to ensure a more even implementation of anti-doping activities, to facilitate a more level playing field on the global stage. ADOs must also acknowledge the existence of a large group of athletes who would never consider deliberately doping and make anti-doping work for these athletes too.

show abstract

“…The empirical evidence shown in Balliauw et al (2017) and Westmattelmann et al (2020) encourages us to develop a fairer prize system for ATP tennis based on a flexible and straightforward Linear Programming model. The contribution in this article is threefold:…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Another interesting insight comes from Westmattelmann et al (2020), who posed the following research question: How does the amount of prize money and its distribution affect the prevalence of doping in a competitive sport considering different levels of doping costs? Using a simulation model that combines insights from game-theoretical models, empirical studies showed that doping prevalence only scarcely depends on the total amount of prize money but mainly on its distribution.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An optimization model for the fair distribution of prize money in ATP tournaments

Govea

Pérez-Galarce

Candia-Véjar

2022

International Journal of Computer Science in Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) distributes a considerable amount of money in prizes each year. Studies have shown that only the top 100 ranked players can self-finance; hence, it is convenient to introduce changes to the prize distribution to promote a more sustainable system. A Linear Programming model to distribute the tournament’s budget under a new concept for the fair distribution of prize money is proposed. Additionally, to distribute the prizes, a function based on the effort of the players is designed. The model was applied to tournaments to demonstrate the impact on improving the player’s prizes distribution.

show abstract

Money matters: The impact of prize money on doping behaviour

Cited by 9 publications

References 56 publications

Prevention Effect of News Shocks in Anti-Doping Policies

Prevention Effect of News Shocks in Anti-Doping Policies

Racing Clean in a Tainted World: A Qualitative Exploration of the Experiences and Views of Clean British Elite Distance Runners on Doping and Anti-Doping

An optimization model for the fair distribution of prize money in ATP tournaments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About