Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 48, Issue 8, pp 1963–1969 | Cite as

Trading Health Risks for Glory: A Reformulation of the Goldman Dilemma

  • Juan Marcos González
  • F. Reed Johnson
  • Matthew Fedoruk
  • Joshua Posner
  • Larry Bowers
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

The Goldman dilemma presented athletes with a Faustian bargain that guaranteed winning an Olympic gold medal in their sport but resulted in certain death 5 years later. Athletes’ responses to Goldman’s bargain were reported from 1982 to 1995. Several studies subsequently evaluated people’s willingness to accept the bargain proposed in the Goldman question. Our study updates Goldman’s question using contingent-behavior questions, a preference-elicitation method widely applied in economics, marketing and psychology to understand people’s choice behavior. Contingent-behavior questions ask people to evaluate hypothetical tradeoffs between outcomes when real-world decisions are unobservable, nonexistent, or unreliable.

Methods

A web-enabled survey was conducted with athletes in 50 sports between June, 2012 and April, 2013. Athletes were invited by their sport governing bodies in the United States to complete the online survey. Responses from 2888 athletes were collected. Our reformulation elicited athletes’ willingness to accept a performance-enhancing drug (PED) associated with the risk of a realistic fatal event, not certain death. A double-bounded dichotomous-choice question format was used to elicit athletes’ maximum acceptable mortality risk (MAMR) for winning an Olympic gold medal. Data were analyzed using an interval regression model to estimate the implicit probability of accepting a continuous risk level. MAMR was defined as the mortality risk level with a 0.50 probability of acceptance.

Results

Estimated mean MAMRs varied between 7 and 14% across athletes in different ranks and sports. Elite athletes were generally the most willing to accept a fatal cardiovascular risk to win a gold medal in the Olympics. This range was similar to the levels of risk that patients accept for life-changing interventions.

Conclusions

Results suggest that very few athletes would be expected to accept a PED in the bargain postulated by the Goldman dilemma. Risk tolerance among elite athletes suggest they may be more aware of the potential financial and nonfinancial benefits of such a win, and/or less optimistic about their potential to move up in the level of competition without the use of PEDs.

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the United States Anti-Doping Agency.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The work presented in this manuscript was reviewed and exempted by RTI International’s Institutional Review Board given the hypothetical nature of the survey questions and the steps taken to guarantee respondents’ anonymity during the survey implementation. All respondents provided informed consent online before completing the instrument.

Conflict of interest

Juan Marcos Gonzalez, Reed Johnson, and Joshua Posner worked at RTI Health Solutions at the time the study was conducted. RTI Health Solutions was paid by the United Stated Anti-Doping Agency to conduct the research. Matthew Fedoruk and Larry Bowers declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Goldman B, Bush PJ, Klatz R. Death in the locker room: steroids & sports. South Bend, Indiana: Icarus Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bamberger M, Yaeger D. Over the edge aware that drug testing is a sham, athletes to rely more than ever on banned performance enhancers. Sports illustrated. 2014;86(15):60–70.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Connor JM, Mazanov J. Would you dope? A general population test of the Goldman dilemma. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43:871–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Connor J, Woolf J, Mazanov J. Would they dope? Revisiting the Goldman dilemma. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47:697–700.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adamowicz W, Swait J, Boxall P, Louviere J, Williams M. Perceptions versus objective measures of environmental quality in combined revealed and stated preference models of environmental valuation. J Environ Econ Manag. 1997;32:65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boxall P, Adamowicz W, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ. 1996;18:243–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ. 1998;80(1):64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gonzalez JM, Loomis JB, Gonzalez-Caban A. A joint estimation method to combine dichotomous choice CVM models with count data TCM models corrected for truncation and endogenous stratification. J Agric Appl Econ. 2008;40(2):681–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ. 2003;12:281–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bridges J. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2:213–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:2984–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hanemann Michael, Loomis John, Kanninen Barbara. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ. 1991;73(4):1255–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drange M, Hallén J, Raastad T, Johansen PW. A physiologically based risk assessment of the Olympic sports, version 1.0. Oslo: Anti-Doping Norway; 2008.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Angell PJ, Chester N, Sculthorpe N, Whyte G, George K, Somautoo J. Performance enhancing drug abuse and cardiovascular risk in athletes: implications for the clinician. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:i78–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harrison GP, Wood RI, Rogol A, Nyberg F, Bowers L, Bhasin S. Adverse health consequences of performance-enhancing drugs: an endocrine society scientific statement. Endocr Rev. 2014;35(3):341–375.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saccà L, Cittadini A, Fazio S. Growth hormone and the heart. Endocr Rev. 1994;15(5):555–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaye S, McKetin R, Duflou J, Darke S. Methamphetamine and cardiovascular pathology: a review of the evidence. Addiction. 2007;102:1204–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Angell P, Chester N, Green D, Somauroo J, Whyte G, George K. Anabolic steroids and cardiovascular risk. Sports Med. 2012;42(2):119–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Brien BJ, Elswood J, Calin A. Willingness to accept risk in the treatment of rheumatic disease. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1990;44:249–52.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilson LS, Loucks A, Gipson G, et al. Patient preferences for attributes of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies: development and results of a ratings-based conjoint analysis. Int J MS Care. 2015;17(2):74–82.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke Clinical Research InstituteDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.United States Anti-Doping AgencyColorado SpringsUSA
  3. 3.RTI-Health SolutionsDurhamUSA
  4. 4.LD Bowers, LLCSouthern PinesUSA

Personalised recommendations