Last Friday, I blogged about an editorial in the LA Times by Michael Shermer where he used game theory to explain why he believes Floyd Landis’ story is believable. Basically, Shermer says that pro cycling would be in a Nash equilibrium that would lead cyclists to be silent about the doping as long as they each had something significant to lose by coming forward. However, once Landis lost his wife, home, and cycling career and, therefore, no longer had anything to lose, Shermer argues that it is expected that he would spill the beans on the “cycling mafia”, as Tyler Hamilton has called it.
Another Game Theoretic Analysis
This week, I received an interesting analysis by my friend and fellow cyclist, Professor Jim Kearl, who teaches economics at Brigham Young University. Jim provided a game theoretic argument suggesting that some of Landis’s story is hard to believe. The crux of his argument, as I see it, is that Landis is claiming that there were people who had knowledge of the doping operation who would not have anything to lose if they came forward. As such, the doping mafia or “cartel of silence” as Professor Kearl says, would not be in equilibrium. Here is Jim's analysis:
