[sceptic]

IF I wanted to win a world championship and I stood a chance of doing it by taking brain performance enhancing drugs, I do not see why I should not be allowed to do it

compare that to me havng enough money to buy the best team in the world to win a world championship

Just pretend that in either case my chances of winning without doing anything were 80% and by taking performance enhancing drugs it improved my chances to 98% of winning and by buying a team it improved to 99%


I think that if you can buy team mates cos you have shite loads of money then the poorer contestants should be allowed to take drugs to compensate for the disadvantage of not being able to afford the team mates of their dreams

If a great player suffers from unusual amounts of stress why should they not be allowed to take calming drugs that may help them, this may then give an advantage to that player as with out drugs they could never hope to compete at that level because the stress is to great

[Codo]

I tried to take brain performance enhancing pills, but they were too complicated to use, so I stopped it.

[CSGibson]

This seems silly. If a drug improves your mental ability with 0 side effects, then it appears that you should be taking it all the time, just like people who wear corrective lenses. Hell, put it in the water for all of us.

Although I personally do not believe it possible for such a thing to exist; everything that effectively changes your bio-chemistry enough to temporarily elicit one change is sure to elicit another..

[benlessard]

My philosophy is if no serious health effect are provable or if no advantage can be proven don`t bother for a legislation.

[Free]

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

[jtfanclub]

Free, on Dec 26 2007, 05:38 AM, said:

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]

jtfanclub, on Dec 26 2007, 09:41 AM, said:

Free, on Dec 26 2007, 05:38 AM, said:

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]

mike777, on Dec 26 2007, 08:49 PM, said:

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]

nick_s, on Dec 26 2007, 01:50 PM, said:

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]

mike777, on Dec 27 2007, 02:50 AM, said:

nick_s, on Dec 26 2007, 01:50 PM, said:

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]

mike777, on Dec 26 2007, 06:50 PM, said:

nick_s, on Dec 26 2007, 01:50 PM, said:

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]

hrothgar, on Dec 26 2007, 04:14 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 27 2007, 02:50 AM, said:

nick_s, on Dec 26 2007, 01:50 PM, said:

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]

Echognome, on Dec 27 2007, 03:47 AM, said:

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]

mike777, on Dec 26 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

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]

CSGibson, on Dec 26 2007, 10:39 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 26 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

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.