Researchers from Bournemouth University and Newcastle University surveyed 366 esports cyclists about their hypothetical willingness to use performance-enhancing substances. The study drew on the so-called Goldman dilemma, a thought experiment from anti-doping research that has been known since 1984. Participants were asked whether they would take a substance that guaranteed them success in e-cycling but would lead to their death after five years.
The survey was conducted in December 2024 using online questionnaires. 84.4 per cent of respondents were male, and 15.1 per cent were female. Almost a third of respondents use several platforms simultaneously. Zwift was the most frequently used platform, with 320 mentions, followed by IndieVelo with 73 and MyWhoosh with 55 mentions. Participants had varying lengths of experience in virtual cycling: 22.67 per cent had been cycling for three to four years, and 18.85 per cent for five to ten years.
E-Cycling Survey
The researchers presented ten different versions of the Goldman dilemma. In the first eight questions, participants were offered either an Olympic gold medal in e-cycling or ten million US dollars as a reward. However, the substance would kill them after five years. The acceptance rate ranged between 0.8 and 2.8 per cent. When asked about an Olympic gold medal, only 0.8 to 1.4 per cent agreed. For ten million US dollars, the acceptance rate rose to between 2.2 and 2.8 per cent.
The researchers also varied the legality of the substance. In the case of illegal, undetectable substances, the proportion of participants willing to accept a gold medal stood at 0.8 per cent. For the same reward involving a legal substance, 1.1 per cent agreed. When the financial reward was ten million US dollars, 2.5 per cent accepted an illegal substance and 2.8 per cent a legal substance, both of which were fatal.
A significant increase without any risk of death
The key change was evident in the last two questions. Here, the researchers removed the prospect of death from the scenario. Participants were asked whether they would take an undetectable, illegal substance that would guarantee them an Olympic gold medal. 9.9 per cent agreed. When asked about ten million US dollars with no risk of death, the acceptance rate rose to 28 per cent.
The authors write: "The high rate here suggests that a significant proportion of participants could succumb to the temptation, and at a level far exceeding that reported by anti-doping agencies." They emphasise that this willingness to dope in e-cycling is a serious warning sign.
Increasing prize money in e-cycling
Virtual cycling has become well established in recent years. Zwift reports one million users. The UCI has been organising World Championships since 2022. MyWhoosh offered total prize money of 3,750,000 US dollars in 2024. In the same year, Zwift provided US$128,000, whilst the UCI World Championships provided US$60,000. The highest-paid male rider earned US$98,154, whilst the highest-paid female rider earned US$167,126.
Researchers see these rising sums as a potential incentive for doping in e-cycling. They cite a case from Italy, where a rider competing in both virtual and real-world races tested positive for anabolic steroids. The study shows that financial incentives have a stronger effect than sporting success. In all variants of the Goldman dilemma, the acceptance rate for money was higher than for an Olympic gold medal.
Differences from traditional sports
The findings for esports cyclists are similar to those from other studies. Among the general population, acceptance of the Goldman dilemma stood at 0.8 per cent; among elite athletes, it was 1 per cent; and among Olympic athletes, it was less than 1 per cent. The researchers attribute the low rate among esports cyclists to the fact that most participants are recreational athletes rather than professionals.
The researchers write: “The relatively recent emergence of esports means that there are likely to be few elite or professional esports cyclists, and that participants are likely to be active on a recreational basis and therefore have a lifestyle more similar to that of the general population.” The study thus confirms earlier assessments that the Goldman dilemma, in its original form, should be regarded as a fallacy.
Methodological features
The researchers placed great importance on ensuring maximum anonymity. They did not collect names, only gender and age group. The questions were displayed individually on the screen so that participants could not compare them with one another. Invitations to take part were circulated via Facebook groups, forums and Reddit, including Mywhoosh, VCycling News and Zwift Members.
The researchers also tested whether rephrasing the same question would lead to different answers. However, the difference between the pairs of questions was only 0.3 per cent, which is equivalent to a single person. The researchers note that this duplication should not be repeated in future studies, as it could annoy participants.
A warning about the Olympic Esports Games
The study comes at a critical juncture. The IOC is planning the first Olympic Esports Games for 2027. The researchers warn: “If someone is prepared to dope to improve their performance at lower-level events, then the findings here should not be dismissed lightly, particularly in view of the 2027 Olympic Esports Games and the growing prize money on esports cycling platforms.”
The authors see questions relating to non-fatal incidents as a potential tool for gauging athletes’ current attitudes towards doping. They emphasise that anti-doping regulations in esports are still in their infancy. The study suggests that not only do the means and methods of doping exist, but so do the motives, provided the incentives are strong enough.
The researchers conclude: "The higher acceptance rate achieved when the potential reward was perceived as sufficiently high and when all risks had been eliminated should be regarded as a matter of significant concern for stakeholders in sport as it continues to evolve."
Kristian Bauer
Editor