On 10 October 2012, the United States Anti-Doping Agency published an investigative report on the use of performance-enhancing drugs by professional cyclist Lance Armstrong. The report paints a disconcerting picture of the doping program that Armstrong and his US Postal Service professional cycling team managed to carry out for several years, despite being subject to many inspections. It contains a wealth of unique empirical data, including a large number of affidavits. In this article, we use this data to answer the question of how Armstrong was able to prolong prohibited behavior. In doing so, we focus in particular on the interactions between Armstrong and the many doping inspectors he encountered. Our analysis results in a variety of answers to this question. First, inspectors were confronted with an inspectee who behaved as an “amoral calculator” and acted strategically. The strategies of inspectors were not adequately attuned to such behavior. Second, the team's internal professional control was neutralized by various factors, including its strict hierarchy and the many friendships within the team. And, finally, the environment created strong incentives to start doping and subsequently deny doing so. We argue that the dynamics underlying doping necessitate a combination of measures to regulate the use of performance-enhancing drugs in the field of professional cycling and beyond.@en

Effective training methods are key to successful crisis management in close protection. This paper discusses the outcomes of a project on the development of a serious game, a virtual training environment for close protection. The aims of the game are to improve situational awareness and communications skills at the individual and team level. Two game designs, developed with two different game engines, are presented and discussed in relation to the project's objectives. Comparison of the two designs shows that several trade-offs are encountered when developing a training game with the available technology. Technological features of the game engines, and differences in time invested in the development of different aspects of the games, make that the two designs meet different project objectives. Simultaneously reaching all project objectives in a single design seems impossible with the two game engines. This paper discusses the different trade-offs that were encountered in the project and presents the major challenges that lie ahead.@en