Qualitative evidence of a primary intervention point for elite athlete doping

Abstract

Anti-doping activities in sport have shifted from secondary prevention (intervening after athletes have used) to educational strategies focused on primary prevention through promoting abstinence. There is no empirical evidence to guide targeting of anti-doping education initiatives. In this paper, a heuristic to guide education initiatives was derived by re-analysing a series of interviews ( n = 20) with athletes, coaches, sports managers, physiotherapists and sports nutritionists. The findings indicate primary prevention of doping may be enhanced by timing it around periods of career instability where athlete vulnerability to doping may increase as a function of winning or losing sponsorship. Sponsorship is broadly defined as financial (e.g. salary stipend) and non-financial support (e.g. training facilities). This provides a basis for targeting education interventions to promote abstinence. Two options are offered to mitigate the need to time prevention activity around career instability by lessening the effect of sponsorship on athlete doping. The first is liberalising access to legitimate performance enhancing technologies (e.g. training techniques or nutritional supplements). The second is to delay access to financial sponsorship (beyond living expenses) until retirement, with monetary gains (e.g. prize money) deposited into an account where penalties are debited if the athlete is caught doping.