Anti-doping Policy Research Articles

The paradox of human milk doping for anti-doping

Human milk is employed as a reference substance to assess the equivocal language defining the three tests (enhancement, health and violation of the Spirit of Sport) for prohibiting substances and methods under the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code). Human milk is demonstrated to be consumed by athletes with intent to enhance performance, presents a non-trivial risk to health, and violates the Spirit of Sport. The implications of prohibiting human milk under the Code demonstrate the increasing complexity and unintended (sometimes absurd) outcomes that arise from the implementation of the anti-doping ideology. The discussion focuses on two outcomes of the analysis. Firstly, the trade-off between administrative convenience and a workable drug control system for sport is considered (e.g. transparency versus decision latitude). Secondly, the discussion raises questions about the extent to which anti-doping policy makers consider third party harms with trading athletes and sporting interests relative to others individuals (e.g. babies) and society more broadly. The plausible prohibition of human milk under the Code indicates that a much closer examination of how best to manage performance enhancing technology in sport is needed, especially with regards to the influence of anti-doping beyond sport.

Korean national athletes\u2019 knowledge, practices, and attitudes of doping: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundDespite the efforts of the World Anti-Doping Agency and national anti-doping agencies at the international level, a relatively low and steady rate of positive doping tests still persists all over the world. Evidence on adolescents using doping substances exists, and the proportion of adolescents engaging in doping practices is small but significant. In relation to the international research trends on anti-doping, this study aims to evaluate doping knowledge, practices, and attitudes among Korean adult and adolescent elite athletes to provide effective information on anti-doping policies and education programs.MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional study of 454 Korean elite athletes (249 adults in 23 events and 205 adolescents in 22 events). Data were collected by an interviewer-administered questionnaire containing items regarding doping practices and knowledge, brief definitions of performance-enhancing substances/methods and recreational substances, and the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS).ResultsAdolescent (47.3%) and adult (57.0%) athletes received information on banned substances of their respective sports from the Korea Anti-Doping Agency, and 39.0 and 53.4% of adolescents and adults, respectively, had knowledge of banned substances and had permissive attitudes toward doping compared to those who were unaware. Adolescent and adult athletes have inadvertently (1.5 and 3.6%, respectively) or knowingly (1.0 and 2.8%, respectively) taken banned performance-enhancing substances, and 2.4 and 3.2%, respectively, knew someone who had taken banned substances. And the adolescent athletes in motor skill category (PEAS: 40.24 ± 10.91) were more permissive toward doping than those in team category (PEAS: 35.08 ± 10.21).ConclusionAn in-depth anti-doping education for Korean athletes should be more widely implemented, and effective anti-doping policy should meet the athletes’ demographic characteristics, personalities, and values.

The spirit of sport: the case for criminalisation of doping in the UK

This article examines public perceptions of doping in sport, critically evaluates the effectiveness of current anti-doping sanctions and proposes the criminalisation of doping in sport in the UK as part of a growing global movement towards such criminalisation at national level. Criminalising doping is advanced on two main grounds: as a stigmatic deterrent and as a form of retributive punishment enforced through the criminal justice system. The ‘spirit of sport’ defined by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) as being based on the values of ethics, health and fair-play is identified as being undermined by the ineffectiveness of existing anti-doping policy in the current climate of doping revelations, and is assessed as relevant to public perceptions and the future of sport as a whole. The harm-reductionist approach permitting the use of certain performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) is considered as an alternative to anti-doping, taking into account athlete psychology, the problems encountered in containing doping in sport through anti-doping measures and the effect of these difficulties on the ‘spirit of sport’. This approach is dismissed in favour of criminalising doping in sport based on the offence of fraud. It will be argued that the criminalisation of doping could act as a greater deterrent than existing sanctions imposed by International Federations, and, when used in conjunction with those sanctions, will raise the overall ‘price’ of doping. The revelations of corruption within the existing system of self-governance within sport have contributed to a disbelieving public and it will be argued that the criminalisation of doping in sport could assist in satisfying the public that justice is being done and in turn achieve greater belief in the truth of athletic performances.

“I don't know if I would report them”: Student-athletes' thoughts, feelings and anticipated behaviours on blowing the whistle on doping in sport

Revisions to global anti-doping policy and growing evidence of systematic doping in sport means athletes and athlete support personnel are increasingly encouraged to ‘blow the whistle’ on doping. Yet, individuals' thoughts, feelings, and anticipated behaviours in reporting wrongdoing of this kind are unknown, hindering its promotion. To inform current anti-doping efforts, this study explored student-athletes' anticipated behaviours relative to blowing the whistle on performance enhancing drug (PED) use and their underpinning attitudes. DesignQualitative methodology. MethodSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 track and field university student-athletes from the UK (N = 14) and US (N = 14). Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. ResultsAddressing doping presents a true moral dilemma and is not a dichotomous process whereby athletes either report doping or do nothing. Instead, four options for addressing others' PED use emerged: (1) confront PED user directly, (2) report to ‘someone’, (3) report to anti-doping ‘authorities’, or (4) ignore the behaviour. Underpinned by relational concerns and empathy, direct confrontation was participants' preferred approach to addressing doping. ConclusionStudent-athletes are reluctant to blow the whistle on doping so the currently promoted method for reporting wrongdoing may be met with resistance. Instead, student-athletes indicate a willingness to personally confront PED users, which has the potential to protect both the doping athlete and whistleblower, while simultaneously reducing the presence of PEDs in sport. Thus, these findings serve to stimulate debate and discussion within anti-doping efforts regarding the possibility of confrontation being encouraged as an effective deterrent to sport doping.

An Alternative Solution to Lifting the Ban on Doping: Breaking the Payoff Matrix of Professional Sport by Shifting Liability Away from Athletes

The persistence of doping in professional sports—either by individuals on an isolated basis and by whole teams as part of a systematic doping programme—means that professional sport today is rarely if ever untainted. There are financial incentives in place that incentivise doping and there are data that show that doping is often a systematic, organised enterprise (either at team-level, or at state-level). The main question to be answered today in professional sports is whether doping’s repressive anti-doping policies do not have greater negative consequences for society. Whilst some have suggested legitimising safe doping under medical control, in this paper, I argue that doing so will do little to prevent clandestine use of dangerous performance-enhancing substances, and suggest an alternative solution to lifting the ban on doping, i.e. starting from extending liability for doping in sport beyond athletes to those holding power and authority over athletes, to changing winning incentives for doping, to making sport sustainable in the longer time by devising ways of providing athletes with a steady income which is not linked to record breaking or sponsorships.

Neuro-doping: The rise of another loophole to get around anti-doping policies

AbstractThe purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the emerging neuro-doping technology and its ability to enhance athletic performance, and to examine the physical and ethical risks associated with the technology. This study also suggests that sports governing bodies charged with anti-doping regulation begin to consider prohibiting the application of electrical stimulus to the brain as a means of physical manipulation aimed at enhancing performance.

Sport, Society, and Anti-Doping Policy: An Ethical Overview.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of anti-doping policy. The nature of sport and its gratuitous logic is explored. The doping rules in sport, such as the Prohibited List, are ways of drawing a line to facilitate a certain sort of competition. Sports can be understood as a means of testing the natural physical abilities of the athlete, combined with the hard work they put into improving their performance. A test promoted by the anti-doping laws. Permitting certain forms of performance enhancement would threaten the special nature of such a test. Doping can be seen as a threat to the integrity of sport, not just because of the rule breaking doping currently entails. The chapter explores the ethical issues that arise with such forms of enhancement, such as fairness, harms to health, and indeed a refusal to accept human limitations. Finally, the criteria upon which a substance or method may be prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is addressed. The 3-part criteria, concerning (1) enhancement, (2) health, and (3) the spirit of sport are described, and literature that takes a critical line is addressed. Particular reference is made to the public health agenda explicit within anti-doping policy.

ОСНОВАНИЯ РАЗРАБОТКИ И РЕАЛИЗАЦИИ ДИСЦИПЛИНЫ «ОСНОВЫ АНТИДОПИНГОВОГО ОБЕСПЕЧЕНИЯ» ПРИ ПОДГОТОВКЕ СПЕЦИАЛИСТОВ ФИЗИЧЕСКОЙ КУЛЬТУРЫ

The article describes one aspect of the problem of physical culture specialist training that complies with the requirements of the employer. The author defined the political, economic, regulatory and other reasons for the course development. The necessity of development of the subject “Basics of Anti-Doping Policy” for the students getting degree in “Physical culture” is proven. The author specified the educational requirements of the national education standard.

The Goldman Dilemma is dead: what elite athletes really think about doping, winning, and death

ABSTRACTIn the 1980s and 1990s, Goldman’s eponymous ‘Dilemma’ asked if athletes would take a substance that guaranteed sporting glory but killed them in 5 years. The 50% acceptance rate was widely reported as evidence supporting the need for anti-doping policy. Evidence from athletes surveyed in 2011 showed only 1% acceptance. To explore why such striking variation exists, and its implications for policy, this study investigated both the validity and reliability of the original Dilemma and how early twenty-first century elite athletes interpret and understand the Dilemma. The reporting of the original Dilemma demonstrated a lack of scientific rigour, which raises questions about the Dilemma’s status as valid and reliable evidence to inform sports drug control policy. Cognitive interviews with a sample of 30 athletes (30 athletes; 14 female; 19 international; age 22.17 ± 2.13) revealed the death outcome made the Dilemma implausible; it was too absolute an outcome given athletes’ non-sporting aspirations (e.g. marriage and parenthood). The idea that a substance could be undetectable and guarantee sporting success was also considered implausible. Athlete conflation of performance enhancement with illegality, immorality and negative health outcomes further undermined perceived plausibility. Thus, the athletes in the sample considered the Dilemma largely implausible. As a consequence of the questionable scientific basis of the original, and the implausibility of the Dilemma to early twenty-first century athletes, the oft-cited 50% acceptance rate is of historical interest only and no longer relevant to drug control policy debate in sport.

Doping in sport: an analysis of sanctioned UK rugby union players between 2009 and 2015

ABSTRACTTo inform anti-doping policy and practice, it is important to understand the complexities of doping. The purpose of this study was to collate and systematically examine the reasoned decisions published by UK Anti-Doping for doping sanctions in rugby union in the UK since the introduction of the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code. Case files were content analysed to extract demographic information and details relating to the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), including individuals’ explanations for how/why the ADRV occurred. Between 2009 and 2015, 49 rugby union players and one coach from across the UK were sanctioned. Over 50% of the cases involved players under the age of 25, competing at sub-elite levels. Reasons in defence of the ADRV focused on functional use and lifestyle factors rather than performance enhancement. An a priori assessment of the “need”, “risk” and “consequence” of using a substance was not commonplace; further strengthening calls for increasing the reach of anti-doping education. The findings also deconstruct the view that “doped” athletes are the same. Consequently, deepening understanding of the social and cultural conditions that encourage doping remains a priority.

Contexts and conditions for a level playing field: Elite athletes’ perspectives on anti-doping in practice

The implementation of global anti-doping regulations was intended to provide a level playing field for all athletes entering sports competitions. However, studies have shown that the worldwide harmonization of rules has not been entirely efficacious. For instance, great variation has been found in how anti-doping organizations implement anti-doping regulations, and it has also been shown that athletes distrust the equivalence of the worldwide rules as regards their effects. The purpose of the present article is to examine how elite athletes from different contexts experience anti-doping procedures and to analyse the legitimacy of anti-doping practice. In order to capture a variety of voices and perspectives, 13 elite athletes from five different continents and three international sports federations were interviewed. The analysis shows that when global anti-doping policy is implemented in different contexts and under different conditions, inequities and structural injustices emerge concerning infrastructure, knowledge and support at the individual athlete level. These consequences may have implications for the legitimacy of anti-doping work, because the existence of procedural justice may be called into question. We therefore suggest that anti-doping policy-making should be based on taking into account these different conditions and being aware of the perspectives that underpin regulations intended to be applied global.

Nobody’s Innocent

Customers who boycott an organization after some scandal may actually exacerbate the fraud problem they would like to prevent. This conclusion is derived from a game-theoretic model that introduces a third player into the standard inspection game. Focusing on the example of doping in professional sports, we observe that doping is prevalent in equilibrium because customers undermine an organizer’s incentives to inspect the athletes. Establishing transparency about doping tests is necessary but not sufficient to overcome this dilemma. Our analysis has practical implications for the design of anti-doping policies as well as for other situations of fraudulent activities.

Psychiatric medication preferences of sports psychiatrists

ABSTRACTObjectives: When prescribing psychiatric medications to athletes, it is important to consider issues that are especially important for this population, including side effects, safety concerns, and anti-doping policies. Only one report, from 2000, describes the prescribing preferences of psychiatrists who work with athletes. This manuscript aims to update the findings from that report, so as to help inform prescribing practices of primary care physicians, psychiatrists, and other clinicians who work with athletes.Methods: Physician members of the International Society for Sports Psychiatry (ISSP) were sent an email invitation in 2016 to complete an anonymous web-based survey on psychiatric medication prescribing preferences in working with athletes with a variety of mental health conditions.Results: Forty of 100 (40%) members of the ISSP who identified as physicians and who were emailed the survey ultimately completed it. Top choices of psychiatric medications for athletes across categories assessed included: bupropion for depression without anxiety and without bipolar spectrum disorder; escitalopram for generalized anxiety disorder; melatonin for insomnia; atomoxetine for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; lamotrigine for bipolar spectrum disorders; and aripiprazole for psychotic disorders.Conclusion: Prescribers of psychiatric medications for athletes tended to favor medications that are relatively more energizing and less likely to cause sedation, weight gain, cardiac side effects, and tremor. Additionally, prescribing preferences for athletes diverged from many of the prescribing trends seen for patients within the general population, in keeping with the assumption that different factors are considered when prescribing for athletes versus for the general population.

Challenges to promoting health for amateur athletes through anti-doping policy

Anti-doping regulations are intended, at least in part, to promote the health of athletes. While most anti-doping efforts target elite and professional competitors, there have been recent moves by sport governing bodies to expand anti-doping testing to include amateur athletes. Drawing on previous critiques of anti-doping policies and illustrating cases, this article outlines five of the challenges to health promotion of applying the current detect and ban model to the amateur level of sport. I argue that the current approach is not effective and, in some ways, may undermine the goal of health promotion at the amateur level. In order to address these challenges, I propose alternative, health-centred strategies that focus on athlete empowerment and choice through critical awareness of a variety of substances, associated risks and rewards, and the role of expertise in decision-making.

Deterrence by risk of detection? An inquiry into how elite athletes perceive the deterrent effect of the doping testing regime in their sport

Aims: A central paradigm of global anti-doping policy is detection-based deterrence, i.e. the risk of testing and exclusion from sport are effective doping deterrents. This paper investigates how elite athletes perceive the deterrent effect of the testing strategy in their sport and explores whether and how specific factors such as the frequency of testing influence athletes’ perceptions of testing as a deterrent. Methods: 645 Danish elite athletes completed a web-based questionnaire about their perceptions of testing efforts in their sport. Findings: 75% of the athletes considered the likelihood that a test would prove positive to be a deterrent. By contrast, only 40% found the risk of being selected for testing to be a deterrent. Athletes tested frequently and athletes from doping-risk sports were more likely to perceive testing as a deterrent. In total, 24% regarded neither the likelihood of testing nor detection as deterrents. 8% did not consider the likelihood of testing and detection nor the ban from sport as deterrents. Conclusions: Testing programmes – as a strategy to detect and deter doping – are no great deterrent for many athletes. The results highlight the limitations of detection-based deterrence and emphasise a need to give higher priority to additional prevention-orientated strategies. Recommondations are outlined.

The European Union and the fight against doping in sport: on the field or on the sidelines?

With the adoption of the European Anti-Doping Convention in 1989 the European continent claimed a flagship role in the fight against doping in sport. Moreover, in one way or another doping appeared on the limited but developing sports agenda of the European Union. Especially in the aftermath of the infamous 1998 ‘Festina Tour’, expectations of the EU’s anti-doping policy were high. As the European Commission was actively involved in the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency, it seemed that the European Union was willing to take a leading role.However, a lack of legal competence at EC/EU level combined with financial issues at WADA level induced the European Union to moderate its ambitions. Concurrently, the worldwide struggle against doping was strengthened by the adoption of the World Anti-Doping Code at the World Conference on Doping in Sport (Copenhagen, March 2003) which resulted in an International Anti-Doping Convention adopted under the auspices of UNESCO.This paper undertakes an analysis of the EU’s anti-doping policy in a global context and explores the possible legal bases for a more profound action. A preliminary question would be whether the European Union should play a role at all in the fight against doping. The present EU’s anti-doping policy will then be analysed on the basis of the actions that have been undertaken so far. The Union’s possible future role will be outlined in the light of the limited legal competences the Community/Union is endowed with. In addition to the direct policy, the possible consequences of the Union’s indirect involvement in the anti-doping policy will be considered, including whether the Community rules on free movement and competition should be applied to sports regulations and anti-doping regulations in particular. Although this question was brought only rather incidentally before the Community judges in the Meca Medina case, the reasoning of the Court of First Instance may have some influence on the Union’s direct action.

The 2009 WADA Code: A More Proportionate Deal for Athletes?

This article seeks to assess the leading force in developing anti-doping policy in sport; the World Anti-Doping Agency. This article will analyse the 2009 World Anti Doping Agency Code, which came into force on 1 January 2009. The 2009 Code represents the latest effort to fight doping in sport, and contains a considerable number of new provisions from that which was previously in place. The main question this article poses is whether the changes made in the 2009 Code are justifiable as being proportionate in order to take forward the fight against doping whilst at the same time respecting athletes’ rights. The article goes on to detail the new provisions of the 2009 Code and assesses the proportionality of each in the light of standard principles of justice and specific sporting jurisprudence on the matter, particularly the judgments of the European Court of Justice on this issue. The conclusion reached is that several of the provisions contained in the 2009 Code are in breach of the proportionality principle by violating the personal rights of athletes, particularly those relating to economic livelihood, privacy and procedural fairness. Accordingly, aggrieved athletes will inevitably bring legal disputes.

Theorising unintended consequences of anti-doping policy

There is a growing recognition of the fact that unintended consequences are a commonplace feature of everyday social life, not just in sport but in all aspects of social life (for a dramatic example, consider the many unintended consequences of Western intervention in the Middle East). In relation to doping, the most obvious unintended consequences – in this case collateral harms – include the fact that existing anti-doping policy has (i) constrained athletes to use more dangerous but less detectable drugs and (ii) to use additional masking drugs to conceal their use of performance-enhancing drugs; (iii) driven drug use underground, thereby making it difficult to control the quality of drugs and (iv) making it more difficult for athletes, especially below elite level, to obtain medical monitoring of their drug use. This paper provides at least partial answers to these questions by, firstly, examining the ways in which social scientists have used the concept of unintended consequences and similar concepts. Attention is focused, in particular, on the Merton’s classic conceptualisation of “the unintended consequences of purposive social action” and on Elias's concept of “unplanned outcomes” and his analysis of the relationship between planned and unplanned social processes. The paper concludes with the implications of these analyses for the practical processes of policy formation and implementation.

Intended. Underrated. Disputed. The IOC Medical Commission’s “Subcommission on Doping and Biochemistry in Sport” between 1980 and 1988

Based on historical sources from the archive of the International Olympic Committee Library and Archives and the Carl and Liselott Diem-Archive of the German Sport University Cologne, this article explores the role of the International Olympic Committee Medical Subcomission on Doping. It therewith aims to address the relative omission on the role of scientists in the history of anti-doping. The paper argues that the IOC MSD is a much-underrated anti-doping body because the activities of its members, who were all heads of anti-doping laboratories with professional competencies in the field of doping analysis, shaped the International Olympic Committeés (IOC) anti-doping policy considerably in the 1980s.

Doping in Sport: The Case of Fencing

Most athletes in order to achieve satisfactory results have to train long and hard. However, some of them, aiming at victory at all costs, resort to doping. The benefits of winning are relatively small when compared to the damage of the human organism caused by doping. The phenomenon has been present in cycling, athletics, boxing, football, weightlifting and many other sport disciplines for many years. In fencing only few instances of the use of illegal substances during the competition were revealed, which was reflected in Polish and foreign sports press. In many European countries the use of doping is regulated by the anti-doping rules, regulations and policies that define these practices as penal acts. In Poland the problem of doping was first regulated by the Act on Physical Culture of 1984 and 1996 as well as the he Act of 1985 on Prevention of Drug Abuse. The regulations of FIE fencing competitions, prepared on the request of Polish Fencing Federation on the basis of the FIE competition rules in the disciplinary regulations of competitions prohibited the use of artificial stimulants during or before the competition. The aim of this paper is to present the threats in modern sports with particular attention to the phenomenon of doping in fencing, as well as in social terms. It is a case study and a study of selected issues connected to doping in contemporary sports. The author poses the question whether the fencers often are tempted to support their bodies with doping in order to achieve better results than the representatives of other sports? What percentage of the fencers were using illegal stimulants? Is there is a problem of doping in fencing, and if so, what is its scale?