sports doping research essay

Doping Prevalence in Competitive Sport: Evidence Synthesis with "Best Practice" Recommendations and Reporting Guidelines from the WADA Working Group on Doping Prevalence

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Kinesiology, California State University Fullerton, 800 N State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA, 92834, USA. [email protected].
• 2 Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames, UK.
• 3 University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
• 4 Doping Authority Netherlands, Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands.
• 5 Penn State University, State College, USA.
• 6 University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
• 7 University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
• PMID: 33900578
• DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01477-y

Background: The prevalence of doping in competitive sport, and the methods for assessing prevalence, remain poorly understood. This reduces the ability of researchers, governments, and sporting organizations to determine the extent of doping behavior and the impacts of anti-doping strategies.

Objectives: The primary aim of this subject-wide systematic review was to collate and synthesize evidence on doping prevalence from published scientific papers. Secondary aims involved reviewing the reporting accuracy and data quality as evidence for doping behavior to (1) develop quality and bias assessment criteria to facilitate future systematic reviews; and (2) establish recommendations for reporting future research on doping behavior in competitive sports to facilitate better meta-analyses of doping behavior.

Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to identify relevant studies. Articles were included if they contained information on doping prevalence of any kind in competitive sport, regardless of the methodology and without time limit. Through an iterative process, we simultaneously developed a set of assessment criteria; and used these to assess the studies for data quality on doping prevalence, potential bias and reporting.

Results: One-hundred and five studies, published between 1975 and 2019,were included. Doping prevalence rates in competitive sport ranged from 0 to 73% for doping behavior with most falling under 5%. To determine prevalence, 89 studies used self-reported survey data (SRP) and 17 used sample analysis data (SAP) to produce evidence for doping prevalence (one study used both SRP and SAP). In total, studies reporting athletes totaled 102,515 participants, (72.8% men and 27.2% women). Studies surveyed athletes in 35 countries with 26 involving athletes in the United States, while 12 studies examined an international population. Studies also surveyed athletes from most international sport federations and major professional sports and examined international, national, and sub-elite level athletes, including youth, masters, amateur, club, and university level athletes. However, inconsistencies in data reporting prevented meta-analysis for sport, gender, region, or competition level. Qualitative syntheses were possible and provided for study type, gender, and geographical region. The quality assessment of prevalence evidence in the studies identified 20 as "High", 60 as "Moderate", and 25 as "Low." Of the 89 studies using SRP, 17 rated as "High", 52 rated as "Moderate", and 20 rated as "Low." Of the 17 studies using SAP, 3 rated as "High", 9 rated as "Moderate", and 5 rated as "Low." Examining ratings by year suggests that both the quality and quantity of the evidence for doping prevalence in published studies are increasing.

Conclusions: Current knowledge about doping prevalence in competitive sport relies upon weak and disparate evidence. To address this, we offer a comprehensive set of assessment criteria for studies examining doping behavior data as evidence for doping prevalence. To facilitate future evidence syntheses and meta-analyses, we also put forward "best practice" recommendations and reporting guidelines that will improve evidence quality.

© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Publication types

• Meta-Analysis
• Systematic Review
• Doping in Sports*
• Surveys and Questionnaires

Advertisement

Doping Prevalence in Competitive Sport: Evidence Synthesis with “Best Practice” Recommendations and Reporting Guidelines from the WADA Working Group on Doping Prevalence

• Systematic Review
• Published: 26 April 2021
• Volume 51 , pages 1909–1934, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• John Gleaves   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2398-4685 1 ,
• Andrea Petróczi 2 ,
• Dirk Folkerts 2 , 3 ,
• Olivier de Hon 4 ,
• Emmanuel Macedo 5 ,
• Martial Saugy 6 &
• Maarten Cruyff 7  

2911 Accesses

37 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The prevalence of doping in competitive sport, and the methods for assessing prevalence, remain poorly understood. This reduces the ability of researchers, governments, and sporting organizations to determine the extent of doping behavior and the impacts of anti-doping strategies.

The primary aim of this subject-wide systematic review was to collate and synthesize evidence on doping prevalence from published scientific papers. Secondary aims involved reviewing the reporting accuracy and data quality as evidence for doping behavior to (1) develop quality and bias assessment criteria to facilitate future systematic reviews; and (2) establish recommendations for reporting future research on doping behavior in competitive sports to facilitate better meta-analyses of doping behavior.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to identify relevant studies. Articles were included if they contained information on doping prevalence of any kind in competitive sport, regardless of the methodology and without time limit. Through an iterative process, we simultaneously developed a set of assessment criteria; and used these to assess the studies for data quality on doping prevalence, potential bias and reporting.

One-hundred and five studies, published between 1975 and 2019,were included. Doping prevalence rates in competitive sport ranged from 0 to 73% for doping behavior with most falling under 5%. To determine prevalence, 89 studies used self-reported survey data (SRP) and 17 used sample analysis data (SAP) to produce evidence for doping prevalence (one study used both SRP and SAP). In total, studies reporting athletes totaled 102,515 participants, (72.8% men and 27.2% women). Studies surveyed athletes in 35 countries with 26 involving athletes in the United States, while 12 studies examined an international population. Studies also surveyed athletes from most international sport federations and major professional sports and examined international, national, and sub-elite level athletes, including youth, masters, amateur, club, and university level athletes. However, inconsistencies in data reporting prevented meta-analysis for sport, gender, region, or competition level. Qualitative syntheses were possible and provided for study type, gender, and geographical region. The quality assessment of prevalence evidence in the studies identified 20 as “High”, 60 as “Moderate”, and 25 as “Low.” Of the 89 studies using SRP, 17 rated as “High”, 52 rated as “Moderate”, and 20 rated as “Low.” Of the 17 studies using SAP, 3 rated as “High”, 9 rated as “Moderate”, and 5 rated as “Low.” Examining ratings by year suggests that both the quality and quantity of the evidence for doping prevalence in published studies are increasing.

Conclusions

Current knowledge about doping prevalence in competitive sport relies upon weak and disparate evidence. To address this, we offer a comprehensive set of assessment criteria for studies examining doping behavior data as evidence for doping prevalence. To facilitate future evidence syntheses and meta-analyses, we also put forward “best practice” recommendations and reporting guidelines that will improve evidence quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Prevalence of Doping Use in Elite Sports: A Review of Numbers and Methods

Olivier de Hon, Harm Kuipers & Maarten van Bottenburg

Review of WADA Prohibited Substances: Limited Evidence for Performance-Enhancing Effects

Jules A. A. C. Heuberger & Adam F. Cohen

Activity Demands During Multi-Directional Team Sports: A Systematic Review

Jeffrey B. Taylor, Alexis A. Wright, … Adam R. Marmon

There is not a universal definition of doping. However, this study builds upon [ 1 ] definition where doping “refers to the set of prohibited substances and/or methods as identified by the ruling body of the particular sport”, which, “means that the term ‘doping’ in […] does not reflect other doping violations mentioned in the World Anti-Doping Code, such as whereabouts failures or trafficking.” We have also differentiated between therapeutic and unintentional use of prohibited substances to more clearly describe the phenomenon.

The connection between controlled substances in sport (doping) and in general is a complicated one. First of all, not all substances prohibited in sport are controlled substances for the general population, and this varies from one country to another. One example for this is anabolic steroids (AS). AS are prohibited in sport both in- and out-of-competition for all athletes around the globe under WADA regulations. However, whilst using AS is also illegal in some countries (e.g., Australia, US, Norway, Saudi Arabia), in other countries (e.g., UK, Canada, South Africa, Turkey) personal use is not illegal but production and supply without license are, regardless of who uses it. In countries where doping is a criminal offence (e.g., Austria, Germany, France, Italy, Israel), AS use is only illegal and can carry a prison sentence for athletes if they are subject to doping control, but not for the general population. AS is not a controlled substance in some countries (e.g., Japan, Bulgaria, Russia, Mexico).

Gender is the term used in official documents and reporting throughout sport governing bodies such as the International Olympic Committee, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the World Anti-Doping Agency to classify competition categories for men and women. As this evidence synthesis only related to competitive sport, the manuscript reflects the categorizations used by the competitive sport governing bodies.

A multitude of indirect estimation models exists. In the applied literature, these are often referred to as ‘randomized response technique’, even though not all models rely on randomization. For simplicity and to avoid confusion, we accepted this terminology for the review while noting its inaccuracy.

De Hon O, Kuipers H, van Bottenburg M. Prevalence of doping use in elite sports: a review of numbers and methods. Sports Med. 2015;45(1):57–69.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Maennig W. Inefficiency of the anti-doping system: cost reduction proposals. Subst Use Misuse. 2014;49(9):1201–5.

Grohmann K. WADA to ask commercial sponsors for money in anti-doping fight. Reuters. 2019 5 November.

Pielke R Jr. Gather data to reveal true extent of doping in sport: drug cheats will not be tackled properly until anti-doping agencies do more to assess the scale of the problem scientifically. Nature. 2015;517(7536):529–30.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pielke R. Assessing doping prevalence is possible: so what are we waiting for? Sports Med. 2018;48(1):207–9.

Ohl F, Fincoeur B, Lentillon-Kaestner V, Defrance J, Brissonneau C. The socialization of young cyclists and the culture of doping. Int Rev Sociol Sport. 2015;50(7):865–82.

Article   Google Scholar  

Curtis A, Gerrard D, Burt P, Osborne H. Drug misuse in sport: a New Zealand perspective. NZ Med J. 2015;128:62.

Google Scholar  

Dimeo P, Taylor J. Monitoring drug use in sport: the contrast between official statistics and other evidence. Drugs Educ Prev Policy. 2013;20(1):40–7.

Petróczi A, Backhouse SH, Barkoukis V, Brand R, Elbe A-M, Lazuras L, et al. A matter of mind-set in the interpretation of forensic application. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(11):1142–3.

Blank C, Kopp M, Niedermeier M, Schnitzer M, Schobersberger W. Predictors of doping intentions, susceptibility, and behaviour of elite athletes: a meta-analytic review. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1333.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Backhouse S, Whitaker L, Patterson L, Erickson K, McKenna J. Social psychology of doping in sport: a mixed studies narrative synthesis. Project report. World Anti-Doping Agency, Montreal Canada. 2016

Ntoumanis N, Ng JY, Barkoukis V, Backhouse S. Personal and psychosocial predictors of doping use in physical activity settings: a meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2014;44(11):1603–24.

Sutherland WJ, Wordley CFR. A fresh approach to evidence synthesis. Nature. 2018;558(7710):364–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05472-8 .

Donnelly CA, Boyd I, Campbell P, Craig C, Vallance P, Walport M, et al. Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature. 2018;558(7710):361–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05414-4 .

Bernard HR, Hallett T, Iovita A, Johnsen EC, Lyerla R, McCarty C, et al. Counting hard-to-count populations: the network scale-up method for public health. Sex Transmit Infect. 2010;86(S2):ii5–11.

Monin B, Norton MI. Perceptions of a fluid consensus: Uniqueness bias, false consensus, false polarization, and pluralistic ignorance in a water conservation crisis. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003;29(5):559–67.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systems Control Found Appl. 2016;5(1):210.

Sagoe D, Molde H, Andreassen CS, Torsheim T, Pallesen S. The global epidemiology of anabolic-androgenic steroid use: a meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis. Ann Epidemiol. 2014;24(5):383–98.

Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005;331(7524):1064–5.

Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, March L, Bain C, et al. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(9):934–9.

Wong WC, Cheung CS, Hart GJ. Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008;5(1):23.

Afolayan J, Adegboyega J. Knowledge and use of performance enhancing drugs among Nigeria elite athletes. IOSR J Appl Chem. 2012;1(5):31e8.

Ajayi-Vincent O, Olanipekun J. An assessment of prohibited methods of doping among athletes in tertiary institutions in southwest, Nigeria. Kuwait Chap Arab J Bus Manag Rev. 2013;33(858):1–6.

Al Ghobain M, Konbaz MS, Almassad A, Alsultan A, Al Shubaili M, AlShabanh O. Prevalence, knowledge and attitude of prohibited substances use (doping) among Saudi sport players. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2016;11:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-016-0058-1 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ama P, Betnga B, Moor VA, Kamga J. Football and doping: study of African amateur footballers. Br J Sports Med. 2003;37(4):307–10.

Anderson WA, Albrecht RR, McKeag DB, Hough DO, McGrew CA. A national survey of alcohol and drug use by college athletes. Phys Sportsmed. 2016;19(2):91–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.1991.11702148 .

Backhouse SH, Whitaker L, Petroczi A. Gateway to doping? Supplement use in the context of preferred competitive situations, doping attitude, beliefs, and norms. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(2):244–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01374.x .

Barkoukis V, Lazuras L, Tsorbatzoudis H, Rodafinos A. Motivational and sportspersonship profiles of elite athletes in relation to doping behavior. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011;12(3):205–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.10.003 .

Barkoukis V, Lazuras L, Lucidi F, Tsorbatzoudis H. Nutritional supplement and doping use in sport: possible underlying social cognitive processes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(6):e582–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12377 .

Barkoukis V, Lazuras L, Ourda D, Tsorbatzoudis H. Are nutritional supplements a gateway to doping use in competitive team sports? The roles of achievement goals and motivational regulations. J Sci Med Sport. 2020;23(6):625–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.12.021 .

Barkoukis V, Lazuras L, Tsorbatzoudis H, Rodafinos A. Motivational and social cognitive predictors of doping intentions in elite sports: an integrated approach. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(5):e330–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12068 .

Boardley ID, Smith AL, Mills JP, Grix J, Wynne C. Empathic and self-regulatory processes governing doping behavior. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1495. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01495 .

Buckman JF, Farris SG, Yusko DA. A national study of substance use behaviors among NCAA male athletes who use banned performance enhancing substances. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;131(1–2):50–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.04.023 .

Buckman JF, Yusko DA, White HR, Pandina RJ. Risk profile of male college athletes who use performance-enhancing substances. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2009;70(6):919–23. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2009.70.919 .

Ming Chiang L, Shamsuddin AF, Tuan Mahmood TM. Knowledge, attitude and practice on doping of Malaysian student athletes. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2018.v11i5.23598 .

Coopoo Y, Jakoet I. Substance abuse and knowledge thereof among elite South African sportspeople. S Afr J Sports Med. 2000;7(3):10–3.

Corbin CB, Feyrer-Melk SA, Phelps C, Lewis L. Anabolic steroids: a study of high school athletes. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1994;6(2):149–58.

Curry LA, Wagman DF. Qualitative description of the prevalence and use of anabolic androgenic steroids by United States powerlifters. Percept Mot Skills. 1999;88(1):224–33.

Silva PRPD, Maranhao Neto GA, Figueiredo VC, Santos AMPVD, Jacob MHVM, Rose EHD, et al. Doping survey in the youth school games in Brazil. Rev Brasil Med Esporte. 2017;23(6):436–40. https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-869220172306163303 .

Dezelsky T, Toohey J, Shaw R. Non-medical drug use behaviour at five United States universities: a 15-year study. Bull Narc. 1985;37(2–3):49–53.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dietz P, Ulrich R, Niess A, Best R, Simon P, Striegel H. Prediction profiles for nutritional supplement use among young German elite athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2014;24(6):623–31. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.2014-0009 .

Dodge T, Jaccard JJ. Is abstinence an alternative? Predicting adolescent athletes’ intentions to use performance enhancing substances. J Health Psychol. 2008;13(5):703–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105307082460 .

Dodge T, Stock M, Litt D. Judgments about illegal performance-enhancing substances: reasoned, reactive, or both? J Health Psychol. 2013;18(7):962–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105312445079 .

Donahue EG, Miquelon P, Valois P, Goulet C, Buist A, Vallerand RJ. A motivational model of performance-enhancing substance use in elite athletes. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2006;28(4):511–20.

Elliot DL, Goldberg L, Moe EL, DeFrancesco CA, Durham MB, Hix-Small H. Preventing substance use and disordered eating: initial outcomes of the ATHENA (athletes targeting healthy exercise and nutrition alternatives) program. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(11):1043–9.

Gallucci AR, Martin RJ. Misuse of prescription stimulant medication in a sample of college students: examining differences between varsity athletes and non-athletes. Addict Behav. 2015;51:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.07.004 .

Goulet C, Valois P, Buist A, Côté M. Predictors of the use of performance-enhancing substances by young athletes. Clin J Sport Med. 2010;20(4):243–8.

Gradidge P, Coopoo Y, Constantinou D. Prevalence of performance-enhancing substance use by Johannesburg male adolescents involved in competitive high school sports. Arch Exerc Health Dis. 2011;2(2):114–9. https://doi.org/10.5628/aehd.v2i2.102 .

Green GA, Uryasz FD, Petr TA, Bray CD. NCAA study of substance use and abuse habits of college student-athletes. Clin J Sport Med. 2001;11(1):51–6.

Gucciardi DF, Jalleh G, Donovan RJ. An examination of the sport drug control model with elite Australian athletes. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14(6):469–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2011.03.009 .

Hejabi A, Manouchehri J, Tojari F. Determining validity and reliability of doping behavior measurement instrument in young athletes cociety. J Appl Environ Biol Sci. 2015;5(3):246–53.

Horn S, Gregory P, Guskiewicz KM. Self-reported anabolic-androgenic steroids use and musculoskeletal injuries: findings from the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes health survey of retired NFL players. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(3):192–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e318198b622 .

Jalleh G, Donovan RJ, Jobling I. Predicting attitude towards performance enhancing substance use: a comprehensive test of the sport drug control model with elite Australian athletes. J Sci Med Sport. 2014;17(6):574–9.

James RA, Nepusz T, Naughton DP, Petróczi A. A potential inflating effect in estimation models: cautionary evidence from comparing performance enhancing drug and herbal hormonal supplement use estimates. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2013;14(1):84–96.

Judge LW, Bellar D, Petersen J, Lutz R, Gilreath E, Simon L, et al. The attitudes and perceptions of adolescent track and field athletes toward PED use. Perform Enhanc Health. 2012;1(2):75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2012.04.002 .

Kabiri S, Cochran JK, Severson R, Shadmanfaat SM, Rahmati MM, Sharepour M. Social and personal controls and performance enhancing drug use: toward an explanation of doping activity among professional athletes in Rasht, Iran. Deviant Behav. 2018;39(11):1483–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1486057 .

Kabiri S, Shadmanfaat SM, Donner CM. Using control balance theory to examine sports doping among professional athletes in Iran. J Drug Issues. 2019;49(3):493–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042619837757 .

Kersey RD. Anabolic-androgenic steroid use among California community college student-athletes. J Athl Train. 1996;31(3):237.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kisaalita NR, Robinson ME. Attitudes and motivations of competitive cyclists regarding use of banned and legal performance enhancers. J Sports Sci Med. 2014;13(1):44.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Krowchuk DP, Anglin TM, Goodfellow DB, Stancin T, Williams P, Zimet GD. High school athletes and the use of ergogenic aids. Am J Dis Child. 1989;143(4):486–9.

Lazuras L, Barkoukis V, Rodafinos A, Tzorbatzoudis H. Predictors of doping intentions in elite-level athletes: a social cognition approach. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2010;32(5):694–710.

Lazuras L, Barkoukis V, Tsorbatzoudis H. Toward an integrative model of doping use: an empirical study with adolescent athletes. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2015;37(1):37–50. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0232 .

Lindqvist A-S, Moberg T, Eriksson BO, Ehrnborg C, Rosén T, Fahlke C. A retrospective 30-year follow-up study of former Swedish-elite male athletes in power sports with a past anabolic androgenic steroids use: a focus on mental health. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(15):965–9.

Ljungqvist A. The use of anabolic steroids in top Swedish athletes. Br J Sports Med. 1975;9(2):82.

Lorente FO, Peretti-Watel P, Grelot L. Cannabis use to enhance sportive and non-sportive performances among French sport students. Addict Behav. 2005;30(7):1382–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.01.019 .

Manouchehri J, Tojari F. Examining the conceptual model: relationships between sport orientation, doping attitude and doping behavior in Iranian elite martial artists. Eur J Exp Biol. 2013;3(2):175–82.

Manouchehril J, Tojari F. Development and validation of instruments to measure doping attitudes and doping beliefs. Eur J Exp Biol. 2013;3(2):183–6.

Molobe ID. Knowledge, attitude and practice on drug abuse among sports men and women in Lagos State, Nigeria. Int J Med Med Sci. 2012;2(3):77–85.

Morente-Sanchez J, Zandonai T, Zabala DM. Attitudes, beliefs and knowledge related to doping in different categories of football players. J Sci Med Sport. 2019;22(9):981–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.05.010 .

Mudrak J, Slepicka P, Slepickova I. Sport motivation and doping in adolescent athletes. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(10):e0205222. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205222 .

Muwonge H, Zavuga R, Kabenge PA. Doping knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Ugandan athletes’: a cross-sectional study. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2015;10:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-015-0033-2 .

Naylor AH, Gardner D, Zaichkowsky L. Drug use patterns among high school athletes and nonathletes. Adolescence. 2001;36(144):627.

Nica-Badea D. Proximity influence of environment social support specific sportsmen and risk factors of intention and behavior doping. Pensee. 2014;76(7).

Ntoumanis N, Barkoukis V, Gucciardi DF, Chan DKC. Linking coach interpersonal style with athlete doping intentions and doping use: a prospective study. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2017;39(3):188–98. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0243 .

Ogama D, Omariba E, Sakwa MM. Exploring the impact of knowledge and attitudes on doping behaviour among athletics youthful Kenyan long-distance runners. Int Acad J Law Soc. 2019;1(2):35–47.

Ohaeri JU, Ikpeme E, Ikwuagwu PU, Zamani A, Odejide OA. Use and awareness of effects of anabolic steroids and psychoactive substances among a cohort of Nigerian professional sports men and women. Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp. 1993;8(6):429–32.

Özdemir L, Nur N, Bagcivan I, Bulut O, Sümer H, Tezeren G. Doping and performance enhancing drug use in athletes living in Sivas, mid-Anatolia: a brief report. J Sports Sci Med. 2005;4(3):248.

Petróczi A, Uvacsek M, Nepusz T, Deshmukh N, Shah I, Aidman EV, et al. Incongruence in doping related attitudes, beliefs and opinions in the context of discordant behavioural data: in which measure do we trust? PLoS ONE. 2011;6(4):e18804.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Petroczi A. Attitudes and doping: a structural equation analysis of the relationship between athletes’ attitudes, sport orientation and doping behaviour. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2007;2:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-2-34 .

Rodek J, Sekulic D, Pasalic E. Can we consider religiousness as a protective factor against doping behavior in sport? J Relig Health. 2009;48(4):445–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-008-9207-9 .

Ruzdija K, Gontarev S, Lazar T. Doping attitudes and doping behavior in Macedonian professional wrestler. Res Phys Educ Sport Health. 2018;7(1):55–60.

Sanchez-Oliver AJ, Grimaldi-Puyana M, Dominguez R. Evaluation and behavior of Spanish bodybuilders: doping and sports supplements. Biomolecules. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom9040122 .

Schneider D, Morris J. College athletes and drug testing: attitudes and behaviors by gender and sport. J Athl Train. 1993;28(2):146.

Silvester J. Anabolic steroids at the 1972 Olympics! Coach Athletic Dire. 2006;76(3):8.

Soltanabadi S, Tojari F, Esmaeili MR. Variance analysis of sport motivation, doping attitude and behavior among pro athletes of team sports. J Appl Environ Biol Sci. 2015;5(3):254–8.

Stilger VG, Yesalis CE. Anabolic-androgenic steroid use among high school football players. J Community Health. 1999;24(2):131–45.

Striegel H, Ulrich R, Simon P. Randomized response estimates for doping and illicit drug use in elite athletes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;106(2–3):230–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.07.026 .

Tahtamouni LH, Mustafa NH, Alfaouri AA, Hassan IM, Abdalla MY, Yasin SR. Prevalence and risk factors for anabolic-androgenic steroid abuse among Jordanian collegiate students and athletes. Eur J Public Health. 2008;18(6):661–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn062 .

Terney R, McLain LG. The use of anabolic steroids in high school students. Am J Dis Child. 1990;144(1):99–103.

Tricker R, Connolly D. Drugs and the college athlete: an analysis of the attitudes of student athletes at risk. J Drug Educ. 1997;27(2):105–19. https://doi.org/10.2190/E8U0-42UM-PBLK-96RH .

Uduwana I, Madushani A. Identifying the reasons for the misuse of ergogenic aid in national level athletes in Sri Lanka. Eur= Int J Sci Hum. 2014;1(2).

Uvacsek M, Nepusz T, Naughton DP, Mazanov J, Ranky MZ, Petroczi A. Self-admitted behavior and perceived use of performance-enhancing vs psychoactive drugs among competitive athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(2):224–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01041.x .

Vâjială G, Epuran M, Stanescu M, Potzaichin I, Berbecaru C. Relation between motivation and temptation for using the doping substances in high performance sports. Ovidius University Annals, Series Physical Education & Sport/Science, Movement & Health. 2010;10(2).

Wagman DF, Curry LA, Cook DL. An investigation into anabolic androgenic steroid use by elite US powerlifters. J Strength Condit Res. 1995;9(3):149–54.

Wanjek B, Rosendahl J, Strauss B, Gabriel HH. Doping, drugs and drug abuse among adolescents in the state of Thuringia (Germany): prevalence, knowledge and attitudes. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28(4):346–53. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-924353 .

Whitaker L, Long J, Petroczi A, Backhouse SH. Using the prototype willingness model to predict doping in sport. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;24(5):e398-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12148 .

Wroble RR, Gray M, Rodrigo JA. Anabolic steroids and preadolescent athletes: prevalence, knowledge, and attitudes. Sport J. 2002;5(3):1–8.

Yesalis CE III, Herrick RT, Buckley WE, Friedl KE, Brannon D, Wright JE. Self-reported use of anabolic-androgenic steroids by elite power lifters. Phys Sports Med. 1988;16(12):91–100.

Zenic N. Comparative analysis of substance use in ballet, dance sport, and synchronized swimming: results of a longitudinal study. Med Probl Perform Art. 2010;25(2):75–81.

Erickson K, Stanger N, Patterson L, Backhouse SH. Substance use in university sport: a cross-national study of student-athlete substance use behaviors and perceived responses to witnessing substance use. Perform Enhanc Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2019.100151 .

Boardley ID, Smith AL, Ntoumanis N, Gucciardi DF, Harris TS. Perceptions of coach doping confrontation efficacy and athlete susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019;29(10):1647–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13489 .

Dietz P, Ulrich R, Dalaker R, Striegel H, Franke AG, Lieb K, et al. Associations between physical and cognitive doping—a cross-sectional study in 2.997 triathletes. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(11):e78702. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078702 .

Dietz P, Dalaker R, Letzel S, Ulrich R, Simon P. Analgesics use in competitive triathletes: its relationship to doping and on predicting its usage. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(20):1965–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1149214 .

Elbe A-M, Pitsch W. Doping prevalence among Danish elite athletes. Perform Enhanc Health. 2018;6(1):28–32.

Pitsch W, Emrich E. The frequency of doping in elite sport: results of a replication study. Int Rev Sociol Sport. 2011;47(5):559–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690211413969 .

Pitsch W. Assessing and explaining the doping prevalence in cycling. In: Fincoeur B, Gleaves J, Ohl F, editors. Doping in cycling: interdisciplinary perspectives. London: Routledge; 2018. p. 13–30.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Pitsch W, Emrich E, Klein M. Doping in elite sports in Germany: results of a www survey. Eur J Sport Soc. 2007;4(2):89–102.

Seifarth S, Dietz P, Disch AC, Engelhardt M, Zwingenberger S. The prevalence of legal performance-enhancing substance use and potential cognitive and or physical doping in German recreational triathletes, assessed via the randomised response technique. Sports (Basel). 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7120241 .

Ulrich R, Pope HG, Cléret L, Petróczi A, Nepusz T, Schaffer J, et al. Doping in two elite athletics competitions assessed by randomized-response surveys. Sports Med. 2018;48(1):211–9.

Morente-Sánchez J, Leruite M, Mateo-March M, Zabala M. Attitudes towards doping in Spanish competitive female Cyclists vs. Triathletes J Sci Cycl. 2013;2(2):40.

Aguilar M, Munoz-Guerra J, Plata MDM, Del Coso J. Thirteen years of the fight against doping in figures. Drug Test Anal. 2017;9(6):866–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2168 .

Aguilar-Navarro M, Munoz-Guerra J, Del Mar PM, Del Coso J. Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015. J Sport Health Sci. 2020;9(2):160–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005 .

Al GM. The use of performance-enhancing substances (doping) by athletes in Saudi Arabia. J Family Community Med. 2017;24(3):151–5. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_122_16 .

Bahr R, Tjørnhom M. Prevalence of doping in sports: doping control in Norway, 1977–1995. Clin J Sport Med. 1998;8(1):32–7.

Marchand A, Buisson C, Martin L, Martin JA, Molina A, Ressiot D. Report on an anti-doping operation in Guadeloupe: high number of positive cases and inferences about doping habits. Drug Test Anal. 2017;9(11–12):1753–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2185 .

Mazzeo F, Monda M. Doping in Italy: an analysis of its spread in ten years. Biol Med. 2016. https://doi.org/10.4172/0974-8369.1000263 .

Mercado KS, Camacho EF, Rodríguez LB, Rodríguez MF, Mendoza NM, Velasco-Bejarano B. Banned substances and their incidence: a retrospective view of the national laboratory of prevention and doping control of Mexico. Adicciones. 2019;31(3):201–11.

Pereira HM, Sardela VF. Stimulant doping agents used in Brazil: prevalence, detectability, analytical implications, and challenges. Subst Use Misuse. 2014;49(9):1098–114. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2014.907653 .

Van Eenoo P, Delbeke F. The prevalence of doping in Flanders in comparison to the prevalence of doping in international sports. Int J Sports Med. 2003;24(08):565–70.

Vouillamoz M, Thom C, Grisdale R, Saugy M, Giraud S, Robinson N, et al. Anti-doping testing at the 2008 European football championship. Drug Test Anal. 2009;1(11–12):485–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.105 .

Faiss R, Saugy J, Zollinger A, Robinson N, Schuetz F, Saugy M, et al. Prevalence estimate of blood doping in elite track and field athletes during two major international events. Front Physiol. 2020;11:160.

Kuipers H, Moran J, Dubravcic-Simunjak S, Mitchell DW, Shobe J, Sakai H, et al. Hemoglobin level in elite speed skaters from 2000 up to 2005, and its relationship with competitive results. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28(1):16–20. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-924055 .

Sottas PE, Robinson N, Fischetto G, Dolle G, Alonso JM, Saugy M. Prevalence of blood doping in samples collected from elite track and field athletes. Clin Chem. 2011;57(5):762–9. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2010.156067 .

Aubel O, Lefevre B, Le Goff JM, Taverna N. The team effect on doping in professional male road cycling (2005–2016). Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019;29(4):615–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13384 .

Maquirriain J. Epidemiological analysis of doping offences in the professional tennis circuit. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2010;5(1):30.

Whitaker L, Backhouse S. Doping in sport: an analysis of sanctioned UK rugby union players between 2009 and 2015. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(16):1607–13.

USADA. 2017 Athlete Test History. 2018. https://www.usada.org/news/athlete-test-history/ . Accessed 21 April 2020.

Alquraini H, Auchus RJ. Strategies that athletes use to avoid detection of androgenic-anabolic steroid doping and sanctions. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2018;464:28–33.

Petróczi A, Nepusz T, Cross P, Taft H, Shah S, Deshmukh N, et al. New non-randomised model to assess the prevalence of discriminating behaviour: a pilot study on mephedrone. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2011;6(1):20.

Ulrich R, Schröter H, Striegel H, Simon P. Asking sensitive questions: a statistical power analysis of randomized response models. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(4):623.

Lensvelt-Mulders GJ, Hox JJ, Van der Heijden PG, Maas CJ. Meta-analysis of randomized response research: thirty-five years of validation. Sociol Methods Res. 2005;33(3):319–48.

Höglinger M, Jann B. More is not always better: an experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0201770.

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. The Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9 .

von Niederhäusern B, Guyatt GH, Briel M, Pauli-Magnus C. Academic response to improving value and reducing waste: a comprehensive framework for INcreasing QUality In patient-oriented academic clinical REsearch (INQUIRE). PLoS Med. 2018;15(6):e1002580-e. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002580 .

Agosta S, Sartori G. The autobiographical IAT: a review. Front Psychol. 2013;4:519.

Mullen B, Atkins JL, Champion DS, Edwards C, Hardy D, Story JE, et al. The false consensus effect: a meta-analysis of 115 hypothesis tests. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1985;21(3):262–83.

Goethals GR, Messick DM, Allison ST. The uniqueness bias: studies of constructive social comparison. In: Suls J, Wills TH, editors. Social comparison: contemporary theory and research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1991. p. 149–76.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. 2018. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf . Accessed 21 April 2020.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work was conducted as part of the Working Group on Doping Prevalence of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The authors thank Tony Cunningham, Marcia MacDonald, and Olivier Rabin for their critical review and constructive comments on the manuscript; and Annie Bachman for her assistance in extracting and compiling data.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Kinesiology, California State University Fullerton, 800 N State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA, 92834, USA

John Gleaves

Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames, UK

Andrea Petróczi & Dirk Folkerts

University of Münster, Münster, Germany

Dirk Folkerts

Doping Authority Netherlands, Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands

Olivier de Hon

Penn State University, State College, USA

Emmanuel Macedo

University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Martial Saugy

University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

Maarten Cruyff

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Gleaves .

Ethics declarations

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Conflicts of interest

This paper represents part of the work by the World Anti-Doping Agency Working Group on Doping Prevalence conducted between September 2017 and December 2019, but WADA had no control over the drafting or content of this manuscript. John Gleaves, Andrea Petróczi, Olivier De Hon, Martial Saugy and Maarten Cruyff served as members of the Working Group (2017–2019) and they prepared this paper in their capacity as Working Group members, in collaboration with DF and EM. The Working Group members receive no salary for their work but expenses related to the travel for work were covered. Andrea Petróczi received grant funding from WADA previously as part of the Social Science Research Program, served as a member of the first Working Group on Doping Prevalence (2011–2012); and is currently involved in providing analysis and evaluation support for WADA’s Outreach Program in an unpaid advisory role. Martial Saugy worked at the Swiss Laboratory for Doping analyses (LAD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland) until 2016 and received funding from WADA Science Department prior to his involvement in this project. Olivier De Hon works for the National Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands. Dirk Folkerts and Emmanuel Macedo declare they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The definitions, questions, and rater criteria for the Quality Assessment of Doping evidence—Self-Reported Prevalence (QUAD-SRP) and the Quality Assessment of Doping evidence—Sample Analysis of Prevalence (QUAD-SAP) are available in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S1 and S2, respectively. All extracted data from the studies are available in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S3. The complete scoring for all studies is available in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S4. All other datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current analysis are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authorship contributions

AP served as senior author on the project, conceptualized the study, led the development of quality assessment criteria, contributed to collating and synthesizing the independent quality assessments, contributed to the literature search, supervised DF and contributed to drafting the manuscript. JG drafted the manuscript, contributed to the development of quality assessment criteria, contributed to collating and synthesizing the independent quality assessments as well as the literature search and supervised EM. DF conducted the initial literature search, contributed to developing the quality assessment criteria and conducted independent quality assessment for all included studies under the supervision of AP. OH conducted independent quality assessment, contributed to developing the quality assessment criteria and literature search. EM conducted independent quality assessment under the supervision of JG. The best practice recommendations were formulated by AP, JG, OH, MS, and MC. All authors read and critically commented on the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 47 kb)

Supplementary file2 (docx 41 kb), supplementary file3 (docx 60 kb), supplementary file4 (docx 34 kb), rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gleaves, J., Petróczi, A., Folkerts, D. et al. Doping Prevalence in Competitive Sport: Evidence Synthesis with “Best Practice” Recommendations and Reporting Guidelines from the WADA Working Group on Doping Prevalence. Sports Med 51 , 1909–1934 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01477-y

Download citation

Accepted : 08 April 2021

Published : 26 April 2021

Issue Date : September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01477-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

24 Sport, Drugs, and Doping

Paul Dimeo is an associate professor in the Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling. He is co-director of the International Network of Doping Research and has published widely on various subjects, including antidoping history and policy. His books include The Anti-Doping Crisis in Sport: Causes, Consequences, Solutions (2018, with Vernon Møller,), Elite Sport, Doping and Public Health (2009, with Vernon Møller and Michael McNamee), and Drugs, Alcohol and Sport (2006).

April Henning has a PhD in Sociology and is a lecturer in sport studies at the University of Stirling. Henning has published widely on topics related to health and substance use in sport. Her recent book (2021, with Jesper Andreasson), Performance Cultures and Doped Bodies, focuses on doping in sport and fitness, gender, and antidoping policy. She is a director of the International Network of Doping Research and an associate editor at the journal Performance Enhancement and Health .

• Published: 21 September 2022
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Two key issues continue to haunt sport: first, that athletes have cheated, and will continue to cheat, using strong performance-enhancing drugs that involve health risks; second, that draconian antidoping measures have led to excessive surveillance, disproportionate punishments, and severe consequences (financial, mental health, long-term career) for some athletes. Academic approaches are broadly divided into those practically supportive of antidoping through prevention research, those which accept the current nature of antidoping policy and aim to provide improved knowledge and understanding, and those with a more critical perspective, including trying to find manageable and acceptable new solutions, such as harm reduction. The chapter reviews these approaches and summarizes key issues and debates before exploring the contribution to be made by social science research.

Doping in sport is an issue that continues to provoke concerns related to the corruption of sport. Examples of wide-scale and organized doping, usually known as systematic doping, are covered extensively by global media and attract significant attention. They are “newsworthy.” A salient example is that of the Russian systematic doping scandal ( McLaren, 2016 ), which has been widely covered in global media as well as being the basis for an award-winning documentary ( Fogel, 2017 ). Another example is the Lance Armstrong story, which has also continued to receive attention through three detailed documentaries, a movie, books, and interviews (including the Oprah Winfrey Show ) since evidence was revealed about his doping in 2012 ( U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, 2012 ; Zenovich, 2020 ).

This chapter focuses on how the cultural narratives around the excessive and obvious incidences of doping serve to hide, and to justify, a stark imbalance of power between the organizations implementing antidoping and those who are subject to that authority: primarily athletes, but also athlete support personnel, including parents.

This power imbalance will be explored by focusing on five main issues: (1) the production of the World Anti-Doping Code, (2) Code compliance, (3) strict liability, (4) the appeals and arbitration processes, and (5) antidoping culture. We then explore the range of academic research approaches and discuss the extent to which some of these implicitly accept, ignore, or challenge the more critical issues of power imbalances. Finally, we consider the ongoing debates about the future of antidoping, specifically whether there should be changes made to the Code that would allow for some collective bargaining of athletes’ rights, as well as greater consideration of the main issues outlined above.

The organization that coordinates antidoping globally, or what they refer to as the “collaborative worldwide movement for doping-free sport” ( World Anti-Doping Agency, n.d. ), is the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). It sets out the rules and procedures for antidoping in the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), which is implemented by national antidoping organizations and other signatories, including sports federations and event organizers. The WADC was first written in 2003, and then revised for 2009, 2015, and 2021. How this policy was developed and the approach it adopted is the first key issue around antidoping.

Policy Development

The WADC is a very powerful policy document. It sets out many core features of antidoping: who can be tested, how they are tested, responsibilities of athletes and organizations, which substances and methods are prohibited, the range of antidoping rule violations (ADRVs), and the processes available following an ADRV. This underpins a testing system that has grown over the past two decades to the point where over 300,000 antidoping tests are conducted every year.

The first version of the WADC was written in the period between WADA’s formation in 1999–2000 and 2003. It was the first global policy for antidoping and built on the approach previously taken by the International Olympic Committee. The IOC has provided 50% of WADA’s funding and many key personnel, including the first WADA president, Canadian lawyer and IOC vice president Dick Pound. The WADC was initially written by a handful of people who focused on strongly responding to the doping scandals of the 1990s ( Ritchie, 2013 ). The emphasis was, and remains, on forcing athletes to take responsibility for knowing the rules and for any substances found in their sample, as well as being available every day for testing. It does not differentiate between types of sport, age, levels of education or competition, or the functional impact of any detected substance on performance in specific events. It aims for drug-free sport in a universal sense, using a one-size-fits-all model. Substances can be prohibited before any research-based evidence demonstrates their effect on health or performance. Sanctions focus on individuals, leading to confusion about what happens when ADRVs occur in team sport situations. The initial standard ban for a first violation was two years, a sanction that was later increased to four years. This increase was made with no consideration of how a banned athlete might be able to handle the repercussions of a sanction, including resulting mental health challenges or replacing income from sport for that period ( Dimeo & Møller, 2018 ; Hong, Henning, & Dimeo, 2020 ).

Subsequent versions of the WADC were revised after consultation with stakeholders. However, these consultations are only advisory comments, and there is no requirement that WADA take any specific contributions into account. There is no auditing system or direct accountability to any other organization. The final decisions about the WADC rest with WADA’s executive and foundation boards. In the course of the three revisions so far, the core strategies have been augmented, including the increase of the standard ban for the categories of substances most associated with performance enhancement to four years. There has been increased authority to sanction athletes for innocuous violations, including cases in which cocaine use or a single missed test has led to four-year bans (although the 2021 WADC will have shorter bans for cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, or cannabis if used for reasons not associated with competitions or performance enhancement). Athletes have some, if limited, involvement in decision-making processes about the WADC, through the 12-member Athlete Committee ( World Anti-Doping Agency, n.d. ). It is unclear the extent to which WADA has responded to the concerns of academic researchers on key matters such as excessive surveillance, invasion of privacy, the disproportionate length of sanctions, appeals processes, and other issues ( Dimeo & Møller, 2018 ).

Code Compliance

The second key issue is compliance with the WADC. After the Code was published in 2003, WADA’s leadership proceeded to increase the number of compliant stakeholders with the support of a UNESCO convention. Thus, by 2008 over 90 countries had ratified the convention ( Czarnota, 2012 , p. 48). Stakeholders include national governments, sports federations, event organizations, and other relevant groups. Some federations were reluctant to sign the Code, including those representing football, cycling, cricket, and Australian Rules Football ( Czarnota, 2012 ). It is important to note that the main four U.S. team sports leagues are not signatories. Instead, those leagues worked with athlete unions to collectively bargain antidoping rules that are specific to those sports. The U.S. National Collegiate Athletic Association is also not a signatory, choosing to carry out its own antidoping program. Some international sports federations were also initially reluctant to join, such as those representing football and cycling. However, there were consequences for noncompliance, including that those not in compliance would be ineligible to compete at the Olympic Games. There was also a level of public expectation that all sports organizations should be explicitly supportive of the campaign against doping ( Engelberg, Moston, & Skinner, 2012 ; Houlihan, Downward, Yamamoto, Rasciute, & Takasu, 2020 ).

Once a sports federation has become a signatory, all clubs and athletes associated with that sport become subject to the WADC. As such, most athletes do not have a choice regarding participation in the antidoping system. Of course, athletes do have an alternative: they can choose to give up their competitive sporting careers. Lack of initial awareness about the strictures of the Code has implications for groups such as youth athletes. Indeed, a considerable number of young athletes will become subject to the Code before they fully understand what that means, before their parents understand it, and before they have had any formal antidoping education. The scope of jurisdiction is also unclear. This is how the WADC defines an athlete:

Any Person who competes in sport at the international level (as defined by each International Federation) or the national level (as defined by each National Anti-Doping Organization). An Anti-Doping Organization has discretion to apply anti-doping rules to an Athlete who is neither an International-Level Athlete nor a National-Level Athlete, and thus to bring them within the definition of “Athlete.” In relation to Athletes who are neither International-Level nor National-Level Athletes, an Anti-Doping Organization may elect to: conduct limited Testing or no Testing at all; analyze Samples for less than the full menu of Prohibited Substances; require limited or no whereabouts information; or not require advance TUEs (therapeutic use exemptions). However, if an Article 2.1, 2.3 or 2.5 anti-doping rule violation is committed by any Athlete over whom an Anti-Doping Organization has authority who competes below the international or national level, then the Consequences set forth in the Code must be applied. For purposes of Article 2.8 and Article 2.9 and for purposes of antidoping information and education, any Person who participates in sport under the authority of any Signatory, government, or other sports organization accepting the Code is an Athlete. ( World Anti-Doping Agency, 2021 , p. 165–166)

It is therefore possible for testing to include a much wider range of individuals than just elite or professional athletes who have the benefit of education and support provided by their sports organizations’ specialist advisors. Athletes below national-level standing can also be included. The Comment section World Anti-Doping Agency, 2021 , p. 166) goes on to say that noncompeting fitness athletes and masters (older age) athletes can still be tested and sanctioned. There have been numerous cases of nonelite athletes being sanctioned for deliberate and inadvertent doping (see Dimeo & Møller, 2018 ).

Given the vague and wide definition of an athlete who can be tested, the reach of the WADC becomes a more significant issue when considering Article 5.2, “The Scope of Testing.” Article 5.2 begins, “Any Athlete may be required to provide a Sample at any time and at any place by any Anti-Doping Organization with Testing authority over him or her’ (WADC, 2015, p. 37). It is well known that elite athletes selected for the Registered Testing Pool are required to give one hour per day of whereabouts information, and that all athletes are subject to random out-of-competition and in-competition testing. However, there has been much less discussion about the need for any athlete, regardless of age, ability, or level of competition, to allow testers to demand a sample “at any time and in any place” (see Dimeo & Møller, 2018 ).

An overarching issue that requires further analysis is the invasion of privacy, and a second related issue is the potential formal and informal (i.e., social stigma) consequences of not following the rules. A positive test has wide ramifications, including not being able to “associate” with other athletes or attend sports events or club activities during the period of a ban. Thereafter, the label of “doper” is hard to shake off and can overshadow athletes’ (nonsport) professional career status and undermine opportunities for career progression. This all seems out of balance with the nature of many “violations.”

Athlete support personnel are also subject to the WADC. This is reasonable if these personnel are limited to coaches or team doctors, as their use or supply of banned substances could increase the risk of athletes using banned substances. However, the extension of such sanctions to include parents is troubling. Article 21.2.6 says, “Athlete Support Personnel shall not Use or Possess any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method without valid justification” (WADC, 2015, p. 116). It is possible, then, for a parent, guardian, or potentially any family member to violate the Code if they use or possess a prohibited substance, including such banned medical products as ephedrine. There appears to be no systematic attempt to communicate the extent of this reach with parents and guardians, and thus there remains a potentially serious vagueness about these rules and who may be subject to them.

Strict Liability

A third key issue is that of strict liability. Prior to the establishment of WADA and the consistent use of this principle, a number of athletes appealed their doping bans by claiming they did not intend to consume the substance. Even Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson had initially responded to the stripping of his 1988 Olympic gold medal by insisting that his drink must have been spiked by a stranger who came into the athletes’ dressing room. Despite evidence in the 1994 case involving English runner Diane Modahl ( McArdle, 1999 ), who was found to be innocent after her sample came back positive for testosterone (it had degraded in high temperatures), the authors of the first WADC took the position that any positive test should lead to a sanction. The exact words in Article 2:

It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1. (WADC, 2015, p. 18)

Therefore, intent has been removed from the sanctioning process. In the subsequent article on attempted use, the WADC is even stronger:

The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an anti-doping rule violation to be committed. (p. 20)

The potential to violate the rules is further expanded in Article 2. Evading testers or refusing or failing to submit a sample can lead to a sanction, as can three whereabouts failures in a 12-month period. Tampering or attempted tampering with the antidoping process can lead to an ADRV. Simply possessing a banned substance is also seen as an ADRV. Trafficking, attempted trafficking, administration or attempted administration, complicity, and associating with an individual serving a doping ban can also be ADRVs.

It remains the athlete’s responsibility to ensure they do not break any of these rules. Athletes can appeal a sanction based on lack of intent, lack of fault, or lack of awareness. Some of the most controversial appeals focus on the last appeal, wherein contamination has occurred through various means including meat, water, in the manufacturing process of nutritional supplements, or even cocaine ingested through kissing ( Dimeo & Møller, 2018 ). However, strict liability is based on some key assumptions that are questionable: that athletes are of a mature age, are fully aware and educated about the WADC, and are not pressured into taking a substance by their coach, team doctor, or even parents. In such complex waters, athletes realistically put much trust in their support team for assistance and oversight. Still, there have been many cases when either that trust has been abused or mistakes have been made in the provision of medicine ( Amos, 2007 ; Anderson, 2010 ). Yet the WADC places full responsibility on the athlete even when there might be very legitimate situations in which they have not doped deliberately. This simplistic notion of conscious performance-enhancing substance use being the essence of doping does not take into account the range of ADRVs and the range of potential unintentional violations covered under the strict liability principle in the WADC.

Appeals and Arbitration

After a positive test or other evidence leading to an ADRV, the athlete (or support person) is provisionally charged and suspended. An athlete can take their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport; however, Court arbitrators are required to ensure only that the WADC rules have been followed. They cannot challenge the nature of the rules or decide on proportionality. If an athlete appeals a sanction, the burden of proof lies with them—a type of “guilty until proven innocent” approach. As such, appeals can be very expensive and time consuming and still result in a ban. If contamination came from a nutritional supplement, for example, the scientific analysis can cost thousands of dollars, and even then it might not identify the source of the substance in question. Even when the source is identified and accepted, athletes may still be sanctioned on the basis that they have been negligent.

Antidoping Culture

The power of the WADC and its antidoping discourse has permeated sport. Antidoping can function as a kind of soft power, playing on perceived norms, morality, and a sport ethic that works to convince athletes and stakeholders that doping-free sport is both the ideal and the only acceptable outcome. Even sports that are not signatories to the WADC have developed their own antidoping or drug-testing programs, partly in response to views of doping as morally wrong that have been advanced by antidoping advocates. These messages and harsh antidoping policies like the WADC have led to a sport culture that is, on the surface at least, intolerant of doping.

While part of WADA’s strategy is deterring use through testing and tough sanctioning, there is a stigmatizing component to this strategy. Athletes who test positive under any circumstances are labeled “dopers,” even when the athletes are found to be at little or no fault and receive reduced sanctions. Sanctioned athletes are often alienated from their sport and fellow athletes, making the path back from a doping violation difficult ( Hong et al., 2020 ). This label can follow athletes throughout their careers and extend beyond their competitive years to sometimes long-lasting repercussions in their nonsport lives. Amateur athletes who fall afoul of the system may have their names attached to their doping violation for years afterward, as announcements of sanctions often appear high in results in internet searches of athletes’ names ( Henning & Dimeo, 2018a ).

Antidoping culture in sport can also prevent athletes from speaking out about the flaws in the system or calling for reform. Athletes who question antidoping or its processes may face a backlash from fellow athletes, sponsors, and fans. There is a broad view that athletes are generally supportive of antidoping, but surveys using indirect questioning methods on doping have found that large portions—in some studies even a majority—of athletes admit to doping ( de Hon, Kuipers, & van Bottenburg 2015 ; Elbe & Pitsch, 2018 ; Ulrich et al., 2018 ). This gap between what athletes say publicly and do privately indicates that the powers that be in sport culture have become intolerant of critiques or challenges to the antidoping system. To protect their own careers and reputations, athletes may choose to say nothing about their concerns or negative experiences with antidoping for fear of being labeled a doper themselves.

Taken together, our five key issues show that athletes have been systematically disempowered by the WADC and antidoping more generally. They have not been consulted and do not have sufficient protections. Athletes can easily slip up and receive a ban that is difficult to appeal. We will now review the various social science research approaches to the topic that have emerged over the past two decades.

Social science research on antidoping has considered a wide range of issues. In this section, we offer an overview of paradigmatic approaches, though this is not fully comprehensive due to the scale of research in this area. Most notably, we will not be reviewing the body of work that critically describes the historical development of drug use and antidoping policy, as this is too extensive to assess in a single chapter.

Promotion of Antidoping

One approach that researchers have taken broadly supports the assumptions and ethos of antidoping initiatives. This approach to research seeks to understand athletes and sport in ways that can be used to promote clean sport aims and programs. Additionally, this approach may develop interventions to bolster components of the system, including those related to knowledge, education, testing, and understanding the most optimal methods and timings for interventions ( Mazanov, Huybers, & Connor, 2011 ). WADA and the IOC have offered considerable research funding to projects that promote antidoping policy and doping prevention, either through interventions or evaluations leading to improvements.

Several projects have focused on the provision of antidoping education, not just to athletes but to coaches, doctors, and parents ( Patterson, Backhouse, & Duffy, 2016 ). This type of research supports the development and dissemination of “high-level” messaging about clean sport, cultural values around fair play and competitions, and specific detailed educational programs delivered either online or in face-to-face workshops. A more recent type of project that supports antidoping focuses on how to promote intelligence gathering about doping by encouraging whistleblowing. The research conducted by Erickson, Patterson, and Backhouse (2019) has been directly influential in new programs being developed by antidoping agencies, particularly in the United States.

Social-psychological studies have been developed to assess and predict athletes’ likelihood of doping and to help design prevention interventions. Key theoretical concepts, including rational choice theory and moral disengagement, have been applied based on the assumption that doping is a deliberate, conscious, and voluntary act that relies on some form of moral deficiency. These approaches implicitly assume doping to be “wrong” or “deviant,” while antidoping is morally correct. Researchers have explored the association of doping with negative traits, including Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism ( Nicholls, Madigan, Backhouse, & Levy, 2017 ), although only the first two were positively linked to doping attitudes. A recent study associated athletes’ attitudes to doping with narcissism and controlling behaviors by coaches ( Matosic, Ntoumanis, & Boardley, 2020 ). Other studies looking at athletes and risk have highlighted factors such as perceptions of others’ use, return from injury, or career transition points, and several inquiries have focused on the use of nutritional supplements as a precursor to use of banned substances, and therefore a potential “gateway” predictor ( Hurst, Kavussanu, Boardley, & Ring, 2019 ). There is now a well-developed survey tool for trying to understand and predict risk of doping by athletes on the basis on their attitudes toward cheating, drugs, and moral factors: the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale ( Petróczi & Aidman, 2009 ). Overall, such studies aim to understand the stages through which an athlete might go in order to reach the point of deciding to dope, and to develop ways to inform potential interventions to prevent this occurring.

There have been numerous studies on the ethics of doping and antidoping. These have diverged remarkably. However, a number of sports philosophers have come to the conclusion that sport should be drug-free in order to promote the fairness of competition. In particular, the various research projects conducted separately by McNamee (2012) and Loland and Hoeppeler (2012) have served to outline the basic tenets of this position.

Outside of the social sciences, and therefore beyond the scope of this chapter, some biomedical and biochemistry studies have supported the development of antidoping testing procedures, including finding new analytical methods for detecting banned substances. Another disciplinary area that tends to focus on improving implementation is sports law, where researchers discuss the application of the WADC in appeals and arbitration cases. These tend to be complex analyses about how rules are interpreted and applied rather than broad discursive explorations of the policy systems. As such, it is difficult to classify them as either supportive, accepting, or critical. Still, we can argue that if their focus is on the detail, application, and operational aspects of antidoping, then, at a basic level, they accept the principles and practices of antidoping and seek to promote and improve them by ensuring more effective and consistent legal processes.

Acceptance of Antidoping

This second approach is often characterized by research that seeks to understand and help inform antidoping rather than promote or critique it. This approach to research takes antidoping as a component part of sport to be examined and understood. However, the indirect use of apparently “neutral” evidence could be for either purpose.

One example of this approach is seen in the work employing social science prevalence surveys to explore the true extent of doping. These are usually meant to be in contrast to the 1.5% to 2% of adverse analytical findings that result from the over 300,000 antidoping tests conducted globally every year ( Dimeo & Taylor, 2013 ). Several surveys have used the randomized response technique, which assures the respondent of anonymity by not asking for any personal details, and then adds a layer of assurance by asking a random question (like month of birth) and indicating the respondent should answer truthfully only if they meet a criterion—for example, only answer truthfully if they were born in a month that begins with “J.” Estimated prevalence is then drawn from probability models based on the responses. This aims to reduce social desirability bias and increase honest responses. There have been several randomized response technique surveys conducted since 2010, most of which find a higher prevalence than WADA’s official testing results show, with some studies showing up to 44% of doping in the previous year ( Pitsch & Emrich, 2012 ; Ulrich et al., 2018 ). The extensive empirical and methodological issues associated with these surveys are outside the scope of this chapter. It is sufficient to say that these researchers have highlighted, with a critical eye, that antidoping testing systems are inefficient and ineffective, that prevalence varies according to sport and country, and that detailed prevalence information can support an intelligence-led targeted testing approach. This research is often used in support of the principle of testing and aims to improve it.

Other groups of researchers have criticized the implementation of specific components of antidoping without criticizing the overall system. Discussions of the problems facing athletes who test positive inadvertently, for example through using a contaminated supplement, tend to focus on how to reduce the likelihood of this happening through increasing awareness among athletes, coaches, and doctors ( Martínez-Sanz et al., 2017 ). Similarly, studies that explore mistakes made by laboratories that lead to innocent athletes being sanctioned have concluded that, rather than a radical overhaul of the system, the laboratories need greater scrutiny and athletes should have access to relevant information ( Pielke & Boye, 2019 ). With regard to athlete experiences of antidoping, Elbe and Overbye’s (2014) survey led to suggestions for improving the processes in which urine samples are collected. Other surveys have questioned how athletes perceive antidoping policy systems and their level of trust or the system’s “perceived legitimacy” ( Efverström, Ahmadi, Hoff, & Bäckström, 2016 ; Henning & Dimeo, 2018b ; Overbye & Wagner, 2014 ). Overall, such studies explore aspects within the current policy, but rather than take a broader view on whether the policy itself should be reconsidered, although some of them indeed do so, they tend to highlight the problems noted earlier in this chapter associated with athlete disempowerment and the monopoly of power held by WADA in the determination and implementation of policies and procedures.

Several studies have questioned aspects of the WADC and global implementation. Surveys on incomplete harmonization have highlighted that some countries and sports are more advanced than others in their approach to antidoping ( Hanstad, Skille, & Loland, 2010 ). Meanwhile, the small number of studies exploring the challenges facing authorities in controlling doping supply routes tend to highlight weaknesses in order to improve control mechanisms and thus support the notion of clean sport and the ambitions of antidoping agencies ( Paoli & Donati, 2014 ). An exception to this is a study by Fincoeur, van de Ven, and Mulrooney (2015) , who demonstrated that excessive control and the shift toward criminalization have had damaging impacts, leading them to call for a “rethink” of global policies toward drug use in sport. A brief contrast of these approaches shows that, within the research field of antidoping, studies can be used to make different arguments, some of which help advance more credible challenges to flaws in existing policies and practices.

Challenging Antidoping

This third approach to antidoping research includes the work of critical researchers who question the fundamental rationale of antidoping and those who investigate alternative systems for addressing doping in sport.

When the WADC was first produced, leading scholars criticized the civil rights abuses inherent in processes endorsed in the Code and, more specifically, questioned the implementation of a “whereabouts” system in which athletes have to tell the authorities their locations for living, training, and competing, and those in the Registered Testing Pool are mandated to provide details of where they can be located if required for testing for one hour per day. Waddington (2010) argued that athlete surveillance had become so intense that the only other group in society facing the same types of surveillance methods were convicted sex offenders. Møller (2011) compared the whereabouts system to a form of house arrest.

Some scholars also criticized the extension of the Prohibited List to include social drugs like cannabis and cocaine, arguing that these should be left to the state’s police procedures ( Waddington, Christiansen, & Gleaves, 2013 ). While these analyses did not lead directly to calls for overhauling antidoping, they directed attention to potential reforms, including less surveillance, more respect for athletes’ privacy, and removal of social drugs from the WADC. These have ultimately not been accepted by WADA, as evidenced by the continued inclusion of these substances in subsequent versions of the Code, although, as noted earlier, the 2021 Code will standardize and reduce the sanctions to be applied ( World Anti-Doping Agency, 2021 ). However, sports that did not accept the WADC—especially those in North America with powerful athlete unions—developed antidoping systems that were adapted to protect athletes and give more reasonable sanctions (i.e., treatment for recreational drug use) for doping offenses.

Other scholars have argued in favor of a greatly reduced Prohibited List, or even its complete removal. In different ways, researchers, including Savulescu, Foddy, and Clayton (2004) , have argued in favor of complete liberalization or practices that would allow athletes to use old and new technologies, many of which are available to the wider public. Again, these ideas have not been accepted by antidoping authorities. But there have been some sports, such as bodybuilding, that have made it clear to competitors that a selection of events will have testing and a selection of events will not have testing. The natural bodybuilding movement emerged as a consequence of widespread doping in the sport, around the same time that Olympic sports were beginning to take antidoping seriously.

There have been calls for a harm-reduction approach to doping, such as that proposed by Kayser and Tolleneer (2017) . This kind of approach can build on several strategies, including reducing the Prohibited List, using health (not fair play) as the only criterion for banning a substance, allowing doping under medical supervision, or moving to a system in which athletes are comprehensively tested for overall health (including effects of drugs) rather than testing only for evidence of drug use. Related to this, some researchers argue that athletes’ health would be better protected by their having access to doping information, relatively safe products, hygienic conditions for doping, and peer support ( Kayser, Mauron, & Miah, 2007 ; Smith & Stewart, 2015 ). These views reflect a similar shift around social drug use, away from the “war on drugs” model toward “safe spaces” and other forms of acceptance and support.

The world of sport has not moved away from the “war on drugs” model. However, there was a period during the late 1990s and early 2000s when the sport of cycling controlled excessive Erythropoietin (EPO) use by monitoring hematocrit levels, as there was no test that identified exogenous EPO in athletes’ urine or blood samples. EPO stimulates the production of red blood cells and can aid endurance. Riders could monitor their blood levels and use EPO up to the point of remaining consistently just under the 50% limit. This threshold approach could be used for other substances to allow a sanctioned level of use that would pose fewer risks than unregulated illicit use.

There are several ongoing debates around doping and drug use in sport among both academics and policymakers. Here, we focus on four that center on questions of athlete rights and welfare: (1) athletes’ voice in policymaking, (2) protection for minors or others forced to dope, (3) recreational drug use, and (4) post-sanction support for returning to sport.

Athletes’ Voice

The WADC is a document that directly impacts athletes and can have severe consequences for those who violate it. As noted, the WADC was produced in response to doping scandals by a group of sport officials determined to “clean up” sport. Athletes were, and continue to be, largely left out of discussion and debates around regulations, including questions of testing and sanctions. Athletes are currently represented within WADA by an Athlete Commission that was established in 2005—two years after the first WADC became effective. It is comprised of athletes who are drawn from representatives to national Olympic committees, national antidoping committees, or the IOC. However, the Athlete Commission does not have voting rights in WADA’s Executive Committee, which is the Agency’s policymaking body. As such, this governance structure leaves out the central stakeholder group in the organization’s mission. Thus far, WADA has not taken steps to include athletes, leaving the composition of the Executive Committee at 50% members from the Olympic Movement and 50% from national public authorities.

Athletes and athlete groups have called for better representation and voting power within antidoping. Global Athlete, for example, is an independent athlete group seeking better athlete representation in sport, especially in antidoping. This effort mirrors, in some ways, the athletes’ unions in U.S. professional sports that have successfully collectively bargained their respective league’s drug and antidoping policies. However, WADA has so far resisted including more athletes on their committees, and it is far from clear how unified the “athletes’ voice” would be and what sort of policy changes they would individually or collectively try to propose and support. Of additional concern would be amateur or nonelite athletes who are increasingly subject to the WADC but are not protected by education, medical support, or unionization and are unlikely to be able to afford legal representation, but for whom any sanction holds real risks of damaging their reputation and career outside of sport ( Henning & Dimeo 2018a ).

Protection for Minors and Other Vulnerable Athletes

The definition of an athlete is widely construed in the WADC, as noted. The Code lays out the responsibilities of athletes but is less clear on the responsibilities that WADA has toward athletes. Young athletes competing at a high level, for example, can be brought into the system before they have received antidoping education or are empowered or able to make choices about their training, nutrition, medications, and so on. These athletes are vulnerable to abuse by unethical coaches or parents. Further, they can be subjected to the invasive sample-collection process, presenting ethical debates about consent. Minor athletes who violate doping rules can receive the same sanctions as adults, raising questions about the proportionality of punishment to the responsibility that can actually be attributed to athletes whose cognitive and emotional development has not yet advanced to adulthood. Similarly, some athletes may be pressured or even forced to dope by coaches, sports organizations, or national bodies. The clearest examples are East German athletes who were unwittingly required to do so ( Ungerleider & Bradley, 2001 ). In such cases athletes may be given drugs without their consent or be coerced into use. Under the strict liability principle in the WADC, athletes are responsible for whatever is found in their samples.

In both of these latter examples, vulnerable athletes may be sanctioned. Cases involving minors or other athletes coerced into doping have called attention to this issue, although little has been done to address their harms at the policy level. Researchers have also noted a range of problems with strict liability ( Boye, Skotland, Østerud, & Nissen-Meyer, 2017 ; Geeraets, 2018 ; Henning & Dimeo, 2018a ), but as the whole system hangs on preventing athletes from explaining away any use of prohibited substances—zero tolerance—athletes may end up with punishments for offenses they may not have intended to commit.

Recreational Drugs

The inclusion of recreational drugs on the Prohibited List is fodder for a long-standing debate. Athletes who test positive for recreational drugs—including those that may have no performance-enhancing effects, such as cannabis—have been subject to the same sanctions as athletes who intentionally use known enhancers. While outside sport there has been a turn to treatment for recreational drug use, sport has been slower to change. The 2021 WADC allows for a reduced sanction for recreational drug use, although there would still be a ban from sport and potentially a requirement for rehabilitation.

Post-Sanction Support and Returning to Sport

Antidoping attempts to deter doping and, failing that, to detect and punish it. Part of its deterrence strategy is linking doping with cheating. Athletes who test positive are dopers, and dopers are posited to be bad no matter the situation and always deserving of punishment. The WADC sets out the standard sanction of four years. While this is a long time in many athletic careers, the protocol does offer the chance of returning to sport following a competition ban. However, the power of antidoping messaging is such that athletes who test positive are often stigmatized both in and out of sport—they are forever labeled “dopers.” This can make returning to sport and recovering sponsorships or other support extremely difficult. While some stakeholders have been vocal that athletes should be banned for life for a first offense (see Sumner, 2017 ; Tucker, 2012 ), others have argued that there needs to be allowance for athletes to resume their careers following serving a ban ( Hong et al., 2020 ).

Athletes who test positive are not provided with post-sanction support. Though they may face loss of income, isolation from their sport, and loss of social support and may be at risk for mental health problems, they are generally left to deal with the fallout from a positive test on their own ( Hong et al., 2020 ).

This chapter has sought to review the debates and research on doping behaviors and antidoping policies. The Russian doping crisis has brought the issue into public life through continued media coverage, which has led to increased calls for more action to prevent doping. The retesting of samples from the 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games shows that the problem of doping has not gone away, despite 20 years of WADA’s promotion of global policies around education, testing, and sanctions.

Academic research on doping and antidoping has blossomed in that time. Studies range from highly detailed contemporary histories to ethical and philosophical discussions and works of sociological, psychological, and criminological empirical and theoretical developments. There have been many attempts to use research for pragmatic purposes in support of antidoping’s broader themes and principles. By contrast, there have been numerous critical analyses which explore the fundamental aims and strategies created and implemented by WADA.

It seems clear that global policymaking is now much more highly structured than the fragmented nature of policy from the 1960s to the 1990s, or even in the early years of WADA. This global structure limits open debate on liberalization and harm reduction, while prioritizing funding opportunities for researchers seeking “social impact” from their applied research supportive of received policies. The global consensus around the benefits of antidoping, as well as its broad institutional support, serve to gloss over the significant intrusions into athletes’ lives and privacy, risks of accidental doping leading to career sanctions and stigmatization, the lack of opportunity for returning from a doping ban, and the broadening of critical issues to nonelite and youth sections of the athlete community. The future of antidoping appears to be a slowly changing landscape monopolized by WADA and its stakeholders that has gradually shifted more and more toward empowering WADA. In such a landscape, athletes struggle to be heard and critical academic research is increasingly sublimated by studies aiming to find helpful solutions and interventions to reduce doping behaviors.

Moreover, in the rush to use applied research to propose tweaks or radical changes to policy, there is a risk that both overseers and spectators become detached from deeper, embedded engagement with participants. Several scholars have aimed to develop a stronger understanding of cultural and practical aspects of doping and related forms of performance enhancement ( Henning & Andreasson, 2021 ; Matthews & Jordan, 2020 ; Monaghan, 1999 ; see also van de Ven, Mulrooney, & McVeigh, 2019 ). These studies are important because athletes, especially in nonelite contexts where there is less WADA surveillance and more self-determination, are developing networks and making decisions about their own health and bodies in the pursuit of performance, lifestyle, or body image ambitions.

One of the main contributions social science can make to the study of doping and antidoping is through more objective, nonjudgmental explorations of values, ideas, and day-to-day practices in which risk is negotiated and drug use either resisted or normalized. Indeed, there may be situations in which risk is actually reduced through self-protective networks of information and support or enabling environments ( Henning, McLean, Andreasson, & Dimeo, 2020 ). Only by developing a more nuanced, less ideologically presumptive, and less policy-oriented approach can we improve understanding and appreciation of antidoping as a sociological intervention that overlaps and interacts with other value systems and practices. This would empower athletes by recognizing their agency and accepting their choices rather than seeing them through the lens of antidoping policymakers as passive, docile recipients of a policy they have no choice but to accept and comply with.

Amos, A. ( 2007 ). Inadvertent doping and the WADA Code.   Bond Law Review , 19 (1), 1–25.

Google Scholar

Anderson, J. ( 2010 ). Modern sport law: A textbook . Oxford: Hart.

Google Preview

Boye, E. , Skotland, T. , Østerud, B. , & Nissen‐Meyer, J. ( 2017 ). Doping and drug testing: Anti‐doping work must be transparent and adhere to good scientific practices to ensure public trust.   EMBO Reports , 18 (3), 351–354.

Czarnota, P. A. ( 2012 ). The World Anti-Doping Code: The athlete’s duty of “utmost caution” and the elimination of cheating.   Marquette Sports Law Review , 23 (1), 45–74.

De Hon, O. , Kuipers, H. , & van Bottenburg, M. ( 2015 ). Prevalence of doping use in elite sports: A review of numbers and methods.   Sports Medicine , 45 (1), 57–69.

Dimeo, P. , & Møller, V. ( 2018 ). The anti-doping crisis in sport: Causes, consequences, solutions . London: Routledge.

Dimeo, P. , & Taylor, J. ( 2013 ). Monitoring drug use in sport: The contrast between official statistics and other evidence.   Drugs: Education, Prevention, Policy , 20 (1), 40–47.

Efverström, A. , Ahmadi, N. , Hoff, D. , & Bäckström, Å . ( 2016 ). Anti-doping and legitimacy: An international survey of elite athletes’ perceptions.   International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics , 8 (3), 491–514.

Elbe, A. , & Overbye, M. ( 2014 ). Urine doping controls: The athletes’ perspective.   International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics , 6 (2), 227–240.

Elbe, A. M. , & Pitsch, W. ( 2018 ). Doping prevalence among Danish elite athletes.   Performance Enhancement & Health , 6 (1), 28–32.

Engelberg, T. , Moston, S. , & Skinner, J. ( 2012 ). Public perception of sport anti-doping policy in Australia.   Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy , 19 (1), 84–87.

Erickson, K. , Patterson, L. , & Backhouse, S. ( 2019 ). “ The process isn’t a case of report it and stop”: Athletes’ lived experience of whistleblowing on doping in sport.   Sport Management Review , 22 (5), 724–735.

Fincoeur, B. , van de Ven, K. , & Mulrooney, K. ( 2015 ). The symbiotic evolution of anti-doping and supply chains of doping substances: How criminal networks may benefit from anti-doping policy.   Trends in Organized Crime , 18 , 229–25.

Fogel, B. (Director). ( 2017 ). Icarus . USA: Netflix.

Geeraets, V. ( 2018 ). Ideology, doping and the spirit of sport.   Sport, Ethics and Philosophy , 12 (3), 255–271.

Hanstad, D. V. , Skille, E. , & Loland, S. ( 2010 ). Harmonization of anti-doping work: Myth or reality?   Sport in Society , 13 (3), 418–430.

Henning, A. , & Andreasson, J. ( 2021 ). “ Yay, another lady starting a log!” Women’s fitness doping and the gendered space of an online doping forum.   Communication & Sport , 9 (6), 988–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479519896326 .

Henning, A. , & Dimeo, P. ( 2018 a). The new front in the war on doping: Amateur athletes.   International Journal of Drug Policy , 51 , 128–136.

Henning, A. , & Dimeo, P. ( 2018 b). Perceptions of legitimacy, attitudes and buy-in among athlete groups: A cross-national qualitative investigation providing practical solutions . Montreal: World Anti-Doping Agency.

Henning, A. , McLean, K. , Andreasson, J. , & Dimeo, P. ( 2020 ). Risk and enabling environments in sport: Systematic doping as harm reduction.   International Journal of Drug Policy , 91 , 102897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102897 .

Hong, H. J , Henning, A. , & Dimeo, P. ( 2020 ). Life after doping: A cross-country analysis of organisational support for sanctioned athletes.   Performance Enhancement and Health , 8 (1), 100161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2020.100161 .

Houlihan, B. , Downward, P. , Yamamoto, M. Y. , Rasciute, S. , & Takasu, K. ( 2020 ). Public opinion in Japan and the UK on issues of fairness and integrity in sport: Implications for anti-doping policy.   International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics , 12 (1), 1–24.

Hurst, P. , Kavussanu, M. , Boardley, I. , & Ring, C. ( 2019 ). Sport supplement use predicts doping attitudes and likelihood via sport supplement beliefs.   Journal of Sports Sciences , 37 (15), 1734–1740.

Kayser, B. , Mauron, A. , & Miah, A. ( 2007 ). Current anti-doping policy: A critical appraisal.   BMC Medical Ethics , 8 (1), 1–10.

Kayser, B. , & Tolleneer, J. ( 2017 ). Ethics of a relaxed anti-doping rule accompanied by harm-reduction measures.   Journal of Medical Ethics , 43 , 282–286.

Loland, S. , & Hoppeler, H. ( 2012 ). Justifying anti-doping: The fair opportunity principle and the biology of performance enhancement.   European Journal of Sport Science , 12 (4), 347–353.

Martínez-Sanz, J. , Sospedra, I. , Ortiz, C. , Baladía, E. , Gil-Izquierdo, A. , & Ortiz-Moncada, R. ( 2017 ). Intended or unintended doping? A review of the presence of doping substances in dietary supplements used in sports.   Nutrients , 9 (10), 1093. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9101093 .

Matthews, C. , & Jordan, M. ( 2020 ). Drugs and supplements in amateur boxing: Pugilistic amateurism and ideologies of performance.   Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health , 12 (5), 631–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1664623 .

Matosic, D. , Ntoumanis, N. , & Boardley, I. ( 2020 ). Linking narcissism, motivation, and doping attitudes in sport: A multilevel investigation involving coaches and athletes.   Journal and Sport and Exercise Psychology , 38 (6), 556–566.

Mazanov, J. , Huyber, T. , & Connor, J. ( 2011 ). Qualitative evidence of a primary intervention point for elite athlete doping.   Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport , 14 (12), 106–110.

McArdle, D. ( 1999 ). Elite athletes’ perceptions of the use and regulation of performance enhancing drugs in the United Kingdom.   Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport , 9 (1), 43–54.

McLaren, R. ( 2016 ). The independent person: 2nd report . Montreal: World Anti-Doping Agency.

McNamee, M. J. ( 2012 ). The spirit of sport and the medicalisation of anti-doping: Empirical and normative ethics.   Asian Bioethics Review , 4 (4), 374–392.

Møller, V. ( 2011 ). One step too far—about WADA’s whereabouts rule.   International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics , 3 (2), 177–190.

Monaghan, L. ( 1999 ). Challenging medicine? Bodybuilding, drugs and risk.   Sociology of Health and Illness , 21 (6), 707–734.

Nicholls, A. , Madigan, D. , Backhouse, S. , & Levy, A. ( 2017 ). Personality traits and performance enhancing drugs: The dark triad and doping attitudes among competitive athletes.   Personality and Individual Differences , 112 , 113–116.

Overbye, M. , & Wagner, U. ( 2014 ). Experiences, attitudes and trust: An inquiry into elite athletes’ perception of the whereabouts reporting system.   International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics , 6 (3), 407–428.

Paoli, L. , & Donari, A. ( 2014 ). The sports doping market: Understanding supply and demand, and the challenges of their control . New York: Springer-Verlag.

Patterson, L. , Backhouse, S. , & Duffy, P. ( 2016 ). Anti-doping education for coaches: Qualitative insights from national and international sporting and anti-doping organisations.   Sport Management Review , 19 (1), 35–47.

Petróczi, A. , & Aidman, E. ( 2009 ). Measuring explicit attitude toward doping: Review of the psychometric properties of the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale.   Psychology of Sport and Exercise , 10 (3), 390–396.

Pielke, R. , & Boye, E. ( 2019 ). Scientific integrity and anti-doping regulation.   International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics , 11 (2), 295–313.

Pitsch, W. , & Emrich, E. ( 2012 ). The frequency of doping in elite sport: Results of a replication study.   International Review for the Sociology of Sport , 47 (5), 559–580.

Ritchie, I. ( 2013 ). The construction of a policy: The World Anti-Doping Code’s “spirit of sport” clause.   Performance Enhancement and Health , 2 (4), 194–200.

Savulescu J. , Foddy B. , & Clayton M. ( 2004 ). Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport.   British Journal of Sports Medicine , 38 , 666–670.

Smith, A. C. , & Stewart, B. ( 2015 ). Why the war on drugs in sport will never be won.   Harm Reduction Journal , 12 (1), 1–6.

Sumner, C. ( 2017 ). The spirit of sport: The case for criminalisation of doping in the UK.   International Sports Law Journal , 16 (3–4), 217–227.

Tucker, R. (2012, 1 May). Lifetime ban for sport: A debate continued. The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2012/may/01/guardian-sport-network-lifetime-ban-doping#:~:text=So%20as%20expected%2C%20CAS%20on,ban%20longer%20than%20six%20months .

Ulrich, R. , Pope, H. , Cléret, L. , Petróczi, A. , Nepusz, T. , Schaffer, J. , Kanayama, G. , Comstock, D. , & Perikles, S. ( 2018 ). Doping in two elite athletics competitions assessed by randomized-response surveys.   Sports Medicine, 48, 211–219.

Ungerleider, S. , & Bradley, B. ( 2001 ). Faust’s gold: Inside the East German doping machine . New York: Macmillan.

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. (2012, August 24). Reasoned decision of the United States antidoping agency on disqualification and ineligibility. http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/ .

van de Ven, K. , Mulrooney, K. , & McVeigh, J. (Eds.). ( 2019 ). Human enhancement drugs . London: Routledge.

Waddington, I. ( 2010 ). Surveillance and control in sport: A sociologist looks at the WADA whereabouts system.   International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics , 2 (3), 255–274.

Waddington, I. , Christiansen, A. V. , & Gleaves, J. ( 2013 ). Recreational drug use and sport: Time for a WADA rethink?   Performance Enhancement and Health , 2 (2), 41–47.

World Anti-Doping Agency. (n.d.). Who we are. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/who-we-are#:~:text=The%20World%20Anti%2DDoping%20Agency’s,movement%20for%20doping%2Dfree%20sport.&text=The%20World%20Anti%2DDoping%20Agency,and%20governments%20of%20the%20world .

World Anti-Doping Agency. ( 2021 ). World Anti-Doping Code . Montreal World Anti-Doping Agency.

Zenovich, M. (Director). ( 2020 ). Lance . Bristol, CT: ESPN.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Sport motivation and doping in adolescent athletes

Jiri mudrak.

1 Department of Pedagogy, Psychology and Didactics, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Pavel Slepicka

Irena slepickova.

2 Department of Kinanthropology and Humanities, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Associated Data

The data file is available from the Figshare database at https://figshare.com/s/a73f7b0d5399dfc35182 .

Although performance-enhancing drugs appear to be prevalent in adolescent sports, relatively little attention has been paid to why adolescent athletes decide to use these drugs. In this study, we examine doping among adolescents from a motivational perspective and explore how motivational variables, such as achievement goal orientations and the perceived self-determination of sports activities, may be related to moral attitudes, doping intentions and doping behavior in adolescents who participate in competitive sports.

Methodology

The study included 1035 adolescents participating in competitive sports from all regions of the Czech Republic (mean age = 16.3 years). The respondents completed a battery of questionnaires assessing their achievement goal orientations (task, ego), sports motivation at various levels of self-determination (intrinsic motivation, external regulation, amotivation), moral attitudes toward sport competition (acceptance of cheating, keeping winning in proportion, attitudes toward doping), doping intentions and doping behavior. A structural equation model was used to test the relations among motivational variables, attitudes, intentions and doping behavior.

Principal results

Our analyses indicated a good fit with the proposed model, which explained 59% of the variance in doping intentions and 17.6% of the variance in doping behavior. Within the model, task orientation was positively associated with intrinsic motivation and lower amotivation, whereas ego orientation was positively associated with extrinsic regulation and amotivation. Furthermore, intrinsic motivation was positively associated with keeping winning in proportion and negatively associated with acceptance of cheating and attitudes toward doping; the less self-determined forms of motivation showed opposite relationships. However, only the acceptance of cheating and attitudes toward doping were related to doping intention, which subsequently predicted doping behavior.

Conclusions/Significance

The results provide further evidence that sports motivation represents a psychological variable that should be considered in anti-doping policies, programs, and interventions aimed at the adolescent population because motivation was linked to the doping-related attitudinal variables and also partially mediated the effect of achievement goal orientations in this regard. On the basis of these results, we may argue that the focus on intrinsic enjoyment, self-referenced criteria of success and self-improvement may be related to more negative attitudes toward doping and cheating, lower doping intentions and less frequent doping behavior, whereas the emphasis on competition, comparison with others and external motivation appear to be related to the opposite outcomes.

Introduction

The abuse of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) represents a significant problem in both competitive and leisure sports. The use of PEDs violates the spirit of fair play [ 1 ] and represents a significant health concern because doping has been linked to a number of health issues, including cardiovascular, neurological, and psychiatric disorders [ 2 – 3 ]. The World Anti-Doping Agency [ 4 ] reported that approximately 1% of the tested samples from Olympic sports athletes and approximately 3% of the tested samples from non-Olympic sports athletes showed positive results for doping. However, these relatively low numbers contrast with the results of questionnaire surveys that suggest a much higher prevalence of doping: approximately 10%-15% of competitive and recreational athletes report past or current use of doping, with some studies suggesting even higher percentages [ 5 ]. (Doping represents an umbrella term encompassing PED use, blood doping, gene doping, etc. However, we use the term doping in the article to refer only to the use of PEDs.)

Adolescent athletes may be considered particularly vulnerable to the abuse of PEDs. From a health perspective, adolescent users are at high risk of the side effects of PEDs such as anabolic steroids [ 3 , 6 ]. From a psychological perspective, adolescents are especially susceptible to social pressures and expectations regarding sports competition and physical appearance [ 7 ] and tend to participate in risky behavior with possible harmful long-term effects [ 8 ]. A large-scale international meta-analytic study [ 9 ] observed that approximately 3%-6.5% of boys and 1%- 2% of girls reported current or past use of anabolic steroids. Other national surveys have found that, depending on the methodology used, 2.1%-11% of adolescents reported past or current use of PEDs [ 10 – 14 ].

A number of behavioral and psychological factors have been related to PED abuse in adolescents. Adolescent users of PEDs report more positive attitudes toward doping, show higher levels of moral disengagement toward doping and perceive higher approval of doping abuse by other people [ 12 , 15 ]. Adolescent users of PEDs also report lower self-confidence and lower status in their peer group [ 7 ] and experience higher levels of anxiety [ 16 ], more frequent depression [ 17 ], lower self-regulation [ 12 , 15 ], and more frequent use of other addictive substances, such as alcohol, tobacco, and hard drugs [ 11 , 13 ]. Adolescent users of PEDs also experience more frequent eating disorders [ 17 ] and engage in other types of risk behavior, ranging from school absences [ 11 ] to membership in violent groups [ 18 ].

Two major motivations for adolescents’ use of PEDs have been discussed in the literature. First, adolescents use PEDs because they strive for physical attractiveness [ 7 ], which appears to be an especially dominant motive among adolescent athletes not engaged in competitive sports [ 2 , 14 ]. For example, Sas-Novosielski [ 14 ] observed that a majority of adolescent PED users predominately strove for a “better body” with the primary goal of gaining muscle and losing body fat. Although more than half of the participants reported side effects from the substances (such as acne, hair loss, depression, and sexual disorders), they insisted that they would continue to use PEDs to improve their physical appearance. Second, adolescent athletes use PEDs to obtain a competitive advantage and succeed in sports competition. It appears that a focus on victory and success in competition has become a dominant discourse even in youth sports, which has increased the incidence of problematic behavior such as cheating and doping [ 19 ]. Motivational orientations that emphasize competitive performance and “winning at all costs” have been related to positive attitudes toward doping as well as toward doping behavior [ 20 – 21 ]. Although adolescent athletes generally report negative attitudes toward doping, they sometimes admit that they would be willing to use PEDs to develop their professional athletic careers [ 22 ].

Numerous research studies have suggested that attitudes toward doping, intentions to dope and actual doping abuse are significantly influenced by sports motivation; i.e., the subjective reasons underlying why athletes participate in sports affect the decision to use PEDs [ 23 – 30 ]. However, there are some limits to current research on the relationship between sports motivation and doping. Despite a recent surge of interest in this research topic [ 23 – 28 ], studies focusing on the relationships between sports motivation, doping-related attitudes, intentions and behavior in adolescents remain limited. In addition, some of the studies have investigated relatively small samples in the context of selected sports [ 27 , 31 ], further limiting the generalizability of the current findings. Finally, there have been calls for more thorough implementation of coherent theoretical frameworks in doping research that would enable a better understanding of the psychological processes underlying doping behavior in adolescence [ 25 , 31 ]. To address these limitations, this study’s primary goal was to further explore the motivational perspective on doping in a large sample of Czech adolescent athletes participating in competitive sports. In this manner, we integrate some key ideas from the achievement goal theory, self-determination theory and integrative model of behavioral prediction [ 32 – 33 ], and we postulate a series of relationships among achievement goal orientations, sports motivation, sports-related moral attitudes, doping intentions and actual doping behavior. On the basis of these hypotheses, we formulate a structural model, which we test within the structural equation-modeling framework.

Theoretical framework

To understand the complexity of the psychosocial influences that determine an intentional behavior, Fishbein and Capella [ 33 ] proposed hierarchical relationships among behavior, an intention to carry out the behavior and behavior-related attitudes. Those authors suggested that “any given behavior is most likely to occur if one has a strong intention to perform the behavior, has the necessary skills and abilities required to perform the behavior, and there are no environmental or other constraints preventing behavioral performance” [ 33 ]. From this perspective, behavior-related intention is the direct determinant of a behavior, and we should strive to understand the factors that influence how an individual’s intentions to carry out a behavior are formed. Numerous studies have shown that doping-related attitudes represent a significant predictor of doping intentions [ 24 , 27 , 29 ]. However, we may hypothesize that the key attitudes related to doping intentions may be broader in scope and include more general attitudes toward cheating and winning in sports competition [ 19 , 27 ] because the doping represents an instance of a cheating behavior [ 27 ] and has been related to increased emphasis on competition and winning in youth sports [ 19 ]. The attitudinal variables may then be considered proximal predictors of doping intentions that mediate the effects of other distant variables, including motivational beliefs [ 21 , 24 – 25 , 27 ].

To further explore the mediating role of attitudes in the relationship between sports motivation and doping, we adopted two well-established theories of sports motivation in our research. These theories include the achievement goal theory [ 14 , 34 – 37 ] and the self-determination theory [ 25 , 27 , 38 ]. Specifically, based on these sports motivation theories, we consider task and ego achievement goal orientations and different positions on the self-determination continuum, including intrinsic motivation, external regulation, and amotivation, as possible predictors of doping attitudes and sports-related moral attitudes that further predict doping intentions and behavior. Below, we provide an introduction to these sports-motivation theories and their possible associations with these attitudes, intentions and behavior.

Based on self-determination theory [ 38 ], we expected that motivational states characterized by different levels of self-regulation (i.e., intrinsic motivation, external regulation and amotivation) may have different effects on moral and doping-related attitudes and behavior [ 23 – 25 , 27 ]. Self-determination theory suggests that people strive to fulfill several basic psychological needs, such as the needs for autonomy, inner organization and better relationships with others. These basic needs are predominantly manifested by “intrinsically motivated behavior” or behavior that people engage in for its own sake, such as for the enjoyment stemming from the activity itself. The other end of the self-determination spectrum is represented by “externally regulated behavior,” which people engage in for external reasons, such as obtaining a reward or avoiding punishment. The least self-regulated motivational state is “amotivation,” in which people perceive a lack of self-regulation and personal agency toward the behavior. On the basis of extensive research, Deci and Ryan [ 38 ] asserted that engagement in intrinsically motivated behavior (as opposed to extrinsically regulated or amotivated behavior) is related to a range of positive outcomes, such as better performance, better relationships, and a higher level of well-being. With regard to doping, researchers have found that motivational states with higher self-determination were negatively related to attitudes toward doping [ 25 ], doping intentions [ 24 ], and past doping use [ 23 ], whereas external regulation was associated with moral disengagement in sports situations [ 27 ] or positive attitudes toward doping [ 28 ]. Furthermore, several other studies found that less self-determined forms of motivation predicted antisocial moral values and a lack of sportspersonship in athletes, including acceptance of cheating and winning-at-all-costs attitudes [ 39 , 40 ]. On the basis of this research, we may argue that athletes who experience low levels of self-determination in their sport participation are lacking in some of their basic psychological needs and may compensate for this deficiency with more positive doping-related attitudes, intentions and behavior.

By contrast to self-determination theory, which focuses on why people engage in an activity, another group of motivational theories explores how different people subjectively prefer different achievement outcomes. Achievement goal theory [ 34 , 41 – 43 ] conceptualizes these achievement outcomes through the dichotomy of “success in comparison with past performance” and “success in comparison with others.” In this framework, a subjective preference for one of these two dimensions has been determined to have different effects on achievement-related beliefs, choices, intentions and behavior. Various authors proposed different terms for these two dimensions, such as task-ego [ 34 ] and mastery-performance [ 42 ] orientations. It is important to note that in the context of doping research, the 2x2 model of achievement goal orientation has been used [ 23 – 24 ] to distinguish between two dimensions: mastery x performance and approach x avoidance (i.e., striving for success versus avoiding failure). However, effects on doping intentions and behavior have been observed in the mastery/performance rather than the approach/avoidance dimension, with mastery-oriented athletes showing lower doping intentions and behavior [ 23 ]. In our research, we applied the more traditional distinction of task-ego, which has also been used in the doping research [ 14 , 36 ]. These two dimensions appear to be relevant in the context of doping: a negative relationship has been identified between the orientation toward improving past performance (task, mastery) and doping-related intentions, attitudes and behaviors, whereas the orientation toward comparison with other people (ego, performance) generally showed the opposite relationships [ 14 , 24 , 35 – 36 , 44 ]. It seems that “task”-related goals do not provide an incentive for doping because these types of goals may be achieved solely through practice, and task-oriented athletes may be not motivated to expose themselves to the health and social risks related to doping. Conversely, “ego”-related goals appear to be supportive of doping because the standards of performance based on other athletes are much more difficult (or even impossible) to achieve, and athletes are more motivated to use immoral or even illegal practices to reach these goals [ 35 – 36 , 44 ].

We may argue further that a link exists between the achievement goal orientations and self-determination [ 38 , 45 – 47 ]. Task and ego goal orientations may be seen as different interpretative frameworks that influence the ways in which athletes perceive their autonomy, competence and relatedness to others. In this way, these achievement goal orientations affect the degree to which the athletes perceive themselves as self-determined [ 45 – 47 ]. For example, Duda and her colleagues [ 46 ] provided evidence that task orientation (as opposed to ego orientation) predicted sports-related intrinsic motivation in youth athletes. These authors argued that task orientation reduced the probability that athletes would perceive themselves to be incompetent because they compared themselves with self-referenced standards of achievement rather than standards set by other athletes, some of whom inevitably performed at a higher level. Similarly, other authors argued that task-oriented athletes experience fewer social constraints on their autonomy because they do not feel obliged to meet the performance standards set by other people and also experience better relationships because they do not perceive themselves to be in competition with others [ 45 – 47 ].

Aim of the study

Based on the theoretical framework introduced above, we formulated a set of hypotheses regarding the relationships among the constructs of achievement goal orientation, self-determined sport motivation, attitudes, intentions, and doping behavior. We empirically tested these hypotheses within the structural equation modeling framework on a large sample of Czech adolescents involved in competitive sports. The implemented structural model was based on the following hypotheses:

• H1: Task orientation is positively related to intrinsic sports motivation and negatively related to less self-determined forms of sports motivation (amotivation, extrinsic motivation).
• H2: Ego orientation is positively related to less self-determined sports motivation (amotivation, extrinsic motivation) and negatively related to intrinsic motivation.
• H3: Intrinsic motivation is negatively related to attitudes toward doping and acceptance of cheating and positively related to attitudes toward keeping winning in proportion.
• H4: External regulation and amotivation are positively related to attitudes toward doping and acceptance of cheating and negatively related to attitudes toward keeping winning in proportion.
• H5: Attitudes toward doping, acceptance of cheating, and keeping winning in proportion are directly related to doping intentions.
• H6: Doping intentions are directly related to doping behavior.

Design of the study

The present paper is a component of the research project “Doping in Czech adolescents: Prevalence, correlates and experiences,” which was conducted with the support of the World Anti-Doping Agency. The data were collected from November 2014 –May 2015. The main part of the data collection occurred at high schools and elementary schools throughout the Czech Republic. The data collection at schools was facilitated by the Czech Association of School Sport Clubs, a nationwide educational organization that works with children and adolescents who are engaged in sports. Additionally, competitive and elite adolescent athletes were contacted through various Czech sports associations. In total, 60 schools and 7 sports associations participated in the research. Based on the preferences of the schools and sports associations, the questionnaires were administered either in paper form or by identical electronic questionnaires. The questionnaires were administered at schools or at training camps of the sports associations by the research team members and research assistants, who were PhD students of the Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University. Before the beginning of the data collection, the research was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University. The data collection was voluntary and anonymous, and the questionnaire was constructed in a way that prevented the identification of individual schools or respondents. Because the questionnaires were collected at the schools during school hours, the response rate was high (95%). Prior to the data collection, the children’s parents/guardians were informed of the research by the assisting teachers/coaches and requested to provide written consent. Approximately 5% of the contacted students did not participate in the data collection either because the parents/guardians did not provide consent or because the students were not willing to participate; these students were provided with an alternative activity under the supervision of the assisting teachers/coaches during the data collection.

In total, we collected fully completed questionnaires from 2851 respondents (mean age 16.2 years, SD = 1.84). However, in the present article, we based our findings only on participants involved in competitive sports (n = 1035). The description of the sample is provided in Table 1 .

In the first section of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked about demographic variables such as gender, age, and type of school and about their participation in sports (see Table 1 ). In the following section, the respondents were asked about their experiences with doping. The World Anti-Doping Agency defined doping as “breaking one or more anti-doping rules,” meaning that athletes who were found to be “positive” either used substances or methods present on the list of banned substances or were not compliant with doping control regulations [ 48 ]. On the basis of the WADA definition, some studies have examined the prevalence of doping by inquiring about the substances respondents used in the past that were subsequently classified according to the WADA list [ 15 ]. However, we deemed this approach appropriate for the population of adult athletes but not for adolescents. For the purpose of our study, we defined doping in the questionnaire as the “use of any substance which aims to enhance sport performance artificially and unfairly.” Therefore, we explored subjective evaluations of the respondents’ experiences with doping; i.e., we measured the extent to which the participants believed they doped to gain an unfair competitive advantage rather than measuring actual doping behavior. The respondents evaluated the frequency of their perceived experiences with doping on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (no) to 6 (yes, regularly). Similar research methods for doping prevalence have been implemented by other studies [ 13 ].

To assess the respondents’ attitudes toward doping, we used the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEAS) [ 49 ]. The PEAS is a one-dimensional 17-item scale measuring general attitudes toward doping in sports (unrelated to personal intentions to use doping). In the PEAS, respondents indicate on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“completely disagree”) to 6 (“completely agree”) their agreement with statements evaluating various aspects of doping, such as “Doping is not cheating since everyone does it,” “Athletes are pressured to take performance-enhancing drugs,” or “The risks related to doping are exaggerated.” In scoring the PEAS, the overall score is obtained as the mean of all items. Overall, the PEAS shows good psychometric properties [ 47 ] and has been used in studies focusing on adolescent populations [ 15 ]. In our study, the PEAS showed acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .755), although it did not originally fit well with our model. Confirmatory factor analysis of the one-dimensional scale showed poor fit indices (RMSEA = 0.075; 90% CI [0.069 to 0.081]; CFI = 0.826). We performed exploratory factor analysis of the scale that suggested 4 factors, which we labeled “Necessity of doping,” “Harmlessness of doping,” “Recreational drugs as doping,” and “Doping in media.” The four-factor model was further supported by confirmatory factor analysis that showed good fit (RMSEA = 0.054; 90% CI [0.047 to 0.060]; CFI = 0.926). In the structural equation model, we used a 7-item shortened version of the PEAS that included only items with factor loadings in the first factor higher than .5 (i.e., items 1–2, 6, 8, and 13–15 from the original scale).

To measure doping intentions, we utilized four items from an older Czech study focusing on the doping intentions of Czech adolescents [ 50 ]. The respondents answered on a scale ranging from 1 (“definitely not”) to 6 (“definitely yes”) regarding whether they would use doping in four hypothetical situations: 1) “Would you use doping if you strove for an important victory and were absolutely certain that nobody would find out?” 2) “Would you take a performance-enhancing substance that is not illegal but could have undesirable health effects?” 3) “Would you use doping if you were certain that it would help you succeed and would not have undesirable health effects?” and 4) “Would you use doping to enhance your performance if you knew that it would help you to achieve the highest level of sports success, such as winning the Olympic games?” On this basis, we computed doping intention as the mean of these four items. This scale showed good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .873). Furthermore, we used the Acceptance of Cheating and Keeping Winning in Proportion scales from the Attitudes to Moral Decisions in Sport Questionnaire [ 51 ] to measure general moral attitudes in sports situations. On these scales, respondents are asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 –strongly agree to 5 –strongly disagree) how much they agreed with statements presenting them with sports situations, including a moral dilemma such as “It is OK to cheat if nobody knows?” or “Winning and losing are a part of life.” The Acceptance of Cheating scale appeared to have good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .895); the Keeping Winning in Proportion scale also had acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .746).

To assess motivation-related constructs, we used selected scales from two questionnaires: the Perception of Success Questionnaire (PSQ) [ 52 ] and the Sport Motivation Scale-6 (SMS-6) [ 53 ]. The PSQ measures achievement goal orientations on a 5-point Likert scale, i.e., which types of sport-related outcomes are perceived as “success” by the respondents. The PSQ stems from the two-dimensional approach to achievement goal orientations and distinguishes between success stemming from mastering a task (“task”) and success in comparison with others (“ego”). Respondents indicate on a scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”) the sports situation in which they perceive themselves to be most successful. An example of the “task” item is “When playing sport, I feel most successful when I really improve,” and an example of an “ego” item is “When playing sport, I feel most successful when I am the best.” The “task” and “ego” dimensions are computed as the means of all corresponding items. Additionally, the PSQ showed good reliability in our study (Cronbach’s alpha = .857).

To measure the reasons why respondents participate in sports, we implemented several constructs based on self-determination theory [ 54 ]. Specifically, we used the dimensions of intrinsic motivation, external regulation, and amotivation from the SMS-6 [ 53 ], which represents a revised version of the Sport Motivation scale [ 54 ]. Each of these dimensions was measured by four items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Does not correspond at all”) to 5 (“Corresponds completely”). Respondents were prompted by the statement, “Using the scale below, please indicate to what extent each of the following items corresponds to one of the reasons for which you are presently practicing your sport”, based on which the respondents indicated their reasons for their participation in sports. The items used to measure each dimension included “For the excitement I feel when I am really involved in the activity” (intrinsic motivation), “Because it allows me to be well regarded by people I know” (external regulation), and “I don’t know anymore; I have the impression of being incapable of succeeding in this sport” (amotivation). The SMS-6 questionnaire showed good psychometric properties (Cronbach’s alpha = .888 in our sample) and has been widely used in sports psychology research [ 53 ]. All scales and items used are provided in S1 Appendix .

We tested the hypothesized relationships within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework using the statistical open source software R [ 55 ] and Lavaan, an R structural equation modeling package [ 56 ]. Only data from complete questionnaires were included in the analysis; therefore, there were no missing values. No outliers were identified in the data, and all the reported coefficients from our analyses were standardized. The model fit was assessed using standard measures of model fit: the chi-square statistic and corresponding p-value; the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR, which should approximate or be less than .08 for a good-fitting model) [ 57 ]; the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA, with values approximately .05 or less being indicative of a close fit and values of .08 or less being indicative of a good fit) [ 58 ]; and the comparative fit index (CFI, in which values should be higher than 0.90 for adequately fitting solutions) [ 59 ].

Descriptive statistics and correlations of all variables included in the analysis are reported in Table 2 . We observed significant but rather weak correlations among the majority of the variables included in the analyses. There were moderate to strong correlations among the motivational variables, such as task orientation-intrinsic motivation (r = .396) and ego orientation-external regulation (r = .315). Additionally, we observed strong correlations between doping intention and attitudes toward doping (r = .513) and between doping intention and acceptance of cheating (r = .663).

** Correlation significant at p < .001 level.

ns—correlation not significant

Based on our hypotheses, we formulated a structural model in which achievement goal orientations (task and ego) predicted sport motivation at different levels of self-determination (intrinsic motivation, extrinsic regulation and amotivation). The sports motivation was then associated with moral- and doping-related attitudes (attitudes toward doping, acceptance of cheating, and keeping winning in proportion) that were further related to doping intentions, which subsequently predicted doping behavior. Overall, we determined that the SEM model fit well with our data (χ 2 = 19789.3; df = 946; p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.042; 90% CI [0.040 to 0.044]; SRMR = 0.055; CFI = 0.913) and explained 59% of doping intentions and 17.6% of doping behavior. The measurement loadings for all latent variables were moderately high to high (range, 0.419–0.895) and highly significant (p < .001). The SEM model is presented in Fig 1 . All measurement loadings are provided in S1 Appendix .

In accordance with our hypotheses, we observed that task and ego goal orientations were inversely related to sports motivation variables. Task orientation was linked to more self-determined sports motivation because it was moderately to strongly positively related to intrinsic motivation (β = .474) and negatively related to amotivation (β = -.185). At the same time, ego orientation was moderately to strongly positively related to extrinsic regulation (β = .395) and to amotivation (β = .103). Within the SEM model, the sports motivation was further associated with the attitudinal variables. Specifically, intrinsic motivation was negatively related to attitudes toward doping (β = -.180) and acceptance of cheating (β = -.260) and strongly and positively related to keeping winning in proportion (β = .607). Extrinsic regulation was positively associated with acceptance of cheating (β = .388), attitudes toward doping (β = .251), and negatively associated with keeping winning in proportion (β = -.510). Amotivation was positively associated with acceptance of cheating (β = .249) and attitudes toward doping (β = .161). The sports motivation variables also appeared to moderate the indirect effects of achievement goal orientation on the attitudinal variables. Specifically, we observed a negative indirect effect of task orientation on the acceptance of cheating (β = -.169), attitudes toward doping (β = -.115), and positive indirect effects on keeping winning in proportion (β = .288). In ego orientation, we observed a reversed direction of relationships because ego orientation was indirectly and positively related to the acceptance of cheating (β = .179), attitudes toward doping (β = .116), and indirectly and negatively related to keeping winning in proportion (β = -.202). Furthermore, the acceptance of cheating and attitudes toward doping were moderately to strongly related to doping intention, with acceptance of cheating having approximately twice the effect (β = .575) of attitudes toward doping (β = .283). Notably, keeping winning in proportion was not significantly related to doping intention. This suggests that excessive focus on winning may not be as important for the occurrence of doping behavior as athletes’ positive attitudes toward doping and cheating in sports. Finally, doping intention was moderately to strongly related to doping behavior (β = .419) within the SEM model.

As we hypothesized, the proposed model showed a good fit, and the observed relationships largely confirmed our expectations regarding the possible effects of sports motivation variables on doping attitudes, intentions and behavior in adolescent athletes. From the model, we may infer several main findings. First, doping intention may be perceived as an important predictor of doping behavior in competitive adolescent athletes, although not a perfect predictor. Overall, our model explained nearly the same amount of variance in doping behavior as an aggregate model based on meta-analysis of studies stemming from the theory of planned behavior, in which doping intentions were also used as the proximal predictor of doping behavior [ 5 ]. As argued by Fishbein [ 33 ], behavior-related intentions are particularly predictive of behavior when people have an opportunity to engage in the behavior and no environmental constraints are present. This is, of course, not a case of doping in adolescent athletes because this group can be expected to have limited access to doping and also perceive severe penalties related to doping. Therefore, we may argue that other variables also should be considered to explain doping behavior; simultaneously, however, doping intentions represent an important factor that should be targeted in doping prevention [ 24 , 27 , 29 ].

Second, a large portion of the variance in doping intentions was explained by the attitudinal variables included in the model. By contrast to the studies focusing solely on attitudes toward doping [ 12 , 15 , 24 – 25 , 28 – 29 , 31 , 60 ], we broadened our scope and also included attitudes toward winning and cheating in sports as complementary attitudinal variables. These additions appeared to be particularly productive in the case of the acceptance of cheating. Hodge et al. [ 27 ] suggested that doping should be approached as an instance of cheating behavior; our findings corroborate this idea because the association between the acceptance of cheating and doping intentions was more than twice the size of the attitudes toward doping–the doping intention relationship. In any case, we may see both of these attitudinal variables as related, which has been supported by our results as well as by other studies [ 60 ]. Preventive anti-doping programs frequently target attitudes toward doping [ 61 – 63 ], and our findings suggest that focusing on broader moral values rather than on doping-specific attitudes may represent a more effective manner of understanding and preventing doping behavior. However, contrary to some authors, who suggested that the growing focus on winning in contemporary youth sports leads to more frequent occurrences of doping [ 19 ], the attitudes toward winning (i.e., keeping winning in proportion) did not show a significant relationship with doping intentions in the model. On this basis, we may argue that the doping may stem not from the focus on winning itself but rather from the growing acceptance of cheating and more positive attitudes toward doping that may be related to contemporary trends in (youth) sports [ 63 ].

Third, the intrinsic motivation showed negative relationships between attitudes toward doping and acceptance of cheating whereas the less self-determined forms of motivation showed relationships moving in the opposite direction. On the basis of the self-determination theory, we may argue that athletes who engage in competitive sports for enjoyment have satisfied through sports their “basic needs” of autonomy, competence and relatedness [ 38 ]. Therefore these athletes may place less value on the behavior that would provide them with further unfair advantages, such as doping or cheating. Conversely, athletes at a lower level of self-determination who experience a lack in some of these basic needs could be expected to have less restraint and demonstrate more positive attitudes toward these undesirable practices [ 39 ]. Similar results were reported by other authors: Zucchetti et al. [ 28 ] found that extrinsic motivation was related to more positive attitudes toward doping, and Chan et al. [ 25 ] observed that autonomous motivation predicted doping avoidance-related attitudes and, indirectly, the intention to avoid doping. Barkoukis et al. [ 23 ] determined that athletes high in amotivation reported higher doping intentions and higher past PED use whereas athletes high in external regulation reported higher past use of PEDs compared with other athletes. Therefore, we may argue that the positive effects of self-determined motivation [ 38 ] apply also to doping-related attitudes, intentions and behavior and that sports environments supporting such a positive motivational climate should be endorsed as a component of anti-doping efforts.

Fourth, sports motivation also mediated the effect of achievement goal orientations on the attitudinal variables within the model. Significant effects of achievement goal orientations on doping-related variables have been observed in numerous other studies: Barkoukis et al. [ 23 ] observed that athletes who emphasized mastery goals and de-emphasized performance goals also reported the lowest levels of past doping use and the lowest doping intentions. Sas-Nowosielski and Swiatkowska [ 36 ] determined that athletes with high task and low ego orientation reported the most negative attitudes toward doping whereas athletes with low task/high ego goals reported the most positive attitudes toward doping. These contradictory effects of mastery and performance orientations were also observed with regard to cheating and cheating intention in sports situations [ 64 ]. Our results suggest that these effects may be partially mediated by the relation between achievement goal orientations and sports motivation. Consistent with other researchers [ 45 – 47 ], we argue that a subjective preference of task or ego-related goals structures the experiences of athletes in a manner that affects the degree to which they perceive their sports participation as self-determined. Being “task oriented,” i.e., focusing on self-improvement and self-referenced standards of achievement, allows for disregarding societal constraints, comparison and competition with other athletes, which may be beneficial for the fulfillment of the basic needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness. However, “ego-oriented” athletes who set their standards of achievement based on the results of others may more easily question their competence, feel controlled in their sporting activity or experience worse relationships with other athletes, which affect the level of their self-determination. Because the sports motivation variables appear to be directly related to attitudes toward doping and cheating, we argue that the achievement goal orientations are related to doping intentions and behavior by this path.

Our study has some limitations that should be considered. Most importantly, the study employed a cross-sectional design that limits causal interpretations of the proposed relationships. We based our hypotheses on a review that suggested that the proposed direction of relationships would be at least partially valid; however, it is necessary to acknowledge that these relationships may be bi-directional, and we must interpret our results with caution. In addition, we included variables in the study that we hypothesized were important to doping in adolescents; however, a number of other variables that were not included may have similar or even greater effects. Additionally, although we recruited a large number of respondents from all regions of the Czech Republic and the response rate was high, our sample differed in some attributes from the general population of Czech adolescents. However, we believe that the sample showed sufficient diversity for the performed SEM analyses. We should also emphasize that we did not use objective methods to evaluate the prevalence of doping; instead, we relied on participants’ self-reports. Although self-reports of doping prevalence have been commonly used in studies of doping in adolescents [ 13 ], these methods may have significant limitations [ 64 ]. For example, respondents may perceive substances that are not on the list of banned substances to be doping, or they may conceal doping because it is generally a condemned behavior that may even lead to potential penalties. It is also important to note that the relationships between the sport motivation and doping-related variables were significant but weak-to-moderate in magnitude, which suggests that although motivational variables appear to play a role in doping among adolescents, this role should not be exaggerated. Finally, because our model explained a relatively low portion of variance in doping behavior, we may argue that the effect of sport motivation and attitudes toward doping/cheating is much more noticeable with regard to doping intentions than actual doping behavior. Other variables not included in our study, such as the availability or affordability of doping [ 65 ], may moderate the relations among motivation, attitudes, and doping behavior.

The present research makes theoretical as well as practical contributions. Theoretically, we used well-established constructs of sports motivation and tested their hypothesized relations with doping-related variables in a complex model, largely confirming our hypotheses regarding the possible effects of achievement goal orientations and self-determined sports motivation. The tested model suggests a series of relationships between sports motivation and doping-related variables that are partially modifiable. Our findings thus suggest practical implications that may be used in doping-prevention efforts. First, it seems that it would be useful to target both doping-specific attitudes and general moral attitudes to decrease doping intentions and perhaps doping behavior. Second, sports motivation appears to play a significant role in attitudes toward doping and cheating and consequently toward doping intentions and actual doping behavior. The dimensions of sports motivation related to intrinsic immersion in the activity appear to have beneficial effects whereas the less self-determined forms of sports motivation may have some undesirable effects with regard to doping. Third, our results also suggest that achievement goal orientations are related to different levels of self-determination in sports activities and through this path, also to moral attitudes. In this manner, self-referenced task-goal orientations focusing on self-improvement appear to be beneficial whereas ego-goal orientations toward competition and comparison with others seem to have some detrimental effects. Therefore, our results further support the suggestions of numerous authors [ 9 , 19 – 21 , 63 , 66 ] that the values present in contemporary youth sports that emphasize high-level performance, success in competition and victory at all costs may have negative consequences, including a greater susceptibility to doping. Positive change could come from parents, coaches, and teachers as well as sports and educational organizations, which all co-create a motivational climate and provide feedback that shapes individual motivational orientations [ 39 , 67 ]. On this basis, we should once again endorse the classic Coubertin motto that “the important thing is not winning but taking part; the essential thing is not conquering but fighting well”.

Supporting information

S1 appendix, funding statement.

The article was written with the support of a research grant from the World Anti-Doping Agency and the PROGRES Q19 program.

Data Availability

Essay on Doping in Sports

Introduction

The word doping is used to refer to the use of disallowed or prohibited drugs, medication or treatment which is intended to improve the performance of an individual athletically. The use of performance enhancement drugs is unethical and is not allowed by most international organizations that govern sports like the international Olympic committee. This practice has been carried out for centuries. however, high profile doping cases being covered by the media in the recent past has resulted in increased attention towards doping.

The most important reason for doping control is the is the health risk involved with this practice. Most of the substances used to enhance performance have a lot of long-lasting and harmful side effects that may include cardiovascular issues like elevated blood pressure and heart attacks, central nervous system side effects which may include anxiousness, psychosis, depression, and addiction. Other side effects of performance enhancement drugs include hormonal problems like low sex drive and infertility.

Another reason for doping control is that it is used to achieve an unjust advantage in sports. According to anti-doping organizations, performance enhancement significantly reduces the spirit of the competition. A drug-free competition provides equality in opportunities for all athletes and therefore the need for anti-doping campaigns.

There are various testing methods in doping which include urine tests, blood tests, and gas chromatography-combustion-IRMS. The urine test involves acquiring a sample of urine from an athlete which is then divided into samples A and B each in a sealed container that has a designation and a number that uniquely identifies the sample. When sample A tests positive for a disallowed substance, a test on sample B is requested to confirm the result. If this sample still tests positive, then the athlete is considered to have tested positive for the use prohibited substance. The process of confirmation is necessary for the safety of the athlete.

The blood test is used to illegal drugs used t enhance performance by measuring indicators that change when recombinant human erythropoietin is used. These indicators include hematocrit, levels of iron, and reticulocytes. When prohibited substances like erythropoietin are used, transport of oxygen gas into the muscles is enhanced through increasing the haemoglobin mass (blood volume and concentration of haemoglobin) which in turn leads to enhanced performance.

Another testing method involves the use of gas chromatography. This method is used to find isotopic variations in the composition of an organic substance when compared to a standard. When used, this technique can determine whether synthetic testosterone was used which in turn could lead to an increased and levels of testosterone that are not within the normal ranges. This method assumes that in nature, the majority of carbon atoms are carbon -12 while the remaining 1.1% are carbon-13. Therefore, the lower the ratio of the carbon -13 to carbon-12 the higher the probability that synthetic testosterone was used.

Other testing methods involve retesting samples and the use of athlete biological passport. Article 6.5 of the world Ant-Doping Code says that samples can be retested later for up to eight years. This allows the agency to take advantage of the new testing methods for detecting prohibited substances. Athlete biological passport on the other hand is a method that is used to trace locations of an athlete to control doping by monitoring the athletes and testing them for drugs wherever they are and comparing these results to previous tests that have already been done on them in the past.

Conclusion .

Many types of drugs have been used for enhancing performance by athletes. Despite doping being practised for many centuries, it is harmful to an athlete’s overall health to some extent and is also harmful to the spirit of the sport. The involvement of anti-doping agencies like the World Anti-Doping Agency, through their various doping testing methods, is important in combating this practice in the world of sport.

American College of Medical Toxicology. (January 25, 2017). What is “doping” and Athletes do this?

https://www.acmt.net/cgi/page.cgi/_zine.html/Ask_A_Toxicologist/What_is_doping_and_why_do_athletes_do_this_

McKennan J., Thurston M., Jonathan T. (2021). Doping. American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.

https://www.sportsmedtoday.com/doping-va-119.htm

World Anti-Doping Agency. (2015). World Anti-Doping Code

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf

Cite this page

Similar essay samples.

• Essay on How Useful Are Search Engines to Academic Historians
• Essay on the Significance of Being a Global Citizen in the Age of Glob...
• Essay on Right To Remain Silent
• Service Delivery for Cancer Patients
• Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
• Summary and Analysis of the Chief Administrative Officer Position at N...

Doping in Sport and Fitness: Volume 16

Table of contents, introduction: unbinding doping contexts.

This chapter introduces the main aims and ambition with the anthology, which is to bring together research from diverse perspectives on doping and Image and Performance Enhancing Drug (IPED) use. The chapter highlights existing but often backgrounded links between sport and fitness doping research and present a re-reading of the cultural history of doping through which simplistic divisions, such as that between sport and fitness, are deconstructed. Further, by unbinding the hegemonic divide between sports doping and fitness doping, new insights (and themes) concerning anti-doping, health and risk, new emerging doping spaces and the gendering of this field of research are brought to the fore. These themes are then used as point of departure when introducing the different chapters and scholars that contribute to the volume at hand.

Part 1 Anti-Doping Policy

Athletes, law and the world anti-doping code: a perspective.

This chapter explores the relationship between athletes and sports law within the anti-doping narrative. The World Anti-Doping Code is the most important reference to understand this relationship. Athletes are constantly pressured to meet standards beyond reasonable expectations. This chapter explores the anti-doping narrative from the athletes' perspective, mapping out the inherent legal hurdles impeding delivery of equitable outcomes for the athletes. Such hurdles are the result of lack of bargaining power by the athletes. This chapter critically evaluates the existing literature on the anti-doping narrative and identifies the gaps in the structures affecting the athletes, Sports Governing Bodies and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). This chapter then focuses on the usurpation of athlete's rights through the instrumentality of the WADA Code that appears to predominantly promote and protect the interests of the governing class against those it governs. It is one of the first to analyze the existing anti-doping narrative and its impact on athlete's right within the 2021 WADA Code, which has not introduced any fundamental changes to the existing anti-doping narrative. The chapter argues for a more equitable treatment of the athletes while enforcing the 2021 Code, and for revising the existing anti-doping measures vis-à-vis athletes and opens possible areas of future research.

Rights, Responsibilities and Power in Sport Anti-Doping: The Court of Arbitration for Sport

The chapter presents a critical analysis of the functions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), identifying how athletes who appeal to CAS for resolution of doping disputes face the problems of ‘stacked decks’ and ‘repeat parties’. A detailed critique of CAS's claim that it supports athletes' human rights, in the document titled ‘Sport and Human Rights: Overview from a CAS Perspective’, reveals the shaky ground on which the CAS authors based their argument. Detailed analyses of several recent doping cases reveal chronic problems of inconsistent and subjective awards, and, in the case of Chinese swimmer Sun Yang, issues of racist discrimination.

Evidence-Based Anti-Doping Education: Fact or Fiction?

There are two key approaches in doping prevention research: (1) to investigate why athletes dope (i.e. risk factors) and (2) to investigate why athletes do not dope (i.e. protective factors). Both approaches aim to reduce the occurrence of doping. Even though there is a lot of evidence showing which factors protect athletes from doping, there is still the problem of putting research into practice. Currently, evidence-based prevention is lacking. In this chapter, we propose a roadmap of possible solutions in three areas: improving the translation of research findings into practice, increasing financial resources and training of human resources, and acknowledging the recipients' voice.

Part 2 Health and Risks

The use of anabolic androgenic steroids as a public health issue.

In recent years there have been increasing calls for the use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) and associated drugs to be recognized as a public health issue. In the domain of the competitive athlete and professional bodybuilder, recent decades have seen the diffusion of AAS from the hardcore gyms of the 1980s and 1990s to the mainstream exercise and fitness environments of the twenty-first century. Alongside the apparent increases in the use of these drugs, there is a growing evidence base in relation to harms – physical, psychological and (to some extent) social. But is this form of drug use a public health issue? What criteria should we use to make this judgement? What is the available evidence and has our understanding of the issue improved? By drawing on the authors' research in the United Kingdom and the wider international literature this chapter will explore these issues and attempt to answer the fundamental question – is the use of anabolic steroids a public health issue?

The Experiences of Healthcare Professionals With PIED Consumers and the Experiences of PIED Consumers With Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Literature Review

The aim of this review was to amalgamate the extant literature that has investigated the experiences of healthcare professionals with PIED consumers and the experiences of PIED consumers with healthcare professionals, with a specific focus on medical practitioners. A systematic search was undertaken to identify studies that explored the experiences and perspectives of healthcare providers working with clients who use PIEDs, as well as to identify studies that explored the experiences and perspectives of PIED consumers with healthcare providers. Ten studies were included, of which four explored the experiences of healthcare providers with PIED consumers, and six explored the experiences of PIED consumers with healthcare providers. A sizeable proportion of healthcare providers come into contact with PIED consumers, with these interactions mostly related to consumers asking for information, though a small but significant proportion indicate they have been asked to prescribe doping agents. Of the six studies which focused on the consumer experience, five focused on PIED consumers; these studies found that while large proportions reporting accessing a medical practitioner, larger proportions did not, with the doctor's lack of knowledge cited as one reason. More research is needed to investigate how they come into contact with this group of consumers, their level of knowledge and any training that they may need. Given the harms associated with PIED use, and the lack of disclosure of use to healthcare providers, more research is needed to understand the barriers and facilitators for consumers to accessing health care.

Taking ‘the God of all Steroids’ and ‘Making a Pact With the Devil’: Online Bodybuilding Communities and the Negotiation of Trenbolone Risk

Previous research has found that people who use anabolic androgenic steroids (hereafter ‘steroids’) typically describe these drugs as safe. However, research exploring the inside perspective on steroid risk has focussed on steroids in general, and failed to examine how particular steroids are viewed and experienced. During my online ethnographic research in bodybuilding communities, I found discussion of one particular steroid said to cause significant physical, psychological, social and sexual harm: trenbolone. Trenbolone is a veterinary drug used to increase muscle in beef cattle that has been found to have neurodegenerative and genotoxic effects on animals. It has been used by bodybuilders since the 1980s, and recent research has found it to be one of the most popular steroids used by bodybuilders. If trenbolone is described by bodybuilders as causing significant harm, why do so many bodybuilders use it? This chapter attempts to answer this question through a description of bodybuilder folk models of trenbolone risk. Using a social life of drugs approach it describes: (1) the effects of trenbolone; (2) how these effects are given meaning as either harms or benefits, and then weighed against each other; (3) how the risks of trenbolone are reduced through harm reduction strategies and (4) the role of online communities in negotiations of trenbolone risk. Trenbolone was found to occupy a mythical status in bodybuilding communities, in part because of the conflicted relationship bodybuilders have with the drug. This conflicted relationship illustrates the inherent ambivalence of drugs, which are always both remedy and poison.

Part 3 Doping Arenas and Communities

Steroid use among inmates in belgian prisons.

While steroid use in the sports context has already been extensively studied by academic researchers, its patterns and implications in the prison context have received scant attention. Why do inmates use androgenic–anabolic steroids (AAS)? How does this use relate to sports activities, in particular fitness training, and what does it mean vis-à-vis the body image that is promoted in this environment? Does it even relate to fitness or sport? How do prison authorities regulate or prevent prisoners' AAS use? This empirical study is based on 28 interviews with 19 inmates and nine staff members (guards, managers) of four Belgian prisons. We showed that steroid use is largely connected with fitness activities and that it has an instrumental, goal-oriented dimension. AAS are used for athletic/performance purposes, e.g. increasing muscular strength. They also help gain or maintain a satisfactory body (self-)image, which has implications on the own identity, prestige and power relations within the prison community. In jail, the body is a major type of symbolic capital that is intended to reinforce status and cope with the difficulties and actual conditions of incarceration. We also observed differences in the perceived legitimacy of the various drugs that are used in prison. While guards are more tolerant towards AAS than other drugs, prisoners are less prone to openly confess to using AAS. Admitting to using AAS would damage the inmate's reputation, the legitimacy of his muscled body, and the subsequent goals of individual power and prestige.

How Digital Fitness Forums Shape IPED Access, Use, and Community Harm Reduction Behaviours

With digital spaces an increasing feature of our everyday lives, and the internet now a primary means of sourcing IPEDs and information regarding their use, this chapter seeks to understand how digital fitness forum communities shape the dissemination of culturally embedded harm reduction advice. Findings are drawn from two netnographic studies of fitness forums, which identify several key areas in which community norms and structures served to inform harm reduction behaviours. This included embedded forum reputation systems and the ways in which these shaped IPED access, including through elevating ‘expert’ users and encouraging informed discussion regarding product quality, to the emergence of steroid testing services from forums as a community harm reduction tool. Second, forums were observed to often encourage users to conduct research and inform themselves regarding safe use, though limitations to this norm were also documented in relation to poor-quality medical advice, highlighting the issues with IPED users' reliance on anecdotal advice in the contexts of prohibition. Finally, the role of digital fitness forums as ‘digital backstage’ is considered, examining both how this can be harmful to IPED users from excluded or ‘otherised’ groups, but simultaneously offers cultural participants the opportunity for airing vulnerabilities in a space where their masculine identity is not threatened in doing so, thus facilitating harm reduction among cultural ‘insiders’.

The 2021 WADA Code, Recreational Athletes and Ethical Concerns

In response to widespread concerns about health and fairness within elite sport, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was established as an organization to tackle the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. Whilst significant efforts have been made to regulate performance enhancement in the context of elite sport, the use of prohibited substances continues to persist. Doping rules are now potentially applicable across sporting levels, not just within elite sport. The WADA has further formalized its jurisdiction in recreational sport by defining the term ‘recreational athlete’ for the purposes of their regulation within and by the 2021 WADA Code. The extension of Anti-Doping Policy into recreational sport broadens the scope of anti-doping's regulatory framework but is consistent in its health protection rationale, and its attempt to preserve sporting integrity. There are, however, a number of ethical concerns associated with the application of Anti-Doping Policy within recreational sport. Anti-doping policy was originally designed exclusively for elite athletes and although amendments have been made within the revised 2021 World Anti-Doping Code, it is unclear whether this extension is justifiable or operationalizable on a global scale. This chapter pays particular attention to the 2021 WADA Code revisions and draws attention to the role of anti-doping policy within recreational sport. Here we raise some ethical concerns associated with the 2021 WADA Code and critically examine the implications for recreational athletes.

Part 4 Gendering Doping

Cultural manspreading in doping environments: theorizing the gendering of doping spaces, sexualities, and the social.

This chapter introduces the sociologically informed concept of cultural manspreading , which is used to critically examine how gender and power operate in relation to doping and image and performance enhancing drug (IPED) use. Though not exclusively, the chapter centres on the online doping context and how men and women in different forums navigate their doping lifestyles and identities. By focusing on the online doping context, the chapter brackets not only the focus on sport and fitness that has dominated much research, but also the physical dimension that have been at the heart of manspreading in public discourse. Thereby the concept is theorized for wider interpretations, including analysis of men dominating spatial, social and sexual aspects/domains of doping subcultures to the detriment of women or subordinate men. Though doping subcultures are steeped in a masculinity that prioritizes muscular masculinities and construct men as experts and sources of knowledge about doping, the chapter also illustrates how both men and women sometimes play into and challenge such patterns and gender dynamics. Indeed, at times, women's presence in different doping spaces can be a challenge to the default male position. Further, by introducing women-only doping forums the chapter argues that women can begin to debate and share their experiences uninterrupted, developing their own store of knowledge, and setting the female body and experience as default. This supports the idea of a gradual formation of a sis-science doping culture.

Bodybuilding, Gender and Drugs

This chapter presents an auto-ethnographic journey into the world of women's bodybuilding and the role performance-enhancing drugs play in the pursuit of muscularity in this growing, but hard-to-reach, subculture. The research addresses a paucity in the literature and paves the way for further research to inform public health initiatives for this population. Synthesizing journal entries, field observations and informal conversations recorded over the course of 18 months, this chapter provides insight into the rituals and practices present in bodybuilding culture. This embodied narrative explores the decision-making process surrounding anabolic androgenic steroid use in the context of competitive endeavour, including the impact that cultural norms, peer influence and personal narrative have on their uptake. It also sheds light on the experiences of being a woman in a man's world and the additional stigma women face when attempting to increase their muscularity. It also highlights the personal and professional challenges involved in auto-ethnographic endeavour.

Intersections of Gender, Doping and Sport: The Shared Implications of Anti-Doping and Sex Testing

This chapter focuses on what we know about the intersections of gender, doping and sport and addresses the history, complexities and nuances of how gender impacts perceptions of and research on doping in sport. After establishing briefly what the physiology, psychology, media studies and sociology literature demonstrates with respect to the intersection of doping and gender, this chapter addresses how and why gender was neglected in the creation of anti-doping policies. The lack of thought toward gender in the creation of the current anti-doping system, combined with the conflation of drug testing and sex testing issues by the International Olympic Committee's medical commission in the 1960s, has led to persistent gender stereotypes associated with anti-doping rule violations. As a result, unintended overlap between sex testing and drug testing continues, with implications for the eligibility of intersex and transgender athletes.

Conclusion: Doping: Unbound

This chapter concludes the volume. This is done in two capacities. First, the contributing chapters within in each theme are brought together through a reflexive discussion on current debates on anti-doping approaches, health and risk, doping arenas and communities, and the gendering of doping. Second, the interrelationships between the themes are discussed, pointing to new research directions.

• April Henning
• Jesper Andreasson

We’re listening — tell us what you think

Something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• TeachableMoment

The Olympics' History of Controversy

Students choose one of nine past Olympics controversies to research in small groups and share what they've learned with the class.

To the Teacher:

Over the past century, the Olympics have often served as a platform for protest and debate over political events taking in the broader world. The 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia have sparked a debate about Russia's controversial law banning public displays of support for gay rights. ( See our lesson on this debate .)   This lesson is designed to encourage students think critically about the history of debates that have surfaced at the Olympics over the past 100 years. The first section prompts students to investigate a moment in Olympic history in which sports and politics have collided. It asks them to undertake small group research into the issues at stake in their chosen incident and to explore the political context of the time. The second section provides a timeline of controversies in Olympic history. Students can select an incident on the timeline to examine in greater depth. In the third section of the lesson students are encouraged to share their group research in a larger class setting and to discuss the lasting implications of the incidents they have explored.  

Part I: Small Group Research Politics and the Olympics Collide

Politics and the Olympic Games have often gone hand in hand. The current 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, Russia are no exception. The present controversy stems from homophobic moves on the part of Russia's government, which culminated in the passage of the June 2013 "gay propaganda law." This law effectively outlaws any public expression of support for homosexual rights and relationships. The law has sparked strong reactions from athletes and public officials. One response by the United States was to announce that its delegation to the Sochi games would include several well-known former athletes who are gay or lesbian.   This controversy is hardly without precedent. Over the past century, the Olympics have often served as a platform for protest and debate. Below is a timeline of major instances of sports and politics colliding in Olympic history.   Ask students to choose one of the items in the timeline, and then gather together with others who have chosen the same item.  (If there are fewer than two or three students choosing a particular item, they may need to be reassigned so they can be part of a larger group.)    Once in their groups, students may decide whether they want to focus on one specific event that sparked controversy during the Olympic games, or to focus more generally on the political atmosphere surrounding that year's Olympics.   Ask students to research their chosen subject, either individually or in collaboration with the other members of their group. Students should research the following questions, and then discuss their responses in their small groups.  

1. What was the nature of the incident that created headlines? What are the broader political issues that this incident touched on?

2, What were the major positions in this debate? How would you characterize the different groups in conflict?

3. Were the groups in conflict divided by nationality? By race? By political ideology? By other factors? What divisions were the most significant?   4. How was this issue resolved? What lasting implications did it have?

5. How were the attitudes of people in the time period you have studied different than what we might expect today? Can you find any quotes or original documents that reveal people's perspectives or prejudices during that time period?

6. Did this historical incident resonate with you personally? Why or why not?

Part II: A Timeline of Olympics Controversies

1916, Berlin: The first modern Olympics were held in 1896 in Athens, Greece. Early on, organizers established the tradition that the games would be held every four years in a different host country. This was the case through the 1912 games in Stockholm, Sweden. However, in 1916, world politics prevented the Olympics from taking place at all. By that year, Europe was in the midst of World War I, and the games—scheduled to be held in Berlin, Germany—were cancelled. Because Germany was an aggressor in the war, the country was subsequently barred from participating in the games in both 1920 and 1924.   1936, Berlin: It was not until the 1936 Summer Olympics that the games were again scheduled for Berlin. Several years earlier, when Germany first won the bid to host the games, the Nazi Party had not yet risen to power. But by the time the games arrived, Hitler's regime was fully entrenched and his leadership had been consolidated. Hitler viewed the games as an opportunity to demonstrate to the world the superiority of the "Aryan People," as imagined in prejudiced tenets of Nazi racial doctrine. The Nazis proposed banning black and Jewish athletes from the games, but they relented under the threat of an international boycott. As a result, African American track and field star Jesse Owens was able to compete in the games in defiance of Hitler's racism. When he won four gold medals, it was widely seen as an embarrassment to Nazi ideology.   1940, Tokyo and 1944, London: World conflict once again prevented the games from taking place in both 1940 and 1944. In the first case, 1940, the games were scheduled for Tokyo. However, the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War forced them to be moved to Helsinki, Finland. Even these relocated games were eventually cancelled when war between the Soviet Union and Finland broke out. By 1944, the fighting of World War II was at its height and again the games were cancelled.   1956, Melbourne, Australia: Numerous countries boycotted the Melbourne games for a variety of reasons. Egypt, Lebanon, and Iraq did not participate in the Olympics in response to the looming invasion of Egypt by Israel, the United Kingdom, and France. This invasion ultimately took place in October 1956 after Egypt nationalized the Suez canal. The Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland also boycotted the Melbourne games in response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary. Led by Nikita Khrushchev, the USSR had invaded in October 1956 to quash a popular uprising against the Soviet-backed Communist leadership then in power in Hungary.   1964, Tokyo: With the US Civil Rights Movement in full-swing by the early 1960s and a sister movement in South Africa challenging the system of apartheid, the issue of racial injustice was primed to surface at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. After the South African government adopted a policy that prohibited athletes of different races from participating in sports together in its country, the International Olympic Committee banned South Africa from participating in the 1964 Olympics. The country was not to be reinstated until 1992, after the end of apartheid.   1968, Mexico City: Although the US Civil Rights Movement had succeeded in dismantling Jim Crow legal structures in the American South and in defending voting rights for African Americans, many black citizens continued to protest against discrimination and de facto segregation across the United States. At the 1968 Mexico City games, American runners Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their gloved fists in a Black Power salute on the medal podium following the 200 meter sprint. Their stance became an iconic image for the Black Power Movement and also became a lightning rod of controversy.   1972, Munich: In 1972, political conflict at the Olympics resulted in tragedy. A Palestinian terrorist organization called Black September infiltrated the Olympic village in Munich, took 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team hostage, and demanded the release of over 200 Palestinian prisoners who were being held in Israel. The standoff ended in a massacre in which the terrorists killed all 11 hostages.   1980, Moscow and 1984, Los Angeles: It was not until the later years of the Cold War that tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union resulted in Olympic boycotts by either country. In 1980, U.S. President Jimmy Carter announced a boycott of the Moscow games in response to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In total, 65 countries joined the US in boycotting the games that year. The Soviet Union responded by boycotting the 1984 summer games in Los Angeles. Citing a lack of security for their athletes, the USSR and 14 of its Eastern Bloc allies declined to travel to the United States. The boycott was widely seen as retribution for the US-led boycott of 1980.   2008, Beijing: In the run up to the 2008 Summer games in Beijing, the Chinese government came under intense scrutiny from the international community for its record on human rights. Critics highlighted Chinese government repression of political dissidents, its ongoing human rights abuses in Tibet, the forced relocation of thousands of Chinese citizens to clear space for construction for the games, and the Chinese government's support for the Sudanese regime that was perpetrating genocide in Darfur. Numerous world leaders publicly contemplated boycotting the games.    

Part III: Class Discussion

After students have researched and discussed their Olympics controversy, ask them to prepare to explain the controversy to the class. After they've explained the controversy to the class, ask students in the small group to respond to these questions:  

1. What was the most surprising thing that you found in researching your event?

2. What resources did you find the most useful in researching the controversy?

3. Do the political issues underlying the incident that you investigated have resonance today? In what way? What current debates might be similar to those being discussed in the time period you studied?

4. Did the protest, boycott or cancellation you studied have its desired effect? Did it help to achieve the goals of those who protested?  Was it a positive development, in your opinion?

 5. Do you think sports and politics always go hand in hand? Do you think it is possible to have international competition free of political overtones? Why or why not?

 6. On the one hand, the Olympics have often been a staging ground for national rivalries. Many of the instances profiled in the timeline reflect the surfacing of divisions between various groups and nations. On the other hand, the Olympics have provided a chance for different groups to come together to recognize a common humanity and to increase communication between nations. What do you think of this tension? Do you think that one side of this equation is stronger than the other?

Share this Page

Home — Essay Samples — Geography & Travel — Travel and Tourism Industry — The History of Moscow City

The History of Moscow City

• Categories: Russia Travel and Tourism Industry

About this sample

Words: 614 |

Published: Feb 12, 2019

Words: 614 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Geography & Travel

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

6 pages / 2662 words

6 pages / 3010 words

2 pages / 1057 words

4 pages / 2143 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Travel and Tourism Industry

Travelling is a topic that has been debated for centuries, with some arguing that it is a waste of time and money, while others believe that it is an essential part of life. In this essay, I will argue that travelling is not [...]

Travelling has always been an exhilarating experience for me, and my recent trip to Rome was no exception. The ancient city, with its rich history and breathtaking architecture, left a lasting impression on me. It was a journey [...]

Traveling is an enriching experience that allows individuals to explore new cultures, meet people from different backgrounds, and broaden their perspectives. In the summer of 2019, I had the opportunity to embark on an amazing [...]

Traveling has always been a significant part of my life. From a young age, I have been fortunate enough to explore different cultures, experience new traditions, and immerse myself in the beauty of our world. My passion for [...]

When planning a business trip all aspects and decisions rely heavily on the budget set by the company for the trip. Once Sandfords have confirmed the location careful consideration should be used to choose the travel method and [...]

Place is one of the most complicated issues in geographical studies. Place refers to both sides of human and physical geography. There is not clear understand about the place and sometimes refer to local, area, point, region, [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free