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

The purpose and effectiveness of doping testing in sport

Maintaining an effective testing program is critical to the success and credibility of the anti-doping movement. However, a low detection ratio compared to the assumed real prevalence of sport doping has led some to question and criticize the effectiveness of the current testing system. In this perspective article, we review the results of the global testing program, discuss the purpose of testing, and compare benefits and limitations of performance indicators commonly used to evaluate testing efforts. We suggest that an effective testing program should distinguish between preventive testing and testing aimed at detecting the use of prohibited substances and prohibited methods. In case of preventive testing, the volume of the test program in terms of number of samples, tests and analyses is likely to be positively related to the extent of the deterrent effect achieved. However, there is a lack of literature on how the deterrent effect works in the practical context of doping testing. If the primary goal is to detect doping, the testing must be risk- and intelligence-based, and quality in test planning is more important than quantity in sample collection. The detection ratio can be a useful tool for evaluating the effectiveness of doping testing, but for the calculation one should take into account the number of athletes tested and not just the number of collected samples, as the former would provide a more precise measure of the tests' ability to detect doping among athletes.

Para sport and anti-doping: a study of Swedish Para athletes' experiences and perceptions

Introduction

A well-functioning anti-doping system relies on being perceived by athletes as effective, fair, and practically feasible to implement. While research has highlighted the views of Olympic athletes on anti-doping over the past decade, the experiences and perceptions of Para athletes have not been extensively explored. The purpose of this study was to examine Swedish elite Para athletes' experiences and perceptions of the policy and practice of the anti-doping system.

Methods

A quantitative cross-sectional approach was used, with a web survey elaborated from a survey with Olympic athletes adjusted for Para athletes with physical, visual, and intellectual impairments. The sample consisted of 66 active Para athletes competing at national or international level (response rate 71%). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and differences between subgroups were examined Fisher's exact test. Thematic analysis was employed to analyze open-ended questions.

Results

Most of the respondents expressed a positive outlook on the anti-doping system, advocating for comprehensive efforts. A significant portion (35%) had not received anti-doping education, with those who did reporting increased confidence in avoiding unintentional doping. Despite their elite status, half of the respondents had not undergone doping control. Mistrust regarding the system's effectiveness and fairness was identified, with over half of the participants emphasizing the need for new technical solutions to enhance procedures specifically tailored for Para athletes.

Discussion

The athletes in this study advocate for a Para sports-focused approach in the anti-doping system, emphasizing equal testing opportunities, procedural adjustments for independence and privacy, and increased access to education. The findings illuminate the unique conditions faced by athletes with impairments within the anti-doping system, offering valuable insights for policymaking in the development of anti-doping strategies tailored to Para athletes and their various impairments.

Context matters: athletes' perception of dopers' values, actions and vulnerabilities

Background

Although athletes seem to hold uniform views towards non-dopers, their perception of dopers is more nuanced, reflecting positive and negative attributes. Research also indicates that rarely a single factor can explain doping, but a host of reasons that intertwine. A holistic understanding of how values play a role in decisions in anti-doping and the elements that influence athletes' doping vulnerability is timely and warranted.

Methods

We recruited elite athletes from 13 countries representing 27 sports at a national or international level (N = 60) to participate as part of a larger research project. Data were collected via focus group interviews focusing on values, value priorities and perceptions about the role of values in doping as a phenomenon and in dopers' actions. Data were analysed using iterative thematic analysis.

Results

Three themes were identified: (1) athletes' personal stance on doping, (2) dopers in the eyes of the anti-doping-compliant athletes, and (3) doping vulnerability is a balance. Athletes in this study strongly opposed doping but showed empathy and understanding toward athletes who doped under certain circumstances. Furthermore, athletes believed that "clean" and "doping" athletes are not always distinguished by the values they hold, leading to the realisation that all athletes can be vulnerable to doping at some point. This vulnerability is a balance between risks and protective factors in a complex interaction between environmental, personal, and situational influences. Each element (e.g., values, environment) can be a motivator or a barrier. Consequently, doping vulnerability is highly idiosyncratic and dynamic.

Conclusion

If doping is not due to a lack of moral values but the consequences of combined risk factors that override the guiding function of values, then doping can happen to anyone, "good" athletes included. Developers and facilitators of anti-doping education programmes are advised to embrace this important aspect. The results also contribute to developing the doping vulnerability concept as a balance between risks and protective factors and draw attention to the clean athlete vulnerability, which is rooted in the combination of strategic performance enhancement via non-prohibited means, their exposure to anti-doping requirements and the constant high level of suspicion that surrounds them.

Intelligence-based doping control planning improves testing effectiveness: Perspectives from a national anti-doping organisation

Anti-doping organisations are mandated to provide a comprehensive anti-doping programme, which aims to detect, deter and prevent doping in sport. Direct detection of prohibited substances and methods by collection of biological samples from athletes makes up about half of the global anti-doping budgets but has in the last decade been under critical scrutiny for its lack of efficiency. To ensure optimum detection and deterrence of testing and prevention efforts, a better understanding of doping practices and comparison of different doping test strategies are needed. This study evaluates 17 years of doping test statistics and Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) from the perspectives of a national anti-doping organisation. A total of 48 709 samples (2865 ± 220 annually) were collected by Anti-Doping Norway in the period 2003-2019, which resulted in total 216 ADRVs (12.7 ± 3.7 annually), providing an average sample-to-ADRV rate of 0.44% when including urine, blood and ABP samples. Most athletes who committed ADRVs were men participating in ball and team or strength sports at a national or recreational level. Few ADRVs were recorded among elite athletes and in most high-risk sports, despite these groups being subjected to the highest number of doping tests. The number of annual ADRVs did not correlate with the corresponding number of collected doping samples. However, systematic use of intelligence in the test planning process was associated with an increase in ADRVs. Anti-doping organisations would benefit from improving their target testing capability and to take an intelligence-led approach in planning doping tests.

Dealing with doping. A plea for better science, governance and education

The creation of WADA contributed to harmonization of anti-doping and changed doping behavior and prevalence in the past 22 years. However, the system has developed important deficiencies and limitations that are causing harm to sports, athletes and society. These issues are related to the lack of evidence for most substances on the Prohibited List for performance or negative health effects, a lack of transparency and accountability of governance and decision-making by WADA and the extension of anti-doping policies outside the field of professional sports. This article tries to identify these deficiencies and limitations and presents a plea for more science, better governance and more education. This should lead to a discussion for reform among stakeholders, which should cover support of a new Prohibited List by actual research and evidence and introduce better governance with accountable control bodies and regulation. Finally, comprehensive education for all stakeholders will be the basis of all future positive improvements.

"Doing What Is Right and Doing It Right": A Mapping Review of Athletes' Perception of Anti-Doping Legitimacy

BACKGROUND

The creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency in 1999 and the first implementation of the Anti-Doping Code in 2004 established institutional and legal level legitimacy for the anti-doping movement. Subsequently, a distinct line of research examining athletes' perceptions of anti-doping has emerged. This study aims to review the literature on legitimacy via athletes' perceptions of the underpinning values, fairness and effectiveness of anti-doping rules and procedures.

METHODS

A systematic mapping review with computerised literature search of seven databases (EBSCOHost, PubMed, Ingenta, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscuss and Google Scholar) was used, followed by hand-search of reference lists and relevant journals. Based on Tyler's (2006) psychological components of legitimacy (proper, just, and appropriate), a bespoke conceptual map and analytical framework was developed and employed for retrospective categorisation.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies representing 15,434 participants met the inclusion criteria. About half of the eligible studies discussed legitimacy components without identifying them as such. Identification of studies for legitimacy concepts faced considerable ambiguity in measures and interpretation, particularly in distinguishing between elements of being 'just' and 'appropriate'. Single focus on one aspect was rare but only 11 of the 39 studies included all three elements of perceived legitimacy. Overall, athletes agreed that anti-doping is 'doing the right thing' to protect clean sport but their views differed on whether the existing anti-doping system is effective and implemented fairly (i.e., 'doing anti-doping in a right way'). Owing to the ad hoc measurements and diverse methodology, quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible.

CONCLUSION

Legitimacy is an important concept in anti-doping. Attention to globally equal and fair implementation of testing and sanctioning is warranted. Legitimacy perceptions can be improved by better communication from anti-doping organisations to highlight progress with detection, greater transparency and explicit support for athletes who were affected by doping. Future research requires standardised conceptual framework and measures.

Perception of the Current Anti-doping Regime - A Quantitative Study Among German Top-Level Cyclists and Track and Field Athletes

In recent years anti-doping organizations have implemented various measures to deter elite athletes from using performance-enhancing drugs. One of the main challenges in the fight against doping is that the effectiveness of these anti-doping measures is still unknown. Since the effectiveness of the measures depends primarily on the athletes’ perception, this study focuses on the following four objectives: (1) How effective do top-level athletes perceive individual anti-doping measures to be? (2) Are the results stable across different sports and (3) genders? (4) How can the anti-doping measures be structured into appropriate categories? To address these issues the perceived effectiveness of 14 anti-doping measures was surveyed among 146 top athletes from Germany (Cycling: N = 42; Athletics: N = 104) who are members of at least the National Testing Pool. Results reveal significant differences in the perceived effectiveness of the anti-doping measures. Improved diagnostics were considered to be the most effective remedy for doping, followed by increased bans and the implementation of an anti-doping law. In contrast, fines and a leniency program were considered significantly less effective. Second, with the exception of indirect detection methods and increased use of an Anti-Doping Administration and Management System, results were consistent across cyclists and track and field athletes. Third, no significant gender difference was observed. Finally, an exploratory factor analysis showed that all anti-doping measures can be classified into the three categories risk of detection (e.g., control frequency and efficiency), punishment (e.g., fines and bans) and communication (e.g., education program). The results of this study provide a guideline for future research and for anti-doping and sport organizations when developing strategies against doping and allocating their anti-doping budget.