Search

Coaches may have a significant role in an athlete's decision to use, or not to use, performance enhancing substances. Research suggests that many coaches do not have the confidence or the knowledge to discuss anti-doping issues with their athletes. This study aimed to assess coaches' awareness of doping practices, coaches' knowledge of anti-doping control systems (random testing, out of competition testing, the biological passport and the athlete whereabouts system) and coaches' involvement with anti-doping education for their athletes. Individual interviews were conducted with 19 elite or professional level coaches representing the sports of basketball, cricket, hockey, soccer, rowing, ski cross, taekwondo, swimming and triathlon. The findings suggest that although many coaches personally know doping athletes, few believe that athletes will ever be tested. Knowledge of anti-doping control systems, specifically the biological passport and the whereabouts system was very poor. Coaches rarely discuss doping themes with their athletes or other coaches. Taken together these findings paint a worrying picture of the state of coaches' knowledge of doping and their commitment to anti-doping education and awareness. While anti-doping education must become a standard part of the coaching education process, this should be backed with strict compliance legislation that obliges coaches to take part in continuous education and provide proof that they provide preventive measures for their athletes. Additionally, a professional development plan to ensure that knowledge remains accurate and current may be required.

Coaches may have a significant role in an athlete's decision to use, or not to use, performance enhancing substances. Research suggests that many coaches do not have the confidence or the knowledge to discuss anti-doping issues with their athletes. This study aimed to assess coaches' awareness of doping practices, coaches' knowledge of anti-doping control systems (random testing, out of competition testing, the biological passport and the athlete whereabouts system) and coaches' involvement with anti-doping education for their athletes. Individual interviews were conducted with 19 elite or professional level coaches representing the sports of basketball, cricket, hockey, soccer, rowing, ski cross, taekwondo, swimming and triathlon. The findings suggest that although many coaches personally know doping athletes, few believe that athletes will ever be tested. Knowledge of anti-doping control systems, specifically the biological passport and the whereabouts system was very poor. Coaches rarely discuss doping themes with their athletes or other coaches. Taken together these findings paint a worrying picture of the state of coaches' knowledge of doping and their commitment to anti-doping education and awareness. While anti-doping education must become a standard part of the coaching education process, this should be backed with strict compliance legislation that obliges coaches to take part in continuous education and provide proof that they provide preventive measures for their athletes. Additionally, a professional development plan to ensure that knowledge remains accurate and current may be required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: An implicit rationale for anti-doping legislation is that doping damages the public image of sport and that this, in turn, has serious consequences for the sporting industry. However, there is scant evidence that doping impacts on public opinion, and even less so that it has dire consequences for sports consumerism. This study sought to fill a void in public policy debate by canvassing public opinion on a range of anti-doping policies and practices. Methods: A representative sample of the Australian public ( n == 2520) responded to a telephone survey with questions on performance enhancing and illicit drug use. Findings: The majority agreed that clubs should be penalized if athletes were found to use drugs and that companies and government should stop sponsoring athletes who have been using drugs. Opinion was split on the issue of whether performance-enhancing drug use should be criminalized (slight majority in favour). Conclusions: These results show that the Australian public support anti-doping measures. As anti-doping initiatives become more widespread, invasive and costly, policy makers will need to ensure that anti-doping legislation maintains strong public support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]