Search

The WADA Strategic Plan 2015–19 includes as part of its Mission Statement, the aim to develop policies and procedures that reflect justice, equity and integrity. However, current policies and procedures for the sanctioning of athletes subvert legal maxims, such as the presumption of innocence, and punishment for all offenders, even in cases of accidental or inadvertent doping where there was neither intention, nor any performance enhancement. In this archival study, from an initial, broadly representative sample of 100 sanctions, 23 cases were identified in which sanctioned athletes either denied committing an anti-doping rule violation or denied intention to dope. Content analysis of the statements made by athletes showed that denial strategies fell into discrete categories, such as accidental doping through nutritional supplements, banned substances being present in medical treatments, accidental whereabouts violations, and accidental purchases. While some denials were credible, many were incredible, potentially reinforcing the general skepticism anti-doping authorities have towards protestations of innocence by athletes. Findings highlight the need to improve the education of athletes to prevent accidental violations. It is suggested that the introduction of a 'reasonable person' standard might help to prevent the imposition of sanctions in cases where even anti-doping tribunals acknowledge that sanctions are harsh or unfair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is widely assumed that coaches have an effect on athletes’ doping behaviours; however, the means by which this influence can be manifested are only superficially understood. The present study seeks to understand how coaches see their role in directly and indirectly influencing the doping attitudes and behaviours of athletes. Fourteen elite-level coaches participated in focus group discussions. Coaches displayed a low level of knowledge of banned methods and practices. While it was acknowledged that doping was prevalent in sport, coaches believed that doping was not a problem in their own sport, since doping does not aid in the development or implementation of sporting ‘skills’. While the findings suggest that coaches support the revised WADA Code, with increased sanctions for coaches, the findings also highlight how coaches may indirectly and inadvertently condone doping. This may be through inaction or the apparent endorsement of pro-doping expectancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policies to prevent performance-enhancing drug use in sport are implicitly based on a form of deterrence theory, whereby the threat of sanctions deters prohibited behaviour. While deterrents generally fail to deter serious criminal actions, criminological research suggests that deterrents can be effective with certain types of offences or offenders. This study explored the perceptions of elite athletes (n = 488) and coaches (n = 92) of two forms of deterrents to performance-enhancing drug use (legal and material loss sanctions) and a range of other anti-doping policy issues. There were marked differences in the perceived deterrent effect for athletes and coaches, with coaches consistently seeing deterrents as less credible than athletes. Both groups endorsed sanctions for the coaches and clubs of doping athletes and expressed support for the withdrawal of commercial and government sponsorship for such athletes. Findings are discussed in relation to the increasing focus of anti-doping campaigns towards elite coaches rather than athletes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]