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

doping elite athlete focus group interview qualitative inquiry risk factors values vulnerability

Journal

Frontiers in sports and active living
ISSN: 2624-9367
Titre abrégé: Front Sports Act Living
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101765780

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 26 05 2023
accepted: 21 11 2023
medline: 2 1 2024
pubmed: 2 1 2024
entrez: 1 1 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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. We recruited elite athletes from 13 countries representing 27 sports at a national or international level ( 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. 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.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
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 UNASSIGNED
We recruited elite athletes from 13 countries representing 27 sports at a national or international level (
Results UNASSIGNED
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 UNASSIGNED
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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38162700
doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1229679
pmc: PMC10757837
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1229679

Informations de copyright

© 2023 Veltmaat, Dreiskämper, Brueckner, Bondarev, Heyes, Barkoukis, Elbe, Lazuras, De Maria, Zelli and Petróczi.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Annalena Veltmaat (A)

Department of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Institute of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Dennis Dreiskämper (D)

Department of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Institute of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Sebastian Brueckner (S)

Department of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Institute of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Willibald Gebhardt Research Institute, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.

Dmitriy Bondarev (D)

Institute of Medicine and Life Sciences, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad, Russia.
Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Data and Marketing Analytics Department, SSM Sisä-Suomi Oy, Jyväskylä, Finland.

Andrew Heyes (A)

School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston University, London, United Kingdom.
Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Vassilis Barkoukis (V)

Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.

Anne-Marie Elbe (AM)

Department of Sport Psychology, Faculty of Sport Science, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

Lambros Lazuras (L)

School of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom.

Alessandra De Maria (A)

Department of Movement, Human, and Health Sciences, University of Rome "Foro Italico", Rome, Italy.

Arnaldo Zelli (A)

Department of Movement, Human, and Health Sciences, University of Rome "Foro Italico", Rome, Italy.

Andrea Petróczi (A)

Willibald Gebhardt Research Institute, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston University, London, United Kingdom.
Faculty of Education & Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.

Classifications MeSH