There has been increased attention on athletes' intentions and motives for doping. However, the majority of studies on doping intentions to date have assumed that doping is a consciously-controlled, goal-directed behaviour, and neglected the possibility that athletes could be unwittingly and unintentionally exposed to doping. Unintentional doping is often regarded as an excuse given by athletes caught doping, but it could happen in circumstances where athletes are unaware that the food, drinks, supplements, or medications they consume contain banned performanceenhancing drugs. Research into unintentional doping is in its infancy, but debates persist about the importance of this controversal topic. In this article we discuss the importance of unintentional doping as an issue in sport. We discuss the relevance of this research area based on statistics, reports, and recommendations (e.g., antidoping codes) offered by WADA, together with the evidence from recent empirical research. We also outline the importance of formative research on effective interventions to manage unintentional doping.

No abstract

Parents are often regarded as one of the significant social agents who are important to the participation of physical activity (PA) among children and adolescents. However, within the literature, the relationships between parental influences and child and adolescent PA have been inconclusive and discordant. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to quantify and synthesize the associations between parental social influences (positive parental influence, punishment, and discouragement) and the PA level of children and adolescents. Through a systematic literature search using PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, ProQuest, and SPORTDiscus databases, we identified 112 eligible studies and subsequently extracted 741 effect sizes for our analysis. Multilevel meta-analysis showed that the corrected zero-order correlation of positive parental influence was positive and statistically significant, r = 0.202, SE = 0.014, t = 14.975, p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.176, 0.228]. Further moderation analysis also found that this was significantly moderated by parental gender (maternal vs. paternal), respondent of influence measure (parent-reported vs. child-reported), and type of PA measure (subjective vs. objective). The corrected zero-order correlations of negative parental influences (i.e., punishment and discouragement) were not statistically significant, and no significant moderation effects were observed. The findings of our meta-analysis showed that children and adolescents had higher PA levels when their parents supported PA participation by exerting positive social influence. Punishment and discouragement against PA by parents did not appear to be significantly associated with the PA level of children and adolescents. The findings of negative parental social influence were mixed and required further investigations.

Athletes with positive implicit and explicit doping attitudes were less likely to read the ingredients table of an unknown food product, but were more likely to be aware of the possible presence of banned substances in a certain food product. Implicit doping attitude appeared to explain athletes' behavioural response to the avoidance of unintentional doping beyond variance explained by explicit doping attitude.