No abstract

Social science began to take a prominent role in drugs in sport research in the early twentyfirst century. This development has its roots in the history of drugs in sport, from the ancient Olympics through to the twentieth century, where the question of 'could' drugs enhance sporting performance, answered affirmatively, was replaced with whether they 'should'. The history of drug testing reveals that 'should' may have been asked too late, with the advent of potentially undetectable performance enhancements rendering testing ineffective as a deterrence method. In an effort to find alternative models to deter the use of drugs in sport, the focus has shifted from 'detection-based deterrence' to 'prevention-based deterrence'. Many of the questions underpinning prevention-based deterrence have the character of those asked by social science. Exploration of this character demonstrates social science offers an appropriate range of philosophical and methodological tools to explore prevention-based deterrence of drugs in sport.

No abstract

An extensive body of safety literature and research discusses the integral role of rules and procedures in managing workplace hazards, ensuring worker safety, and safeguarding the environment. Nevertheless, organizational accidents and workplace injuries continue to occur, and individual employees often bear the brunt of responsibility. This paper examines how risk becomes shifted to individuals at the bottom of supply chains, focusing on two different groups of contract workers. Specifically, it draws on case studies conducted in Australiaone on civil contractors working around hazardous infrastructure and one on athletes who are subject to anti-doping requirements. A comparison of the two cases and their distinctive elements illuminates the ways in which structural pressures, organizational dynamics, and context-specific conditions influence the risks shouldered by individuals. Our analysis shows that, in both cases, adverse outcomes are widely seen as the responsibility of contract workers, prompting other actors to judge them as blameworthy. In doing so, risk in various forms (e.g. safety, financial, reputational) becomes shifted onto workers who are constrained by contracts and away from away from higher level actors and organizations that are generally in more powerful positions than frontline workers. This finding suggests that the burden of accountability and potentially liability is borne primarily by frontline workers. Because of this focus, it is easy to lose sight of organizational and structural conditions that contribute to the risks revealed at the individual level. Through an analysis of 57 interviews across both sectors, complemented by participant observations and a media review, this paper underscores the importance of critically considering not only individual worker actions, but also how regulation can support the diversion of risk, responsibility, and liability onto frontline workers.

No abstract