Fight Against Doping as a Social Performance: The Case of the 2015–2016 Russian Anti-Doping Crisis

Abstract

In 2016, the Olympic Movement had to face a major crisis of state sponsored doping in Russia. This crisis raised suspicions about the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the World Anti-doping Agency’s (WADA) efficiency and integrity. This article focuses on the Russian doping case, as it offers rich and diverse empirical material that helps understand the social context of the production and circulation of performance. To this end, we articulate Bourdieu’s fields theory and Abbott’s linked ecologies as relevant models to analyse and discuss our case study and its implications. We used newspaper articles on the Russian crisis, a content analysis of official WADA and IOC publications, and field notes taken during informal talks with anti-doping stakeholders. In this article, it is argued that IOC and WADA’s social performance was ineffective for three reasons. First, the crisis revealed the gap between the promises of anti-doping and the widespread doping in Russia. Second, it demonstrated the extent to which the Russian crisis fragilised the binding role of the sport doxa, reinforced the role of anti-doping stakeholders’ specific ecologies and belittled cooperation between them to display a shared meaning of the situation. Third, embedded in a complex web of interactions and interdependencies with other actors, WADA and the IOC were unable to perform a convincing ‘social performance’ and both were judged to be ineffective and untrustworthy. The results of the study show (1) the importance of the diachronic dimension of social performance; (2) the relevance of relying on Bourdieu’s field theory to understand the central role of temporality in the production of meanings; (3) the usefulness of Abbott’s perspective to understand that producers do not control the meanings and understand how they were reframed; (4) the relative autonomy of the meanings associated with social performance.

Women's Footprint in Anti-Doping Sciences: A Bibliometric Approach to Research Impact

“…Contrary to another field of science share of Chinese (2.4%), Brazilian (2.2%), Russian (1.3%) and Indian (0.6%) authors were exceptionally low. This fact can be explained by differences in anti-doping research and regulation in these states, mainly in Russia (Rutland and Kazantsev, 2016 ; Altukhov and Nauright, 2018 ; Ohl et al, 2021 and China (Hong, 2006 ; Yang and Leung, 2008 ; Lu, 2012 ; Tan et al, 2020 ).…”

The toxic doxa of “clean sport” and IOC’s and WADA’s quest for credibility

“…Second, the anchorage of anti-doping dramaturgy in the sporting field might be too narrow. We focused on WADA and IOC’s interactions, and the anti-doping dramaturgy is not just to convince athletes and sport stakeholders; the mise-en-scène is also addressed to a much broader audience constituted of, but not limited to, sponsors, consumers, governments, and journalists on which the value given to sport depends (Ohl et al, 2020).…”

Whose job is it anyway? A qualitative investigation into the influence of agents, race organisers, and sponsors on the risk of doping in elite distance running

“…These reports depict a sporting culture that makes doping easy and relatively risk free, or even in which it would have been very difficult for a top-level athlete not to dope. The ripples of these major incidents have impacted sport and anti-doping on a global scale (Heiberger et al, 2021;Ohl et al, 2021a;2021b;Read et al, 2020;Wagner & Storm, 2021).…”