Limitations and duties: elite athletes’ perceptions of compliance with anti-doping rules

Abstract

The main purpose of this article is to examine how elite athletes perceive their own responsibilities and possibilities to be compliant with the anti-doping regulations, and to draw conclusions about what these perceptions mean in relation to the legitimacy of the anti-doping system. A qualitative research design, with interviews conducted with athletes globally, was employed to capture elite sportspersons' views on anti-doping policy and procedures. The analysis was based on a theoretical framework on legitimacy. The findings show that athletes' situation is characterized by limited information and a lack of leeway. At the same time, athletes find themselves obliged to be dutiful. We discuss the complex situation of simultaneously facing perceived limitations and duties, and consider the limits that athletes experience in relation to compliance, which may place the legitimacy of the anti-doping system at risk.

“Doing What Is Right and Doing It Right”: A Mapping Review of Athletes' Perception of Anti-Doping Legitimacy

“…Treating athletes equally and fairly. Athletes' perceptions of fairness within the anti-doping system was the focus of nine studies included in this review (Al Ghobain, 2019;Donovan et al, 2015;Engelberg et al, 2015;Judge et al, 2010;Qvarfordt et al, 2019;Scharf et al, 2018;Valkenburg et al, 2014;Westmattelmann et al, 2018). These studies were conducted with participants from Australia…”

“…Additionally, German athletes agreed that they felt that leaving Whereabouts information was an intrusion into their privacy (Scharf et al, 2018). An international sample of athletes highlighted the limited opportunities that some athletes face, in relation to education and information, and a scepticism over the true representative nature of athlete committees (Qvarfordt et al, 2019).…”

“…Suitability. The suitability of testing protocols and their infringement upon athlete lifestyle was examined by seven of the included studies (Bourdon et al, 2014;Hanstad & Loland, 2009;Qvarfordt et al, 2019;Scharf et al, 2018;Valkenburg et al, 2014). These studies were conducted in France, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and an international sample.…”

“…Elbe and Overbye (2014) found that Danish athletes felt it is a violation of personal integrity for someone to watch urination for anti-doping requirements, and thus doping controls are an invasion of privacy. An international sample of athletes perceived that limited information regarding doping and a lack of leeway relating to anti-doping exist, thus putting the anti-doping system at risk (Qvarfordt et al, 2019).…”

Criminological Analysis Of The Russian Anti-Doping Criminal Law

“…Besides, the experts draw attention to the lack of adequate responsibility of athletes for the use of illegal drugs and techniques (Gleaves & Christiansen, 2019;Qvarfordt et al, 2019). Despite the fact that athletes are full subjects of anti-doping rules violation and must be responsible for these deeds, during their criminalization in Russia the situation arose at which athletes were excluded from the sphere of criminal liability for the use of illegal substances and techniques.…”