Perception of the Current Anti-doping Regime – A Quantitative Study Among German Top-Level Cyclists and Track and Field Athletes

Abstract

In recent years anti-doping organizations have implemented various measures to deter elite athletes from using performance-enhancing drugs. One of the main challenges in the fight against doping is that the effectiveness of these anti-doping measures is still unknown. Since the effectiveness of the measures depends primarily on the athletes’ perception, this study focuses on the following four objectives: (1) How effective do top-level athletes perceive individual anti-doping measures to be? (2) Are the results stable across different sports and (3) genders? (4) How can the anti-doping measures be structured into appropriate categories? To address these issues the perceived effectiveness of 14 anti-doping measures was surveyed among 146 top athletes from Germany (Cycling: N = 42; Athletics: N = 104) who are members of at least the National Testing Pool. Results reveal significant differences in the perceived effectiveness of the anti-doping measures. Improved diagnostics were considered to be the most effective remedy for doping, followed by increased bans and the implementation of an anti-doping law. In contrast, fines and a leniency program were considered significantly less effective. Second, with the exception of indirect detection methods and increased use of an Anti-Doping Administration and Management System, results were consistent across cyclists and track and field athletes. Third, no significant gender difference was observed. Finally, an exploratory factor analysis showed that all anti-doping measures can be classified into the three categories risk of detection (e.g., control frequency and efficiency), punishment (e.g., fines and bans) and communication (e.g., education program). The results of this study provide a guideline for future research and for anti-doping and sport organizations when developing strategies against doping and allocating their anti-doping budget.

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

“…Thirty-nine studies, including 31 research articles, two conference abstracts and six research reports, were selected for inclusion as research on the perceived legitimacy of antidoping organisations and testing. Thirty of these studies utilised quantitative methodology (Al Ghobain, 2019;Donovan et al, 2015;Bourdon et al, 2014; Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES), 2013;de Hon, Eijs & Havenga, 2011;Duiven, de Hon & Netherlands ADA, 2015;Dunn et al,2010;Efverstrom et al, 2016a;Gebert, Lamprecht & Stamm, 2017;Global Athlete, 2020;Gucciardi, Jalleh, & Donovan, 2011;Hanstad & Loland, 2009;Hanstad, Skille & Thurnston, 2009;Jalleh, Donovan, & Jobling, 2013;Judge et al, 2010;Moston, Engelberg & Skinner, 2015a;Nolte et al, 2014;Overbye, 2016;Overbye, 2017;Overbye & Wagner, 2013;Overbye & Wagner, 2014;Sas-Nowosielski & Świątkowska, 2007;Scharf, Zurawski & Ruthenberg, 2018;Striegel, Vollkommer & Dickhuth, 2002;USADA, 2017;Valkenburg, de Hon & van Hilvoorde, 2014;Westmattelmann et al, 2018) and nine used a qualitative approach to data collection and analysis (Bloodworth & McNamee, 2010;Efverstrom et al, 2016b;Engelberg, Moston & Skinner, 2015;Erickson, Backhouse & Carless, 2017;Henning & Dimeo, 2018;Kegelaers et al, 2018;Kirby, Moran & Guerin, 2011;…”

“…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…”

“…Seven studies discussed the effectiveness of sanctions as doping prevention (Dunn et al, 2010;Engelberg et al, 2015;Kegelaers et al, 2018;Kirby et al, 2011;Moston et al, 2015a;Westmattelmann et al, 2018). With a focus on the effectiveness of sanctions as deterrents to doping, found that despite 78% of athletes regarding a ban as a deterrent, potential social, self-imposed and financial consequences are greater deterrents to doping.…”

“…In another sample of Australian athletes, low percentages were particularly sceptical of the certainty of legal and material sanctions resulting from anti-doping violations (Moston et al, 2015a). However, German athletes considered improvements in diagnostics to be the most effective anti-doping deterrents with fines and leniency programs to be the least effective (Westmattelmann et al, 2018). When discussing their experiences of doping, four of five athletes who had doped, reported that being caught was only a minor concern (Kirby et al, 2011) Robustness.…”

A role for metabolomics in the antidoping toolbox?

“…a decreasing wish to use doping in view of the serious consequences 20,21 . Two surveys involving German and Danish elite athletes reported that effective detection methods and hard sanctions are considered to be the main deterrent among the athletic population, indicating that prevention and communication are also important to stop doping abuse 22,23 …”