Questions of fairness and anti-doping in US cycling: The contrasting experiences of professionals and amateurs

Abstract

The focus of researchers, media and policy on doping in cycling is often limited to the professional level of the sport. However, anti-doping test results since 2001 demonstrate that banned substances are also used by US cyclists at lower levels of the sport, necessitating a broader view of the patterns and motivations of substance use within the sport. In this article, we describe and explain the doping culture that has emerged in domestic US cycling among amateur and semi-professionals. Through analysis of records from sports governing bodies and journalistic reports, we assess the range of violation types and discuss the detection and punishing of riders who were not proven to have intended to cheat but became “collateral damage” in the war on doping. We argue that the phenomenon of doping is more complex than what has been shown to occur in elite sport, as it includes a wider variety of behaviours, situations and motivations. We develop fresh insights by examining cases where doping has been accidental, intrinsically motivated, non-performance enhancing or the result of prescribed medical treatments banned by anti-doping authorities. Such trends call into question the fairness of anti-doping measures, and we discuss the possibility of developing localised solutions to testing and sanctioning amateur athletes.

Sport-Induced Substance Use—An Empirical Study to the Extent within a German Sports Association

“…On the other hand, we had respondents who take substances that they believe are permitted but are actually prohibited according to the WADC, leading to an underestimation of the prevalence of doping. Nevertheless, the blurred line that separates conforming behaviour from deviance in amateur and recreational sport is a strong argument for a tailored Anti-Doping regime in this realm to preserve fairness and the spirit of sport [57]. …”

Challenges to promoting health for amateur athletes through anti-doping policy

“…At the elite level, strict liability has resulted in athletes receiving bans after accidentally ingesting a banned substance or using a substance (i.e. prescription medication) without intending it to boost performance (Cox, 2014; Henning & Dimeo, 2015b; Pluim, 2008). The strict liability principle prevents WADA from having to demonstrate intent to cheat by the athlete (Koh, Edwards, Freeman, & Zaslawski, 2012).…”

“…Indeed, some amateurs will use well-known doping substances for performance enhancement – often related to their competitive standing relative to others of their level or age group (Kisaalita & Robinson, 2014). However, this is unlikely to be the case for many athletes (Henning & Dimeo, 2015b), and applying this standard to amateurs reflects an approach to anti-doping that lacks a clear understanding of the substances amateurs are likely to use or their reasons for doing so.…”

“…While the extent of doping among any athlete group is uncertain (Dimeo & Taylor, 2013; Lentillon-Kaestner & Ohl, 2011; Pitsch, Emrich, & Klein, 2007), recent research has demonstrated that PES use among amateur athletes does occur (CIRC Report, 2015; Henning & Dimeo, 2015b). As some banned substances may carry health risks, it is reasonable that sports governing bodies would seek strategies to reduce those risks.…”

Beyond antidoping and harm minimisation: a stakeholder-corporate social responsibility approach to drug control for sport

“…For example, athletes could become the subject rather than the object of drug control by addressing concerns such as the ethical implications of drug control for child athletes 11. More effort could be directed to developing ways to operationalise ethical principles at different levels of sport, such as the feasibility (eg, cost) of drug control at non-elite events 23. The interests of the pharmaceutical industry, sponsors, broadcasters and the gambling industry could be explicitly considered alongside athlete health and integrity of sport concerns.…”