Twitter discourse around competitive cycling and sports-related concussion

Hardwicke, Jack; Batten, John; Anderson, Eric; Hurst, Howard Thomas

doi:10.28985/1322.jsc.02

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They had difficulties comprehending how dopers can reconcile their behaviour with their conscience. Some participants suggested that dopers do not experience a value conflict, while others proposed that dopers justify their actions through a process of normalisation [e.g., (56)(57)(58)] or moral disengagement (59). They also indicated that the acceptance of doping use happens gradually, starting with small steps and eventually becoming an integral part of training practice.…”

Section: Athletes Condemn Doping But Understand the Circumstancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context matters: athletes’ perception of dopers’ values, actions and vulnerabilities

Veltmaat,

Dreiskämper,

Brueckner

et al. 2023

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAlthough athletes seem to hold uniform views towards non-dopers, their perception of dopers is more nuanced, reflecting positive and negative attributes. Research also indicates that rarely a single factor can explain doping, but a host of reasons that intertwine. A holistic understanding of how values play a role in decisions in anti-doping and the elements that influence athletes’ doping vulnerability is timely and warranted.MethodsWe recruited elite athletes from 13 countries representing 27 sports at a national or international level (N = 60) to participate as part of a larger research project. Data were collected via focus group interviews focusing on values, value priorities and perceptions about the role of values in doping as a phenomenon and in dopers’ actions. Data were analysed using iterative thematic analysis.ResultsThree themes were identified: (1) athletes’ personal stance on doping, (2) dopers in the eyes of the anti-doping-compliant athletes, and (3) doping vulnerability is a balance. Athletes in this study strongly opposed doping but showed empathy and understanding toward athletes who doped under certain circumstances. Furthermore, athletes believed that “clean” and “doping” athletes are not always distinguished by the values they hold, leading to the realisation that all athletes can be vulnerable to doping at some point. This vulnerability is a balance between risks and protective factors in a complex interaction between environmental, personal, and situational influences. Each element (e.g., values, environment) can be a motivator or a barrier. Consequently, doping vulnerability is highly idiosyncratic and dynamic.ConclusionIf doping is not due to a lack of moral values but the consequences of combined risk factors that override the guiding function of values, then doping can happen to anyone, “good” athletes included. Developers and facilitators of anti-doping education programmes are advised to embrace this important aspect. The results also contribute to developing the doping vulnerability concept as a balance between risks and protective factors and draw attention to the clean athlete vulnerability, which is rooted in the combination of strategic performance enhancement via non-prohibited means, their exposure to anti-doping requirements and the constant high level of suspicion that surrounds them.

show abstract