Sports Medicine

, Volume 43, Issue 6, pp 395–411 | Cite as

Doping in Sport: A Review of Elite Athletes’ Attitudes, Beliefs, and Knowledge

Review Article

Abstract

Doping in sport is a well-known phenomenon that has been studied mainly from a biomedical point of view, even though psychosocial approaches are also key factors in the fight against doping. This phenomenon has evolved greatly in recent years, and greater understanding of it is essential for developing efficient prevention programmes. In the psychosocial approach, attitudes are considered an index of doping behaviour, relating the use of banned substances to greater leniency towards doping. The aim of this review is to gather and critically analyse the most recent publications describing elite athletes’ attitudes, beliefs and knowledge of doping in sport, to better understand the foundations provided by the previous work, and to help develop practical strategies to efficiently combat doping. For this purpose, we performed a literature search using combinations of the terms “doping”, “sport”, “elite athletes”, “attitudes”, “beliefs”, “knowledge”, “drugs”, and “performance-enhancing substances” (PES). A total of 33 studies were subjected to comprehensive assessment using articles published between 2000 and 2011. All of the reports focused on elite athletes and described their attitudes, beliefs and knowledge of doping in sport. The initial reasons given for using banned substances included achievement of athletic success by improving performance, financial gain, improving recovery and prevention of nutritional deficiencies, as well as the idea that others use them, or the “false consensus effect”. Although most athletes acknowledge that doping is cheating, unhealthy and risky because of sanctions, its effectiveness is also widely recognized. There is a general belief about the inefficacy of anti-doping programmes, and athletes criticise the way tests are carried out. Most athletes consider the severity of punishment is appropriate or not severe enough. There are some differences between sports, as team-based sports and sports requiring motor skills could be less influenced by doping practices than individual self-paced sports. However, anti-doping controls are less exhaustive in team sports. The use of banned substance also differs according to the demand of the specific sport. Coaches appear to be the main influence and source of information for athletes, whereas doctors and other specialists do not seem to act as principal advisors. Athletes are becoming increasingly familiar with anti-doping rules, but there is still a lack of knowledge that should be remedied using appropriate educational programmes. There is also a lack of information on dietary supplements and the side effects of PES. Therefore, information and prevention are necessary, and should cater to the athletes and associated stakeholders. This will allow us to establish and maintain correct attitudes towards doping. Psychosocial programmes must be carefully planned and developed, and should include middle- to long-term objectives (e.g. changing attitudes towards doping and the doping culture). Some institutions have developed or started prevention or educational programmes without the necessary resources, while the majority of the budget is spent on anti-doping testing. Controls are obviously needed, as well as more efficient educational strategies. Therefore, we encourage sporting institutions to invest in educational programmes aimed at discouraging the use of banned substances. Event organizers and sport federations should work together to adapt the rules of each competition to disincentivize dopers. Current research methods are weak, especially questionnaires. A combination of qualitative and quantitative measurements are recommended, using interviews, questionnaires and, ideally, biomedical tests. Studies should also examine possible geographical and cultural differences in attitudes towards doping.

References

  1. 1.
    Bloodworth AJ, McNamee M. Clean Olympians? Doping and anti-doping: the views of talented young British athletes. Int J Drug Policy. 2010;21(4):276–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    WADA (2009a). World anti-doping code [online]. http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/The-Code. Accessed 29 Nov 2011.
  3. 3.
    Mottram DR. Banned drugs in sport: does the International Olympic Committee (IOC) list need updating? Sports Med. 1999;27(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Anti-Doping Agency. The World anti-doping code. Montreal: WADA; 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gucciardi DF, Jalleh G, Donovan RJ. An examination of the Sport Drug Control Model with elite Australian athletes. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14(6):469–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bahrke MS, Yesalis CE, editors. Performance enhancing substances in sport and exercise. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Backhouse S, McKenna J, Robinson S, et al. Attitudes, behaviours, knowledge and education—drugs in sport: past present and future [online]. Canada: World Anti-Doping Agency; 2007. http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/Backhouse_et_al_Full_Report.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2011.
  8. 8.
    Petroczi A, Aidman E. Measuring explicit attitude toward doping: review of the psychometric properties of the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale. Psychol Sport Exer. 2009;10:390–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dodge T, Jaccard JJ. Is abstinence an alternative? Predicting adolescent athletes’ intentions to use performance enhancing substances. J Health Psychol. 2008;13(5):703–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donovan RJ, Egger G, Kapernick V, et al. A conceptual framework for achieving performance enhancing drug compliance in sport. Sports Med. 2002;32(4):269–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lucidi F, Zelli A, Mallia L, et al. The social-cognitive mechanisms regulating adolescents’ use of doping substances. J Sports Sci. 2008;26(5):447–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Strelan P, Boeckmann RJ. A new model for understanding performance enhancing drug use by elite athletes. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2003;15:176–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    WADA (2009b). World anti-doping agency: Education [online]. http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Education-Awareness/. Accessed 29 Nov 2011.
  14. 14.
    Vangrunderbeek H, Tolleneer J. Student attitudes towards doping in sport: Shifting from repression to tolerance? Int Rev Sociol Sport. 2010;46(3):346–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alaranta A, Alaranta H, Holmila J, et al. Self-reported attitudes of elite athletes towards doping: differences between type of sport. Int J Sports Med. 2006;27(10):842–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunn M, Thomas JO, Swift W, et al. Drug testing in sport: the attitudes and experiences of elite athletes. Int J Drug Policy. 2010;21(4):330–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage Publications; 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dolan P, Hallsworth M, Halpern D, et al. Influencing behavior: the mindspace way. J Econ Psychol. 2012;33:264–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour: some unresolved issues. Organ Behav Hum. 1991;50(2):179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lucidi F, Grano C, Leone L, et al. Determinants of the intention to use doping substances: an empirical contribution in a sample of Italian adolescents. Int J Sport Psychol. 2004;35(2):133–48.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Striegel H, Vollkommer G, Dickhuth HH. Combating drug use in competitive sports: an analysis from the athletes’ perspective. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2002;42(3):354–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pitsch W, Emrich E, Kleinm M. Doping in elite sports in Germany: results of a www survey. Eur J Sport Soc. 2007;4(2):89–102.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nieper A. Nutritional supplement practices in UK junior national track and field athletes. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(9):645–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim J, Kang SK, Jung HS, et al. Dietary supplementation patterns of Korean Olympic athletes participating in the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympic Games. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2011;21(2):166–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Erdman KA, Fung TS, Doyle-Baker PK, et al. Dietary supplementation of high-performance Canadian athletes by age and gender. Clin J Sport Med. 2007;17(6):458–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bloodworth AJ, Petróczi A, Bailey R, et al. Doping and supplementation: the attitudes of talented young athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012;22(2):293–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lentillon-Kaestner V, Carstairs C. Doping use among young elite cyclists: a qualitative psychosociological approach. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20(2):336–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lentillon-Kaestner V, Hagger MS, Hardcastle S. Health and doping in elite-level cycling. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012;22(5):596–606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dunn M, Thomas JO, Swift W, et al. Elite athletes’ estimates of the prevalence of illicit drug use: evidence for the false consensus effect. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2012;31(1):27–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petróczi A, Mazanov J, Nepusz T, et al. Comfort in big numbers: does over-estimation of doping prevalence in others indicate self-involvement? J Occup Med Toxicol. 2008;5:3–19.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Uvacsek M, Nepusz T, Naughton DP, et al. Self-admitted behavior and perceived use of performance-enhancing vs psychoactive drugs among competitive athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(2):224–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tangen JO, Breivik G. Doping games and drug abuse. Sportwissenschaft. 2001;31:188–98.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peretti-Watel P, Guagliardo V, Verger P, et al. Attitudes toward doping and recreational drug use among French elite student athletes. Sociol Sport J. 2004;21:1–17.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    De Hon O, Eijs I, Havenga A. Dutch elite athletes and anti-doping policies. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(4):341–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mottram D, Chester N, Atkinson G, et al. Athletes’ knowledge and views on OTC medication. Int J Sports Med. 2008;29(10):851–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dascombe BJ, Karunaratna M, Cartoon J, et al. Nutritional supplementation habits and perceptions of elite athletes within a state-based sporting institute. J Sci Med Sport. 2010;13(2):274–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Breivik G, Hanstad DV, Loland S. Attitudes towards use of performance-enhancing substances and body modification techniques: a comparison between elite athletes and the general population. Sport Soc. 2009;12(6):737–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Connor JM, Mazanov J. Would you dope? A general population test of the Goldman dilemma. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(11):871–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sas-Nowosielski K, Swiatkowska L. Goal orientations and attitudes toward doping. Int J Sports Med. 2008;29(7):607–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Waddington I, Malcolm D, Roderick M, et al. Drug use in English professional football. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(4):e18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Barkoukis V, Lazuras L, Tsorbatzoudisa H, et al. Motivational and sportspersonship profiles of elite athletes in relation to doping behavior. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011;12(3):205–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peretti-Watel P, Pruvost J, Guagliardo V, et al. Attitudes toward doping among young athletes in Provence. Sci Sports. 2005;20(1):33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lazuras L, Barkoukis V, Rodafinos A, et al. Predictors of doping intentions in elite-level athletes: a social cognition approach. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2010;32(5):694–710.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chester N, Reilly T, Mottram DR. Over-the-counter drug use amongst athletes and non-athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2003;43(1):111–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Striegel H, Ulrich R, Simon P. Randomized response estimates for doping and illicit drug use in elite athletes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;106(2–3):230–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pitsch W. The science of doping’’ revisited: Fallacies of the current anti-doping regime. Eur J Sport Sci. 2009;9(2):87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Berry DA. The science of doping. Nature. 2008;454(7205):692–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Callaway E. Sports doping: racing just to keep up. Nature. 2011;475(7356):283–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hanstad DV, Loland S. Elite athletes’ duty to provide information on their whereabouts: justifiable anti-doping work or an indefensible surveillance regime? Eur J Sport Sci. 2009;9(1):3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    D’Angelo C, Tamburrini C. Addict to win? A different approach to doping. J Med Ethics. 2010;36(11):700–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Alaranta A, Alaranta H, Heliövaara M, et al. Ample use of physician-prescribed medications in Finnish elite athletes. Int J Sports Med. 2006;27(11):919–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Somerville SJ, Lewis M, Kuipers H. Accidental breaches of the doping regulations in sport: is there a need to improve the education of sportspeople? Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(8):512–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Peters C, Schulz T, Oberhoffer R, et al. Doping and doping prevention: knowledge, attitudes and expectations of athletes and coaches. Deutsche zeitschrift fur sportmedizin. 2009;60(3):73–8.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Thomas JO, Dunn M, Swift W, et al. Illicit drug knowledge and information-seeking behaviours among elite athletes. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14(4):278–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Backhouse S, McKenna J. Doping in sport: a review of medical practitioners’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs. Int J Drug Policy. 2011;22:198–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Huang SH, Johnson K, Pipe AL. The use of dietary supplements and medications by Canadian athletes at the Atlanta and Sydney Olympic Games. Clin J Sport Med. 2006;16(1):27–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lamont-Mills A, Christensen S. “I have never taken performance enhancing drugs and I never will”: drug discourse in the Shane Warne case. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2008;18(2):250–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    WADA. Social science research 2008 call for proposal [online]. http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/Call_for_Proposals_2009_En.pdf. Accessed 26 Dec 2011.
  59. 59.
    Maughan RJ, Depiesse F, Geyer H. International Association of Athletics Federations: the use of dietary supplements by athletes. J Sports Sci 2007; 25 Suppl. 1:S103–13. Review. Erratum in: J Sports Sci 2009; 27 (6): 667.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Thomas JO, Dunn M, Swift W, et al. Elite athletes’ perceptions of the effects of illicit drug use on athletic performance. Clin J Sport Med. 2010;20(3):189–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Perneger TV. Speed trends of major cycling races: does slower mean cleaner? Int J Sports Med. 2010;31(4):261–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Dunn M, Thomas JO. A risk profile of elite Australian athletes who use illicit drugs. Addict Behav. 2012;37(1):144–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zabala M, Sanz L, Durán J, et al. Doping and professional road cycling: perspective of cyclists versus team managers. J Sports Sci Med. 2009;8(11):102–3.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Corrigan B, Kazlauskas R. Medication use in athletes selected for doping control at the Sydney Olympics (2000). Clin J Sport Med. 2003;13(1):33–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Zabala M, Atkinson G. Looking for the “athlete 2.0”: a collaborative challenge [online]. J Sci Cycling 2012; 1 (1): 1–2. http://www.jsc-journal.com/ojs/index.php?journal=JSC&page=article&op=view&path[]=17&path[]=35. Accessed 03 Aug 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport SciencesUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Doping Prevention AreaSpanish Cycling FederationMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations