Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 443–444 | Cite as

Doping Use Meta-Analysis: Science Seasoned with Moralistic Prejudice

  • Ognjen Arandjelović
Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

It is with much interest that I set out to read the article entitled Personal and Psychosocial Predictors of Doping Use in Physical Activity Settings: A Meta-Analysis authored by Ntoumanis et al. [1] and published in the November issue of Sports Medicine. Furthering the understanding of the factors that feature in a person’s decision to engage in potentially dangerous behaviour, which certainly includes self-administered polypharmacy, is undeniably a worthwhile pursuit. It is of direct interest to a range of medical professionals whose practice should be based on evidence and driven by patient-specific (and hence subjective) values. Therefore, I was pleased to read the aforementioned meta-analysis and found the authors’ key contribution interesting and useful. That being said, I felt disappointed that, in this article, interlaced with the authors’ scientific contribution I found a concerning number of extrascientific statements fraught with a moralistic bias.

It is no...

Keywords

Testosterone Serum Testosterone Level Playing Field Enanthate Testosterone Enanthate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Ntoumanis N, Ng JY, Barkoukis V, Backhouse S. Personal and psychosocial predictors of doping use in physical activity settings: a meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2014;44(11):1603–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    WADA. World anti-doping code. Montreal: World Anti-Doping Agency; 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parkinson AB, Evans NA. Anabolic androgenic steroids: a survey of 500 users. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(4):644–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Savulescu J, ter Meulen R, Kahane G, editors. Enhancing human capacities. New York: Wiley; 2011.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sabini J, Monterosso J. Judgments of the fairness of using performance enhancing drugs. Ethics Behav. 2005;15(1):1782–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang G, Gu Y, Wang X, et al. A clinical trial of injectable testosterone undecanoate as a potential male contraceptive in normal chinese men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999;84(10):3642–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith ACT, Stewart B. Drug policy in sport: hidden assumptions and inherent contradictions. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2008;27(2):123–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Savulescu J, Foddy B, Clayton M. Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:666–70.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kayser B, Mauron A, Miah A. Current anti-doping policy: a critical appraisal. BMC Med Ethics. 2007;8(1):2.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kayser B, Mauron A, Miah A. Viewpoint: legalisation of performance-enhancing drugs. Lancet. 2005;366:S21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fost N. Banning drugs in sports: a skeptical view. Hastings Cent Rep. 1986;16(4):5–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Pattern Recognition and Data AnalyticsDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia

Personalised recommendations