Objectives: Under the World Anti-Doping Code coaches have designated anti-doping roles and responsibilities. Yet, their experiences, opinions and behaviours in relation to these expectations are poorly understood. This study responds directly to this absence of evidence in order to move the field forward.Design: A qualitative thematic analysis approach.Method: Twelve football and rugby league coaches, working in a performance development context, took part in semi-structured interviews to explore their (anti-)doping experiences, opinions and behaviours. Nine coaches participated in follow-up interviews where particular attention was paid to existing anti-doping policy directives. All interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.Results: Coaches were supportive of anti-doping efforts and exerted their influence by monitoring, giving advice and creating the 'right' culture. Performance prioritisation rendered coaches reluctant to engage proactively in addressing anti-doping in their practice; a situation exacerbated by a lack of self-efficacy to advise/act in accordance with the rules. Consequently, coaches tended to rely on others (both internally and externally to their club) to provide antidoping support, and anti-doping is deemed unnecessary/irrelevant. Critically, coaches' current behaviours were not driven by policy, as they were unaware of expectations and consequences outlined in the Code.Conclusions: Coaches are willing to support anti-doping efforts, but are generally passive in their everyday practice. The gulf between anti-doping policy and coaching practice raises cause for concern for anti-doping policy makers. To bridge this gap systematic programming of activities designed to ensure coaches are able and willing to take a proactive role in doping prevention is required.

Whistleblowing is effective for exposing doping in sport, garnering increased support and promotion within the global anti-doping community. However, limited attention has been afforded towards understanding the doping whistleblowing process. In response, the authors convey a sense of the whistleblowing context by using the actual words of whistleblowers to illuminate their experience. To achieve this aim, the authors have adopted a narrative approach. Three doping whistleblowers were interviewed regarding their lived experiences of whistleblowing on doping and the data has been represented in the form of one composite creative non-fiction story. The story narrates the whistleblowing experience as a process whereby individuals must (a) determine what they witnessed and experienced was doping, (b) make the decision and take action to report it, and (c) deal with the myriad of consequences and emotions. It also highlights the dilemma faced by whistleblowers who are likely equally compelled to adhere to the moral of loyalty and fairness; yet in this context they are unable to do both. Stemming from the story presented and the forms of retribution experienced, the authors offer practical suggestions for sporting organisations to address in order to empower others to whistleblow on doping in sport. Specifically, organisations should establish and implement whistleblowing policies that: (a) provide protection for whistleblowers, (b) mandate whistleblowing education, and (c) identify an independent person for individuals to seek guidance and support from before, during and following the act of whistleblowing.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectivesCoach-centred antidoping education is scarce. We tested the efficacy of a motivationally informed antidoping intervention for coaches, with their athletes’ willingness to dope as the primary outcome.MethodsWe delivered a cluster randomised controlled trial in Australia, the UK and Greece. This study was a parallel group, two-condition, superiority trial. Participants were 130 coaches and 919 athletes. Coaches in the intervention group attended two workshops and received supplementary information to support them in adopting a motivationally supportive communication style when discussing doping-related issues with their athletes. Coaches in the control condition attended a standard antidoping workshop that provided up-to-date information on antidoping issues yet excluded any motivation-related content. Assessments of willingness to dope (primary outcome) and other secondary outcomes were taken at baseline, postintervention (3 months) and at a 2-month follow up.ResultsCompared with athletes in the control group, athletes in the intervention group reported greater reductions in willingness to take prohibited substances (effect size g=0.17) and psychological need frustration (g=0.23) at postintervention, and greater increases in antidoping knowledge (g=0.27) at follow-up. Coaches in the intervention group reported at postintervention greater increases in efficacy to create an antidoping culture (g=0.40) and in perceived effectiveness of need supporting behaviours (g=0.45) to deal with doping-related situations. They also reported greater decreases in doping attitudes (g=0.24) and perceived effectiveness of need thwarting behaviours (g=0.35).ConclusionsAntidoping education programmes should consider incorporating principles of motivation, as these could be beneficial to coaches and their athletes. We offer suggestions to strengthen these programmes, as most of the effects we observed were not sustained at follow-up.Trial registration numberThis trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371465&isReview=true).