A case study analysis of a sophisticated sports doping network: Lance Armstrong and the USPS Team

El Dopaje Deportivo Como Cuestión Socialmente Viva: Una Revisión Bibliográfica

“…81,82 El reconocimiento de los principios antidopaje requiere estrategias diversas para llegar a los atletas jóvenes. Los estudios de caso con base en los más sonados escándalos del dopaje en el deporte, ofrecen una posibilidad de aprendizaje, 83 al igual que los enfoques interdisciplinarios que brindan explicaciones sobre la legitimidad de las instituciones que hacen parte del campo deportivo. 84 Todos estos esfuerzos pretenden posicionar la educación antidopaje como una prioridad para los responsables de la toma de decisiones dentro de las organizaciones deportivas [85][86][87] y un eje central en la formación de profesores.…”

Individual-level explanations of corruption within an intercollegiate context

“…Moore, Detert, Trevino, Baker, and Mayer (2011) argued the moral disengagement process plays an important role in explaining how individuals are able to "engage in corruption without apparent cognitive distress" (p. 4). Athletes have used several moral disengagement mechanisms to justify doping including advantageous comparison (comparing detrimental acts with more harmful ones, and making appear less worse), minimizing consequences, and diffusing responsibility (Bell et al, 2016;Engelberg et al, 2015;Kirby, Moran, & Guerin, 2011). Athletes who doped believed their behavior was not as bad in comparison to athletes committing serious crimes such as sexual assault or murder (e.g., Engelberg et al, 2015).…”

“…Athletes who doped believed their behavior was not as bad in comparison to athletes committing serious crimes such as sexual assault or murder (e.g., Engelberg et al, 2015). Athletes also justified doping by arguing that minimal health side effects were found in using drugs and the immense pressure teammates placed on them to conform (Bell et al, 2016;Engelberg et al, 2015;Kirby et al, 2011). Furthermore, Pappa and Kenney (2013) reported doping was standard practice in competitive sport, specifically track and field.…”

“…The "strength" of an interpersonal tie is based on the frequency of interactions, emotional intensity, and intimacy of the relationship (Brass, Butterfield & Skaggs, 1998;Granovetter, 1973). Research shows that social networks are factors that contribute to doping (Bell et al, 2016;Pappa & Kenney, 2013). An athlete's social network contains referent groups that place considerable pressure on athletes to dope (Bell et al, 2016;Engelberg et al, 2015;Kirby et al, 2011;Paoli & Donati, 2014).…”

“…In the broader sport corruption literature the individual explanations of corruption have drawn from different academic disciplines including economics, sociology, criminology, and psychology where the vast majority has focused on explanations within the context of understanding how and why match fixing (e.g., Bag & Saha, 2011;Hill, 2009a;Manoli & Antonopoulos, 2015;Numerato, 2015) and doping occur (e.g., Bell, Ten Have, & Lauchs, 2016;Engelberg, Moston, & Skinner, 2015). Given that the factors contributing to corruption are multifarious (Caiden, Dwivedi, & Jabbra, 2001), we would be wrong to assume that individual explanations for match fixing and doping are solely responsible for corrupt practices in college sport; or that deviance or financial motivations are the central causes of all NCAA corruption (Cullen, Latessa, & Jonson, 2012).…”