Anti-doping and legitimacy: an international survey of elite athletes’ perceptions

Abstract

Anti-doping and legitimacy: an international survey of elite athletes' perceptions.

Contexts and conditions for a level playing field: Elite athletes’ perspectives on anti-doping in practice

“…It has also been shown that elite athletes have doubts about the global equivalence of the anti-doping work (e.g. de Hon et al, 2011;Overbye & Wagner, 2013) and that this distrust could constitute a threat to the legitimacy of the work as a whole (Efverström et al, 2016). Procedural justice, with perceived fair actions, is an important component of the legitimacy of a social order (Tyler, 2006, Tyler & Jackson 2014, such as anti-doping.…”

“…This was emphasized as having a negative effect on the legitimacy of anti-doping work. Additionally, a quantitative international study showed that athletes question the equity of the worldwide implementation of several anti-doping elements, which was considered to put the legitimacy of anti-doping work at risk (Efverström et al, 2016).…”

“…The present study is part of a larger research project focusing on the legitimacy of anti-doping work from the athletes' perspective. The interviewees were recruited in connection with an international survey on elite athletes' perception of anti-doping (Efverström et al, 2016). The survey respondents had the option to register for participation in a related interview study on the same subject, which was a feasible way of gaining access to our target group: elite athletes from different regions of the world.…”

An (un)desirable trade of harms? How elite athletes might react to medically supervised ‘doping’ and their considerations of side-effects in this situation

“…Elite athletes' opinions on and possible reactions to legalising 'doping' (or specific drugs like AAS and EPO) under medical supervision are important, especially considering that elite athletes are i) those who would be most affected, and ii) the main stakeholders when considering the legitimacy of anti-doping rules (Efverström et al, 2016;Overbye, 2016). Moreover, as pointed out by Møller (2010), one argument that both supporters and opponents of doping legalisation seem to agree on is that the interests of athletes should carry considerable weight.…”

“…Furthermore, the paradoxes and unintended effects of anti-doping measures have attracted more attention in recent years. The paradoxes relate to how the comprehensive set of rules developed to protect athletes' health and secure equality and fairness in sport have created new forms of inequalities between athletes subjected to different anti-doping regimes (Efverström et al, 2016;Hanstad, Skille & Loland, 2010;Waddington, 2010;Overbye & Wagner, 2014;Overbye, 2016) and situations which may have negative effects on some athletes' health (Bourdon, Schoch, Broers & Kayser, 2015;Overbye & Wagner, 2013;Lentillon-Kaestner, 2013). Other issues of concern relate to: the collateral damage of excessive rule enforcement, e.g.…”