Athlete support personnel and anti‐doping: Knowledge, attitudes, and ethical stance

Abstract

Athlete support personnel (ASP) failing to meet responsibilities under the World Anti-Doping Code risk sanction. It is unclear whether the poor knowledge of responsibilities seen in sports physicians and coaches applies to other ASP (e.g. administrators, chiropractors, family, nutritionists, physiotherapists, psychologists and trainers). A purposive sample of Australian ASP (n=292) responded to a survey on knowledge of anti-doping rules (35 true/false questions), ethical beliefs and practice, and attitudes towards performance enhancement.Some ASP declined to participate claiming doping was irrelevant to their practice.Physicians were the most knowledgeable (30.8/35), with family and trainers the least (26.0/35). ASP reported improvements were needed to support anti-doping education (e.g. basis for anti-doping) and practice (e.g. rules). ASP also had a slightly negative attitude towards performance enhancement. Linear regression showed being a sports physician, providing support at the elite level, and 15 years experience influenced knowledge. The results confirm gaps in knowledge, and suggest more effort is needed to engage with ASP anti-doping education and practice. Examining physician and elite level ASP acquisition of knowledge may be a way forward. Future work on the context within which ASP experience anti-doping is needed, exploring acquisition and translation of knowledge into practice.

Australian athlete support personnel lived experience of anti-doping

“…ASP who fail to meet their obligations and are found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) are subject to sanctions, including life bans from professional involvement in sport. As noted in Mazanov et al (2013), there are few cases of ASP being sanctioned and no recorded cases in Australia. Even following the Australian Crime Commission Report "Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport" (ACC, 2013), which claimed widespread use of prohibited substances in Australian elite sport, no Australian ASP has been formally sanctioned by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA).…”

“…Mazanov et al (2013) argue that respondents were more likely to be actively engaged by and aware of anti-doping, with the survey representing a "best case" scenario in support of anti-doping. While respondents appeared to have at least passing knowledge of anti-doping as it applied to athletes, they were far less aware of ASP obligations.…”

“…This was achieved through semi-structured interviews informed by Mazanov et al's (2013) survey. The semistructured approach enabled issues absent from the survey to emerge.…”

“…ASP responding to the Mazanov et al (2013) survey were asked to consider participating in the interviews. If so, survey respondents provided contact details separately to their survey responses to ensure there was no way to link responses to any individual (e.g.…”

“…More broadly, an Australian survey of knowledge (awareness of rules), attitudes towards doping in sport, and ethical stance around anti-doping practice indicated ASP have a very different experience of anti-doping than might be expected under policies giving effect to the aims of the WADC (Mazanov, Backhouse, Connor, Hemphill & Quirk, 2013). This paper reports the second qualitative stage of a sequential, qualitative dominant mixed-methods project exploring ASP experience of anti-doping reported by Mazanov et al (2013) (see Section 1.2). More specifically, this qualitative interview study sought to explore and contextualise the relationship between policy and practice in ASP experience of antidoping.…”