Examining Coaches’ Experiences and Opinions of Anti-Doping Education

Abstract

Although global policy states that coaches are a key stakeholder group for anti-doping education, very little is known about how performance and participation coaches develop their understanding of anti-doping policy and practice. Therefore, 292 UK-based coaches completed an online survey exploring their experiences of anti-doping education (i.e., topics covered, how and by whom the programmes were delivered and how knowledgeable and well-equipped coaches felt to deal with doping-related matters). The results showed that almost a quarter of the surveyed coaches reported never learning about anti-doping. Only a third had engaged with a formal anti-doping education programme and coaches typically received information on detection-deterrence related topics (e.g., banned substances, testing procedures). Many coaches perceived themselves as only having 'a little' knowledge about anti-doping and declared themselves as 'a little' equipped to work with their sportspeople on doping-related matters. Nonetheless, 96% of coaches were inclined to learn more about antidoping in the future. Given the World Anti-Doping Code states that anti-doping education for coaches should be compulsory, it is crucial that insights from coaches are made public to inform the development of evidence-informed anti-doping programmes that are tailored and targeted.

Moral Disengagement, Social Norms, and Motivational Profiles Influence Attitudes Toward Doping Among Spanish Athletics Coaches

“…In addition, most of the social science research literature on doping in sport has focused on athletes, while coach-centered studies remain limited (Backhouse et al, 2015;García-Grimau et al, 2020). The results of the present study alongside those from others reveal that coaches tend to morally disengage through a lack of commitment and a diffusion of their responsibilities as educators in doping prevention (Barkoukis et al, 2019), and consider that they do not have adequate tools to prevent their athletes from doping use, while being aware of their role as antidoping educators though (Engelberg et al, 2019;Patterson et al, 2019). All this scientific evidence paints a worrying picture, as coaches could rather represent a doping risk.…”

A systematic review of research into coach perspectives and behaviours regarding doping and anti-doping

“…In addition to the limited conceptualisation of doping, the majority of studies (n=32) did not explicitly report any philosophical underpinning which informed the researchers' ontology, epistemology and subsequent methodological decisions. Only six studies explicitly documented their philosophical underpinning, with a diverse range of perspectives represented: social constructionist (Lentillon-Kaestner, 2014), positivist and interpretivist (Mazanov et al, 2014), interpretivist (Patterson & Backhouse, 2018), pluralist and pragmatist (Patterson, Backhouse & Lara-Bercial, 2019), post-positivist (Boardley et al, 2019) and relativist (Barkoukis et al, 2019).…”

“…For instance, some coaches stated that anti-doping behaviour was not an essential part of their role because other areas, such as maximising athlete performance, were the priority (Patterson & Backhouse, 2018). In addition, coaches did not see anti-doping education as part of their role (Engelberg & Moston, 2015;Morgan & Smith, 2018), despite coaches acknowledging the positive influence anti-doping education may have on their athletes (Thomas et al, 2011), and demonstrating a preference for coaches to engage in further anti-doping education themselves (Blank et al, 2014;Fung & Yuan, 2008;Judge et al, 2010;Patterson et al, 2019;Pöppel & Büsch, 2019).…”

Fitness professionals’ perceptions of acceptability and usability of anti-doping education tools for recreational sports

“…Accordingly, many coaches perceive themselves as only having 'a little' knowledge about anti-doping and declared themselves as 'a little' equipped to work with their sportspeople on doping-related matters. (Patterson et al, 2019). Still, such evidence in the fitness industry is scarce.…”