Abstract:The duty of elite athletes to report whereabouts is a controversial and debated element of the World Anti-Doping Code. Though the obligation to provide whereabouts information has a real impact on athletes' daily lives, knowledge about athletes' perception of and trust in the system after the Code was revised in 2009 is still scarce. This study contributes to the discussion on the legitimacy and institutionalization of the whereabouts system by integrating the points of view of Danish elite athletes (with/with… Show more
“…There were similarities with the Danish study (Overbye & Wagner, 2014) concerning the perceived necessity of anti-doping controls (Danish study 84%, our study 94%). Both groups also agreed that providing whereabouts data is part of one's duty as an elite athlete (Danish study 83%, our study 71%).…”
Section: Perception Belief and Experience With Obligation Of Whereabsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Another important issue raised by the athletes in our study, the same raised by the Danish (Overbye & Wagner, 2014) and Norwegian athletes (Hanstad et al, 2009), was the perception of inequality of testing and lack of harmonisation between countries. In our study 82% of those having had an experience with the whereabouts system perceived the implementation of the whereabouts system around the world to be unfair, similar to the result of the Danish study (95%).…”
Section: Perception Belief and Experience With Obligation Of Whereabmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…We used an online questionnaire 1 based on the questionnaires from the Danish study on whereabouts (Overbye & Wagner, 2014), 1 The questionnaire can be obtained upon request from the authors.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This would mean fewer breaches and would be easier to manage by the athlete". Danish athletes reported quite similar impressions (40% felt under surveillance and 41% experienced a decrease in the joy of being an elite athlete when complying with whereabouts obligations) (Overbye & Wagner, 2014) and 25% of Norwegian athletes also considered that the whereabouts obligation negatively impacted their life as an elite athlete (Hanstad et al, 2009). Thus, the feeling that the whereabouts system had a negative impact on everyday life and privacy was relatively strong among French-speaking athletes.…”
Section: Perception Belief and Experience With Obligation Of Whereabmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been criticised by researchers, wellknown athletes and athlete's organisations (Kayser, Mauron, & Miah, 2007;Møller, 2011;Overbye & Wagner, 2014;Waddington, 2010). Furthermore, a few studies have investigated athletes' perception and experience with the whereabouts system in Norway (Hanstad, Skille, & Loland, 2010;Hanstad, Skille, & Thurston, 2009), the Netherlands (Valkenburg, de Hon, & van Hilvoorde, 2014), in Denmark (Overbye & Wagner, 2014) and with TUEs in Denmark (Overbye & Wagner, 2013). These studies suggest that elite athletes in principle approve of anti-doping testing and accept the whereabouts rules as part of their duty, but are critical of the whereabouts system's managerial aspects.…”
a b s t r a c tThe introduction of two anti-doping measures by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) directly affects athletes lives: obligatory whereabouts reporting with the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS), and recorded applications for Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE). French-speaking elite athletes (N = 69) from France, Belgium and Switzerland responded to a web-based questionnaire about their perceptions and experiences under these two measures. The results showed a strong ambivalence towards the whereabouts system. Though 94% considered it necessary, and accepted it as part of an athlete's duties, 34% considered that it infringed too much on their private life, 54% felt that it reduced the pleasure of being an athlete, 74% felt to be under surveillance, 54% found it too time-consuming, 57% encountered technical hurdles, and 58% perceived its application between different countries and sports as unequal and unfair. Many athletes did not like the testing procedures and more than half felt that it causes anxiety. Trust in the system's capacity to detect doping in athletes was partial (83% of athletes under the whereabouts system trusted it, and 60% of athletes not under the system trusted it). Concerning the management of TUEs, 49% of athletes had low trust in their management by authorities, 47% suspected abuse by fellow athletes and 46% had refrained from medically justified treatment. Our findings suggest considerable dissatisfaction with the whereabouts system and TUE among French-speaking athletes. We conclude that there is a need to improve on the above aspects in order to increase athletes' satisfaction and adherence to WADA's anti-doping policies.
“…There were similarities with the Danish study (Overbye & Wagner, 2014) concerning the perceived necessity of anti-doping controls (Danish study 84%, our study 94%). Both groups also agreed that providing whereabouts data is part of one's duty as an elite athlete (Danish study 83%, our study 71%).…”
Section: Perception Belief and Experience With Obligation Of Whereabsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Another important issue raised by the athletes in our study, the same raised by the Danish (Overbye & Wagner, 2014) and Norwegian athletes (Hanstad et al, 2009), was the perception of inequality of testing and lack of harmonisation between countries. In our study 82% of those having had an experience with the whereabouts system perceived the implementation of the whereabouts system around the world to be unfair, similar to the result of the Danish study (95%).…”
Section: Perception Belief and Experience With Obligation Of Whereabmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…We used an online questionnaire 1 based on the questionnaires from the Danish study on whereabouts (Overbye & Wagner, 2014), 1 The questionnaire can be obtained upon request from the authors.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This would mean fewer breaches and would be easier to manage by the athlete". Danish athletes reported quite similar impressions (40% felt under surveillance and 41% experienced a decrease in the joy of being an elite athlete when complying with whereabouts obligations) (Overbye & Wagner, 2014) and 25% of Norwegian athletes also considered that the whereabouts obligation negatively impacted their life as an elite athlete (Hanstad et al, 2009). Thus, the feeling that the whereabouts system had a negative impact on everyday life and privacy was relatively strong among French-speaking athletes.…”
Section: Perception Belief and Experience With Obligation Of Whereabmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been criticised by researchers, wellknown athletes and athlete's organisations (Kayser, Mauron, & Miah, 2007;Møller, 2011;Overbye & Wagner, 2014;Waddington, 2010). Furthermore, a few studies have investigated athletes' perception and experience with the whereabouts system in Norway (Hanstad, Skille, & Loland, 2010;Hanstad, Skille, & Thurston, 2009), the Netherlands (Valkenburg, de Hon, & van Hilvoorde, 2014), in Denmark (Overbye & Wagner, 2014) and with TUEs in Denmark (Overbye & Wagner, 2013). These studies suggest that elite athletes in principle approve of anti-doping testing and accept the whereabouts rules as part of their duty, but are critical of the whereabouts system's managerial aspects.…”
a b s t r a c tThe introduction of two anti-doping measures by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) directly affects athletes lives: obligatory whereabouts reporting with the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS), and recorded applications for Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE). French-speaking elite athletes (N = 69) from France, Belgium and Switzerland responded to a web-based questionnaire about their perceptions and experiences under these two measures. The results showed a strong ambivalence towards the whereabouts system. Though 94% considered it necessary, and accepted it as part of an athlete's duties, 34% considered that it infringed too much on their private life, 54% felt that it reduced the pleasure of being an athlete, 74% felt to be under surveillance, 54% found it too time-consuming, 57% encountered technical hurdles, and 58% perceived its application between different countries and sports as unequal and unfair. Many athletes did not like the testing procedures and more than half felt that it causes anxiety. Trust in the system's capacity to detect doping in athletes was partial (83% of athletes under the whereabouts system trusted it, and 60% of athletes not under the system trusted it). Concerning the management of TUEs, 49% of athletes had low trust in their management by authorities, 47% suspected abuse by fellow athletes and 46% had refrained from medically justified treatment. Our findings suggest considerable dissatisfaction with the whereabouts system and TUE among French-speaking athletes. We conclude that there is a need to improve on the above aspects in order to increase athletes' satisfaction and adherence to WADA's anti-doping policies.
Interpreting results with the understanding of sport as an exceptional and risky working environment suggests that legalising certain 'doping' substances under medical supervision would create other/new types of harms, and this 'trade-off of harms and benefits' would be undesirable considering the occupational health, working conditions and well-being of most athletes. Assessing the risks and harms produced/reduced by specific drugs when considering sport as a precarious occupation may prove useful in composing the Prohibited List and reducing drug-related harm in sport.
Background: The creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency in 1999 and the first implementation of the Anti-Doping Code in 2004 established institutional and legal level legitimacy for the anti-doping movement. Subsequently, a distinct line of research examining athletes' perceptions of anti-doping has emerged. This study aims to review the literature on legitimacy via athletes' perceptions of the underpinning values, fairness and effectiveness of anti-doping rules and procedures.Methods: A systematic mapping review with computerised literature search of seven databases (EBSCOHost, PubMed, Ingenta, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscuss and Google Scholar) was used, followed by hand-search of reference lists and relevant journals.Based on Tyler's (2006) psychological components of legitimacy (proper, just, and appropriate), a bespoke conceptual map and analytical framework was developed and employed for retrospective categorisation.Results: Thirty-nine studies representing 15,434 participants met the inclusion criteria. About half of eligible studies discussed legitimacy components without identifying them as such.. Identification of studies for legitimacy concepts faced considerable ambiguity in measures and interpretation, particularly in distinguishing between elements of being 'just' and 'appropriate'. Single focus on one aspect was rare but only 11 of the 39 studies included all three elements of perceived legitimacy. Overall, athletes agreed that anti-doping is 'doing the right thing' to protect clean sport but their views differed on whether the existing anti-doping system is effective and implemented fairly (i.e., 'doing anti-doping in a right way'). Owing to the ad hoc measurements and diverse methodology, quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible.
Conclusion:Legitimacy is an important concept in anti-doping. Attention to globally equal and fair implementation of testing and sanctioning is warranted. Legitimacy perceptions can be improved by better communication from anti-doping organisations to highlight progress with detection, greater transparency and explicit support for athletes who were victims of doping. Future research requires standardised conceptual framework and measures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.