Social media and the doping of sport surveillance

Abstract

Reviewing literatures from sociology of sport, surveillance, and internet studies, we consider the processes by which social media regulate the behavior of athletes. Nowhere is this more evident than in the current regulation of anti-doping in elite sport where athletes 0 social media postings have been highly critical of fellow competitors. As social media becomes increasingly blended into everyday routines, this form of surveillance extends the gaze of those who watch and increases the pressure for online disclosure while making traditional distinctions between formal and informal social control less meaningful. Contemporary social media acts as a form of social control that has become more preemptive and grassroots. When athletes internalize surveillance and disclosure as consistent with their professional norms, the power relationships that surround sport performance become increasingly difficult to discern. This article helps to illuminate the ways in which surveillance through social media have become a part of everyday routines, extends and amplifies the power of more traditional agents of surveillance, and calls for continued research into the role of contemporary social media as a surveillance practice. | FROM OMERTA TO SPEAKING IN A LOUD VOICEAs the Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova raised her hand to display the universal "number one" gesture after winning a preliminary race at the 2016 Rio Olympic Games, the American swimmer, 18-year-old Lilly King, shook her head and wagged her own finger at Efimova 0 s televised representation. This scene, live captured on television and broadcast globally, became a major news story from the 2016 Rio games, encapsulating the simmering tensions regarding the exclusion of many of Efimova 0 s compatriots following revelations of a Russian state-sponsored doping program. In stark contrast to the long held omerta or silence that characterized athlete public responses to performance-enhancing drug (PED) use, King openly criticized Efimova calling her a "drug cheat" and questioning why she was allowed to compete at all. Almost completely absent was coverage of Efimova 0 s backstory and King was generally lauded on social media for "standing up" to "dopers."Drawing from surveillance, social media, and sport literatures, our experiences as cyclists and internet users, as well as our research involving professional cyclists and sport sponsors, we reflect on how social media logic transforms the social control of professional athletes. Examining how the assemblage of surveillance made possible by athletes 0 use of social media changes the very dynamic of social control, we argue that social media amplifies the evidence in ways similar to consuming the blood boosting drug erythropoietin (EPO): It does not introduce new types of evidence, just as EPO does not introduce a new drug into one 0 s system. Rather, both fortify and "boost up" an already existing product. In the case of EPO, it is the augmentation of red blood cells. In the case of social media, it is the continual stream o...

Understanding and building clean(er) sport together: Community-based participatory research with elite athletes and anti-doping organisations from five European countries

“…Exploring how athletes who act against the rules see 'clean sport' is an intriguing but different research question. Conceivably, due to the strong social stigma attached to being a 'drug cheat' (e.g., Sefiha & Reichman, 2017), accessing this community is a very challenging task. Athletes who have doped but managed to evade detection are very unlikely to come forward.…”

Mediatization and Doping: Investigating the Interplay in News Framing of Rider/Doping Suspicion During the Tour de France

“…Connolly (2015) outlines developments in the move away from doping in the era after Armstrong, noting the negative impact of the Armstrong scandal and increasing confidence in developments in anti-doping. Furthermore, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), Tour de France and riders and teams have all been vocal in their condemnation of doping, including endorsing and funding of anti-doping, and cyclist’s adoption of ‘clean cycling’ in personal and team brands proliferated via social media (Ohl, 2019; Sefiha, 2017; Sefiha & Reichman, 2017). Thus, though doping remains a pertinent issue, there are indications that the culture of doping in the Tour has shifted in recent years towards an emphasis on clean competition.…”

“…The intervening period 2012–2017 is also particularly notable for the rapid ascension of digital platforms, including amid the Tour de France media ecology. Pertinent studies into the impact of social media have focused on the use of platforms by cyclists for the purpose of personal brand creation and presence, including Hambrick et al’s (2015) study of Armstrong’s use of Twitter to assert justification narratives alongside displays of contrition in traditional media and Sefiha and Reichman’s (2017) notes on widespread use as aids for personal anti-doping brand-building. In addition to athlete uses, it is clear that digital media technologies (particularly social media) have opened doors to new voices in the media ecology of the Tour , serving as platforms through which fans and supporters can directly engage with riders and commentators and themselves influence the media narrative (Bustad & Rick, 2021).…”

“…While their study does not account for Froome's use of digital and social media platforms, Plassard and Schoch (2019) describe newspapers as an 'ambivalent resource' for riders, wherein their voices are vulnerable to journalists' personal and professional logics (p. 321). Furthermore, Sefiha and Reichman's (2017) account of athlete use of social media as an anti-doping branding mechanism is again relevant in this context, combining with Plassard and Schoch's (2019) account to suggest that Froome, dissatisfied or mistrusting of newspaper depictions of doping suspicion, elected to maintain communications via social media technologies, while retreating from traditional media, thereby controlling the framing. This juxtaposition speaks again to shifting mediatization of the Tour brought by digital and social media technologies, as impacting rider media-related behaviour and subsequently news framing.…”

“…Similarly, Plassard et al’s (2020) analysis of Froome and Team Sky in 2015 revealed attempts made through traditional media coverage to frame credibility amid doping suspicion. These studies of riders’ attempts to assuage public confidence through traditional media are complemented by Sefiha and Reichman’s (2017) report of the rising significance of social media as a means for athletes to nurture and establish a ‘clean’ cycling brand.…”