The International Anti-Doping Movement and UNESCO: A Historical Case Study

Jedlicka, Scott R.; Hunt, Thomas M.

doi:10.1080/09523367.2013.823404

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Trumpeted as an independent organisation, WADA was tasked with creating a binding legal framework for anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations which took the form of the World Anti-Doping Code (hereon called the Code) and monitoring compliance with the Code. Despite success in creating regulatory and organisational structures (e.g., the UNESCO Convention) (Jedlicka and Hunt 2013, Houlihan 2014, Toohey and Beaton 2017, when considering estimates of drug use in elite sport populations (Ulrich et al 2018) and disparities in athlete testing and prosecution Møller 2018, Hanstad et al 2010), scholars have questioned the efficacy of WADA policy (e.g., Møller 2016, Skinner et al 2017.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimacy driven change at the World Anti-Doping Agency

Read

Skinner

Lock

et al. 2018

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of the World Anti-Doping Agency as an international non-governmental organisation with a mission to regulate anti-doping policy has been challenged before by doping scandals in sport. Historically, anti-doping policy development has been primarily reactive, determined by the need for dominant organisations to maintain power rather than to protect athletes. The purpose of this paper is to explore reactive anti-doping policy change from a multi-level legitimacy perspective. Using multi-level legitimacy theory and the concept of legitimacy challenges, it is argued that reactive policy change is motivated by a need to manage perceived organisational legitimacy. The recent exposure of systematic doping in Russia is used as an example to support this analysis. These findings are discussed in the context of current criticisms of anti-doping policy.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimacy driven change at the World Anti-Doping Agency

Read

Skinner

Lock

et al. 2018

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The objective was to ensure the participation of governments in clean sport. An analysis of the normative framework of the International Convention against Doping in Sport reveals that it contains only very light obligations: it is more of a text setting up goodwill soft law provisions aimed at collaboration, harmonization, funding, or education (7).…”

Section: International State Responsibility and Doping In Sportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathways to greater government accountability for breaches of their obligations in relation to doping in sport: A legal analysis

Pavot

2023

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The State doping scandal in Russia has highlighted a major discrepancy in the fight against doping in sport: on the one hand, the signatories of the Word Anti-Doping Code (federations, NADO's, etc.) are subject to a very strict regime and incur serious sanctions, while on the other hand, States, when they massively violate the rules, do not risk very important consequences in international law. For example, high ranking officials as well as the Russian state apparatus have not been affected with a few exceptions such as the Moscow antidoping laboratory. The aim of this opinion paper is to present a reflection on the different avenues that could be envisaged to make governments more accountable, especially as work is underway on the topic. The development of a true government accountability regime would allow the system to be more balanced.

show abstract

“…The analysis aims to make evident how technocratic antidoping policies first emerged as a political construction endogenous to a field of actors and how unfavorable evidence on policy failures was edited and selectively interpreted. Jedlicka and Hunt (2013) have made a strong claim that the technocratic antidoping system represents almost a textbook example of an institutionalized practice, which is treated as unquestioned social fact (Barley & Tolbert, 1997;Zucker, 1987). Jedlicka and Hunt (2013) support this argument by demonstrating how technocratic antidoping policies have diffused across international organizations addressing doping issues, which resulted in institutional isomorphism.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jedlicka and Hunt (2013) have made a strong claim that the technocratic antidoping system represents almost a textbook example of an institutionalized practice, which is treated as unquestioned social fact (Barley & Tolbert, 1997;Zucker, 1987). Jedlicka and Hunt (2013) support this argument by demonstrating how technocratic antidoping policies have diffused across international organizations addressing doping issues, which resulted in institutional isomorphism. The current piece of research aims to go beyond characterizing the technocratic antidoping system as a social fact and examines how the technocratic antidoping system has achieved such a taken-for-granted status.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, as Jedlicka and Hunt (2013) have convincingly argued, the technocratic approach to mitigate doping by using a sophisticated test system has assumed the quality of an unquestioned social fact, enjoying wide diffusion across organizations involved in antidoping policies. The current piece of research concurs with Jedlicka and Hunt (2013) but does not aim to trace policy diffusion and organizational isomorphism. In contrast, we aim to explore how technocratic antidoping policies could assume such a taken-for-granted status that they continue to become radicalized even in face of apparent efficacy problems.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Immunizing Inefficient Field Frames for Mitigating Social Problems: The Institutional Work Behind the Technocratic Antidoping System

Meier

Reinold

2018

SAGE Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Doping is making headlines again. After whistle-blowers revealed systematic doping practices, parts of the Russian team were suspended from the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, 2016. Before, the sport world had seen major doping scandals, such as, revelations about East Germany's largescale state doping program, the Festina scandal during the 1998 Tour de France, the Fuentes affair, and the fall of cycling idol Lance Armstrong (Dimeo, 2014). This article is motivated by fact that none of these scandals has been detected by the heavily expanded technocratic doping test system. Without denying that the test system has achieved some successes, these revelations about undetected misconduct indicate serious flaws of the test system. Whereas research on athletes' perception of the likelihood of detection by the test system are rare, some studies conducted among athletes suggest that the technocratic test system is met with distrust and frustration (Efverström, Bäckström, Ahmadi, & Hoff, 2016; Overbye, 2016). Furthermore, a number of studies suggest that the extent of doping is significantly higher than that found in the official testing statistics (de Hon,

show abstract

The International Anti-Doping Movement and UNESCO: A Historical Case Study

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

Legitimacy driven change at the World Anti-Doping Agency

Legitimacy driven change at the World Anti-Doping Agency

Pathways to greater government accountability for breaches of their obligations in relation to doping in sport: A legal analysis

Immunizing Inefficient Field Frames for Mitigating Social Problems: The Institutional Work Behind the Technocratic Antidoping System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About