Whose job is it anyway? A qualitative investigation into the influence of agents, race organisers, and sponsors on the risk of doping in elite distance running

Abstract

Agents, race-organisers, and sponsors have a key influence in shaping the world of elite professional distance running. Yet to date this important but hard-to-reach stakeholder group has been omitted from the global research landscape of doping and anti-doping. The purpose of this study is to address this gap in the literature and explore the systematic contributors to doping in elite long-distance running, along with potential solutions to this issue, from this influential perspective. Thirteen in-depth interviews were conducted with agents (n = 8) of world-class long-distance runners, major race organisers (n = 3), and sports marketing managers (n = 2) for global brands. The interviews were conducted via the phone, audiorecorded, and transcribed verbatim. Reflexive thematic analysis generated three themes which focused on: 1) The framework of professional distance running and the contextual aspects which may contribute to doping risk; 2) the impact of various recruitment strategies on doping and anti-doping; and 3) the lessons that can be learnt from the participants' firsthand experiences with doping cases and/or managing anti-doping requirements. Reflecting on the sector rather than the sample, the results highlighted that not all commercial stakeholders feel responsible for anti-doping. Collective responsibility from all stakeholders, which is currently borne by some and not others, is necessary to minimise doping in distance running.The challenge is how to convince all stakeholders of their share of responsibility.

Investigating anti-doping roles of athlete support personnel working with international disabled athletes in six European nations using the COM-B Model and Theoretical Domains Framework

“…One of the main limitations relates to population; specifically, coverage of different sex/genders and different sporting contexts. For example, women are under-represented in ASP-focused anti-doping research [3,7]. In addition, doping research within elite disabled sport is sparse, with some studies focusing specifically on one 'issue' such as 'boosting' (e.g., [8,9]) or the classification system/process (e.g., [10,11]).…”

“…In particular, investigations of knowledge and attitude have been dominant. Only a handful of studies (e.g., [2,4,7]) have considered the influence of contextual factors (e.g., physical and social environment) or automatic processes (e.g., emotion, habits). Some authors (e.g., [3,13]) have acknowledged the omission of theory in their ASP studies and provided suggestions for potentially useful frameworks for future investigations.…”

“…Some authors (e.g., [3,13]) have acknowledged the omission of theory in their ASP studies and provided suggestions for potentially useful frameworks for future investigations. Reflective of the emerging ASP evidence base, these have typically included theories that give attention to both individual and contextual factors, such as social ecological models (e.g., [3,7,12,13]) and meta-theory such as the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) Model [14] (e.g., [3,5,15]). The COM-B Model addresses some of the limitations of past theory use in anti-doping research, as it shifts our focus from individual blame to collective responsibility and considers automatic (i.e., habitual, impulsive) determinants of behavior alongside rational decision making [1].…”