TY - JOUR
T1 - Risk and enabling environments in sport
T2 - Systematic doping as harm reduction
AU - Henning, April
AU - McLean, Katherine
AU - Andreasson, Jesper
AU - Dimeo, Paul
N1 - Funding Information:
During the 1990s, a number of doping sub-cultures emerged that illustrate the development of enabling environments for doping. The archetypal example is that of professional cycling. The organisation of doping in cycling was different from earlier doping systems such as that in East Germany, which was state-sponsored and led by doctors (Hunt, 2011). Though not state sponsored, cyclists too obtained support from highly qualified doctors to support their doping practices, which advanced to include blood doping and micro-dosing; in response to a tightening policy environment (notably the creation of WADA in 1999), doping in cycling became highly organised and sophisticated, leading to not only fewer health risks, but technological innovations that supported the evasion of anti-doping sanctions for prolonged periods. The American cycling teams Discovery and US Postal are perhaps the most famous examples of systematic doping in cycling, and ones that additionally demonstrate its efficacy in reducing policy risks for athletes through the enforcement of omerta. Winning the Tour de France seven times with US Postal between 1999 and 2005, Lance Armstrong was highly protective of omerta – the code of silence around doping that all participants were expected to respect as mutual protection against suspicion – and in some cases pressured and bullied other cyclists and journalists who were raising concerns about doping (Bell, Ten Have, & Lauchs, 2016). Through working closely with highly specialised doctors, the risks of getting caught were carefully managed: Armstrong ‘passed’ hundreds of doping controls over a decade. The success of Armstrong's team, and systematic doping scheme, was undoubtedly maintained through the coercive strategies that threatened to harm potential whistle blowers (and in the case of other cyclists, expose them to the risks they had previously avoided through systematic doping); yet, such tactics were arguably shaped by a policy environment whose severity had increased drastically compared to pre-WADA periods. Ultimately, however, this enabling environment was foreclosed in the early 2010′s, as evidence of systematic doping on Armstrong's teams came to light, leading to his lifetime ban from all sport (USADA, 2012).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
PY - 2021/5
Y1 - 2021/5
N2 - Doping and the use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) are often considered and discussed as a separate issue from other types of substance use, by sporting bodies, politicians, the media, and athletes who use drugs themselves. However, perceptions and understandings of substance use in the sport and fitness world are directly related to those of substance use in the non-sport world. One way the gap between sport and non-sport substance use research can be bridged is to consider sport risk and enabling environments. Similar to non-sport contexts and drug use, it is important to analyse the environments in which doping occurs. This approach allows us to examine the dynamic interplay between risk and enabling factors, as the enabling environment shifts in response to changes produced in the risk environment, and vice versa. There are models of sport environments that have proven effective at both enabling doping by athletes and reducing harms to athletes: systematic doping. This article will use secondary literature in order to review and analyse known cases of systematic doping through the risk and enabling environment frameworks. We argue that these systems responded to anti-doping in ways that protected athletes from the risk factors established by anti-doping policy and that athletes suffered most when these systems were revealed, exposing athletes to the full range of doping harms. Further, we argue that risks within these systems (i.e. extortion, bullying) resulted from the broader prohibitive sport environment that forces doping underground and allows such abuses to occur.
AB - Doping and the use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) are often considered and discussed as a separate issue from other types of substance use, by sporting bodies, politicians, the media, and athletes who use drugs themselves. However, perceptions and understandings of substance use in the sport and fitness world are directly related to those of substance use in the non-sport world. One way the gap between sport and non-sport substance use research can be bridged is to consider sport risk and enabling environments. Similar to non-sport contexts and drug use, it is important to analyse the environments in which doping occurs. This approach allows us to examine the dynamic interplay between risk and enabling factors, as the enabling environment shifts in response to changes produced in the risk environment, and vice versa. There are models of sport environments that have proven effective at both enabling doping by athletes and reducing harms to athletes: systematic doping. This article will use secondary literature in order to review and analyse known cases of systematic doping through the risk and enabling environment frameworks. We argue that these systems responded to anti-doping in ways that protected athletes from the risk factors established by anti-doping policy and that athletes suffered most when these systems were revealed, exposing athletes to the full range of doping harms. Further, we argue that risks within these systems (i.e. extortion, bullying) resulted from the broader prohibitive sport environment that forces doping underground and allows such abuses to occur.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089094512&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089094512&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102897
DO - 10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102897
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32768155
AN - SCOPUS:85089094512
SN - 0955-3959
VL - 91
JO - International Journal of Drug Policy
JF - International Journal of Drug Policy
M1 - 102897
ER -