Australian athlete support personnel lived experience of anti-doping |
| |
| Institution: | 1. School of Business, UNSW-Canberra, Australia;2. Institute for Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Australia;3. Barwon Health, Australia;4. Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Leeds Metropolitan University, Australia;1. School of Health Sciences, Federation University, Australia;2. Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia;1. Temple University, United States;2. Eulji University, South Korea;1. Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece;2. Department of Psychology, Sociology & Politics, Sheffield Hallam University, UK;1. Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark;2. Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhagen, Denmark |
| |
| Abstract: | Athlete support personnel (ASP) implement drug control policies for sport, such as anti-doping. Interviews with 39 ASP reveal how differences between policy and practice play out in their “lived experience” of anti-doping. While most ASP support the ideology underlying anti-doping at a “common sense” level (using popular drug and sporting discourses such as “drugs are bad” and sporting virtue), they are critical of anti-doping practice. Combined with no direct experience with doping, ASP saw doping as a rare event unlikely to emerge in practice. Most ASP took a laissez-faire approach to anti-doping, relying on managers to know what to do in the unlikely event of a doping incident. Despite broadly supporting the ideas of anti-doping, ASP raised concerns around implementation with regards to Athlete Whereabouts and recreational drug use. In response to hypothetical doping events, a number of ASP would seek to persuade the athlete to discontinue doping rather than meet mandatory reporting obligations. Part of this extended from conflicts between professional and anti-doping obligations (e.g. mandatory reporting and patient confidentiality). ASP demonstrate anti-doping policies are in tension with a practice that systematically normalises substance based performance enhancement early in sporting careers. Anti-doping agencies need to do more to engage with ASP as the “front line” of drug management in sport, including resolving contradictions across policies and in practice. |
| |
| Keywords: | Anti-doping Athlete support personnel Qualitative Australia |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
