Determining the Factors Contributing to Doping
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Determining the Factors Contributing to Doping
Doping is one of the most significant problems facing sports today that threatens the integrity of sport. This paper sought to explore the literature in order to determine the factors contributing to doping and their implicati for sport managerial practice, especially in developing anti-doping interventions.
Doping among athletes can be attributed to various factors. Morality and personality characteristics such as “win-at-all-costs” attitude, hostility, impulsiveness, being dissatisfied with one’s physical appearance, being outer-directed, being pessimistic, and having low self-respect play a role in influencing doping behavior among athletes. Athletes practice doping due to numerous reasons such as improving performance and appearance, perceived pressure from outside sources, the fear that competitors have an unfair advantage, for overcoming injuries, and coping with the huge demands of sport. Furthermore, the increased access and availability of PEDs contributes to the increase in the prevalence of doping.
The majority of sporting organizations have responded to the doping crisis by banning the practice and imposing penalties for athletes who use doping drugs. Nevertheless, such an approach has been largely ineffective in eradicating the problem. The recommendations outlined in this report can help enhance the effectiveness of anti-doping measures. They include informative-educative approach that highlights the real impacts of doping in athletes’ health and career; stressing the moral inappropriateness of doping in sports; enhancing the psychosocial competence of athletes using adaptive viability; and addressing the factors in the athlete’s environment through offering top quality training supplementation planning and optimal nutrition planning.
Keywords: Doping, morality, personality characteristics
Legal Issues – Doping in Sports
Sport is not only about winning medals and trophies, and exhibiting athletic brilliance but is also an important societal aspect that enriches people’s lives. Sport teaches people the values of fairness, commitment, and honesty, which can be extrapolated to all other domains of life (Alexander, 2014). Nevertheless, the values conveyed in sport are inconsistent with the positive values it is expected to reflect. Sottas, et al. (2011) point out that the contemporary society has an influence on sport; thus, society is not immune to the problems facing society. In a societal system that ignores the key role played by sports and exalts victory achieved at any cost, doping and cheating are rationalized (Alexander, 2014). Consequently, the benefits of sport might not be realized. In the domain of competitive sports, doping entails using prohibited athletic performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) by athletes. Most international sport organizations such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) consider doping as an unethical sport practice; hence, prohibited. Doping in sports can historically traced back to the beginnings of sports itself. The legendary Arthurian Knights relied on magical portions to enhance their performance during chariot racing. Cases of doping and corruption were replete during the Ancient Olympics (Baumann, 2012). In the recent past, cases of doping scandals in various sports such as cycling and baseball have been on the rise. The general approach adopted by sporting organizations in the past decades has entailed strict regulation regarding the use of drugs in sports (Ehrnborg & Rosén, 2009). The reason for banning PEDs is mainly because of the health risks associated with these drugs, ensuring equal opportunity for athletes, and ensuring the integrity of sport. Anti-doping organizations often maintain that using PEDs is inconsistent with the spirit of sport. This report focuses on exploring the causes of doping in sport and the implications for sport managerial practice.
Review of the Literature
Prevalence of Doping
Precise data regarding the incidence of doping is rather difficult to obtain because of the financial infeasibility of screening all athletes. Selecting athletes to be screened for doping is often done on a random basis and focuses on athletes showing unprecedented improvements in world rankings and personal bests, goal scorers, team captains, and medal winners among others. The true prevalence of doping exceeds what anti-doping control data indicates. Numerous surveys that have been conducted show worrying trends. For instance, in the 1996 British Olympic Survey, about 48 percent of athletes indicated that doping was a problem, with 86 percent of these stating that the practice was more prevalent athletes in track and field events (Waddington & Smith, 2013). The Australian Senate Standing Committee Report showed that 70 percent of athletes who participated in international sports competitions used PEDs (Waddington & Smith, 2013). Another research study by Baumann (2012) showed that both male and female athletes are more likely to use PEDs as their careers is almost coming to an end. This was the case with Andre Agassi, who had a successful career in Tennis. Agassi admitted that he used crystal meth, a banned substance, at the time when his career was on a downward trend and was having a myriad of personal problems (Bierley, 2009). This is a case of an athlete using banned substances when their careers are nearing an end.
The problem of doping is not evident among elite sports but also observed in amateur as well as school sports (Barkoukis, Lazuras, Tsorbatzoudis, & Rodafinos, 2013). In France, the prevalence of intentional doping among amateur athletes is about 5-10 percent (Waddington & Smith, 2013). Waddington & Smith (2013) further reported that about 83000 Canadian children aged 11 and 18 years had utilized anabolic steroids during the past one year. In America, about 4-12 percent of boys and 0.5-2 percent of girls use anabolic steroids (Waddington & Smith, 2013). Besides enhancing the performance of school sports, the same survey indicated that male students used anabolic steroids for enhancing their physical appearance. The prevalence of adolescent doping in France is estimated to be 3-5 percent, and is more common among male students (Waddington & Smith, 2013).
The use of PEDs is thought to be more prevalent among body builders when compared to elite athletes. Body builders combine veterinary, foreign, and domestic medicines in order to help enhance the success of their training routines (Baumann, 2012). O’Leary (2013) indicated that 54 percent of male American body builders utilize anabolic steroids. Surveys also indicate that stimulants are the most commonly abused PEDs. Anabolic steroids are the second most abused drugs among athletes.
Causes of Doping in Sports
In the world of sport, a lot of emphasis is placed on achieving efficiency and effectiveness to ensure continuous improvement in sports performance. As a result, activities such as vigorous preparation and training are the norms in sports (Alexander, 2014). The body of an athlete is viewed as an extremely specialized tool designed to achieve maximal performance. Moreover, scientists are continually looking for ways of improving performance in sports. Initially, the focus of training was on refining skills and perfecting techniques; however, the emphasis of training has shifted towards enabling athletes to expand their capacities and enhance performance. It is not unusual for present day athletes to search for every possible means of boosting their performance using various methods such as specialized training, nutritional supplement, medical and scientific support, and using hi-tech apparel and equipment (Baumann, 2012). Achieving high sports performance is an endeavor that needs sacrifice, commitment, endurance, and dedication. Being an athlete in itself comes with various health risks such as injuries and excess training; however, the most fascinating issue is why athletes are willing to risk their reputation and health to achieve excellence in sports performance as well as the factors that contributing to doping among athletes.
Personality factors have been found as one of the drivers of doping among athletes. Laure and Binsinger (2007) reported that high trait anxiety and low self-esteem contributed to doping in preadolescents. However, in high school athletes, those who used doping showed high self-confidence and low anxiety when compared to those who did not dope (Laure & Binsinger, 2007). The likelihood of doping also increases among those who utilize nutritional supplements and engage in risky behaviors outside sport. Self-efficacy during risky scenarios has also been found to increase the probability of doping. With respect to the prediction of behavioral outcomes, a significant correlation exists between doping behavior and beliefs and attitudes, and in most instances, the behavioral intention is the strongest predictor. The hypothetical model developed by Strelan and Boeckmann (2006) posits that health concerns and personal moral beliefs prevent athletes from doping, and that sanctioning and drug testing have an insignificant deterrent impact. Surprisingly, when searching for factors that predict the use of steroids, Wiefferink, Detmar, Coumans, Vogels, & Paulussen (2008) did not find any significant difference in the characteristics of those who used steroids and those who were offered but allegedly refused to use the substance.
Studies have also explored the athletes’ self-reported reasons for using PEDs. These reasons include the intrinsic desire to win and improve performance (Beamish & Ritchie, 2005; Fischetto & Bermon, 2013), improving appearance (Ehrnborg & Rosén, 2009; McNamee, 2007), perceived pressure from external sources (Sottas, et al., 2011), and the fear that competitors have an unfair advantage as a result of medically or chemically enhancing their performance (Rose, 2007). Moreover, studies also show that some athletes consider painkilling and other doping substances as a needed means for overcoming the injuries. Athletes might also embark on doping as a means of coping with the immense physical demands associated with competition and training. Whereas the majority of athletes would like to participate in a drug-free sports, elite sportspersons are in agreement that doping is an indispensable supplementary in competitive sport (Petróczi, 2007). Baumann (2012) reported that many athletes might opt to use doping if the substance is not detectable whereas others do not perceive doping as a problem since it is a part of their usual training routine. The access and availability of PEDs is viewed by athletes as a barrier that they should overcome if they are to refrain from using doping to boost their performance. Another research study focusing on adolescent athletes showed that nearly 50 percent of athletes had bought the substance while about 10-14 percent had been offered the substance by a family doctor parent, or friend (Baumann, 2012).
The level of rationality with regard to doping decision-making is an issue of debate. Economic doping models presume that the actions of athletes draw upon economic rationality (Murphy & Waddington, 2007). The literature touching on this aspect view doping as an instance of the prisoner’s dilemma, wherein the actions of one actor has consequences for other actors, and that the best collective approach is somewhat difficult to reach because of the lack of trust for, and information on the decision of the other actor. In the domain of sports, the best case for a sports person would be competing in doping-free sports competition (Petróczi & Aidman, 2008). However, the prevalent speculations and suspicions regarding the possible actions of other athletes together with scanty information regarding the doping behaviors of others can influence most athletes to favor the practice of doping. The outcome is that competitors might view doping as the best alternative, and under certain scenarios, the only practical strategy to secure a win (Baumann, 2012). Whereas the economic doping models do not consider individual factors in doping decision-making, they highlight the significance of the wider situational environment in which individual preferences are not the only factors that influence doping but also the actions of others. Current behavioral doping models have tried to integrate the situational context, decision-making rationality, personality, and subculture and peer influences.
Although numerous studies have been conducted exploring the issue of doping in sports, only a few studies have attempted to provide comprehensive explanations and models for the motives of doping among athletes. An important observation is that these studies have focused mostly on professional athletes, with rare emphasis on recreational and non-professional athletes. McNamee (2007) developed one of the most complex models for understanding the motives of doping in sport, which outlined six key influences on the intention and attitude of athletes to embark on doping. They included personal morality; the psychological attributes of athletes; legitimacy; reference group influence; benefit assessment; and threat assessment. Morality is an important aspect in McNamee’s framework for understanding doping in sport. Morality of an athlete is related to his/her personality, and is concerned with concepts such as fair play, obeying others, honesty, and cooperation among others. McNamee (2007) points out that using doping constitutes cheating, and that moral behavior plays a crucial role in influencing the decision to use doping substances. Athletes who use doing cheat on themselves and others. Reference groups and individuals comprise of the peer consumer population, people found in an athlete’s surroundings having the desired physical attributes and performance, media personalities, those participating the marketing campaigns for PEDs, family members, and personnel working at the place where the athlete trains. Reference groups influence doping through social learning, wherein athletes observe the gratifications accorded to successful athletes, and then embark on working towards enhancing their performance with the hope that they will get the same gratifications. This influence is particularly greater when an athlete believes that the reference individual enhanced his/her performance using doping substances. There are numerous cases of doping that can be attributed to reference groups. A notable example is the case of Jessica Hardy, a swimmer in the 2008 Olympic trials, who tested positive for a prohibited substance – clenbuterol. Hardy maintained that he consulted with numerous swimming personnel such as her coach, a sports psychologist, and the team nutritionist – all of whom commended the product (US Anti-Doping Agency, 2014). Another case of doping attributed to reference groups is that of Marion Jones, who admitted to being given doping drugs by her coach (Shipley, 2007). The personality components in McNamee’s model used for predicting doping behavior include the “win-at-all-costs” attitude, hostility, impulsiveness, being dissatisfied with one’s physical appearance, being outer-directed, being pessimistic, and having low self-respect. People with these personality characteristics tend to compensate for their flaws by enhancing their strength and physical appearance through doping. McNamee (2007) indicated that optimistic athletes are less likely to be affected by poor prior performance since they associated their poor performance with outside obstacles; hence, less likely to utilize PEDs. Outer-oriented individuals fascinated by praise, victories, rewards, and social prestige are at a higher risk of using PEDs. Moreover, users of PEDs have been found to have low self-respect, which has been associated with risky behavior. McNamee further pointed out that doping behavior among sportspersons is not only determined by intentions and attitudes, but also the market factors including affordability and availability. A review of a number of case studies indicate that athletes bought the PEDs over the counter, and in some instances, they were not aware that the substances were prohibited. For instance, Flavia Olivera, a cyclist registered under the UCI and USA Cycling indicated that that be bought a dietary supplement known as “Hyperdrive 3.0” online, only to be tested positive for oxilofrine, which is a stimulant prohibited by WADA (Waddington & Smith, 2013). Another doping scandal that can be attributed to the affordability and accessibility of doping agents is that of LaShawn Merritt, a track and field athlete competing in sprint events. The United States Anti-doping Agency (USADA) and the American Arbitration Association ruled that Merritt tested positive doping a substance known as “Extenz” that he bought from a drug-store (US Anti-Doping Agency, 2014). Merritt noted that he was surprised that an athlete could test positive for an anabolic substance found in a product that is legally sold. It is evident from this case that Merritt’s doping was mainly accidental, which can be attributed to the ease with which the drug could be accessed from a drug store.
Rose (2007) proposed a framework to explain the increase in doping among athletes that focused on factors having no direct relationship with sport. The influences of doping outlined in the framework included scientific development; the increase in the salaries awarded to athletes; the demand for elite sport; modern lifestyle habits; the availability of ergogenic products; and physical appearance. Rose (2007) points out that scientific developments in the medical field have resulted in the introduction of methods and drugs to help with diverse health issues. Some of these methods and drugs have been abused by athletes to boost their performance. Secondly, high salaries and grants awarded to athletes has significantly increased the appeal of pursuing a successful career in some elite sports. High-performing athletes receive numerous rewards. Also, the increase in demand for elite sport has played a role in increased doping. The constant breaking of records has increased the standards for evaluating athletes (Ehrnborg & Rosén, 2009). Athletes often encounter several constraints to ensure that they maintain excellent performance including pressure from the media, public, and people surrounding them. Besides the extraneous training sessions, athletes often have scanty time for recovery and are at a risk of injuries (Metzl & Herzig, 2007). Such demands of sport are likely to motivate athletes to start using doping substances. Moreover, contemporary lifestyle habits usually predisposes people to various medications and products for losing weight, staying awake, and increasing productivity among others. The increased availability of doping substances also promotes their usage among athletes.
Another model for explaining doping in sports was proposed by Petróczi and Aidman (2008), which posits that doping in sports can be attributed to a mix of situational, systemic, and trait factors. The authors also maintain that doping is developmental. Their framework draws upon the view that doping practices emerge as a result of the habitual use of diverse performance enhancement practices deemed acceptable such as specialized apparel and equipment, training techniques, advanced nutrition, and physiotherapy. The progress towards using doping depends on two categories of vulnerability factors mediated by external and internal inhibiting factors and situational factors. This framework also acknowledges that doping does not occur in a vacuum; instead, cultural, political, economic, and social factors influences the decisions and choices made by people. Such factors include the easy access and legality of PEDs, the societal views towards using drugs to help with other life aspects, and the economic and political climate.
Reactions from Sporting Organizations
The majority of sporting organizations have reacted to the increased prevalence of doping by banning the use of PEDs. They have also adopted strict penalties and rules for those found using doping substances. Before the 1960s, sports organizations had to rely on the word of athletes since there were no valid methods of testing for doping substances. Pharmacological advances have always outmatched the ability of sporting organizations to adopt rigorous methods for testing doping substances; however, with the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999, doping athletes have been caught with effectively (Alexander, 2014). The first doping tests were conducted at the 1966 European Championships, after which the IOC adopted their first doping tests during the Summer and Winter Olympics of 1968 (Baumann, 2012). The 1970s saw an increase in the use of anabolic steroids; however, a method for detecting these substances was devised in 1975, which resulted in adding them to the list of prohibited drugs by IOC (McNamee, 2007).
Over time, the various sporting organizations have responded differently in their fight against doping. Organizations in some sporting disciplines such as cycling and athletics are extremely vigilant on doping. However, organizations regulating baseball and football have been criticized as being lax on the issue of doping, and failing to punishing athletes who practice doping (Baumann, 2012). Some authors have maintained that, preventing doping entirely is impossible; thus, all forms of doping should be permitted and legalized (Barkoukis, et al., 2013). Nevertheless, some commentators have disagreed by highlighting the detrimental effects of doping in the long-term (Waddington & Smith, 2013). Those opposing doping are of the view that, when doping is permitted, all athletes in competitive sports will be forced to use PEDs, and the net outcome would be a level playing field albeit typified by pervasive health risks.
Application in Sport
The findings from the review of the literature covered in the previous section offer important insights and implications for sport managerial practice, especially with respect to reducing the incidence of doping. First, the literature suggest athletes are likely to embark on doping is more advantageous than it is disadvantageous. Therefore, anti-doping measures should focus on getting athletes to be informed of the real impacts as well as the health risks associated with doping substances (Alexander, 2014). This requires increases the awareness of sporting ethics, values and compliance among athletes. Moreover, (McNamee, 2007) recommended providing athletes with information regarding the detrimental impacts of doping on their heath as well as their careers. Moreover, the importance of giving athletes the skills needed to make informed decisions has been emphasized in the literature. Rose (2007) points out that athletes might desist from doping of they believe that the consequences associated with positive doping tests might hurt their careers besides negative health outcomes.
Highlighting the moral inappropriateness of doping in sports can help discourage athletes from using PEDs. Alexander (2014) suggested four processes related to moral conduct, which included interpretation of the situation and the identification of the moral problem; formulation of the moral course of action depending on the specific situation and developing an action plan; choosing between immoral and moral values to make a decision; and the execution and implementation of moral actions. Such an approach to upholding moral conduct can help prevent the incidence of doping among athletes. Some of the actions that can be undertaken to enhance the effectiveness of anti-doping interventions include offering comprehensive information concerning the negative outcomes associated with doping; providing a sufficient nutrition program as a substitute for doping; using media campaigns to portray doping as an immoral behavior; and working directly with the athletes to enhance their self-regulation progresses (Beamish & Ritchie, 2005).
Another important aspects that has been recommended in the literature applicable in anti-doping initiatives relates to enhancing the psychosocial competence of athletes using adaptive viability. Such an approach is needed to deal with the personality factors associated with doping behavior such as low self-respect, hostility, being dissatisfied with one’s appearance, and being pessimistic (Beamish & Ritchie, 2005). This approach focuses on strengthening athletes’ critical thinking, self-conscious decision-making, interpersonal abilities, and their ability to overcome stress.
Addressing the factors in the athlete’s environment can also help to reduce the incidence of doping in sports. There are some instances whereby athletes may not want to utilize doping substances but feel that they have no alternative. An example is when athletes feel that they are not skilled as the top athletes, or if they feel that they have attained their maximum potential. Also, athletes might believe that most records are broken through the aid of doping, and anti-doping measures are not effective, or that doping will contribute to fair competition among those who use PEDs (Baumann, 2012). Even though sporting organizations are still supposed to adopt anti-doping measures to indicate that they are serious in their effort to eliminate doping, a number of steps exist that can be adopted in the immediate environment of the athlete. For instance, offering top quality training that seeks to maximize the potential of the athlete supervised with specialists such as fitness trainers, nutritionists and physicians will be crucial in helping athletes to acknowledge that dope-free superb performance is possible (Beamish & Ritchie, 2005). Other aspects in the athlete’s environment that can be improved include supplementation planning and optimal nutrition planning. These activities should be designed in accordance to the personality traits of athletes, the specific sport, and the goals set by the athlete. The focus of these programs should be on helping the athlete achieve his/her goal albeit in a permissible and fair manner (Metzl & Herzig, 2007). Supportive psychological training can help athletes set realistic goals and not unworkable goals that are likely to result in dysfunctional outcomes.
Conclusion
Doping is a significant problem in the world of sports. Doping among athletes can be attributed to various factors. Morality is one of the factors contributing to doping behavior among athletes. Studies also show that personality characteristics also play a role in influencing doping behavior among athletes. Some of the personality traits that have been linked to PEDs use include “win-at-all-costs” attitude, hostility, impulsiveness, being dissatisfied with one’s physical appearance, being outer-directed, being pessimistic, and having low self-respect. Athletes also engage in doping because of various reasons including improving performance and appearance, perceived pressure from outside sources, the fear that competitors have an unfair advantage, for overcoming injuries, and coping with the immense demands of sport. Also, the increased access and availability of PEDs contributes to the increase in the prevalence of doping. The majority of sporting organizations have responded to the doping crisis by banning the practice and imposing penalties for athletes who use doping drugs. However, such an approach has not been effective in eradicating the problem. The recommendations made in this paper to help enhance the effectiveness of anti-doping measures include informative-educative approach that highlights the real impacts of doping in athletes’ health and career; highlighting the moral inappropriateness of doping in sports; enhancing the psychosocial competence of athletes using adaptive viability; and addressing the factors in the athlete’s environment through offering top quality training supplementation planning and optimal nutrition planning. Emphasis should be placed on helping the athletes achieve their goals in a permissible and fair manner.