Content uploaded by Te Engelberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Te Engelberg on Jan 07, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fcss20
Download by: [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] Date: 23 October 2015, At: 19:53
Sport in Society
Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics
ISSN: 1743-0437 (Print) 1743-0445 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fcss20
Inside the locker room: a qualitative study of
coaches’ anti-doping knowledge, beliefs and
attitudes
Terry Engelberg & Stephen Moston
To cite this article: Terry Engelberg & Stephen Moston (2015): Inside the locker room: a
qualitative study of coaches’ anti-doping knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, Sport in Society
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1096244
Published online: 22 Oct 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
SPORT IN SOCIETY, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1096244
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
Inside the locker room: a qualitative study of coaches’
anti-doping knowledge, beliefs and attitudes
Terry Engelberga,b and Stephen Mostonb
aDepartment of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Gold
Coast, Australia; bDepartment of Psychology, College of Healthcare Sciences, James Cook University, Cairns,
Australia
Introduction
Until recently, anti-doping legislation had rmly placed the responsibility for doping
on the individual athlete (WADA 2009). e decision to dope was seen as being largely
inuenced by individual characteristics of the athlete (Morente-Sánchez and Zabala 2013;
Ntoumanis et al. 2014), particularly their level of morality (e.g. Anderson 2013; Barkoukis
et al. 2013; Kirkwood 2012; Overbye, Knudsen, and Pster 2013; Shields and Bredemeier
2007). However, there has been a growing recognition that the decision to use performance-
enhancing drugs might be aected by those people surrounding the athlete (Australian
Crime Commission 2013). Legislation has changed accordingly to include increasingly
severe punishments for athlete support personnel (WADA 2015). For example, under Rule
21.2.6 the explanatory comments states: ‘Coaches and other Athlete Support Personnel are
oen role models for Athletes. ey should not be engaging in personal conduct which
conicts with their responsibility to encourage their Athletes not to dope’ (WADA 2015).
ABSTRACT
It is widely assumed that coaches have an eect on athletes’ doping
behaviours; however, the means by which this inuence can be
manifested are only supercially understood. The present study seeks
to understand how coaches see their role in directly and indirectly
inuencing the doping attitudes and behaviours of athletes. Fourteen
elite-level coaches participated in focus group discussions. Coaches
displayed a low level of knowledge of banned methods and practices.
While it was acknowledged that doping was prevalent in sport,
coaches believed that doping was not a problem in their own sport,
since doping does not aid in the development or implementation of
sporting ‘skills’. While the ndings suggest that coaches support the
revised WADA Code, with increased sanctions for coaches, the ndings
also highlight how coaches may indirectly and inadvertently condone
doping. This may be through inaction or the apparent endorsement
of pro-doping expectancies.
CONTACT Terry Engelberg terry.engelbergmoston@jcu.edu.au
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
2 T. ENGELBERG AND S. MOSTON
e new Code Rule 23.2.3 also suggests that ‘a National or International Federation could
refuse to renew the license of a coach when multiple Athletes have committed anti-doping
rule violations while under that coach’s supervision’ (WADA 2015).
e term athlete support personnel is typically used to describe all those ‘working with,
treating or assisting an Athlete participating in or preparing for sports Competition’ (WADA
2015). While support personnel can include professionals such as doctors, physiotherapists,
masseurs, sports scientists and dieticians, the coach is widely assumed to have a particularly
salient role in aecting the decision to dope (e.g. Erdman et al. 2007; Fung and Yuan 2006;
Golshanraz, Same-Siahkalroodi, and Poor-Kazem 2013; Judge et al. 2010; Pitsch, Emrich,
and Klein 2007). In large part, this is because coaches have the greatest degree of direct
contact with athletes. is aords coaches the opportunity to inuence the decision-making
of athletes either directly (e.g. instructing an athlete to use a banned performance-enhancing
substance) (Pitsch, Emrich, and Klein 2007), or indirectly (e.g. by setting unrealistic goals).
Research shows that nearly all coaches explicitly recognize that they have an important role
to play in deterring doping (Laure, ouvenin, and Lecerf 2001).
Coaches as a population of study
It is surprising to discover how little anti-doping research has been conducted to directly
examine the impact of coaches on the decision to dope. For example, a recent review of
the literature on coaches and doping (Backhouse and McKenna 2012) identied only four
studies to have featured samples of coaches. ree of the studies (Fjeldheim 1992; Laure,
ouvenin, and Lecerf 2001; Scarpino et al. 1990) were conducted prior to the rst inter-
national anti-doping code (WADA 2003). e other study (Fung and Yuan 2006) featured
only community-level coaches. While there have been several studies published aer the
review, and several that were not included in the review, the combined body of work is
largely eclectic, with varying samples and methodologies that make integrating the ndings
problematic. ese concerns apply to most of the literature on doping, which remains an
inconsistent and disparate eld of social science inquiry (for reviews see Engelberg and
Moston 2015; Morente-Sánchez and Zabala 2013).
A literature review suggested that while coaches are regularly confronted with doping
issues, the majority display a lack of doping knowledge, and have limited condence in
anti-doping control systems (Backhouse and McKenna 2012). is conclusion has been
borne out in subsequent work featuring elite coaches. For example, in a study of coaches
in the USA (Judge et al. 2010), those coaches who were ‘certied’ stated that they felt more
knowledgeable about performance-enhancing drug use relative to uncertied coaches.
Certied coaches also reported a stronger perception that they played a key role in deterring
doping. In a related study of high school coaches (Sullivan et al. 2015), a key premise was
that while coaches recognize their importance in the prevention of doping, they generally
lacked condence (self-ecacy) in dealing with situations in which an athlete might be
suspected of doping.
A recent quantitative study, featuring a sample of both coaches (n = 92) and elite athletes
(n = 488) from a diverse range of sports in Australia (Moston, Engelberg, and Skinner 2014),
found that coaches were far more sceptical than athletes about the likelihood of a doping
athlete being detected by anti-doping agencies. Coaches also saw the current legal and
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
SPORT IN SOCIETY 3
nancial deterrents to doping as less of a deterrent than did the athletes. Overall, relative
to athletes, the coaches were more in favour of punishments to athletes and other support
sta who had facilitated doping.
Coaches as the object of study
While coaches are rarely included as a population in anti-doping research, their potential
impact on athletes’ attitudes to doping and doping behaviours has been examined in stud-
ies of elite athletes. In such studies, athletes might be asked about how they perceive the
doping attitudes of their coaches. For example, a mixed-methods study (Dimeo et al. 2012)
suggested that in some individual-based sports ‘Coaches have an awful lot of inuence on
their athletes … to inuence one way or another’ (19). e same study also suggested that
coaches were dismissive of anti-doping education: ‘It seemed as though the coaches thought
it was a waste of time … they weren’t really bothered if it went in or not, you know, they just
wanted it ticked o that you’d done it’ (25). Similar ndings were reported from a series of
qualitative interviews with athletes who had used banned performance-enhancing drugs.
Engelberg, Moston, and Skinner (2015) found that in professional sports such as rugby
league, support sta (including coaches) were perceived as crucial to the initial decision
to dope and in maintaining such behaviours. In other sports, the impact of support sta
was more subtle, with one athlete describing how the team doctor refused to provide any
banned substances, but an assistant doctor was able to help instead. is arrangement was
conducted with the knowledge of the coach who ‘did not say a word’ (Engelberg, Moston,
and Skinner 2015).
Another mixed-methods research study (Moran et al. 2008) which also featured athletes,
found that coaches were perceived to have ‘mixed levels of inuence’ (23). Athletes who
said their coaches frequently criticized them, punished them for mistakes, encouraged
rivalries and gave unequal recognition to teammates, had the most favourable attitudes
towards doping. However, the same study also found that both personal characteristics
and the attitudes of teammates might also be signicant predictors of pro-doping attitudes.
Methodological concerns about research on doping
e possibility that responses may have been aected by a social desirability bias (Gucciardi,
Jalleh, and Donovan 2010) was specically acknowledged by both Judge et al. (2010) and
Moston, Engelberg, and Skinner (2014). Such a distortion occurs when stated opinions
conform to a socially accepted norm: coaches might state that they are opposed to doping,
‘because such an attitude is expected of them, rather than because they are really opposed
to doping’ (Moston, Engelberg, and Skinner 2014). is concern is an ongoing problem
in anti-doping research, where the truthfulness of stated attitudes and behaviours is oen
challenged. is has prompted researchers to develop increasingly sophisticated forms of
indirect quantitative assessment methods (e.g. Pitsch and Emrich 2011), or to use alternative
forms of data collection such as qualitative interviews or focus groups (e.g. Probert and
Leberman 2009; Smith et al. 2010), or ethnographic methods (e.g. Hauw and McNamee
2014; Pedersen 2010).
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
4 T. ENGELBERG AND S. MOSTON
The present study
Coaches are widely assumed to have a signicant role in shaping the anti-doping attitudes
and behaviours of elite athletes (Kim et al. 2011; Peters et al. 2009). Understanding the
views of coaches towards doping and anti-doping policy is thus a necessary step in ensur-
ing that those most aected by anti-doping legislation both understand and comply with
that legislation (Mendoza 2002). To date, only a handful of studies have included coaches.
Furthermore, the samples were oen small and the unique contributions of coaches was
not always clear (e.g. Ohl et al. 2013).
Given this dearth of literature and research into the role of coaches in understand-
ing doping by athletes, the present study seeks to explore coaches’ knowledge, beliefs and
attitudes about their role in anti-doping. is study employs a qualitative methodology
consisting of focus group discussions with elite-level coaches from a variety of sports. Each
focus group was described to the participants as an informal ‘locker room’-style discussion,
where previous experiences could be openly shared.
Method
Sample and recruitment
A theoretical sampling method was used for the purposes of this study. is method was
chosen because the aim of this research was to develop theory and concepts grounded in or
emergent from real-life events and circumstances (Cohen and Crabtree 2006). Specically,
the views of coaches who were actively involved in coaching elite athletes were sought.
Coaches were recruited from state-level sporting clubs, organisations and academies of
sporting excellence in the state of Queensland (Australia).
Eorts were made to recruit both male and female coaches from a wide spectrum of
sports, including team and individual sports, skill and strength sports, as well as Olympic
and commercial sports. e nal sample consisted of 14 coaches (nine males and ve
females) representing the following sports: American football (1 coach), Australian Rules
Football (AFL: 1), basketball (2), cycling (1), football (soccer: 2), gymnastics (1), kayaking
(1), netball (1), rugby union (1), surf-lifesaving (1), taekwondo (1) and triathlon (1). e
mean age was 37.29years (SD = 10.29). All of the coaches were currently working with elite
athletes: 12 of the coaches were working at a state level, and 2 were working with national-/
international-level athletes. Ethical approval for the conduct of the research was granted by
the educational institution of the rst author.
Data collection
e method of data collection was through focus group discussions, characterized here as
locker room-style discussions. Focus groups were selected as the method for data collection
because they are an eective way of gathering information which includes a mix of com-
plex attitudes, behaviours and past experiences (Morgan and Krueger 1993). Furthermore,
Bringer, Brackenridge, and Johnston (2002) suggest that it is a myth that focus groups are
not suitable for sensitive topics. ese authors used focus groups to investigate coaches’
perceptions of the appropriateness of sexual encounters between athletes and coaches.
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
SPORT IN SOCIETY 5
As the purpose of this study was largely exploratory, a topic guide was created to aid
these discussions. e guide did not have set questions; instead, it used loose topics/themes
to ensure consistency in the data collection process (Arthur and Nazroo 2003). Items or
probes were used to actively elicit additional information. Group discussions facilitated this
process as participants oen responded to other participants’ comments or elaborated on
specic points. is active process also aids the researchers’ responsiveness to the actual
wording or language used by the coaches. e main topics of discussion were:
(1) Knowledge of banned performance-enhancing drugs (including having personal
knowledge of users; knowledge of testing procedures and testing protocols; aware-
ness of what substances are banned and knowledge of where or from whom to
obtain information about drugs and other substances).
(2) Beliefs (the perceived extent of banned performance-enhancing drug use, the per-
ceived role of coaches in educating athletes, and shaping and inuencing athletes’
attitudes and behaviour).
(3) Attitudes (whether drugs in sport should be banned, type and extent of suggested
sanctions). Attitudes towards the Australian Anti-doping Authority (ASADA) and
the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
In a similar fashion to a study of athletes’ views on doping conducted by Stewart and
Smith (2010), digressions from the main probes were permitted in so far as these served
to identify or illustrate further a previous point of interest or a possible further avenue of
research not initially covered by the guide.
Procedure
Four focus group discussions were organized at two locations in the state of Queensland,
Australia. All participants were contacted a few days prior to their scheduled focus group
interviews and given an introductory brieng. Upon arrival at the venue, participants were
given an informed consent form describing the aims of the research, the nature of the data
collection procedures, data handling and storage. e researchers also verbally explained the
purpose of the study and provided participants with the opportunity to ask questions prior
to commencement of the sessions. Participants did not know each other prior to the study.
Permission to take digital audio recordings of interviews was requested. Once con-
sent was obtained from all participants, the sessions began. Discussions lasted between
43min and 50min. Aer each focus group concluded, participants were thanked for their
cooperation.
Data treatment and analysis
Digital recordings for the focus group discussions were downloaded into digital audio les.
e recordings were transcribed within two or three days of each focus group discussion.
e analyses were conducted manually following the Analysis Method Framework (Ritchie,
Spencer, and O’Connor 2003), a process which has been used in qualitative research in
community sport (Engelberg, Skinner, and Zakus 2014). e process of analysis requires
managing the data and making sense of the evidence through participants’ accounts. e
analysis has three stages: data management, descriptive accounts and explanatory accounts.
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
6 T. ENGELBERG AND S. MOSTON
In this research, the data management stage served to identify the initial themes. Following
from this step, an index with subthemes under the three overarching headings (knowledge,
beliefs and attitudes) was created. e index was applied to the data by each member of
the research team independently, and then rened until agreement was reached and a nal
index was created. Data were then sorted through thematic charting; this process reduced
the volume of data and simplied analysis, whilst it also retained the original wording and
language of the participants.
Findings
Knowledge
Very few coaches admitted to having any actual knowledge about banned substances and
associated potential side eects. Additionally, very few had ever actively looked for current
and accurate information in detail. As one coach explained:
I guess most of what us coaches know about is what steroids do, don’t we all? To be honest
I do not look for that information myself. I refer my athletes to the team doctor … and the
WADA prohibited list.
Another coach said: ‘All I know is about the ones that speed up recovery, and then again,
not much. I’m not sure which are currently banned’.
Most coaches stated that they frequently received queries from athletes about drugs
and other substances. One coach said: ‘For the most part, when an athlete wants to know
whether they can take something, they come to us, some go to the team doctor, or they
just look it up somewhere’.
None of the coaches admitted to coaching an athlete who used performance-enhancing
drugs. However, a handful of coaches admitted to having some direct personal knowledge
of other athletes who were using banned substances. Generally, the ‘oending’ athlete was
in the same sport as the coach, but the coach did not know the athlete personally. As one
coach said: ‘I don’t personally know or ever knew of anyone that I’ve coached ever using
performance-enhancing drugs but at the elite level there obviously would be a few’. Most
coaches admitted to knowing athletes who used illicit drugs. One coach said: ‘No, I don’t
know of anyone using performance enhancing drugs. But I do know of athletes using other
drugs, party drugs, it’s more of a social or a team thing’. Two coaches said they knew other
coaches who would endorse the use of banned substances if it increased the chances of
winning. As one of these coaches pointed out, ‘ere’s no doubt a few of these coaches do
make recommendations to the boys that they need to improve by whatever means possible.
I know one or two of those’.
Generally coaches were well-informed about testing protocols and anti-doping policy.
All of them were familiar with random testing and out-of competition testing procedures.
Few coaches, however, had had rst-hand experience with testing, that is, many of these
coaches’ athletes had never been tested. One coach of an under 17 team (youth squad) said:
‘My players have never been tested I don’t know if it means our sport is not taken seriously,
so who would dope, or that our players are not seen to be elite enough to be tested’. Coaches
were less familiar with schemes such as the ‘whereabouts scheme’ or ‘the biological passport’.
Two coaches declared that they were not familiar at all with either policy.
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
SPORT IN SOCIETY 7
Most coaches stated that they obtained information about drugs from written documents
(such as publications from sport governing bodies) and from online sources, such as http://
www.wada-ama.org and http://www.asada.gov.au. As one coach explained:
From ASADA [Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority] …. there’s a hotline. But the big thing
in our sport and I think it’s the same in all the sports is to make the athletes fully responsible
so you do not make the coach give them the information and you tell them where they look
it up. From the time they start to become an elite athlete they have to know that it’s not the
coach’s responsibility or anybody else’s. It is totally theirs.
Another coach agreed that the athletes had to take responsibility for their choices:
Same here. Going through all the courses we always get directed towards the ASADA website.
We can always access information and they’ll send anything out. We can distribute that to the
athletes and we always talk about those things whenever we are doing any training, especially
if someone is talking about how their performance is low.
About half of the coaches stated that they would refer their athletes to the team doctor or
a pharmacist if they asked them if a drug or substance was permitted.
Beliefs
Use of banned performance-enhancing drugs was perceived very negatively by all coaches.
Twelve of the fourteen coaches considered such use as ‘cheating’ and 11 considered drug
use ‘harmful’ and dangerous to physical and/or mental and psychological health. Overall,
coaches agreed that performance-enhancing drug use was a threat to the integrity of sport.
is noted that most coaches estimated the incidence of drug use by elite athletes in all
sports as quite low with most estimates being around 1–5% of all athletes. e only excep-
tions were the sports of athletics, cycling, swimming and power-based sports (weightliing,
powerliing) and bodybuilding where the perceived incidence of drug use was, depending
on the sport, between 20 and 80% of all athletes competing in those sports. One participant
noted: ‘I think the higher the prole of the player the more chance there is of them using
the drugs because again the higher the prole the more chance there is of it being needed
…. To win’. Another one said: ‘Cycling, obviously, athletics, weightliing, powersports,
bodybuilding, and, despite its squeaky clean image, swimming. At least 20% of all athletes
in those sports, closer to 80% in cycling I’d say’. Other coaches noted that they believed
that performance-enhancing drugs were more prevalent in individual sports, particularly
endurance sports. Conversely, in sports perceived as skill-based, the perception of incidence
of use in such sports was lower. As a basketball coach remarked:
Well, you know that cycling and endurance sports such as marathons are physically demand-
ing and anaerobic and aerobic systems have to be really strong and I think some athletes will
certainly use drugs to get the better performance. is is very dierent from, say, basketball,
you can take as many steroids as you like but it’s not going to make you shoot any better.
With the exception of the cycling coach, all coaches believed that the incidence of perfor-
mance-enhancing drug use in their own sport was lower than in all sports in general. In
the words of one coach:
In my sport I would have to say it would be low. Probably 0%, maybe just 1%. Based on my
cynicism, however, I would have to say that in other sports, like athletics, cycling, etc., it is
probably like 40–60% of all athletes.
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
8 T. ENGELBERG AND S. MOSTON
Many participants noted that their perceptions were shaped by the media (such as TV,
internet, magazines and newspapers) rather than personal experience. e majority of
coaches admitted that the media coverage of specic sports and specic scandals in par-
ticular, shaped their views and perceptions. As one coach put it:
You get the information from TV and media. ey are the sports we see on TV. You see the
Chinese swimmers … everyone knows that, then we are getting bombarded with Armstrong,
and all the other cyclists. ese stories take a life of their own.
e perceived sporting culture was cited as a powerful force in shaping coaches’ beliefs.
Knowledge of sporting culture was either derived from personal experience or from per-
sonal contact with other coaches. All participants believed that coaches had a key role to
play in the prevention of doping, with many believing they had signicant inuence over
their athletes: ‘We will stress how important it is not to take drugs and the by-products of
taking drugs and stu but some athletes still at school just laugh it o so they don’t take it
that seriously.’
Other coaches stressed that their inuence depended on issues such as the athlete’s
respect for their coach:
It would depend on how much you respected your coach … I guess it depends on the relation-
ship you have with them. If the coach goes ‘don’t take it. It’s illegal …. and you shouldn’t be
taking it,’ and you don’t really respect the coach enough then you kind of think you’re going
to do it anyway. Whereas if you really respect where the coach is coming from and the history
that they’ve had in the sport and how much knowledge and they’ve helped you and stu then
you might be a little bit more inclined to do as they say.
Opinions on coaches’ accountability for use of banned substances were divided. Some
coaches believed that using banned substances was the athlete’s decision, a decision that
oentimes the coaches were unaware of.
I know there’s questions where should the coach be held accountable. I don’t believe the coach
can be because no matter how many times the coach says no … the players are still going to
do it. But the coach and the management, they are sort of responsible for the atmosphere in
the club and the education in the club and I think that’s the area they can take responsibility
for. But to penalise the coach because the player is taking something? Really the coach doesn’t
have that control.
However, other coaches were of the view that coaches had a duty of care and that they were
accountable for their actions, whether implicitly or explicitly encouraging drug use. About
one third of the coaches considered themselves ill-equipped to deal with doping issues.
Few admitted to having an extensive knowledge of what substances were banned and how
to satisfactorily advise athletes.
Attitudes
All coaches were aware of the main forms of sanctions and other forms of punishment
for doping. Participants concurred that bans were the most suitable sanction for perfor-
mance-enhancing drug use and that a ne was more appropriate for illicit (recreational)
drug use. e majority of coaches were satised with existing sanctions, however, a handful
endorsed harsher penalties for athletes at highest levels of competition.
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
SPORT IN SOCIETY 9
e issue of coaches supplying banned substances to athletes was also addressed. e
majority of coaches believed that coaches who supply performance-enhancing drugs should
be banned for life. As one coach noted:
I was going to say the other dierence in the penalty is, if you are taking performance enhancing
drugs it’s one thing. If you are supplying performance enhancing drugs that to me is a much
more severe penalty. Much more severe.
Another coach said: ‘ey should be banned forever. Coaches have power over athletes, so
their punishment should be much harsher’. One coach added:
I think the other thing is that a coach, like an athlete, does it to cheat but as a coach you’re
ruining the person and all the other side eects so I think it’s a much greater crime to be
encouraging someone to take drugs. If someone [an athlete] puts their hand up and says ‘I
want to take drugs to get an advantage’ they should be banned for a couple of years. If someone
[a coach] is saying ‘I would like you to take drugs’ it should be for life.
With regard to general responsibilities, one coach noted: ‘Under the duty of care as a coach
we all sign a Code of Conduct and in there is the athlete wellness and athlete wellbeing and
all those types of things’.
e overall feeling concerning sport governing bodies and other sport organisations was
one of disillusionment. More than half of the coaches believed that many of these organi-
zations did not care, particularly in professional sports or clubs. One coach said: ‘I’ve heard
rumours from [name of sport] that people take drugs but if their governing body nds out
about it, they don’t care because they’re getting money and big contracts and that’s all that
matters’. is feeling was shared by another coach:
Same with [name of sport]. I’ve heard that under the carpet, yeah, they don’t care because they
are getting money from it. It’s their athletes, so yeah, they don’t let it out unless it goes public.
I think it needs to get public, so that it can’t be swept under the carpet.
Discussion
e purpose of this research was to gather information from coaches about their knowledge,
beliefs and attitudes towards doping (and anti-doping) in sport. Fourteen elite-level coaches
participated in focus group discussions, with the ndings both supporting and extending
those from earlier studies.
Knowledge
Previous research had suggested that coaches lack knowledge and condence (Sullivan
et al. 2015) on a range of anti-doping issues. Similar knowledge gaps have also been reported
in other members of support sta, including medical practitioners (Peters et al. 2007). In
large part, any such gaps in knowledge are unsurprising. e legislation is highly complex
and has been a fruitful area of academic study, with analysts oen highlighting sources
of confusion or contradiction in the rules (e.g. Robinson 2007; Rushall and Jones 2007).
In the present study the coaches were generally well informed about anti-doping control
testing procedures, but they knew very little about specic doping products (e.g. the names
of drugs on banned lists) and more advanced anti-doping procedures such as the ath-
letes’ whereabouts scheme. Coaches said that they typically referred doping related queries
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
10 T. ENGELBERG AND S. MOSTON
to medical practitioners, and that their anti-doping role as coaches was largely reactive
(responding to athlete initiated requests) rather than proactive. Generally, coaches did
not see anti-doping education as part of their role. is abrogation of responsibility, while
understandable, may represent an important potential direction for anti-doping initiatives.
If coaches are an important source of inuence on the doping behaviour of athletes, for
good or ill, then it appears that coaches may be evading the topic, passing responsibility onto
other professional groups. To coaches, anti-doping testing is a practical requirement of their
work, and educating athletes about such matters is restricted to the mechanics of testing,
rather than addressing the underlying rationale for such testing. In short, the opportunity
for coaches to deliver any anti-doping message is currently missing.
e coaches endorsed WADA policy (WADA 2009) that the athlete is the person respon-
sible for the use of legal or illegal drugs, and that coaches only had a limited part to play
in monitoring such conduct. As with the study by Sullivan et al. (2015), there was some
evidence for a lack of condence in dealing with doping, although the majority expressed
condence in their ability to deal with doping issues. is may be because the coaches in
the present study were all elite, and would thus most probably have completed specic
anti-doping training sessions, factors which have been shown to enhance condence in
dealing with anti-doping (Judge et al. 2010).
Beliefs
A recent study of the perceived incidence of drug use in sport showed that both athletes and
coaches see the use of both performance-enhancing and other illicit (recreational) drugs as
relatively common (Moston, Engelberg, and Skinner 2015a). On average, coaches estimated
the use of performance-enhancing drugs at almost 19% of all athletes, but that perceived
performance-enhancing drug use in their own sport was estimated at about 10%. A similar
pattern of results was observed in the current study where the coaches saw doping in sport
in general as common, but that their own sport was an exception to this trend. Surprisingly,
this apparent discrepancy in views was not raised in any of the focus groups and this may
be an issue that requires a more structured interviewing format.
is pattern of results has been interpreted as a potential cause for concern about the
likely impact of anti-doping campaigns (Moston, Engelberg, and Skinner 2015a). If coaches
(or athletes) perceive that banned drug use is common, it may encourage non-users to start
using, in part, to level the playing eld. A self-fullling prophecy is thus created, and drug
use becomes highly prevalent (Moston, Engelberg, and Skinner 2015b). However, given that
some coaches in this study expressed the view that banned drug use was not common, the
expectancy may be quite dierent. If the expectancy is that drug use will not enhance perfor-
mance, at least not for some sports, then athletes in those sports may be deterred from using
any such substances. While this is an intriguing possibility, and a possible new approach to
anti-doping education (i.e. doping does not work!), this is probably an unrealistic scenario.
e belief that doping does not assist in skill-based sport was a common theme in the
focus group discussions. is belief appears to be a common (e.g. Blatter 2006) and poten-
tially damaging misconception (Malcolm and Waddington 2008). While doping may not
directly assist in the acquisition or performance of a skill (Waddington et al. 2005), nearly
all athletes would benet from the use of performance-enhancing drugs to enable them to
train longer (increased endurance), throw or kick further/faster (increased power) or simply
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
SPORT IN SOCIETY 11
to speed up recovery from injury. Statements by coaches denying the potential existence of
doping in their sport may suggest to athletes that doping is of no benet, thereby deterring
doping. However, it is also possible that such statements might suggest that anti-doping
testing is unlikely to occur, thereby possibly encouraging doping.
Attitudes
As with previous research (e.g. Judge et al. 2010) the coaches in this study were consistently
opposed to doping in sport and they expressed strong, highly punitive attitudes towards
other coaches who might be supplying such substances to their athletes. However, unlike
the coaches in Moston, Engelberg, and Skinner (2014), the current coaches did not endorse
the view that coaches of athletes who are doping should also be sanctioned, unless they had
pressurized the athlete into doping, in which case the suggested sanctions were extremely
severe. While it was recognized that coaches can play an important part in shaping the
culture of a club or team, and thus have a role to play in anti-doping, there are inevitable
restrictions on the scope of this inuence and this impacted on judgements of sanctions.
Limitations
An ongoing limitation of anti-doping research is that the responses given by coaches, ath-
letes, and other members of support teams, might reect a social desirability bias whereby
stated opinions conform to a socially accepted norm. In the current study, it is possible that
the coaches might have stated a strong opposition to doping because such an attitude is
expected of them, rather than because they were really opposed to doping. Research with
athletes (e.g. Gucciardi, Jalleh, and Donovan 2010) has shown that social desirability biases
can impact on attitudes towards doping. While it is impossible to accurately determine
whether any social desirability bias had an inuence in the current study, the participating
coaches were from dierent sports and previously unknown to each other, thereby mini-
mizing social desirability. A focus group methodology can provoke and stimulate a greater
range of responses than individual interviews, but the possibility that a social desirability
bias was present cannot be entirely discounted. Consequently, it would be advisable to
compare the ndings of this study to ndings of research that employs individual interviews.
Implications and conclusions
is study shows that coaches believe they have an important inuence over the behaviour
of their athletes and are capable of imparting anti-doping knowledge and attitudes. ese
ndings have implications for both theory and policy in anti-doping.
Models of why some athletes use performance-enhancing drugs, and why some athletes
do not, have largely reected the assumption that doping is aected by the personality and,
to a lesser extent, the situational characteristics of an athlete (Donahue et al. 2006; Donovan
et al. 2002). e potential impact of external inuences, such as coaches and other sup-
port personnel, has been neglected. In part, this is because of the policy emphasis on the
responsibility of the individual athlete. If the athlete is solely responsible then the words and
deeds of those surrounding the athlete are deemed of limited importance. is assumption
perpetuates a popular narrative that doping is practised by awed individuals (a ‘bad apple’),
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
12 T. ENGELBERG AND S. MOSTON
and diverts attention away from the possibility that there may be systemic issues within
either a club/team, or within an entire sport (a ‘rotten barrel’). For example, no matter how
many cyclists are found to be doping, there has been only limited, and some might say
half-hearted, consideration of the possibility that the entire sport is awed (Brissonneau
and Ohl 2010). For example, if long races are only possible with the assistance of drugs,
should such races still take place? Such questions threaten the ongoing commercial viability
of some sports and as such are generally avoided. Social science research has a key role to
play in raising such questions. Research on the motives for doping should thus shi from
an individual-centric approach, to one where doping is part of a broader social and cultural
context (Smith et al. 2010). From a practical perspective, such a shi should be welcome: it
is essentially impossible (or at least extremely dicult) to alter the characteristics of athletes
(such as their personality or level of morality), but it is relatively easy (theoretically at least)
to change the behaviours of coaches.
From a policy perspective, the ndings support and validate the new guidelines and
sanctions for athlete support personnel contained in the new WADA (2015) Code. e
views expressed in this study suggest that the need for such rules will be acknowledged
and endorsed by coaches. Given the increasingly intense academic criticism of the WADA
Code, anti-doping organisations and even anti-doping as a goal (for two recent reviews see
Engelberg et al. 2014; Stewart and Smith 2014), this support from coaches implies that the
current anti-doping system is unlikely to be challenged by internal forces. While it is pos-
sible that the coaches in the current study were giving responses that conformed to a social
desirability bias (i.e. anti-doping views) the informal, locker room atmosphere generated
in the focus groups appears to have mitigated against any such bias. e open and detailed
discussions were in all probability reective of genuine underlying beliefs.
While coaches were opposed to doping, and might thus be a strong potential voice in
anti-doping campaigns, a cautionary note is necessary. Coaches cannot have a strong role
if they are not well informed about the rationale for anti-doping. Furthermore, if they can
easily pass specic questions about anti-doping onto other professionals then they can
largely circumvent their anti-doping role.
Ensuring that coaches are well trained in understanding and explaining the rationale
for anti-doping, as well as implementing such beliefs into their training, may represent a
signicant opportunity for anti-doping campaigns. While it is unrealistic to expect coaches
to know details such as which substances are or are not on banned lists, imparting the under-
lying rationale for anti-doping, including the spirit of sport (Henne, Koh, and McDermott
2013) could be made a part of a coach’s job, from junior development through to elite
(professional) levels. In short, coaches do have a potential role to play, but knowledge of
drug use in sport should not be restricted to the mechanics of testing processes. Instead, it
could focus on the underlying philosophy that underpins anti-doping (the spirit of sport)
and focusing on the health and well-being of their athletes.
Educating coaches serves two distinct purposes. First, coaches need to understand the
current anti-doping regulations and their obligations under those rules. Second, coaches
should be an important component in a holistic anti-doping campaign. Anti-doping edu-
cation is inherently complicated by the poorly articulated rationale against doping in the
WADA Code and coaches may be one way through which athletes can easily discuss these
ambiguities and receive guidance.
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
SPORT IN SOCIETY 13
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
is paper is based on the research project ‘Athletes’ and Coaches’ Attitudes about Drugs in Sport’
which was supported by the Australian Government through the Anti-Doping Research Program
of the Department of Health and Ageing.
References
Anderson, J. 2013. “Doping, Sport and the Law: Time for Repeal of Prohibition?” International Journal
of Law in Context 9 (02): 135–159. doi:10.1017/S1744552313000050.
Arthur, S., and J. Nazroo. 2003. “Designing Fieldwork Strategies and Materials.” In Qualitative Research
Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, edited by J. Ritchie and J. Lewis,
109–137. London: Sage.
Australian Crime Commission, A. 2013. Organised Crime and Drugs in Sport in Australia. Canberra:
Australian Government.
Backhouse, S. H., and J. McKenna. 2012. “Reviewing Coaches’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs
regarding Doping in Sport.” International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 7 (1): 167–175.
doi:10.1260/1747-9541.7.1.167.
Barkoukis, V., L. Lazuras, H. Tsorbatzoudis, and A. Rodanos. 2013. “Motivational and Social
Cognitive Predictors of Doping Intentions in Elite Sports: An Integrated Approach.” Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 23 (5): e330–e340. doi:10.1111/sms.12068.
Blatter, J. S. 2006. “FIFA’s Commitment to Doping Free Football.” British Journal of Sports Medicine
40: i1. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2006.027789.
Bringer, J. D., C. H. Brackenridge, and L. H. Johnston. 2002. “Dening Appropriateness in Coach-
athlete Sexual Relationships: e Voice of Coaches.” Journal of Sexual Aggression 8 (2): 83–98.
doi:10.1080/13552600208413341.
Brissonneau, C., and F. Ohl. 2010. “e Genesis and Eect of French Anti-doping Policies in Cycling.”
International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 2 (2): 173–187. doi:10.1080/19406940.2010.488063.
Cohen, D., and B. Crabtree. 2006. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. http://www.qualres.org/
Homeeo-3806.html.
Dimeo, P., J. Allen, J. Taylor, L. Robinson, and S. Dixon. 2012. Team Dynamics and Doping in Sport:
A Risk or a Protective Factor? Montreal: WADA.
Donahue, E. G., P. Miquelon, P. Valois, C. Goulet, A. Buist, and R. J. Vallerand. 2006. “A Motivational
Model of Performance-enhancing Substance Use in Elite Athletes.” Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology 28 (4): 511–520.
Donovan, R. J., G. Egger, V. Kapernick, and J. Mendoza. 2002. A Conceptual Framework for Achieving
Performance Enhancing Drug Compliance in Sport. Sports Medicine, 32 (4): 269–284.
Engelberg, T., and S. Moston. 2015. Publication Trends in the Social Science Literature on Doping
in Sport (2000–2014). Report. Cairns: James Cook University.
Engelberg, T., S. Moston, B. Hutchinson, and J. Skinner. 2014. Review of Social Science Anti-doping
Literature and Recommendations for Action. Gold Coast: Grith University.
Engelberg, T., S. Moston, and J. Skinner. 2015. “e Final Frontier of Anti-doping: A Study of
Athletes Who Have Committed Doping Violations.” Sport Management Review 18 (2): 268–279.
doi:10.1016/j.smr.2014.06.005.
Engelberg, T., J. Skinner, and D. Zakus. 2014. “What Does Commitment Mean to Volunteers in
Youth Sport Organizations?” Sport in Society 17 (1): 52–67. doi:10.1080/17430437.2013.828900.
Erdman, K. A., T. S. Fung, P. K. Doyle-Baker, M. J. Verhoef, and R. A. Reimer. 2007. “Dietary
Supplementation of High-performance Canadian Athletes by Age and Gender.” Clinical Journal
of Sport Medicine 17 (6): 458–464.
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
14 T. ENGELBERG AND S. MOSTON
Fjeldheim, T. B. 1992. “Sports Instructors and Sports Leaders: Attitudes toward Doping in Sports.”
Collegium Anthropoligicum 16 (2): 343–348.
Fung, L., and Y. Yuan. 2006. “Performance Enhancement Drugs: Knowledge, Attitude and
Intended Behavior among Community Coaches in Hong Kong”. e Sport Journal, 9 (3). http://
thesportjournal.org/article/tag/volume_3_number_1/page/10/.
Golshanraz, A., L. Same-Siahkalroodi, and L. Poor-Kazem. 2013. “Doping and Supplement: e
Attitude of Iranian National Team Coaches.” British Journal of Sports Medicine 47 (10): e3.
Gucciardi, D. F., G. Jalleh, and R. J. Donovan. 2010. “Does Social Desirability Inuence the Relationship
between Doping Attitudes and Doping Susceptibility in Athletes?” Psychology of Sport and Exercise
11 (6): 479–486. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.06.002.
Hauw, D., and M. McNamee. 2014. “A Critical Analysis of ree Psychological Research Programs
of Doping Behaviour”. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 16 (2): 140–148. doi:10.1016/j.
psychsport.2014.03.010.
Henne, K., B. Koh, and V. McDermott. 2013. “Coherence of Drug Policy in Sports: Illicit Inclusions
and Illegal Inconsistencies.” Performance Enhancement & Health 2 (2): 48–55. doi:10.1016/j.
peh.2013.05.003.
Judge, L. W., D. Bellar, J. Petersen, E. Gilreath, and E. Wanless. 2010. “Taking Strides toward
Prevention-based Deterrence: USATF Coaches Perceptions of PED Use and Drug Testing.” Journal
of Coaching Education 3 (3): 56–71.
Kim, J., S. K. Kang, H. S. Jung, Y. S. Chun, J. Trilk, and S. H. Jung. 2011. “Dietary Supplementation
Patterns of Korean Olympic Athletes Participating in the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympic Games.”
International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism 21 (2): 166–174.
Kirkwood, K. 2012. “Defensive Doping: Is ere a Moral Justication for ‘If You Can’t Beat ‘Em—Join
Em?’.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 36 (2): 223–228. doi:10.1177/0193723512437350.
Laure, P., F. ouvenin, and T. Lecerf. 2001. “Attitudes of Coaches towards Doping.” e Journal of
Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 41 (1): 132–136.
Malcolm, D., and I. Waddington. 2008. “‘No Systematic Doping in Football’: A Critical Review.”
Soccer & Society 9 (2): 198–214.
Mendoza, J. 2002. “e War on Drugs in Sport: A Perspective from the Front-line.” Clinical Journal
of Sport Medicine 12 (4): 254–258. doi:10.1097/01.jsm.0000022724.57614.f2.
Moran, A., S. Guerin, K. Kirby, and T. MacIntyre. 2008. e Development and Validation of a Doping
Attitudes and Behaviour Scale. Ulster: University of Ulster.
Morente-Sánchez, J., and M. Zabala. 2013. “Doping in Sport: A Review of Elite Athletes’ Attitudes,
Beliefs, and Knowledge.” Sports Medicine 43 (6): 395–411. doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0037-x.
Morgan, D. L., and R. A. Krueger. 1993. “When to Use Focus Groups and Why.” In Successful Focus
Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, edited by D. L. Morgan, 3–19. London: Sage.
Moston, S., T. Engelberg, and J. Skinner. 2014. “Athletes’ and Coaches’ Perceptions of Deterrents to
Performance Enhancing Drug Use”. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, forthcoming.
doi:10.1080/19406940.2014.936960.
Moston, S., T. Engelberg, and J. Skinner. 2015a. “Perceived Incidence of Drug Use in Australian
Sport: A Survey of Athletes and Coaches.” Sport in Society 18 (1): 91–105. doi:10.1080/1743043
7.2014.927867.
Moston, S., T. Engelberg, and J. Skinner. 2015b. “Self-fullling Prophecy and the Future of Doping.”
Psychology of Sport and Exercise 16 (2): 201–207. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.02.004.
Ntoumanis, N., Y. Johan, Y. Ng, V. Barkoukis, and S. H. Backhouse. 2014. “Personal and Psychosocial
Predictors of Doping Use in Physical Activity Settings: A Meta-analysis.” Sports Medicine 44 (11):
1603–1624. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0240-4.
Ohl, F., B. Fincoeur, V. Lentillon-Kaestner, J. Defrance, and C. Brissonneau. 2013. “e Socialization
of Young Cyclists and the Culture of Doping.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport.
doi:10.1177/1012690213495534.
Overbye, M., M. L. Knudsen, and G. Pster. 2013. “To Dope or Not to Dope: Elite Athletes’ Perceptions
of Doping Deterrents and Incentives.” Performance Enhancement & Health 2 (3): 119–134.
doi:10.1016/j.peh.2013.07.001.
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
SPORT IN SOCIETY 15
Pedersen, I. K. 2010. “Doping and the Perfect Body Expert: Social and Cultural Indicators
of Performance-enhancing Drug Use in Danish Gyms.” Sport in Society 13 (3): 503–516.
doi:10.1080/17430431003588184.
Peters, C., T. Schulz, R. Oberhoer, and H. Michna. 2009. “Doping and Doping Prevention: Knowledge,
Attitudes and Expectations of Athletes and Coaches.” Deutsche Zeitschri Fur Sportmedizin 60 (3):
73–78.
Peters, C., P. J. Selg, T. Schulz, H. Pabst, and H. Michna. 2007. “Doping from the Sports Physicians’
Point of View: Experiences from German Team Physicians and Bavarian Sports Physicians.”
Deutsche Zeitschri Fur Sportmedizin 58 (6): 160–177.
Pitsch, W., and E. Emrich. 2011. “e Frequency of Doping in Elite Sport: Results of a Replication Study.”
International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47 (5): 559–580. doi:10.1177/1012690211413969.
Pitsch, W., E. Emrich, and M. Klein. 2007. “Doping in Elite Sports in Germany: Results of a www
Survey.” European Journal for Sport and Society 4 (2): 89–102.
Probert, A., and S. Leberman. 2009. “e Value of the Dark Side: An Insight into the Risks and Benets
of Engaging in Health-compromising Practices from the Perspective of Competitive Bodybuilders.”
European Sport Management Quarterly 9 (4): 353–373. doi:10.1080/16184740903331838.
Ritchie, J., L. Spencer, and W. O’Connor. 2003. “Carrying out Qualitative Analysis.” In Qualitative
Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, edited by J. Ritchie and J.
Lewis, 219–262. London: Sage.
Robinson, S. 2007. “Drugs in Sport: A Cure Worse than the Disease? A Commentary.” International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 2 (4): 363–368. doi:10.1260/174795407783359713.
Rushall, B. S., and M. Jones. 2007. “Drugs in Sport: A Cure Worse than the Disease?” International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 2 (4): 335–361. doi:10.1260/174795407783359722.
Scarpino, V., A. Arrigo, G. Benzi, S. Garattini, C. La Vecchia, L. R. Bernadi, G. Silvestrni, and G.
Tuccimei. 1990. “Evaluation of Prevalence of “Doping” among Italian Athletes.” e Lancet 336:
1048–1050.
Shields, D. L., and B. L. Bredemeier. 2007. “Can Sports Build Character?” In Essential Readings
in Sport and Exercise Psychology, edited by D. Smith and M. Bar-Eli, 423–432. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Smith, A., B. Stewart, S. Oliver-Bennetts, S. McDonald, L. Ingerson, A. Anderson, … Geo Dickson.
2010. “Contextual Inuences and Athlete Attitudes to Drugs in Sport.” Sport Management Review
13 (3): 181–197.
Stewart, B., and A. Smith. 2010. “Player and Athlete Attitudes to Drugs in Australian Sport:
Implications for Policy Development.” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 2 (1): 65–84.
doi:10.1080/19406941003634040.
Stewart, B., and A. Smith. 2014. Rethinking Drug Use in Sport: Why the War Will Never Be Won.
London: Routledge.
Sullivan, P. J., D. L. Feltz, K. LaForge-MacKenzie, and S. Hwang. 2015. “e Preliminary Development
and Validation of the Doping Confrontation Ecacy Scale.” Psychology of Sport and Exercise 16
(2): 182–190. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.04.011.
WADA. 2003. World Anti-doping Code. Montreal: WADA. http://www.wada-ama.org.
WADA. 2009. World Anti-doping Code. Montreal: WADA. http://www.wada-ama.org/.
WADA. 2015. World Anti-doping Code 2015. Montreal: WADA. http://www.wada-ama.org/.
Waddington, I., D. Malcolm, M. Roderick, and R. Naik. 2005. “Drug Use in English Professional
Football.” British Journal of Sports Medicine 39 (4): e18. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2004.012468.
Downloaded by [JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY] at 19:53 23 October 2015
