Doping in sport: an analysis of sanctioned UK rugby union players between 2009 and 2015

Abstract

To inform anti-doping policy and practice, it is important to understand the complexities of doping. The purpose of this study was to collate and systematically examine the reasoned decisions published by UK Anti-Doping for doping sanctions in rugby union in the UK since the introduction of the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code. Case files were content analysed to extract demographic information and details relating to the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), including individuals' explanations for how/why the ADRV occurred. Between 2009 and 2015, 49 rugby union players and one coach from across the UK were sanctioned. Over 50% of the cases involved players under the age of 25, competing at sub-elite levels. Reasons in defence of the ADRV focused on functional use and lifestyle factors rather than performance enhancement. An a priori assessment of the "need", "risk" and "consequence" of using a substance was not commonplace; further strengthening calls for increasing the reach of anti-doping education. The findings also deconstruct the view that "doped" athletes are the same. Consequently, deepening understanding of the social and cultural conditions that encourage doping remains a priority.

Full text

Doping in sport: An analysis of sanctioned UK rugby union players between 2009 and
2015
L. Whitaker & S. Backhouse
Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
RUNNING HEAD: AN ANALYSIS OF SANCTIONED UK RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
Author Note
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr Lisa Whitaker,
Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Leeds Beckett University, Headingley
Campus, Leeds, LS6 3QS, UK.
Telephone number: +44 (0)113 812 8651
Email address: L.A.Whitaker@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
Additional author contact details:
Professor Susan Backhouse: S.Backhouse@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
Telephone number: +44 (0)113 812 4684
Key words: anti-doping; WADA; anti-doping rule violations; rugby union

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
1
Abstract
To inform anti-doping policy and practice, it is important to understand the
complexities of doping. The purpose of this study was to collate and systematically
examine the reasoned decisions published by UK Anti-Doping for doping sanctions in
rugby union in the UK since the introduction of the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code.
Case files were content analysed to extract demographic information and details
relating to the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), including individuals’ explanations
for how/why the ADRV occurred. Between 2009 and 2015, 49 rugby union players
and one coach from across the UK were sanctioned. Over 50% of the cases involved
players under the age of 25, competing at sub-elite levels. Reasons in defence of the
ADRV focused on functional use and lifestyle factors rather than performance
enhancement. An a priori assessment of the ‘need’, ‘risk’ and ‘consequence’ of using
a substance was not commonplace; further strengthening calls for increasing the
reach of anti-doping education. The findings also deconstruct the view that ‘doped’
athletes are the same. Consequently, deepening understanding of the social and
cultural conditions that encourage doping remains a priority.
Key words: anti-doping; WADA; anti-doping rule violations; rugby union

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
2
Introduction
Media headlines highlight that doping is omnipresent in sport, yet fail to
convey the complexities of the behaviour, which can perpetuate a naïve belief that
all ‘doped’ athletes are the same (Pluim, 2008). The World Anti-Doping Agency
(WADA) define doping as “the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule
violations (ADRVs) set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.10 of the Code” (World
Anti-Doping Agency, 2015, p. 18). Taken together, the ten ADRV’s define a spectrum
of behaviours, ranging from the presence of a prohibited substance (or its
metabolites or markers) in an athlete’s sample (Article 2.1) to associating with any
athlete support personnel (e.g., coach, doctor, physiotherapist) who are serving an
ADRV or have been found guilty of a criminal or disciplinary offence that is
equivalent to an ADRV (Prohibited Association, Article 2.10). Moreover, because the
WADA enforces strict liability under Article 2.1 and 2.2 of the Code (World Anti-
Doping Agency, 2015; p.141), an ADRV can be established without an Anti-Doping
Organisation having to demonstrate “intent, Fault, negligence or knowing Use on the
Athlete’s part”. This cornerstone of the Code further extends the potential for
heterogeneity across doping cases.
These points notwithstanding, there is still a tendency to label athletes who
commit an ADRV as a ‘doper’ regardless of the context and circumstances leading to
that ADRV. For example, an athlete who unintentionally and unknowingly consumes
a banned substance by ingesting a nutritional supplement is often labelled a ‘doper’
in the same way as an athlete who has deliberately used an anabolic steroid to gain
an unfair advantage over others. Yet while both cases violate the anti-doping rules,
the former would not constitute ‘cheating’ as the athlete in question was not

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
3
intentionally seeking to gain an unfair advantage over others. Extending the
argument further, an athlete who deliberately uses a banned substance might not
be driven by a desire to outperform others in a sporting context. Instead, they may
be using chemical assistance to recover from injury, cope with stress and return to
play. In this instance use is defined by functionality rather than performance
enhancement (Petróczi, 2013). Indeed, many ADRVs do not involve individuals who
are deliberately trying to gain an unfair advantage over others - some involve the use
of recreational drugs or mistakenly ingesting a prohibited substance via medication
or nutritional supplements (Henning & Dimeo, 2015; Pluim, 2008). However, the
‘doper’ label still pervades. Consequently, there is a pressing need for research to
carefully deconstruct the ‘cheating narrative’ (Tamburrini, 2006) so that anti-doping
policy and practice can evolve as an evidence-based field.
One of the reasons for labelling athletes who commit an ADRV as ‘dopers’
might be associated with research traditions in the field. Typically, studies examine
the antecedents of prohibited substance use. With use and intention to use
prohibited substances driving the research agenda, a number of ‘critical incidents’
that could lead to doping have emerged. These include career transitions (Kirby,
Moran, & Guerin, 2011; Lentillon-Kaestner & Carstairs, 2010; Mazanov, Huybers, &
Connor, 2011), suffering an injury (Bloodworth & McNamee, 2010; Kirby, et al.,
2011; Whitaker, Long, Petróczi, & Backhouse, 2014), a desire to maintain current
standard of living (Bloodworth & McNamee, 2010) and experiencing a series of poor
performances (Kirby, et al., 2011) being identified. However, these critical incidents
are defined by the consumption of a substance included on the Prohibited List (the
list is updated annually by the WADA and contains information on any substance or

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
4
method that is prohibited at all times or in-competition only) (World Anti-Doping
Agency, 2016) and thus only apply to two of the 10 ADRVs. Yet if we are to
understand how/why individuals fail to comply with anti-doping policy, it is
important to deepen our understanding of the nature of the behaviour to be
changed (Michie, van Stralen, & West, 2011). In order to do so, we need to
investigate all the behaviours that constitute doping under the Code. This shift in
focus would also reflect policy changes brought into the 2015 WADA Code which
hold athlete support personnel (ASP) more accountable for their role in doping. It is
worth emphasising that not all ADRVs are committed by athletes. Infact, six of the 10
ADRVs also apply to ASP.
The sensitive and taboo nature of doping in sport presents real challenges for
furthering our understanding of this behaviour in context as it can be difficult to
recruit ‘dopers’ to participate in research. However, in fulfilling their policy
prescribed obligations, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) publicly discloses the details of all the
hearings leading to a period of ineligibility. This source of information allows us to
explore the self-declared reasons for committing an ADRV within each case.
Although, it is important to be aware that these self-declared reasons may have
been derived by individuals (and their legal team) in an attempt to reduce a sanction
and thus may not be completely truthful, they do provide a unique opportunity to
extend our understanding of the complexity of doping in sport. Responding directly
to calls for research to be sport-specific (Mohamed, Bilard, & Hauw, 2013), the
objective of this study was to examine the reasoned decisions for individuals serving
a period of ineligibility from the sport of rugby union in the UK since the 2009 Code
came into effect. The decision to focus on rugby union was taken due to the

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
5
exponential increase in the number of individuals from rugby union within the UK
serving a ban for committing an ADRV (UK Anti-Doping, 2015). In addition, the
majority of those serving a period of ineligibility within rugby union have been
emerging from amateur level competition (UK Anti-Doping, 2015) where external
rewards are limited and the disseminated drivers for doping in sport (e.g., sport
sponsorship, financial rewards, contract renewal; Mazanov, et al., 2011; Whitaker, et
al., 2014) may not apply.
Methods
Following ethical approval from the University Research Ethics Committee,
this research adopts a case study approach focusing specifically on rugby union and
utilising sources available in the public domain only. In the UK, details of individuals
who have committed an ADRV and are serving a period of ineligibility are published
on the UKAD website with the exception of cases managed elsewhere (e.g., by World
Rugby). PDF files relating to each sanctioned case occurring between 2009 and 2015
were collected from the websites of UKAD, Rugby Football Union (RFU) or World
Rugby. We reviewed cases from 2009 onwards because those cases were subject to
the implementation of the second World Anti-Doping Code published in January
2009. Content analysis was then used to extract the following information from each
case: 1) player age, 2) playing level, 3) geographical location of the club being
represented, 4) violation committed, 5) period of ineligibility and 7) the individuals’
explanation recorded at the panel hearing. It should be noted that the amount of
information included in each case varies and where an individual did not contend the
ADRV, no information was provided to explain how/why the ADRV occurred. Equally,

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
6
some cases omitted demographic information (e.g., age or playing level at the time
of receiving the ADRV). Therefore, in a bid to obtain the missing data we also
conducted web searches using Google to identify media stories relating to each
player identified as currently serving (or having previously served) a sanction.
The information presented in this paper conveys the detail provided about
each case that is freely available in the public domain. Thus, we cannot be sure that
the cases represent the ‘truth’. For example, explanations provided by individuals
regarding how/why the ADRV could have occurred may not be accurate as the
accused may have offered an alternative explanation in an attempt to
change/reduce their sanction. Yet if individuals’ accounts have been constructed in
an attempt to influence sanctions imposed, this information can inform policymakers
about how successful (or unsuccessful) defence teams are in securing reduced
sanctions or indeed whether the anti-doping regulations are understood. Equally, it
is not possible to provide in-depth information about the circumstances surrounding
each case by analysing case reports alone because the reasoned decisions provide
insufficient information to do so. However, collating and analysing the available
information allows us to systematically review the sanction landscape of rugby union
and explore any patterns that may emerge between cases. Growing numbers of
ADRV’s associated with rugby union in the UK underscore the need to develop our
understanding of the circumstances leading to an ADRV so that we can tailor anti-
doping policy and practice accordingly. In turn, this evidence-based approach is
more likely to reduce the number of players committing ADRV’s as the behavioural
diagnosis will enable tailored intervention functions to emerge (Michie, et al., 2011).

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
7
Findings
In total, 50 male rugby union players received sanctions between 2009 and
2015 (2009, n= 1; 2010, n= 2; 2011, n= 4; 2012, n= 7; 2013 n= 13, 2014 n= 13, 2015
n= 10). However, in their 2014-2015 Anti-Doping report (Rugby Football Union,
2015), the RFU reported a further four cases were on-going and therefore could not
be commented on at the time of publication. Therefore, the number of sanctions
between 2009 and 2015 may increase from 50. Figure 1 highlights the geographical
distribution of the sanctioned cases and demonstrates the clustering of cases,
particularly in Wales. The age of players/coach at the time of receiving their sanction
ranged from under 18 to 38, with the majority being under 25 (Table 1).
-Insert figure 1 here-
-Insert table 1 here-
Playing level
Players received their sanctions whilst competing at a range of levels within
the English, Scottish and Welsh rugby union systems (Table 2). However, based on
the information presented it appears the majority of sanctioned players were
competing in lower leagues.
-Insert table 2 here-
ADRV committed

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
8
Thirty four players were sanctioned for the presence of a prohibited
substance (analytical finding) while 10 were sanctioned for use or attempted use of a
prohibited substance (non-analytical finding). Of those that were sanctioned for use
or attempted use, three were brought to hearing after ordering human growth
hormone or steroids online, five were found with needles and/or a prohibited
substance in their possession and two were uncovered by club coaches. Moreover,
three individuals were sanctioned for possession and trafficking, whilst three players
were sanctioned for refusing and failing to comply with testing procedures.
Substance(s) and length of sanction
Players were sanctioned for the presence of or attempted use of three
different types of drug; anabolic agents (n= 27), stimulants (n= 15) and hormone and
metabolic modulators (n= 6). Typically, individuals received standard bans for these
ADRVs: two year bans (n= 30) under the 2009 WADA Code and four year bans (n= 6)
after the introduction of the 2015 WADA Code (2015). However, if certain conditions
are met, it is possible for individuals to receive a ban reduction or suspension (as
detailed in Article 10 of the Code; World Anti-Doping Agency, 2015). In relation to
the presence of or attempted use of a prohibited substance, an individual can receive
a ban reduction or suspension if they can: 1) prove unintentional use, 2) prove no
significant fault or negligence (e.g., following use of a specified substance), 3)
provide substantial assistance in discovering/establishing other ADRVs or 4) make a
prompt admission of the ADRV.
Four adolescents received reduced bans: three following immediate
admissions (15 or 21 months) and one for unintentional use due to his dyslexia and

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
9
dyspraxia (2 years). Six individuals received reduced bans (between 3 and 6 months)
due to the presence of a specified substance (e.g., methylhexanaemine) and one
player received a one-year ban for exceptional mitigating circumstances following
the presence of benzoylecgonine (cocaine metabolite). In contrast, it is also possible
for individuals to receive lengthier bans for committing multiple ADRVs or for
committing more serious ADRVs (e.g., trafficking or administration of a prohibited
substance). Under the 2009 WADA Code, two players received increased bans (3
years or 3 years and 3 months) for the use of multiple anabolic agents and the
purchase of human growth hormone for personal use and family member supply. In
addition, two individuals received eight year bans for trafficking and possession of
anabolic agents where typical bans range from four years to lifetime ineligibility
depending on the severity of the ADRV (Table 3).
-Insert table 3 here-
Self-declared ADRV explanations
The explanatory information documented in each reasoned decision varied
considerably across those players contesting the charges. Further, there was no case
report available for three individuals and eight individuals chose not to contest the
charge, so their case did not go to a hearing. Consequently, these 11 cases were
precluded from further analysis.
Three cases involved trafficking and three involved refusing to provide a
sample. Explanations for the latter ADRV’s included one player with two failed
attempts at sample collection terminating the test due to a university exam and the

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
10
other players not submitting to doping control (stating work commitments/the use
of painkillers for back pain resulting in urinary retention in their reasoning). In
addition, one case involved the online purchase of human growth hormone for
personal use and supplying to a family member, while another involved the online
purchase of testosterone for bodybuilding purposes after quitting rugby due to
injury. The focus of the subsequent analysis will be on the 31 cases which provided
at least basic details on individuals’ explanations for how/why the ADRV occurred.
Through analysing the cases, it was possible to group them into five themes
with some cases overlapping more than one theme. The first four themes involved
use of a substance 1) to enhance recovery from injury, 2) to cope with work and
sports demands, 3) to aid weight management and 4) for personal reasons. The final
theme centred around the naïve use of nutritional supplements.
Enhance recovery from injury. Eight cases involved players who declared that
they had used a substance to help them to recover from an injury. Six of the players
were aware that the substance they were using was prohibited in rugby. However,
the other two players believed they were using permitted supplements that were
‘safe’ and did not contain a prohibited substance. One player claimed that he always
conducted research before using supplements and therefore believed that he tested
positive due to contamination of the product he was using during the manufacturing
process. In comparison, the other player conducted research after finding out he
had tested positive. This post-hoc research revealed he was using a product that
contained prohibited prohormones.
Cope with work and training demands. Three of the cases involved players
who were managing the dual-responsibilities of demanding occupational roles and

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
11
rugby playing commitments. Two of the individuals reported that they were
struggling to deal with the work and training demands placed on them and therefore
were becoming very fatigued. The other player testified that his occupational role
was being compromised because he had been asked to step in for the first team and
he found it difficult to cope with the increased training and competition demands at
that level. All three players reported that in order to fulfil their work and training
demands, they used nutritional supplements to reduce fatigue and enhance
recovery from training. Their explanations focused on being able to carry out their
jobs rather than enhance their rugby performance. According to the reasoned
decisions, none of the players were aware that the nutritional supplement they were
taking contained a prohibited substance. All three cases reported that players had
received little, if any, anti-doping education.
Weight management. Eight cases purportedly involved the use of a substance
for weight management purposes with three players looking to aid weight loss/burn
fat and four players looking to increase in size. Three of the cases relating to
increasing in size involved adolescent players who stated that they felt under
pressure to bulk up for rugby. In comparison, three of the cases relating to weight
reduction were for vanity reasons. Six players admitted that they knew the
substance they were using for weight management was prohibited for rugby. One
player said he only found this out though after he had undertaken a drugs test,
which prompted him to research the substance. It is unknown whether five of the
players had ever received anti-doping education but in three of the cases, it was
specifically reported at the hearing that no education had been received.

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
12
Personal reasons. Nine cases involved the use of a substance for personal
reasons that were not directly associated with playing rugby union. Two players
reported taking substances to deal with sexual dysfunction (one player reported
taking Klomen to help enhance his sex drive while another reported taking a number
of products including Test Propate to treat erectile dysfunction). A third player
reported using Anti-Esto to ameliorate the symptoms of gynaecomastia while
another player reasoned he had used some tablets given to him from a friend at a
time where he was feeling extremely low and vulnerable. Five players had used
cocaine, with four reporting use on a night out when they were not due to be
playing rugby. However, they stated that they received a last minute call to play the
following day. One player reported using cocaine once to deal with his personal
problems at the time.
Naïve use of nutritional supplements. Six cases involved players who had been
seemingly naïve and careless when using nutritional supplements. A professional
player stated he mistakenly drank from a bottle he believed to contain only water
but in fact contained Anabolic Nitro. This product was supplied to the club through a
sponsorship deal and consequently, six players were using the supplement. The club
briefly withdrew supply in 2010 following two positive cases in South Africa, but
reinstated supply in 2011. Following the player’s ADRV, his club requested Anabolic
Nitro to be tested for the stimulant methylhexanaemine and analysis confirmed the
presence of the specified substance in the batch. This case underscores the need to
follow risk minimisation protocols in order to prevent inadvertent doping and
safeguard players. The other five ADRV cases reported here involved players who
consciously chose to ingest the supplement that led to their ADRV. Two players did

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
13
not do any checks before ingesting Xtreme Mass and Jack3d. In addition, one player
reportedly did some basic checks before using Unstoppable but believed it was safe
because his team mates were using it. Two of these cases stated that the players had
not received any anti-doping education but while one was an inexperienced
adolescent player, the other was an experienced semi-professional who said he was
an ‘advocate for drug-free sport’. In the other cases, financial constraints led a
student to reduce his checks when using a housemates’ protein supplement, while
the final player was aware of the need to use batch-tested supplements, but
temporary retirement led to a drop in standards and the purchase of non-batch
tested products. An ADRV was subsequently recorded following doping control at an
international match.
Discussion
Between 2009 and 2015, 49 rugby union players (two of which were also
ASP) and one coach were sanctioned for committing an ADRV. Of the 10 ADRVs set
out by the WADA, five were present in the 50 rugby union cases. Nevertheless, over
50% of the cases involved players under the age of 25, competing at sub-elite levels
and sanctioned for the ADRV’s involving the presence of a prohibited substance or
the use or attempted use of a prohibited substance. Commonplace across the cases
reviewed was a lack of awareness of the consequences of using the substance at the
point of ingestion, often due to the failure of players to do the necessary checks to
determine the associated risk of using a particular substance. As the concept of strict
liability defines current anti-doping policy and practice, it is vital that players become
habituated in ‘assessing the need, assessing the risk, and assessing the

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
14
consequences’ of using a substance a priori. This is particularly important for young
amateur players who may become reliant on chemical assistance and this could
serve as a gateway to the use of prohited substances (Backhouse, Whitaker, &
Petróczi, 2013; Ntoumanis, Ng, Barkoukis, & Backhouse, 2014; Petróczi, 2013).
Equally, the use of chemical assistance could compromise a users health and well-
being in the short, medium and long-term.
Explanations provided for using a substance were rarely associated with
attempts to outperform others or for the purpose of rugby performance
enhancement. Rather, defences built around functional use dominated, alongside
lifestyle factors. In nine of the 31 cases analysed in depth, individuals admitted to
knowing they were using a prohibited substance and their reasons included recovery
from injury and/or for weight management. Similarly, eight cases provided
explanations involving the functional use of nutritional supplements (three for
weight control, three for combatting fatigue and two for injury recovery) rather than
to gain an unfair advantage over others. These findings give weight to the proposal
that doping is a functional behaviour (Petróczi, 2013), driven by a desire to (1)
maximise personal athletic competence (2) cope with stress or (3) optimise physical
appearance. The explanations offered in the reasoned decisions provide insight into
how/why an ADRV may have occurred. With this knowledge, ASP could aid doping
prevention by creating supportive environments that foster positive behaviours to
help athletes deal with periods of instability. For example, providing players with
functional alternatives (e.g., individualised nutrition plans based on a food first
approach and strength training programmes) may prevent young players from
habitually using chemical assistance in order to achieve a ‘quick fix’.

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
15
Previous research analysing athletes’ defences against doping accusations
found that there were three general explanations offered: 1) imputed culpability
(crediting the ADRV to other people or circumstances, e.g., result of misinformation,
unwitting mistakes or personal hardship), 2) performance repentance (accepting
responsibility for actions and repenting whilst seeking empathy, e.g., acknowledge
ADRV but use lack of education as a reason for non-compliance) and 3) virility
defence (deny doping allegations on the basis they don’t need to dope to excel;
Henne, 2016). There are similarities between Henne’s (2016) research and the
present study in that imputed culpability and performance repentance are two
approaches evident within the reasoned decisions of the UK rugby union players. In
particular, cases are built on the contextual factors behind the sanction with the
majority of the reasoned decisions pleading innocence in some way (e.g., the use of
a contaminated supplement, lack of anti-doping education). Yet current policy
enforces strict liability and therefore being unaware that an action constitutes an
ADRV is often disregarded as a reason to reduce sanctions. In addition, strict liability
forces a focus on the individual athlete (holding them culpable and responsible for
what is in their body) whilst ignoring broader social relations (e.g., social and cultural
conditions that encourage doping). Thus negligence from clubs for example who fail
to protect their players from doping (e.g., through the delivery of education) is
ignored.
Within the 31 reasoned decisions that provided at least basic details on
how/why the ADRV occurred, one third declared that they had never received anti-
doping education. If an individual has not received education and therefore lacks
sufficient knowledge to enable them to fully comply with anti-doping regulations, it

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
16
could be deemed as unfair for them to be sanctioned. However, strict liability
disregards this as an individual does not have to have intent to commit an ADRV.
Therefore, national governing bodies and clubs should have a responsibility to
ensure that their athletes (and ASP) are fully informed of anti-doping regulations so
that they are able to comply. Compulsory education delivered within rugby clubs
supported by the rugby union national governing bodies could be one way of
ensuring that players and ASP are not uninformed about anti-doping regulations. In
turn, this may lessen the potential for a lack of education and unwitting mistakes to
be used in defence of ADRVs and increase the confidence of the anti-doping panels
to challenge these claims.
Given that three of the cases involved ASP and one involved a possible future
ASP (sport and exercise science student), it is important that individuals are
cognisant of the implications of serving a period of ineligibility for their short- and
long-term sporting and career ambitions. The ASP who received sanctions were not
only prevented from playing rugby union, but also experienced detrimental effects
on their career (e.g., loss of job) because their sanction inhibits them from working
in a sport environment. Since the introduction of the 2015 WADA Code (World Anti-
Doping Agency, 2015) and the inclusion of complicity and in particular prohibited
association as ADRVs, it is essential that individuals are knowledgeable of anti-doping
to protect themselves from committing an ADRV and risking their own career. For
example, a university student committing an ADRV - whilst training to become a
sports coach - could thwart his/her career due to prohibited association. Raising
awareness of these implications may encourage individuals to take greater care and
consideration when making behavioural choices. Previous research has indicated

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
17
that ASP are unaware of their responsibilities under the Code, leaving themselves
(and their athletes) vulnerable to committing an ADRV (Backhouse & McKenna,
2011; Backhouse & McKenna, 2012; Mazanov, Backhouse, Connor, Hemphill, &
Quirk, 2014). In recognition of the importance of developing anti-doping knowledge
and understanding amongst ASP, employees of the English Institute of Sport
undertake the UKAD advisor course to ensure they are up-to speed on all anti-
doping matters. This model of practice could be adopted by the sport governing
bodies as part of their Code of Conduct, whereby all ASP working within rugby clubs
have to undertake the UKAD advisor course as a condition of their employment.
Conclusion
Rugby union players serving a period of ineligibility for committing an ADRV
span the length and breadth of the UK, map across the participation spectrum and
provide multiple explanations for the ADRV’s committed. Taken together, the
findings underline the complex and idiosyncratic nature of doping behaviour and
highlight players aged 18-25 years as a particularly ‘at-risk’ group. Although current
anti-doping regulations do not take into account knowledge and intention when
determining that an ADRV has occurred, it is important that well-being is at the
forefront of prevention. Ensuring that athletes and ASP are fully aware of the anti-
doping regulations not only equips individuals with the ability to conform, it will also
prevent defence cases being constructed around ‘innocence’. However, it is also
necessary to gain an understanding of the social and cultural conditions behind
prohibited substance use. An over-reliance on chemical assistance, particularly at a
young age may leave players vulnerable to committing an ADRV. Therefore, a deeper

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
18
understanding of the social and cultural conditions surrounding doping behaviour is
necessary for the development of tailored interventions designed to address the
rising tide of ADRV’s in the sport of rugby union.

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
19
References
Backhouse, S. H., & McKenna, J. (2011). Doping in sport: A review of medical
practitioners' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs. International Journal of Drug Policy,
22, 198-202.
Backhouse, S. H., & McKenna, J. (2012). Reviewing coaches' knowledge, attitudes
and beliefs regarding doping in sport. International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching, 7(1), 167-175.
Backhouse, S. H., Whitaker, L., & Petróczi, A. (2013). Gateway to doping?
Supplement use in the context of preferred competitive situations, doping attitude,
beliefs, and norms. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23(2), 244-
252. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01374.x
Bloodworth, A., & McNamee, M. (2010). Clean Olympians? Doping and anti-doping:
The views of talented young British athletes. International Journal of Drug Policy,
21(4), 276-282. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.11.009
Henne, K. (2016). Defending doping: Performances and trials of an anti-doping
program. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 40(3), 175-196. doi:
10.1177/0193723515596203
Henning, A. D., & Dimeo, P. (2015). Questions of fairness and anti-doping in US
cycling: The contrasting experiences of professionals and amateurs. Drugs:
Education, Prevention and Policy, 22(5), 400-409. doi:
10.3109/09687637.2015.1029872
Kirby, K., Moran, A., & Guerin, S. (2011). A qualitative analysis of the experiences of
elite athletes who have admitted to doping for performance enhancement.
International Journal of Sport Policy, 3(2), 205-224.
Lentillon-Kaestner, V., & Carstairs, C. (2010). Doping use among young elite cyclists:
A qualitative psychosociological approach. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and
Science in Sports, 20, 336-345. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00885.x
Mazanov, J., Backhouse, S., Connor, J., Hemphill, D., & Quirk, F. (2014). Athlete
support personnel and anti-doping: Knowledge, attitudes, and ethical stance.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24, 846-856. doi:
10.1111/sms.12084
Mazanov, J., Huybers, T., & Connor, J. (2011). Qualitative evidence of a primary
intervention point for elite athlete doping. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,
14(2), 106-110. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2010.06.003
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A
new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions.
Implementation Science, 6, 42-42. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
20
Mohamed, S., A. , Bilard, J., & Hauw, D. (2013). Qualitative and Hierarchical Analysis
of Protective Factors against Illicit Use of Doping Substances in Athletes Calling a
National Anti-Doping Phone-Help Service. [Journal article]. Montenegrin Journal of
Sports Science and Medicine, 2, 21-25.
Ntoumanis, N., Ng, J. Y., Barkoukis, V., & Backhouse, S. (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
Petróczi, A. (2013). The doping mindset—Part 1: Implications of the functional use
theory on mental representations of doping. Performance Enhancement and Health,
2(4), 153-163.
Pluim, B. (2008). A doping sinner is not always a cheat. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 42(7), 549-550.
Rugby Football Union. (2015). Anti-doping programme annual report 2014-2015.
Retrieved from
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/General/General/01/31/51/98/RFUA
nti-DopingAnnualReport2014-15Final_English.pdf
Tamburrini, C. (2006). Are Doping Sanctions Justified? A Moral Relativistic View.
Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, 9(2), 199 - 211.
UK Anti-Doping. (2015). Current anti-doping rule violations. Retrieved from
http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/current-violations/
Whitaker, L., Long, J., Petróczi, A., & Backhouse, S. H. (2014). Using the prototype
willingness model to predict doping in sport. Scandinavian Journal Of Medicine &
Science In Sports, 24(25), E398-E405 doi: 10.1111/sms.12148
World Anti-Doping Agency. (2015). The World Anti-Doping Code. Retrieved from
https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-
doping-code.pdf
World Anti-Doping Agency. (2016). World Anti-Doping Code: The 2016 Prohibited
List. Retrieved from https://wada-main-
prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2016-prohibited-list-en.pdf

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
21
Figures
Figure 1: Geographical distribution of sanctioned cases (Scotland = 3, England = 27,
Wales = 20)

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
22
Tables
Table 1: Age of players at time of sanction
Age range Number of players
Under 18 5
18-25 22
26-33 10
34-41 4
42-49 0
50-57 1
Unknown 8
Total cases 50

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
23
Table 2: Level of players at time of sanction
Country Level of rugby competition Number of players
England (n= 27) Premiership/A league (1) 3/1
Championship (2) 2
National League One (3) 6
6 4
7 2
9 1
College 7
County U15-18 coach 1
Scotland (n= 3) Premiership (2) 2
5 1
Wales (n= 20) Wales development 7s (1) 1
Premiership (2) 6
Championship (3) 6
5 1
6 3
8 2
Lower levels 1

AN ANALYSIS OF UK SANCTIONED RUGBY UNION PLAYERS
24
Table 3: Class of drug and length of bans
Class of drug Length of ban
received
Number of
players*
Stimulants (e.g., methylhexanaemine,
benzoylecgonine)
3 months to 2 years 15
Hormone and metabolic modulators
(e.g., human growth hormone,
clomiphene)
2 years to 3 years 3
months
6
Anabolic agents (e.g., testosterone,
dianabol, trenbolone, clenbuterol,
drostanolone, 19-norandrosterone)
15 months to 4 years 27
*Total is greater than 44 as some players used more than one type of drug