Inside athletes' minds: Preliminary results from a pilot study on mental representation of doping and potential implications for anti-doping

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite the growing body of literature and putative links between the use of ergogenic nutritional supplements, doping and illicit drugs, it remains unclear whether, in athletes' minds, doping aligns with illicit behaviour or with functional use of chemical or natural preparations. To date, no attempt has been made to quantitatively explore athletes' mental representation of doping in relation to illegality and functionality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A convenience sample of student athletes from a large South-Eastern Australian university responded to an on-line survey. Competitive athletes (n = 46) were grouped based on self-reported use as follows: i) none used (30%), ii) supplement only (22%), iii) illicit only (26%) and iv) both supplements and illicit drug use (22%). Whereas no athlete reported doping, data provided on projected supplement-, doping- and drug use by the four user groups allowed evaluation of doping-related cognition in the context of self-reported supplement- and illicit drug taking behaviour; and comparison between these substances.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A significantly higher prevalence estimation was found for illicit drug use and a trend towards a biased social projection emerged for supplement use. Doping estimates by user groups showed mixed results, suggesting that doping had more in common with the ergogenic nutritional supplement domain than the illicit drug domain.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Assessing the behavioural domain to which doping belongs to in athletes' mind would greatly advance doping behaviour research toward prevention and intervention. Further investigation refining the peculiarity of the mental representation of doping with a larger study sample, controlling for knowledge of doping and other factors, is warranted.</p

Neurostimulation, doping, and the spirit of sport

There is increasing interest in using neuro-stimulation devices to achieve an ergogenic effect in elite athletes. Although the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) does not currently prohibit neuro-stimulation techniques, a number of researchers have called on WADA to consider its position on this issue. Focusing on trans-cranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) as a case study of an imminent so-called ‘neuro-doping’ intervention, we argue that the emerging evidence suggests that tDCS may meet WADA’s own criteria (pertaining to safety, performance-enhancing effect, and incompatibility with the ‘spirit of sport’) for a method’s inclusion on its list of prohibited substances and methods. We begin by surveying WADA’s general approach to doping, and highlight important limitations to the current evidence base regarding the performance-enhancing effect of pharmacological doping substances. We then review the current evidence base for the safety and efficacy of tDCS, and argue that despite significant shortcomings, it may be sufficient for WADA to consider prohibiting tDCS, in light of the comparable flaws in the evidence base for pharmacological doping substances. In the second half of the paper, we argue that the question of whether WADA ought to ban tDCS turns significantly on the question of whether it is compatible with the ‘spirit of sport’ criterion. We critique some of the previously published positions on this, and advocate our own sport-specific and application-specific approach. Despite these arguments, we finally conclude by suggesting that tDCS ought to be monitored rather than prohibited due to compelling non-ideal considerations

The Goldman Dilemma is dead: what elite athletes really think about doping, winning, and death

In the 1980s and 1990s, Goldman’s eponymous ‘Dilemma’ asked if athleteswould take a substance that guaranteed sporting glory but killedthem in 5 years. The 50% acceptance rate was widely reported asevidence supporting the need for anti-doping policy. Evidence fromathletes surveyed in 2011 showed only 1% acceptance. To explore whysuch striking variation exists, and its implications for policy, this studyinvestigated both the validity and reliability of the original Dilemma andhow early twenty-first century elite athletes interpret and understand theDilemma. The reporting of the original Dilemma demonstrated a lack ofscientific rigour, which raises questions about the Dilemma’s status asvalid and reliable evidence to inform sports drug control policy.Cognitive interviews with a sample of 30 athletes (30 athletes; 14 female;19 international; age 22.17 ± 2.13) revealed the death outcome made theDilemma implausible; it was too absolute an outcome given athletes’non-sporting aspirations (e.g. marriage and parenthood). The idea that asubstance could be undetectable and guarantee sporting success wasalso considered implausible. Athlete conflation of performance enhancementwith illegality, immorality and negative health outcomes furtherundermined perceived plausibility. Thus, the athletes in the sampleconsidered the Dilemma largely implausible. As a consequence of thequestionable scientific basis of the original, and the implausibility of theDilemma to early twenty-first century athletes, the oft-cited 50% acceptancerate is of historical interest only and no longer relevant to drugcontrol policy debate in sport

Substance use to enhance academic performance among Australian university students

Use of substances to enhance academic performance among university students has prompted calls for evidence to inform education and public health policy. Little is known about this form of drug use by university students outside the US. A convenience sample of n= 1729 Australian university students across four universities responded to an exploratory on-line survey. Students were asked about their lifetime use of modafinil, prescription stimulants (e.g. methylphenidate), supplements (e.g. ginkgo biloba), illicit drugs (e.g. speed), relaxants (e.g. valium) and caffeine in relation to enhancing study performance. The results show that Australian students report using substances for study purposes at a higher lifetime rate than observed among US or German students. The main reasons for use were to improve focus and attention, and to stay awake. Use of substances to enhance study outcomes was correlated with faculty of study, attitude and use of other substances. These results point to the need to develop Australian evidence to guide policy or regulatory responses to student use of substances to enhance academic performance. &copy; 2013 Elsevier Ltd