TY - JOUR

T1 - Deterrence by risk of detection? An inquiry into how elite athletes perceive the deterrent effect of the doping testing regime in their sport

AU - Overbye, Marie Birch

N1 - CURIS 2017 NEXS 388

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Aims: A central paradigm of global anti-doping policy is detection-based deterrence, i.e. the risk of testing and exclusion from sport are effective doping deterrents. This paper investigates how elite athletes perceive the deterrent effect of the testing strategy in their sport and explores whether and how specific factors such as the frequency of testing influence athletes’ perceptions of testing as a deterrent. Methods: 645 Danish elite athletes completed a web-based questionnaire about their perceptions of testing efforts in their sport. Findings: 75% of the athletes considered the likelihood that a test would prove positive to be a deterrent. By contrast, only 40% found the risk of being selected for testing to be a deterrent. Athletes tested frequently and athletes from doping-risk sports were more likely to perceive testing as a deterrent. In total, 24% regarded neither the likelihood of testing nor detection as deterrents. 8% did not consider the likelihood of testing and detection nor the ban from sport as deterrents. Conclusions: Testing programmes–as a strategy to detect and deter doping–are no great deterrent for many athletes. The results highlight the limitations of detection-based deterrence and emphasise a need to give higher priority to additional prevention-orientated strategies. Recommondations are outlined.

AB - Aims: A central paradigm of global anti-doping policy is detection-based deterrence, i.e. the risk of testing and exclusion from sport are effective doping deterrents. This paper investigates how elite athletes perceive the deterrent effect of the testing strategy in their sport and explores whether and how specific factors such as the frequency of testing influence athletes’ perceptions of testing as a deterrent. Methods: 645 Danish elite athletes completed a web-based questionnaire about their perceptions of testing efforts in their sport. Findings: 75% of the athletes considered the likelihood that a test would prove positive to be a deterrent. By contrast, only 40% found the risk of being selected for testing to be a deterrent. Athletes tested frequently and athletes from doping-risk sports were more likely to perceive testing as a deterrent. In total, 24% regarded neither the likelihood of testing nor detection as deterrents. 8% did not consider the likelihood of testing and detection nor the ban from sport as deterrents. Conclusions: Testing programmes–as a strategy to detect and deter doping–are no great deterrent for many athletes. The results highlight the limitations of detection-based deterrence and emphasise a need to give higher priority to additional prevention-orientated strategies. Recommondations are outlined.

KW - Anti-doping policy

KW - Deterrence

KW - Drug testing

KW - Elite sport

KW - Prevention

KW - Survey

KW - World Anti-doping Code

U2 - 10.1080/09687637.2016.1182119

DO - 10.1080/09687637.2016.1182119

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:84976571503

VL - 24

SP - 206

EP - 219

JO - Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy

JF - Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy

SN - 0968-7637

IS - 2

ER -