LIST OF PANELS

The objective of this panel is to understand the approaches to measure the effectiveness of anti-doping policy, including the reasons to support them and the critiques to these approaches. Current international anti-doping policy is one of the most important international sport policies. It is designed to prevent, deter and detect the use of performance-enhancing substances in sports. Despite prohibition and efforts by governments and anti-doping agencies to curb it, doping remains a prevalent practice in competitive sports. The numbers of adverse analytical findings, i.e. a report by an accredited laboratory that a prohibited substance has been found in a sample, have been increasing over the last decade, from 1.08% in 2008 to 1.6% in 2016 (see WADA 2016 Anti-Doping Testing Figures, Executive Summary, p. 2).Yet research indicates actual prevalence in elite sport to be much higher (between 14% and 39% according to de Hon et al. 2015; around 50% according to Ulrich et al. 2018).
This panel will thus address a fundamental question: How can we measure the effectiveness of anti-doping policy? That is, what methods and measurements should be used to understand the impact of anti-doping policy as well as the underlying rationale for such policies?

The continued prevalence of doping in elite sport, along with alleged inefficiencies in catching dopers and numerous doping controversies (BACLO in the United States, state sponsored doping in Russia, etc.), have prompted critical assessments by scholars across disciplines challenging current anti-doping efforts. One critical perspective emphasizes a need to depart from doping as a problem of cheating individuals and instead focus on the contextual influences on athlete attitudes to performance-enhancing drugs in sport, along with anti-doping policy’s deficiencies in addressing these influences (e.g., Koller 2008). These authors often attribute doping to sports culture, a lack of knowledge, as well as a general “laissez-faire approach” (Mazanov et al. 2015:218). They argue that anti-doping policy is in tension with the normalisation of doping in sports (Mazanov et al. 2015; Mazanov et al. 2014; Smith et al. 2010). A second perspective views the lack of properly targeted education as one of the main shortcomings in anti-doping policy (e.g., Patterson et al. 2016). It sees doping as a gateway problem, where athletes’ willingness to dope increases where they are already engaging in legal performance enhancement, e.g. in the form of nutritional supplements (Backhouse et al. 2013; Ntoumanis et al. 2014). Finally, according to a third perspective, current anti-doping policy must be rejected altogether. These scholars argue that doping should either be legalised (Savulescu 2015), or that a less intrusive approach such as harm reduction is warranted (Kayser and Tolleneer 2017, Beamish 2013, Kirkwood 2009).

These critics point towards numerous challenges in anti-doping policy. One challenge is to establish the fundamental rationale for anti-doping policy. Another is to better understand what anti-doping policy should achieve, how the effectiveness of anti-doping policy should be studied and what exactly should be measured. Yet another challenge is to understand how findings from such studies can be applied to better serve the goals of anti-doping policy.

References:
Backhouse, Susan (2013), L. Whitaker, and A. Petróczi, Gateway to doping? Supplement use in the context of preferred competitive situations, doping attitudes, beliefs, and norms, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 23, 2013:244–252.
Beamish, Rob (2013), Olympic Ideals versus the Performance Imperative: The History of Canada’s Anti-Doping Policies, in Lucie Thibault and Jean Harvey (ed.), Sport Policy in Canada, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2013:217–242.
de Hon, Olivier (2015), Harm Kuipers and Maarten van Bottenburg, Prevalence of Doping Use in Elite Sports: A Review of Numbers and Methods, Sport Medicine 45, 2015:57–69.
Koller, Dionne L. (2008), From Medals to Morality: Sportive Nationalism and the Problem of Doping in Sports, Marquette Sports Law Review 19, 2008:91–124.
Kayser, Bengt (2017), and Jan Tolleneer,Ethics of a relaxed antidoping rule accompanied by harm-reduction measures, Journal of Medical Ethics 43, 2017:282–286.
Kirkwood, Ken (2009), Considering Harm Reduction as the Future of Doping Control Policy in International Sport, Quest 61, 2009:180–190.
Mazanov, Jason (2015), Dennis Hemphill, James Connor, Frances Quirk, and Susan H. Backhouse, Australian athlete support personnel lived experience of anti-doping, Sport Management Review 18, 2015:218–230.
Mazanov, J. (2014), S. Backhouse, J. Connor, D. Hemphill, and F. Quirk, Athlete support personnel and anti-doping: Knowledge, attitudes, and ethical stance, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sport 24, 2014:846–856.
Ntoumanis, Nikos (2014), Johan Y. Y. Ng, Vassilis Barkoukis, and Susan Backhouse, Personal and Psychosocial Predictors of Doping Use in Physical Activity Settings: A Meta-Analysis, Sports Medicine 44, 2014:1603–1624.
Patterson, Laurie B. (2016), Susan H. Backhouse, and Patrick J. Duffy, Anti-doping education for coaches: Qualitative insights from national and international sporting and anti-doping organisations, Sport Management Review 19, 2016:35–47.
Smith, Aaron C.T. (2010), Bob Stewart, Sunny Olivier-Bennetts, Sharyn McDonal, Lyngley Ingerson, Alastair Anderson, Geoff Dickson, Paul Emery, and Fiona Graetz, Contextual influences and athlete attitudes to drugs in sport, Sport Management Review 13, 2010:181–197.
Ulrich, Rolf (2018), Harrison G. Pope Jr., Léa Cléret, Andrea Petróczi, Tamás Nepusz, Jay Schaffer, Gen Kanayama, R. Dawn Comstock, and Perikles Simon, Doping in Two Elite Athletics Competitions Assessed by Randomized-Response Surveys, Sports Medicine 48, 2018:211–219.

Anti-doping policy is one of the most important international sport policies. According to the World Anti-Doping Agency, more than 660 sport organizations have accepted and implemented the World Anti-Doping Code, including all international sport federations, all national Olympic committees, as well as national anti-doping agencies in more than 140 countries. Yet very few attempts have been made to evaluate the outcomes, the quality and the efficiency of anti-doping policy. This panel will thus address a fundamental question: How can we measure the effectiveness of anti-doping policy? That is, what methods and measurements should be used to understand the impact of anti-doping policy as well as the underlying rationale for such policies? There are numerous challenges. One challenge is to establish the fundamental justifications for anti-doping policy. Another is to better understand what anti-doping policy should achieve, how the effectiveness of anti-doping policy should be studied and what exactly should be measured. Yet another challenge is to understand how findings from such studies can be applied to better serve the goals of anti-doping policy.

This panel calls for papers that employ different approaches to measure the effectiveness of anti-doping policy and/or critically address the various justifications for anti-doping policy. Papers may approach the research question from two main perspectives: the prevalence and causes for doping, and the application of evidence from such research to anti-doping policy. The call is broad in scope and papers may address the research question from the perspective of anti-doping policy as a whole or be limited to some aspects of it (e.g. education programs, specific testing methods, etc.), they may approach the question locally or internationally, and study all types and levels of sports, including recreational sport. Because the aim of this panel is to organise the debate around these questions, this call encourages submissions from various disciplines, including epidemiology, social sciences, law, ethics and bioethics, as well as biology, chemistry and biochemistry. Where applicable, papers may use quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methodologies. In an effort to facilitate the discussion across disciplines, the panel specifically invites researchers whose studies address the effectiveness of testing methods and protocols to submit their applications.

Some specific areas of interest for this panel include the following:

• Papers can explore the impact and the deterrence effect of anti-doping policy, critically assess existing data and present ways to collect data on doping;
• Papers can also look at doping prevention and education programs and measure their effects on behaviour and intention to dope;
• Further, papers can inquire about the perception by athletes and other persons involved in sports of the effectiveness and justifications of anti-doping policy;
• Papers may also discuss techniques and tools for modifying athletes’ behaviour, including harm reduction or legalization;
• Finally, papers can focus on the nature of doping and the target of anti-doping interventions. Specifically, these papers may critically explore the concept of doping and the fundamental rationale for anti-doping policy, as well as how such conceptual shifts may affect the way anti-doping policy is measured and evaluated.