A focus group analysis of the US and Canadian female triathletes’ knowledge of doping

Abstract

In the past five years, triathlon has been identified in the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) annual doping summary as being among the top five sports returning ‘adverse analytical findings’ or positive doping results. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the sources of knowledge regarding doping practices and anti-doping efforts in Canadian and American professional female triathletes. The secondary purpose of this study was to develop suggestions that may enhance the efficacy of anti-doping education programmes and ultimately the larger global anti-doping movement. The first phase of this WADA-sponsored Social Science initiative project consisted of two six-member focus groups that included younger pro-triathletes at the beginning of their international career from both the USA and Canada. Six Canadian and six US female triathletes participated in separate focus group sessions lasting approximately 1.5 hours in addition to individual semi-structured follow-up interviews. Analysis of the data yielded four interconnected thematic categories, including: (1) meanings of doping to participants; (2) general knowledge of doping and anti-doping practices; (3) suggestions for anti-doping education; and (4) contrasts between American and Canada assessment of anti-doping issues.

Notes

¹ Athletic Scholarships, ‘History of Triathlon’.

² Triathlon Canada, ‘History of Triathlon’.

³ Mazanov, ‘Developing an Agenda’.

⁴ Mazanov and McDermott, ‘Case for a Social Science of Drugs’, 288.

⁵ Mazanov and McDermott, ‘Case for a Social Science of Drugs’, 288

⁶ Hanson, ‘Equipping Athletes to Make Informed Decisions’, 395.

⁷ Bloodworth and McNamee, ‘Clean Olympians?’; Hanson, ‘Equipping Athletes to Make Informed Decisions’; Kirby, Moran, and Guerin, ‘Qualitative Analysis of Elite Athletes’; Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs, ‘Doping Use among Young Elite Cyclists’; Mazanov and Huybers, ‘Empirical Model of Athlete Decisions’; Mazanov, Huybers, and Connor, ‘Qualitative Evidence of a Primary Intervention Point’.

⁸ Backhouse et al., ‘International Literature Review’.

⁹ Mazanov, Huybers, and Connor, ‘Qualitative Evidence of a Primary Intervention Point’.

¹⁰ Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs, ‘Doping Use among Young Elite Cyclists’; Mazanov and Huybers, ‘Empirical Model of Athlete Decisions’.

¹¹ Sas-Nowosielski and Swiatkowska, ‘Knowledge of the World Anti-Doping Code’, 58.

¹² Diacin, Parks, and Allison, ‘Voices of Male Athletes’; Donahue et al., ‘Motivational Model of Performance-Enhancing Substance Use’; Hanson, ‘Equipping Athletes to Make Informed Decisions’; Mottram, Chester, and Gibson, ‘Evaluation of a Tutor Network System’.

¹³ Brown, ‘As American as Gatorade and Apple Pie’; Connor, ‘Towards a Sociology of Drugs’; Donahue et al., ‘Motivational Model of Performance-Enhancing Substance Use’; Hanson, ‘Equipping Athletes to Make Informed Decisions’; Lazuras et al., ‘Predictors of Doping Intentions’; Strelan and Boeckmann, ‘Why Drug Testing in Elite Sport does not Work’; Waddington, Sport, Health, and Drugs.

¹⁴ Mottram, Chester, and Gibson, ‘Evaluation of a Tutor Network System’.

¹⁵ Donovan et al., ‘Conceptual Framework’.

¹⁶ Donovan et al., ‘Conceptual Framework’, 272.

¹⁷ Hanson, ‘Equipping Athletes to Make Informed Decisions’, 396.

¹⁸ Hanson, ‘Equipping Athletes to Make Informed Decisions’, 397.

¹⁹ Hanson, ‘Equipping Athletes to Make Informed Decisions’, 400.

²⁰ Hanson, ‘Equipping Athletes to Make Informed Decisions’

²¹ Backhouse, McKenna, Robinson, and Atkin, ‘International Literature Review’.

²² Mazanov, Huybers, and Connor, ‘Qualitative Evidence of a Primary Intervention’.

²³ Bloodworth and McNamee, ‘Clean Olympians?’.

²⁴ Barbour, Doing Focus Groups.

²⁵ Coté et al., ‘Organizing and Interpreting Unstructured Qualitative Data’.

²⁶ Morgan, Focus Groups as Qualitative Research.

²⁷ Morgan, Focus Groups as Qualitative Research 60.

²⁸ Barbour, Doing Focus Groups, 131.

²⁹ Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design; Sparkes, ‘Validity in Qualitative Inquiry’.

³⁰ Stephan et al., ‘Repercussions of Transition out of Elite Sport’.

³¹ Butryn, ‘Posthuman Podiums’.

³² Simon, ‘Better Performance Through Chemistry’.

³³ Kirby, Moran, and Guerin, ‘Qualitative Analysis of Elite Athletes’.

³⁴ Butryn, ‘Posthuman Podiums’; Sas-Nowosielski and Swiatkowska, ‘Knowledge of the World Anti-Doping Code’.

³⁵ Kidd, Edelman, and Brownell. ‘Comparative Analysis of Doping Scandals, 158.

³⁶ Bloodworth and McNamee, ‘Clean Olympians?’.

³⁷ Mazanov and McDermott, ‘Case for a Social Science of Drugs’; Sas-Nowosielski and Swiatkowska, ‘Knowledge of the World Anti-Doping Code’.

³⁸ Donovan et al., ‘Conceptual Framework’.

³⁹ Sas-Nowosielski and Swiatkowska, ‘Knowledge of the World Anti-Doping Code’.

⁴⁰ Schneider, ‘Privacy Rights, Gene Doping, and Ethics’; Waddington, ‘“Prison of Measured Time?”’.

⁴¹ Sas-Nowosielski and Swiatkowska, ‘Knowledge of the World Anti-Doping Code’.

⁴² Mazanov and Huybers, ‘Empirical Model of Athlete Decisions’.

⁴³ Mottram, Chester, and Gibson, ‘Evaluation of a Tutor Network System’.

⁴⁴ Backhouse et al., ‘International Literature Review’; Hanson, ‘Equipping Athletes to Make Informed Decisions’; Sas-Nowosielski and Swiatkowska, ‘Knowledge of the World Anti-Doping Code’.

⁴⁵ Sas-Nowosielski and Swiatkowska, ‘Knowledge of the World Anti-Doping Code’.

⁴⁶ Hanson, ‘Equipping Athletes to Make Informed Decisions’; Mazanov and McDermott, ‘Case for a Social Science of Drugs’; Mottram, Chester, and Gibson, ‘Evaluation of a Tutor Network System’; Strelan and Boeckmann, ‘Why Drug Testing in Elite Sport Does Not Work’; Trickler and Connolly, ‘Drug Education and the College Athlete’.

⁴⁷ Hanson, ‘Equipping Athletes to Make Informed Decisions’.

⁴⁸ Mazanov and Huybers, ‘Empirical Model of Athlete Decisions’.

⁴⁹ Sas-Nowosielski and Swiatkowska, ‘Knowledge of the World Anti-Doping Code’.