The significance of ‘situated learning’ for doping in an elite sports community: an interview study of AAS-using powerlifters

Abstract

The article investigates social learning of doping among elite athletes, based on qualitative interviews with 10 former competitive powerlifters, which were analyzed with Lave and Wenger’s learning theories. The constitution of the social context – the sports community – and specific situations were decisive for how the informants acted in relation to doping. The informants were situated in a powerlifting community where doping was common. Experienced lifters, central in the community, approached and encouraged the peripheral informants, and they gradually became more involved in the practice by doping activities, due to expectations, curiosity, in an endeavour for results, to be like the ‘big guy’s’, and to compete on a level playfield. They received help with supply and administration of doping substances in the interactions with the experienced lifters. To gain a central role in the community, and for identity formation, doping was a crucial and defining activity.

Keywords:

• Doping
• qualitative interview study
• powerlifting
• situated learning
• elite sports community of practice

Introduction

The reasons for doping have often been found in individual motives, individual psychosocial factors and individual attitudes (Backhouse et al. 2007; Hoff and Carlsson 2005; Hoff 2008). Common motives for doping as determined by research are as follows: improving performance, winning races, financial gains, losing weight and reducing pain (Backhouse et al. 2007). Studies have suggested that the motives for doping vary between different sports. Cyclists want to preserve their health, bodybuilders strive to increase their muscular strength and footballers use doping substances for recreation (Bilard, Ninot, and Hauw 2011). In studies of psychosocial background factors, several results show that risk-taking individuals have a greater propensity to use doping substances (e.g. Kindlundh et al. 1999; Papadopoulos et al. 2006; Wichstrøm 2006; cf. Hoff 2012). Other psychosocial factors studies have identified as important to doping is a negative body image (‘muscle dysmorphia’) and eating disorders, in which the use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) is motivated by cosmetic concerns (Blouin and Goldfield 1995; Brower et al. 1991; Brower, Blow, and Hill 1994; Kanayama et al. 2006, Pope et al. 1997; Pope, Phillips, and Olivardia 2000; cf. Cohen et al. 2007).

In this article, the focus shifts from the individual to the social context in trying to understand the emergence of doping. Existing studies have identified a number of interesting social processes, with importance for the development of doping. In a meta-study of 63 studies, the authors concluded that most important positive correlates between doping intentions and behaviour were the use of legal supplements, perceived social norms and positive attitudes towards doping (Ntoumanis et al. 2014). In a qualitative interview study of elite athletes who admitted to doping, the authors found that the informants did not regard their behaviour as cheating because of the extensive use of doping agents in their sport (Kirby, Moran, and Guerin 2011). The authors reported an ‘implied’ pressure from teammates who doped as an external factor for becoming involved in doping (Kirby, Moran, and Guerin 2011). Peers can also pressure the individual cyclist to dope in order to become an ‘insider’ in an extremely results-oriented environment (Lentillon-Kaestner 2014). Brewer (2002) reports that doping has been an integral part of professional cycling culture, and Schneider (2006) has critically discussed the doping culture in cycling, a culture that operates through peer pressure and secrecy. Furthermore, Petróczi and Aidman (2008) have included subculture influences for doping behaviour in their life-cycle model on psychological drivers for doping.

Donovan et al.’s (2002) comprehensive model of factors that influence doping in sport focuses on the importance of doping attitudes, which, according to the authors, are crucial for whether or not the athlete chooses to dope. One of the factors could be associated with the social environment – ‘reference group opinion’, which could be influences of a coach, competitors, club mates, the team physician, parents and so forth. Studies have investigated what Donovan et al. (2002) refer to as the ‘reference group opinion’. Özdemir et al. (2005) reported that athletes in their study were invited by a friend to use illicit substances. The authors also reported doping use due to pressure from others. The perception that other athletes are using doping substances appeared to have a major impact on the athletes’ own use (Özdemir et al. 2005; cf. Petróczi et al. 2008; Uvacsek et al. 2011). Curry and Wagman (1999) have also reported this attitude among athletes in a study of powerlifters in the USA (cf. Hoff 2012; Wagman, Curry, and Cook 1995). Henning and Dimeo (2015) highlights the necessity among US cyclists to use doping preparations in order to compete with the European teams. Moreover, several studies have investigated the suppliers of doping preparations, reporting that a friend, coach, pharmacist or physician were the main suppliers (Laure et al. 2004; Lucidi et al. 2004; Papadopoulos et al. 2006; Peters et al. 2005; Wiefferink et al. 2008). However, the factors in Donovan et al.’s (2002) model primarily refer to individuals in the environment – not social processes – who can affect the athlete’s attitudes and behaviours towards doping in different ways. Hauw and Mohamed (2015) suggest that doping is an activity that depends on the specific situation, such as how athletes explore and exploit fields of possible actions, where the social context is important.

In social sports contexts, athletes may use doping substances for reasons of solidarity in relation to their peers and in order to be accepted in the group. It has been analyzed as an identity process, in which the athlete leaves the amateur group and joins the professional elite group (Petróczi and Aidman 2008; cf. Coakley and Pike 2009). In a study of bodybuilders, Monaghan (2002) reports how the respondents negotiate their self-identity in relation to the social norms of the drug subculture. Hutchinson, Moston, and Engelberg (2018), in a study of websites containing doping-related discussions, suggest doping to be a form of ‘group validation’ of the bodybuilding lifestyle. According to a study of four different types of doping in a fitness environment, social influences from peers and role models constitute the motives for one type (YOLO; Christiansen, Vinther, and Liokaftos 2017). Among bodybuilders who used doping preparations, the concept of learning (doping) has been used by Andreasson (2014) as an individual process ‘in the body’ rather than ‘about the body’. By engrafting knowledge of the body, training and substances in the body, new knowledge is formed – bodily-knowledge. Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs (2010) have reported from an interview study of young elite-cyclists that more experienced cyclists transmitted the culture of doping to younger cyclists. The experienced cyclists educated the younger cyclist about appropriate substances to use, and how to use them. Ohl et al. (2015) describes how the perception of performance enhancing drugs influences the socialization processes for young cyclists learning their job. In a study of Iranian athletes, Kabiri et al. (2018) tests Akers (2009) social learning theory concerning criminal and deviant behaviour. The results show that there was a positive and significant relationship between components in the theory and doping in the past, present and future.

Situated learning in a social context of doping – the theoretical framework

As shown above, several psychosocial studies indicate that social processes and social norms in athletes’ sport environments are worthy of closer examination as a way to understand doping (see e.g. Ntoumanis et al. 2014). However, the individual and psychosocial perspectives on doping have also been criticized. Hauw (2013a) discusses doping as a complex behaviour, which is not sufficiently explained by psychosocial studies on individual attitudes and norms, behaviour control, goal rationality and risk minimizing. Unethical actions such as doping rather exist and develop in the local dynamics of activity units, not in the individual (Hauw 2013b). According to Hauw (2013a, 220), doping is more contingent and embedded in different sport cultures. He shifts the perspective from ‘human nature’, as an enduring personal and general disposition, to the perspective of ‘the nature of human activity’. This reflects on the dynamics of acts instead of on the psychosocial constitution of the individual in understanding doping as a situated activity and asks whether the prevailing specific situation is important for doping or not. From this approach, he wants to analyze doping in relation to the actors’ everyday activity: the context, and the lived experience in a social world. In reference to Hughes and Coakley (1991), he suggests that doping could be one of the strongest elements that unite a specific sports community. Moreover, he suggests, from a situated learning perspective (see Lave and Wenger 1991), that athletes who do not take part in the community’s activity are excluded and become outsiders (Hauw 2013a).

Learning doping from other athletes in the environment, often more experienced athletes, appears to be an interesting mechanism in the social process towards doping behaviour. Social learning processes have been shown in previous studies to function as a way to understand how, through a learning process and situated in a dynamic sport context, doping is communicated and transmitted from older and more experienced athletes to younger more inexperienced ones (Kabiri et al. 2018, Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs 2010; cf. Andreasson 2014; Hauw and Mohamed 2015). In this discussion, learning, social context and situation are important concepts in the understanding of doping. Following this line of thought, the theoretical framework of this article is based on Lave and Wenger’s (1991) and Wenger’s (1998) theories of ‘situated learning’ in ‘communities of practice’. Lave and Wenger’s (1991) view on situated learning takes its point of departure in a critique of behavioural and cognitive models of social learning (Abma 2007; Bandura 1962). According to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning is contextual, situated in a community; it does not evolve only by adaptation to social norms in the community or imitation of the significant other. Rather, learning involves active participation in a community and a deliberation of arising situations in relation to people in the community. Learning is a social process of active participation situated in communities of practice over time. The communities of practice include every location at which learning takes place, for instance, school, work, family and so forth (Lave and Wenger 1991). In this study, the powerlifting environment is considered a community of practice.

The crucial elements in the individual learning process are, according to Lave and Wenger (1991), the creation of meaning and identity in the community of practice. Learning is a multifaceted ongoing social process in a space and over a period. Lave and Wenger (1991, cf. Wenger 1998) state that learning is not primarily about learning through instructions from a teacher or master; nor, when talking about the sporting environment, is learning primarily about taking instructions from a coach or internalizing doping norms from sporting officials. Participation in a community of practice is initially a legitimate peripheral participation, which means that the individual has an accepted role in the community but is far down in the hierarchy. Participation can increase in terms of engagement and complexity whereby the participants gradually give the practice meaning and create a new identity in relation to the community of practice. The individuals become successively central in the community, and the legitimacy of the individuals’ values and actions increases. Using Lave and Wenger’s (1991) and Wenger’s (1998) theories of learning, the perspective on doping can be elaborated from learning as a transmission process (see Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs 2010) to learning as a complex social participation process situated in a community of practice (cf. Hauw 2013a).

Purpose and research questions

The purpose is to analyze situated learning in relation to doping in an elite sport environment, specifically in the powerlifting community. The research questions are as follows: How do powerlifters describe their (a) sporting community, (b) first time doping and (c) motives for doping in relation to situated learning of doping?

Method

The study has a qualitative methodological approach (cf. Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009) consisting of interviews with 10 former powerlifters. Information from users or former users is crucial to understanding doping in sport. One option when investigating doping in sports is to focus on athletes who have left their athletic careers behind, since it is very difficult to recruit active elite athletes who use doping substances, due to an obvious expected fear of disclosure, which would be fatal both professionally and personally for an active elite athlete. The interviews were semi-structured and followed an interview manual containing a number of topics and suggested questions for each topic (cf. Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). Some topics were chosen to give the informants the greatest chance possible to provide recollections that might be relevant to the understanding of doping (e.g. first time use). Other topics were selected from previous research and theories that explained doping (e.g. Risk behaviour). The interview guide was used as a support in the interviews. The order of topics and questions was sometimes changed. The questions were on occasion re-formulated to be able to develop the interviews in interesting directions, where the respondents were willing to share more information (cf. Kvale and Brinkmann 2009; Robson 2002). The guide was used to make sure that nothing important was missed in the interviews. A priority in the interviews was to try to create an honest conversation with the informants about their doping behaviour by not adopting a judgemental attitude towards their experiences of doping, and this turned out to be a rewarding approach. The interviews were open-minded and the informants shared their stories generously, even though some were suspicious at the beginning of their interview. The interviews lasted between 45 min and 3 h, with most interviews lasting around 2 h. Eight interviews were recorded, and two interviews were not recorded at the behest of the informants. For these latter two interviews, notes were taken instead. All the recordings were transcribed verbatim.

Individuals banned as a result of at least one doping violation from 1990 to 2006 according to the rules of the Swedish Sports Confederation were included in the study. The total number of suspension decisions resulting from doping violations during this period was 398. A total of 35 individuals remained after applying the selection criteria for high level sport and intentional doping (e.g. not ‘accidental doping’). The first criterion was used in order to focus on doping with sporting ambitions in a competitive environment and avoid involving persons who may have been using doping preparations with other motives, for example, for cosmetic reasons. The second selection criterion, intentional doping, was used to avoid including athletes who had been banned for doping but who did not admit to it in the sample. At the time the study was done, currently suspended athletes were excluded to avoid the potential fear of speaking freely while subject to a doping suspension. These athletes may also have been in an appeals process, making it inappropriate to involve them. Thirty-five individuals was considered a large sample for achieving a sufficient number of informants (see Robson 2002; Trost 1986). Of the 35 individuals, the majority were powerlifters, and all except one of them were men. Only a few other sports, such as cycling and weightlifting, were represented in the sample. This was, of course, reflected in the 11 informants who finally agreed to be interviewed, where all but one were powerlifters and all were men (all Swedish). The one exception was a weightlifter. Because of this, it was decided to focus on powerlifters and exclude the one weightlifter from the study.

The narratives from the informants were the point of departure in the analysis, and the choice of theory was made after the empirical material had been collected and thematized, which underlines the qualitative methodological approach in giving the material importance (cf. Robson 2002; Rennstam and Wästerfors 2018). The requirement of the chosen theory was that it would serve as a tool to give meaning to the informants’ narratives. Certainly, the relationship between theory and empirical material is complex and inwrought and is almost impossible to clearly separate (cf. Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009).

The analysis process was characterized by an ‘abductive’ approach where data was influencing theory and theory was influencing data in ongoing process, without any conclusive starting point or end (see Alvesson and Deetz 2000; Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009). The analysis was thematic in the sense that themes were extracted from the informants’ narratives. The first step – assortment – included a narrow reading of the material, where interesting narratives were recognized in relation to an overreaching and preliminary purpose of the study about the importance of social processes in the sport environment (see Rennstam and Wästerfors 2018). Several themes were identified, for instance, social background, the sporting environment, first time use, motives and the dynamics between experienced lifters and novices. The themes were related to possible concepts and theories and to important issues raised in previous research. Some of the themes were chosen due to the richness of the material, and others for their fruitfulness regarding new understandings of doping. Some themes, namely sporting environment, first time use and stated motives were clearly separate themes; the last theme, the relationship between experienced lifters and novices in the learning process, went like a thread between the other themes. Some of the themes were removed from the analysis (social background, risk-behaviour, over conformity to sport ethics) in a process of reducing the comprehensive material (see Rennstam and Wästerfors 2018). In this process of choosing the most relevant themes, it has been important to use materials that represent the core of the narratives. Much of the interviews revolved around ‘the sports community’, ‘first time doping’, ‘stated motives for doping’. Furthermore, all of these themes concerned in different ways ‘learning processes’. After structuring the material into themes, and looking back at preliminary concepts and theories (step 1), a more focused search for a theory was initiated. Lave and Wenger’s (1991) and Wenger’s (1998) learning theories had several benefits, especially when considering the informants’ narratives and preliminary concepts (learning, social influences, etc.). For instance, they had interesting discussions on situated learning in a specific community (e.g. powerlifting community), learning as a process of participation (e.g. in powerlifting), learning as of process of learning from experienced individuals in the community, and the process of becoming central in the community by participation in central activities in the community and so forth. At this stage, the purpose and research questions were finalized, and the analysis changed into a more overarching theoretical focus, where the themes were analyzed more systematically within the theoretical framework. The concluding step, the argumentation, shows the arguments for the interpretations of the informants’ narratives from the perspective of situated learning of doping, in the findings of the article (see Rennstam and Wästerfors 2018).

Limitations

The focus on male powerlifters could be a methodological problem due to a potential lack of relevance to other sports and doping among women. On the other hand, doping has to be studied where it occurs. Powerlifting was at the top in terms of the total number of suspensions in Sweden from 1990 to 2006, and the overwhelming majority of banned athletes was men. With the qualitative approach used in the study, it may be an advantage to focus on one sport more intensively than try to cover and analyze a great number of sports. Moreover, 10 informants is considered to be a sufficient selection in relation to the purpose of the study (see Alvesson and Deetz 2000; Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009; Trost 1986).

Another possible limitation is that there have been changes in sport with respect to doping over the last 30 years, thus the informants’ experiences may have less relevance to the understanding of the current doping situation. On the other hand, the study highlights enduring issues surrounding doping. The focus in the interviews was on doping back in time. There is a methodological discussion on the value of ‘retrospective questions’, even though retrospective questions are not unusual in qualitative research (Bryman 2015). The critique involves problems of memory, and remembering through a filter, a mind-set appropriated later in life (Repstad 2007; Trost 1997). There could be a risk that individuals who used doping preparations 20- to 30-year ago may have forgotten how they felt and acted in relation to doping at the time. On the other hand, a doping suspension in sport is such a significant incident in an athlete’s life that they probably have a relatively good recollection. When interviewees are asked retrospective questions about specific happenings, the memory tends to be clearer than if they were asked questions about thoughts, values and emotions, especially if it concerns important or revolutionary events (Repstad 2007; Trost 1997), such as being caught doping. Evaluations of longitudinal studies have shown that individuals’ memories about specific historical occurrences are more accurate than one can expect (Ramsøy 1977, 1994). The present study experience was that the respondents had a good recollection of several important parts of their doping history. Of course, the narratives from present athletes involved in doping could be more detailed and accurate. However, it is very difficult to recruit former doping users for interview studies, as mentioned above, and it is even harder to recruit active athletes who are involved in doping, and probably only a few will admit to it. Only a few studies have managed to recruit active users for qualitative interviews (see Ntoumanis et al. 2014). Nevertheless, doping could also be morally sensitive to disclose in detail especially for current users. There could be a risk that the narrative is influenced by attempts to excuse or legitimize doping by emphasizing external circumstances. This could also be a problem in retrospective interviews, but there could be an advantage in interviewing athletes suspended further back in time due to their distance to sporting careers and doping. In such cases, the moral sensitivity ought to diminish. Moreover, they have also had time to reflect on their former doping behaviour, which could be useful for the study in producing new empirical data (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009; Kvale and Brinkmann 2009).

Even though the retrospective view could be different from a current one, the information is still valuable in the analysis of doping. There are strengths in both current and retrospective perspectives on doping, and the different perspectives could add complementary information on complex human and social phenomena like doping. The impression from this study was that the informants approached it with minor differences in perspective, where some mediated that their former doping activities were sensitive to discuss. Some mediated a legitimizing perspective, while others expressed a changed perspective of regret and condemnation of their doping behaviour. However, everyone mediated a relatively clear picture of several happenings, for instance, first time use, interactions with important individuals in the competitive environment, descriptions of the powerlifting environment, narratives of social interactions and descriptions of the occasion of being caught in a doping control. Some of the informants could share feelings with regard to revolutionary occasions, such as first time use, being caught in a control and the aftermath of this.

Ethical considerations

The ethical justification of the study is based in the need for further knowledge about doping by athletes and how to prevent it. Different types of doping substances like AAS can have serious health consequences for individuals. The study was not required to undergo any formal ethical review since a doping conviction in sport is not per se a criminal offence in Sweden. Furthermore, the records of convicted users are not official public documents. In any case, it is important to make ethical considerations with regards to the people involved in this study. The most important measures to be implemented in this study were to clearly inform the informants, both orally and in writing, about the purpose of the study, and that their participation was voluntary. It was also essential to obtain the informants’ consent, treat their personal data as confidential, anonymize the informants in the text (article/report) and not disclose any personal data to third parties, such as the authorities or doping control organizations (cf. Vetenskapsrådet 2010 [Swedish Research Council]). Some of the informants are well known former elite athletes. In order to protect their identity, the personal information in the next section, The informants, has not been linked to any informant number on ethical grounds. Furthermore, and for the same reason, most of the individual background information has been summarized at group level. All the statements have been translated from Swedish into English by the author.

The informants

All informants were convicted of doping offences by the National Sports Confederation of Sweden at some point between 1990 and 2006: one in 1990, four in 1991, three in 1992, one in 1996 and one in 2006. Several informants had a good international track record as powerlifters and had participated on the national team. The top awards included medals at Nordic and world championships. A couple of the informants had not achieved any results at the elite level but had nonetheless practised their sport with a level of commitment beyond recreational sport. All of the informants acknowledged that they had used doping preparations, and all confirmed using AAS. None of them reported using other doping agents, with the exception of amphetamines, cannabis and cocaine, which were used as social drugs in moderate dosages, not for performance enhancement. Several informants stated that they had used several types of AAS simultaneously.

The informants had usually been raised in stable families; their parents had not divorced and most of the informants had siblings. Almost all the informants were from working class homes where the father typically worked in the industrial sector and the mother was a housewife when the children were small and later worked part time in retail as the children grew older. The majority of the informants were also workers themselves; some of them ran or had run their own businesses. One of the informants worked as a clerk and another as a manager at a production company. Generally, the informants had positive attitude towards their school background, with good friends and with average to good school results. Most of them had taken a vocational programme in upper secondary school, while some had received no upper secondary education. None of the informants had a university degree. Of the two informants with the highest level of education, one had attended a theoretical programme at upper secondary school followed by further training and the other had attended a vocational programme and attended some university courses later in their career.

The informants’ place of residence varied in terms of whether they lived in cities or towns, both during their childhood and at the time of the interview. Some of them lived and had lived in rented apartments, while others lived in small houses. Around half of the informants were living with a partner (married or cohabiting), while the other half were single, usually after one or more divorces or separations. All the informants except one had children.

Almost none of the informants believed that there was something in their social background that might explain their use of doping, and few reported psychosocial background factors associated with social problems, in addition to the use of doping. One informant spoke of a childhood with many problems related to substance-abusing parents, which eventually led to his own substance abuse. Another informant, who had abused drugs and alcohol, reported some alcohol-related problems in the home environment. Both of these informants had divorced parents. A third informant spoke about extensive problems with bullying that he suffered at primary school. Only one of the informants associated his problems with substance abuse in the past.

The informants are referred to by number from ‘Informant 1’ to ‘Informant 10’. The informants’ statements about people and locations have been anonymized. This is indicated by the letters N.N. (people) and X (locations, years) in quotes. Clarifying comments by the author have been placed in square brackets.

Findings and discussion

The informants’ sports community

Until 1996, powerlifting was part of the Swedish Weightlifting Federation. In 1996, the Powerlifting Federation was formed. In 2018, the Federation had approximately 30,000 members practising the sport (Hinic and Lostin 2012; Riksidrottsförbundet [Swedish Sports Confederation] 2019).

The informants were fairly unanimous on how widespread the use of doping was in the powerlifting community:

… It was very widespread and there were some clubs that stood out… (Informant 5).

***

… I understood that stuff was being taken… blokes in the club… there was “gorging”…/…/I also told a guy once: in the top 100 in Sweden, I only knew two guys who didn’t use stuff. The others were using stuff… (Informant 8).

***

Everyone was using stuff …/…./. I don’t know anyone I have competed with who wasn’t using. (Informant 1).

Some informants stated that there were active lifters who did not use AAS. However, this type of statement could be interpreted as supporting the opinion that the use of doping was widespread, otherwise it would not have been necessary to emphasize that there were clean lifters. The view among the informants that everyone in the powerlifting environment was using AAS could alternatively be interpreted as the ‘false consensus effect’, meaning that individuals perceive their own behaviour and beliefs as more common (normal) than it really is, and even more so when it comes to controversial behaviour such as doping (see Petróczi et al. 2008; Uvacsek et al. 2011). Nevertheless, if this is the informants’ comprehension of what is going on, it will probably have an effect on their learning. From the perspective of Lave and Wenger (1991), this environment could be described as a community of practice for powerlifters. The informants’ impression of the community is that the use of AAS is common. There were also informants who reported how different powerlifters talked about AAS, even on the junior national teams:

… when we joined the junior national team, for example, we were picked up in “X-year” for the first time, we understood at once what it was about – to become big and strong… So in “X-year” when I was in “Nation-X”, I, “NN-1”, “NN-2” and “NN-3” would go to… “Nation-X”: “Do you have any stuff?” “NN-3” said. “What kind of stuff?” I said. “I don’t know, protein powder, or something?” [irony] “No, you know, steroids!” “But you know, you shouldn’t… You can get busted by the doping police; you shouldn’t do it.” [irony] “Don’t be daft,” he said… “But just call me if you need some stuff, I’ve got just about everything…” (Informant 8)

This kind of talk could be interpreted as an element in a learning process. By being involved and interacting with other individuals in the community, you learn the behaviour and values that are important to the community (Lave and Wenger 1991).

According to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning is situated and takes place through interaction between individuals in a community. Interaction with more central and experienced individuals in the community is desirable for inexperienced and peripheral members (Lave and Wenger 1991). In the case of the powerlifting community, the central actors were senior lifters and the peripheral actors were juniors or new members of the gym or club. One unusual feature of powerlifting compared with many other sports – something that emerged during the interviews – was the absence of coaches and trainers. The powerlifters usually practised by themselves, even at an elite level, although they did receive support from the Federation when participating on the national team. There appears to have been a culture in which various people at the gym helped out when needed. Several informants said that they were discovered and encouraged by senior powerlifters. In some cases, these older lifters were also mentors and suppliers when it came to doping (cf. Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs 2010). One of the informants referred to social influences from more experienced lifters:

It was probably because others used… it was the talking… they were beginning to talk: “You have the potential to compete; you can be successful in this.” Sure, it was great to hear, it was great to hear when you’re 20 years’ old… It was like this. Then someone supplied it. Sure, it would be fun to try. (Informant 7)

Gradually, with the help of older and more experienced lifters, this informant was talked into using AAS. He also received advice from the more experienced lifters about avoiding being caught in doping controls:

… they said, again, I was green, the blokes who had routines, they said: “Stop taking them a few days in advance.” It happened, of course… before, but it was… it was not enough, so to speak. [Relates to when he was caught in a doping control.] (Informant 7)

This finding highlights the important role of the central individuals in the community of practice in relation to learning processes (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991). The interaction between peripheral and central individuals situated in the specific powerlifting community seems to be an important part of the learning process for the peripheral powerlifter, even when it comes to doping. The gradual changing of the informant’s behaviour in the community is something that Lave and Wenger (1991) describe as a process of going from the periphery of the community to the centre, which is desirable. This social process in which doping knowledge is passed on from one generation to the next has also been reported in previous studies as a form of transmitting the doping culture from older to younger individuals (Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs 2010). However, with the help of Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concepts, the conditions for learning as interactive and situated in a community of practice with a centre and periphery refines the understanding of the doping learning process.

Several informants reported that many sports leaders and staff at the Powerlifting Federation were aware of the high prevalence of AAS in the powerlifting community, and they stated that many of the leaders had been using AAS in their own sporting careers. One informant also stated that an official at the Federation provided lifters with AAS. Another informant reported that he bought his AAS preparations from a powerlifting leader outside Sweden:

… The last time I got it from abroad, prescribed by a physician to a person who was head of the country’s powerlifting team, both youth and juniors, women and men. So he sent it to me./…/At the time I was acquainted with all the world leaders; some were more open than others, but no one denied the existence of steroids… (Informant 1)

The presence of AAS in the sports community was also reflected in the clubs. One informant stated the following about the board of his club:

… Many of them who were on the board of our club… they had experienced the happy 80s, when it was almost legal… So they didn’t really talk about it much. Many of them had used it themselves. They admitted this with no hesitation. They didn’t really know what it was, back then. (Informant 6)

Federation and powerlifting club board members should be considered as central individuals in the community. Interaction with these individuals ought to be of importance in a learning process involving more peripheral members of the community (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991; cf. Petróczi et al. 2008; Uvacsek et al. 2011).

Another way of understanding the doping culture in a sport community is to look at how training mates, club management and coaches react when they discover that a member of the community has been suspended due to doping. The general picture from the informants indicates a muted response from the powerlifting community:

… Therefore, nobody raised their eyebrows then, or cared. It was soon over with. I was welcomed back afterwards. There was no one who said anything at the club or elsewhere. I was even accepted onto the national team. They didn’t question me, they didn’t do any doping tests on me when I joined the team. That’s how it was… it may well be surprising actually. (Informant 5)

***

It was clear that they knew, on the board, what was going on… … They have never thrown anyone out of the club. Because when it’s been about someone who has been failed a test, he has always been allowed to participate during the work-out sessions as usual… (Informant 8)

This indicates how central leaders in the sport ignored what was going on in relation to doping. This is a signal that the informants had obviously become aware of in a process of understanding the community of practice. In addition, using doping substances and then being tested, suspended and welcomed back into the community is a way of learning by participation (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991).

Nevertheless, the same informant (8) also stated that he felt betrayed by the Sports Federation. As long as he achieved good results and was not caught in a doping control, staff at the Sports Federation were very supportive. However, when he tested positive for doping substances, the Federation staff condemned him and distanced themselves from him:

I’m probably most bitter about the leaders of the Federation, NN 1, NN 2, NN 3 and all the others…being so condemned: “guys…” you got praised when things were going well, and then they pissed on you right away…[when failing a doping test]

(Informant 8)

The informant described this as a double standard: it is okay to use AAS as long as you do not get caught.

How can this process be interpreted from the perspective of Lave and Wenger’s (1991) learning theory? Conflicts between different norms in the community, as well as different forms of learning, probably have to be considered in this case. The official standpoint is consistent with the anti-doping norms in sport. It has to be: these are mandatory rules, and the informants were well aware of these rules. The anti-doping rules have been learned by what Lave and Wenger (1991) would call ‘instructions’, which they argue is a poor learning method. The powerlifters were learning by watching and interacting with other lifters and also in relation to central individuals in the community. In this particular case, the informants saw that several lifters were using AAS. More importantly, they learned that central individuals in the community, such as Federation staff and club board members, ignored the frequent use of AAS, so long as you did not get caught. This is not just a sign that they turned a blind eye to doping; it could also be interpreted as an expectation that you should use AAS. Information provided by the informants revealed that many of the central individuals themselves used AAS – although it was not banned at the time of use. This constitutes an important piece of the learning process for the powerlifters in the study. When it reaches the point where central actors like Federation physicians were supplying the drugs, then the message was quite clear. This rather special social context the informants have described stresses the importance of understanding learning as situated in relation to the historical and social context. Doping is a situated activity in a contextual and dynamic system (Hauw 2013a).

Using – the first time

Almost all of the informants were concerned about their sports community when describing their ‘first time’. The following statement is a narrative by one of the informants regarding the process of first having discovered the extensive use of AAS in the community and then starting to use AAS himself:

…In my “hometown” there was never any talk about doping agents, and so on, but then when I came to “X-big city”, there was hockey training… The hockey team “team X” practised there, everyone… The athletes exercised there, because this gym had no sports club affiliation, so the Sports Confederation could not visit the gym [for testing], it was private [and] independent, so everyone went training there. And I realized then, there was talk in the locker room, all sports categories, athletes, lifters, hockey players, everyone who was there was taking “Russian fives” [5 mg tablets of methandrostenolone]…. Clearly, you raise your eyebrows at first… thinking: what’s this? But then somehow you gradually was brought in to it and it became an everyday… experience. In the end, it was nothing special; everyone did it, more or less. And then if I lifted a little more they asked, “What are you taking?” I said, “I’m not taking anything”; “Ah, you couldn’t lift those weights if you weren’t taking something!” And then you start thinking… about trying. I was at a competition and then it happened. There was a guy…he was some kind of dealer. He was sitting there selling bottles. So I bought my first bottle,… to try it. And then you asked your friends… “How do you take this? How does it work?” (Informant 5)

When looking closer at the statement, there are different episodes in a situated learning process that led to the informant’s ‘first time’ of doping, and these can be analyzed using Lave and Wenger’s (1991) theory. First, the informant appears to be an apprentice in his new gym in the big town. As an apprentice, his position was legitimate but peripheral in the community; he was experiencing and took active part in a sports community in which doping was frequent, and he was surprised since this was different from his earlier experiences in his hometown, where doping did not occur. Second, the informant gradually came to regard the extensive use of AAS as normal behaviour. Third, when the informant performed well, he was asked about what AAS preparations he was using, even though he was clean at the time. When he stated: ‘I’m not using anything’, he stood out as an apprentice, a rookie and a deviant. Fourth, nobody believed him when he said that he was not using doping preparations because he was lifting really heavy weights. This clearly indicates that doping was normal and even desirable, at least if you wanted to leave the peripheral area of the community and get closer to the central parts. Fifth, a dealer at a gym sold him AAS products, which he eventually bought. This also showed the informant that doping is normal and desirable behaviour in the community. Sixth, he asked a friend, probably a more experienced and central individual in the community, how he should administer his AAS preparations (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991).

What we see is not really (active) pressure from teammates or other people in the informants’ sport community, which has been recognized in previous research (Hutchinson, Moston, and Engelberg 2018; Kirby, Moran, and Guerin 2011; Lentillon-Kaestner 2014; Petróczi and Aidman 2008; Schneider 2006). In this study, I argue that the process described by the informant above is more of a learning process than a process of active ‘doping pressure’ by individuals in the community. A learning process is where the different occasions fit together in a logic and form a meaningful whole where the individual can orientate himself and act, understand and give meaning to the powerlifting community through participation in it. The individual responds and acts in relation to what is going on in the community; he is testing and experimenting to learn where the borders are and what actions are rewarded or condemned. This way of learning enables an individual to get closer to the centre of the community (Wenger 1998).

As we can see in the above statement, the informant describes an expectation from the social environment, which can be formulated as follows: If you achieve good results, then you are using steroids. We can see the same expectation in the following statement, with a little bit of added encouragement: You are performing so well without using steroids – what if you were to actually use…

I competed in the National Bodybuilding Championships¹, I became “X:a” [high position]. None of the competitors believed that I had never taken steroids./…/Then when I got back to “X” [hometown] where I lived, the others said, “You ended up in such a high position, if you started taking steroids, you would be the best in the world…” (Informant 1)

On the one hand, people in the community question whether you are clean when you are performing well. In this way, you might also be influenced into using AAS, since everyone believes you are on steroids anyway. On the other hand, there is an encouraging influence: ‘You have reached this level without using AAS – imagine where you’d be if you were using them.’ Both of these statements could influence athletes to use doping substances. Such influences could be interpreted as a learning process (see Lave and Wenger 1991). Other individuals in the community were placing expectations on the informants, although they were also expressing opportunities for development and success in competitions, with the help of AAS. Using AAS would probably be a way to go from peripheral position in the community to a more central one since better results will support such movement, and this is of course attractive (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991).

There were also some other narratives in relation to the ‘first time’. One informant described how drug and alcohol abuse was a gateway to doping. Another narrative that emerged was concerned several informants who were influenced by the big guys at the gym – they wanted to look like them. Here, we can understand the big guys as being central individuals in the community (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991). They become central, and role models for the novices who are peripheral in the community.

Stated motives for doping

The usual motives were improving athletic performance, a desire to win, catching up with exercise when behind, and achieving results faster, for which doping becomes a shortcut. These could be seen as examples of behaviour and objectives that were highly valued in the powerlifting community (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991). Here is one example:

…the reason I took [AAS] – I could be part of the best in the world and there would be no side effects; that was why I started. (Informant 1)

This striving to be the best could also be interpreted as an ‘act’ in order to get closer to the central part of the community (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991).

Curiosity about what the AAS preparations could do also motivated a number of informants to start using:

Yes…finally there was a bit of curiosity. I saw others improve their results [i.e. lifting heavier weights]. I thought, shit, can they really improve that much using those pills? (Informant 6)

…and there was a bit of curiosity… how does it work? So many of them said it was so brilliant. (Informant 4)

The curiosity and exploration of doping could be interpreted as part of a learning process, a quest for understanding of a new community by participation (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991).

Some non-sporting motives were also revealed, such as ‘seeking’ (acknowledgement) and liberation (‘youth revolt’).

So far I had been mummy’s little boy, and I still am. Maybe it was a kind of cry… I wanted to get out and show off, basically. (Informant 7)

The narratives of ‘seeking’ and ‘revolt’ can be associated with identity formation. Participating in a new community and giving meaning to the community also influences the identity of individuals, as does the possibility of changing the identity (cf. Wenger 1998). This process is not only associated with the community of practice but it will also affect the individual in other social contexts (Wenger 1998). Through learning, the informant is becoming a powerlifter. The use of AAS virtually becomes a ritual to becoming a central individual in the powerlifting community (see Coakley and Pike 2009; Hughes and Coakley 1991). Two of the informants reported cosmetic reasons for becoming big and muscular, which could be interpreted as a form of (bodily) change of identity.

The most common motive for doping was everyone else is using, and then, by implication, you must also use, to be competitive and to be able to compete on equal terms:

… I grasped this quite quickly, that if I want to play along, I will have to use what all the others are using. (Informant 8)

Similar findings have been reported in previous studies (Curry and Wagman 1999; Henning and Dimeo 2015; Özdemir et al. 2005). This could perhaps be related to ‘the false consensus effect’ (see Petróczi et al. 2008; Uvacsek et al. 2011). Nevertheless, if the informant has this view of the community, that everyone else is using, it could be interpreted as a social influence in a learning process of the powerlifting community. The new peripheral participants in the community perceive that many other powerlifters are using AAS, particularly the most central, experienced and successful powerlifters (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991).

Conclusion

In previous research, doping has usually been analyzed as individual or psychosocial processes, though sometimes in connection to social norms (e.g. Backhouse et al. 2007; Donovan et al. 2002; Kindlundh et al 1999; Ntoumanis et al. 2014; Ohl et al. 2015; Papadopoulos et al. 2006; Wichstrøm 2006). However, doping behaviour is socially complex as shown in this study, where the focus has been on situated learning in a community of powerlifters.

In the empirical findings, the informants described how their doping behaviours emerged in relation to what could be interpreted as a ‘doping culture’ in their sports community. This is characterized by several social occurrences, expectations, situations, actions and norms in the informants’ sporting environment. Applying Lave and Wenger’s (1991) and Wenger’s (1998) theories of learning as a situated and social process adds a new valuable perspective on doping and new understandings of doping as a learning process – all situated in a specific social and historical context. The informants learned that others in the community were using doping substances; they learned that officials were aware of the extensive use of doping and that several of them had used doping preparations in their own careers. They learned from senior lifters about AAS – how to use the preparations. They learned that fellow athletes in the community expected them to use AAS if they were performing well, that other athletes using AAS improved their performance significantly, that they were questioned if they denied using AAS, and that competitors were involved in doping. They also learned where to buy AAS in the powerlifting community, how to administer AAS, how to avoid being caught in a doping control and that suspended powerlifters were welcomed back to the community after a ban.

Learning can be achieved through instructions and teaching from coaches in communities, like in the powerlifting community, as well as through the rules of powerlifting. According to the rules, doping is illegal. However, Lave and Wenger (1991) state that learning through instructions is very limited, at least if the instructions are not applied in practice by central individuals in the community. The authors suggests that learning takes place between members of communities of practice. Lave and Wenger (1991) criticize the view of learning as an individual process of observation and imitation. Instead, learning is about participation and engagement in a practice. Moreover, as noted in the empirical findings, all of the informants in the study were, of course, aware of the anti-doping rules, but they learned their behaviour in practice and in specific situations at the gym through a process of participation in the community. Here, the anti-doping rules and training coaches were peripheral elements of the community, and teammates, other athletes and senior lifters were the most influential and central actors in relation to doping. The communication of doping knowledge between older and younger athletes, and the transmission of doping cultures between athletes, have been reported in previous research, although with no connection to situated learning theories (see e.g. Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs 2010).

According to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning starts as a legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice. The informants in this study, when describing their ‘sports community’ and ‘first time’, they were inexperienced and their participation were peripheral in the sports community at the start of their careers. The informants had a peripheral position in the community, but they had a legitimate position – a ‘right’ to exercise and compete in powerlifting. In the community, they tried to create meaning for what was going on, from an apprentice perspective. The informants tried to understand the community and practice through observation, participation and interaction. The processes of understanding and creating meaning include, for example, how to work out, how to treat other powerlifters, strategies for competitions, strategies for using AAS in order to exercise more efficiently. In addition, the practice and interaction with senior and more central individuals in the community were of great significance to the learning process (cf. Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs 2010). This was something that became obvious in the empirical findings, in which informants stated that the older more experienced lifters were their mentors in relation to exercise as well as doping. In an endeavour for getting closer to the central parts of the powerlifting community, doping become a crucial and defining activity for the informants; in itself as elite-ritual, and as means to results and wins in powerlifting competitions (cf. Hughes and Coakley 1991).

Wenger (1998) says that a learning process is also an identity process. Learning changes and creates your identity (cf. Hutchinson, Moston, and Engelberg 2018; Monaghan 2002; Petróczi and Aidman 2008). In the empirical material, informants talked about searching, becoming someone, being that big, strong man they admired at the gym and, of course, being a winner and best in the world in their sport. The learning process creates personal stories of becoming a person in the community of practice – and doping was a tool and a practice that formed part of a (new) identity as a powerlifter and person. Using doping substances, doing it, creates new experiences, which is both a mental and a physical learning; identity processes in the body and by the body (cf. Andreasson 2014).

The findings in the study can be compared with studies that focus on influences from the social sport environment on the use of doping preparations: pressure from teammates (Kirby, Moran, and Guerin 2011; Schneider 2006); wanting to ‘get inside’, to be an ‘insider’ (Lentillon-Kaestner 2014); to be accepted in the group; to comply with social norms (Ntoumanis et al. 2014); to get involved in doping activities as a part in an identity process; striving to join a professional elite group; and to be an elite powerlifter (Hutchinson, Moston, and Engelberg 2018; Petróczi and Aidman 2008; cf. Coakley and Pike 2009; Hughes and Coakley 1991). The findings in the above-mentioned studies are important in relation to learning processes. However, learning is not only a communicative process of adaptation but learning also is a multifaceted process and includes participation and actions, and learning is situated in a specific context (Lave and Wenger 1991). In his discussion of the shortcomings of a psychosocial understanding of doping – with focus on the individual – Hauw (2013a, 220) states that doping studies need to focus on, as he expresses it, the ‘nature of human activity’, instead of on ‘human nature’. Hauw (2013b) also states that unethical behaviour such as doping must be analyzed as a development of human activities rather individual life courses. In the powerlifting community of practice, the human activities are about individuals who create meaning and identities in situations, and it is about actions in relation to expectations, and it is about interaction with other members in the practice – where doping is an essential activity.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 The informant had competed in bodybuilding for a brief period, but his main sport was powerlifting.