ABSTRACT
Agents, race-organisers, and sponsors have a key influence in shaping the world of elite professional distance running. Yet to date this important but hard-to-reach stakeholder group has been omitted from the global research landscape of doping and anti-doping. The purpose of this study is to address this gap in the literature and explore the systematic contributors to doping in elite long-distance running, along with potential solutions to this issue, from this influential perspective. Thirteen in-depth interviews were conducted with agents (n = 8) of world-class long-distance runners, major race organisers (n = 3), and sports marketing managers for global brands (n = 2). The interviews were conducted via the phone, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Reflexive thematic analysis generated three themes which focused on: 1) The framework of professional distance running and the contextual aspects which may contribute to doping risk, 2) the impact of various recruitment strategies on doping and anti-doping, and 3) the lessons that can be learnt from the participants’ first-hand experiences with doping cases and/or managing anti-doping requirements. Reflecting on the sector rather than the sample, the results highlighted that not all commercial stakeholders feel responsible for anti-doping. Collective responsibility from all stakeholders, which is currently borne by some and not others, is necessary to minimise doping in distance running. The challenge is how to convince all stakeholders of their share of the responsibility.
Highlights
First empirical study about doping with a sample of commercial stakeholders.
Agents, sponsors, and race directors play a key role in anti-doping.
Doping threatens the commercial viability of professional running.
Convincing all stakeholders of their responsibility for anti-doping is challenging.
Global and local structural change is needed to tackle doping in distance running.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to the participants for generously sharing their time and thoughts.
CRediT statement
CRediT Author Statement Jake Shelley: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - Original Draft Project administration; Sam Thrower: Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing, Data Curation, Supervision; Andrea Petróczi: Conceptualization, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data Availability
The anonymised transcripts are not publicly available and are only accessible to the authors due to the high-profile nature of the participants.
Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2022.2161598.