Advertisement

The doping critical attitude of elite sports coaches in combat sports

  • Katharina PöppelEmail author
  • Dirk Büsch
Main Article
  • 112 Downloads

Abstract

Youth coaches take a significant role in the athlete’s network and represent an influencing factor on doping prevention, which has been investigated insufficiently by empirical research in young elite sports. Especially, combat sports are characterized by a multitude of doping opportunities to enhance the chance of winning. In order to deduce an effective and efficient doping prevention within the setting of combat sports, which is acknowledged by the protagonists, an examination of the coaches’ baseline concerning doping and prevention was assessed as a necessary precondition. Sixty-nine German coaches (89.9% male, 76.8% holding the highest license level in boxing, fencing, judo or wrestling) took part in an online survey, which focused on the coaches’ existing knowledge, doping perceptions, attitudes and prevention needs. The participating coaches in combat sports regard doping as an international problem. Independent of their type of sports, the coaches indicate a very critical position concerning doping attitudes and moral disengagement and indicate a satisfying knowledge concerning doping substances. Support is needed in the handling of supplements which are assumed to have a gateway function to doping. Several coaches request doping prevention on a regular basis that is embedded in their own coaching courses and tailored to their specific needs. Thus, participating coaches in combat sports have favorable preconditions in their interaction with young athletes and for the implementation and further expansion of doping prevention measures. Effectiveness of coaches’ doping prevention needs to be evaluated.

Keywords

Doping prevention Education Athlete’s network Young elite sports Dietary supplements 

Die dopingkritische Haltung von Kampfsporttrainer/innen im Leistungssport

Zusammenfassung

Nachwuchstrainer/innen nehmen eine bedeutsame Rolle im Athlet/innennetzwerk ein und stellen einen Einflussfaktor auf die Dopingprävention dar, der im Nachwuchsleistungssport bisher unzureichend empirisch untersucht ist. Insbesondere Zweikampfsportarten sind gekennzeichnet durch ein breites Spektrum möglicher Dopingoptionen, um die Siegeswahrscheinlichkeit zu erhöhen. Zur Ableitung einer effektiven und effizienten Dopingprävention in den Zweikampfsportarten, die von den Protagonisten anerkannt wird, wurde die Lehr-Ausgangslage von Trainer/innen bezüglich der Themen Doping und Prävention als notwendige Grundvoraussetzung genau analysiert. An einer Online-Befragung mit dem Fokus auf dopingbezogenes Vorwissen, Dopingwahrnehmungen, -einstellungen und -präventionswünsche nahmen 69 deutsche Zweikampfsporttrainer/innen (89,9 % männlich, 76,8 % mit Lizenzstufe A in den Sportarten Boxen, Fechten, Judo oder Ringen) teil. Sie sahen Doping vor allem als internationales Problem an. Sportartunabhängig zeigten sie eine sehr kritische Haltung in Hinblick auf Dopingeinstellungen sowie Moralvorstellungen. Darüber hinaus zeigten sie ein zufriedenstellendes Wissen im Hinblick auf Dopingsubstanzen. Dennoch scheint Unterstützung angezeigt bei der Handhabung von Nahrungsergänzungsmitteln, denen eine Gateway-Funktion für späteres Dopingverhalten zugeschrieben wird. Trainer/innen forderten mehrheitlich regelmäßige, in Trainer/innen-Lehrgänge eingebettete und auf ihre besonderen Bedürfnisse zugeschnittene Dopingpräventionsmaßnahmen. Folglich verfügen die Teilnehmenden über günstige Grundvoraussetzungen für die Interaktion mit jungen Athleten/-innen sowie für die Implementierung und den weiteren Ausbau trainerspezifischer Präventionsmaßnahmen. Die Effektivität einer trainerspezifischen Dopingprävention muss empirisch überprüft werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Dopingprävention Erziehung Athlet/innennetzwerk Nachwuchsleistungssport Nahrungsergänzungsmittel 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the German Boxing-Association, the German Fencing Federation, the German Judo Federation and the German Wrestling Federation for supporting the study.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

K. Pöppel and D. Büsch declare that they have no competing interests.

The study was approved by the Ethics Comission of the Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg. All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Allen, J. B., Morris, R., Dimeo, P., & Robinson, L. (2017). Precipitating or prohibiting factor: Coaches’ perceptions of their role and actions in anti-doping. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 12(5), 577–587.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117727653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backhouse, S. H., & McKenna, J. (2012). Reviewing coaches’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding doping in sport. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 7(1), 167–175.  https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.7.1.167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Backhouse, S. H., Whitaker, L., & Petróczi, A. (2013). Gateway to doping? Supplement use in the context of preferred competitive situations, doping attitude, beliefs, and norms. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 23(2), 244–252.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01374.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blank, C., Leichtfried, V., Fürhapter, C., Müller, D., & Schobersberger, W. (2014). Doping in sports: West-Austrian sport teachers’ and coaches’ knowledge, attitude and behavior. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 65(10), 289-293.  https://doi.org/10.5960/dzsm.2014.133.Google Scholar
  5. Blasius, H. (2017). Doping im Sport. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  6. Boardley, I. D., Smith, A. L., Mills, J., Grix, J., Wynne, C., & Wilkins, L. (2018). Development of moral disengagement and self-regulatory efficacy assessments relevant to doping in sport and exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 36, 57–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brand, R., & Schwarz, R. (2017). Dopingprävention aus psychologischer und pädagogischer Perspektive. In K. Hottenrott & I. Seidel (Eds.), Handbuch Trainingswissenschaft – Trainingslehre (pp. 453–458). Schorndorf: Hofmann.Google Scholar
  8. Brand, R., Heck, P., & Ziegler, M. (2014). Illegal performance enhancing drugs and doping in sport: a picture-based brief implicit association test for measuring athletes’ attitudes. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 9(7), 1–11.Google Scholar
  9. Braun, H., Koehler, K., Geyer, H., Kleinert, J., Mester, J., & Schänzer, W. (2009). Dietary supplement use among elite young German athletes. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 19(1), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brito, C. J., Roas, A. F. C. M., Brito, I. S. S., Marins, J. C. B., Córdova, C., & Franchini, E. (2012). Methods of body-mass reduction by combat sport athletes. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 22(2), 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chan, D. K. C., Hardcastle, S. J., Lentillon-Kaestner, V., Donovan, R. J., Dimmock, J. A., & Hagger, M. S. (2014). Athletes’ beliefs about and attitudes towards taking banned performance-enhancing substances: a qualitative study. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 3(4), 241–257.  https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davids, K., Araújo, D., Shuttleworth, R., & Button, C. (2003). Acquiring skill in sport: a constraints-led perspective. International Journal of Computer Science in Sport, 2(2), 31–39.Google Scholar
  13. Eichner, A., & Tygart, T. (2016). Adulterated dietary supplements threaten the health and sporting career of up-and-coming young athletes. Drug testing and analysis, 8(3–4), 304–306.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.1899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engelberg, T., & Moston, S. (2016). Inside the locker room: a qualitative study of coaches’ anti-doping knowledge, beliefs and attitudes. Sport in Society,, 19(7), 942–956.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1096244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erickson, K., McKenna, J., & Backhouse, S. H. (2015). A qualitative analysis of the factors that protect athletes against doping in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16(Part 2), 149–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fürhapter, C., Blank, C., Leichtfried, V., Mair-Raggautz, M., Müller, D., & Schobersberger, W. (2013). Evaluation of West-Austrian junior athletes’ knowledge regarding doping in sports. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, 125(1–2), 41–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-012-0318-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenway, P., & Greenway, M. (1997). General practitioner knowledge of prohibited substances in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(2), 129–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gucciardi, D. F., Jalleh, G., & Donovan, R. J. (2010). Does social desirability influence the relationship between doping attitudes and doping susceptibility in athletes? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(6), 479–486.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. de Hon, O., Kuipers, H., & van Bottenburg, M. (2015). Prevalence of doping use in elite sports: a review of numbers and methods. Sports Medicine, 45(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. JASP Team (2018). JASP (Version 0.9.0.1). https://jasp-stats.org/. Accessed 2 Feb 2019.Google Scholar
  23. Kavussanu, M., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Elbe, A.-M., & Ring, C. (2016). The moral disengagement in doping scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 24, 188–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  25. Laure, P., Thouvenin, F., & Lecerf, T. (2001). Attitudes of coaches towards doping. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 41(1), 132.Google Scholar
  26. Lenhard, W., & Lenhard, A. (2016). Berechnung von Effektstärken. https://www.psychometrica.de/effektstaerke.html. Accessed 2 Feb 2019Google Scholar
  27. Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
  28. Mazanov, J., Backhouse, S. H., Connor, J., Hemphill, D., & Quirk, F. (2014). Athlete support personnel and anti-doping: knowledge, attitudes, and ethical stance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 24(5), 846–856.  https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mazanov, J., Hemphill, D., Connor, J., Quirk, F., & Backhouse, S. H. (2015). Australian athlete support personnel lived experience of anti-doping. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 218–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moston, S., Engelberg, T., & Skinner, J. (2015). Self-fulfilling prophecy and the future of doping. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16(2), 201–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moston, S., Skinner, J., & Engelberg, T. (2012). Perceived incidence of drug use in Australian sport: a survey of public opinion. Sport in Society, 15(1), 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341–360). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nicholls, A. R., Madigan, D. J., & Levy, A. R. (2017). A confirmatory factor analysis of the performance enhancement attitude scale for adult and adolescent athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 28, 100–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ntoumanis, N., Barkoukis, V., Gucciardi, D. F., & Chan, D. K. C. (2017). Linking coach interpersonal style with athlete doping intentions and doping use: a prospective study. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 39(3), 188–198.  https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep2016-0243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ntoumanis, N., Ng, J., Barkoukis, V., & Backhouse, S. H. (2014). Personal and psychosocial predictors of doping use in physical activity settings: a meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 44(11), 1603–1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pappa, E., & Kennedy, E. (2012). ‘it was my thought … he made it a reality’: normalization and responsibility in athletes’ accounts of performance-enhancing drug use. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48(3), 277–294.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690212442116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Patterson, L. B., Backhouse, S. H., & Duffy, P. J. (2016). Anti-doping education for coaches: qualitative insights from national and international sporting and anti-doping organisations. Sport Management Review, 19(1), 35–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Patterson, L. B., Duffy, P. J., & Backhouse, S. H. (2014). Are coaches anti-doping? Exploring issues of engagement with education and research. Substance use & misuse, 49(9), 1182–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peters, C., Schulz, T., Oberhoffer, R., & Michna, H. (2009). Doping und Dopingprävention: Kenntnisse, Einstellungen und Erwartungen von Athleten und Trainern (Doping and doping prevention: knowledge, attitudes and expectations of athletes and coaches). Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 60(3), 73–78.Google Scholar
  41. Petróczi, A. (2013). The doping mindset—Part I: Implications of the functional use theory on mental representations of doping. Performance Enhancement & Health, 2(4), 153–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Petróczi, A., & Aidman, E. (2008). Psychological drivers in doping: The life-cycle model of performance enhancement. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 3(1), 7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597x-3-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Petróczi, A., & Aidman, E. (2009). Measuring explicit attitude toward doping: Review of the psychometric properties of the performance enhancement attitude scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(3), 390–396.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Renshaw, I., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Hammond, J. (2010). A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill acquisition and game play: A basis for integration of motor learning theory and physical education praxis? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(2), 117–137.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980902791586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schierz, M., Thiele, J., & Fischer, B. (2006). Fallarbeit in der Trainerausbildung. Köln: Sportverlag Strauß.Google Scholar
  46. Schwarz, R. (2015). Doping pädagogisch betrachtet. In A. Dresen, L. Form & R. Brand (Eds.), Dopingforschung. Perspektiven und Themen (pp. 127–147). Schorndorf: Hofmann.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, A. C., Stewart, B., Oliver-Bennetts, S., McDonald, S., Ingerson, L., Anderson, A., et al. (2010). Contextual influences and athlete attitudes to drugs in sport. Sport Management Review, 13(3), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Solberg, H. A., Hanstad, D. V., & Thøring, T. A. (2010). Doping in elite sport—do the fans care? Public opinion on the consequences of doping scandals. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 11(3), 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swann, C., Moran, A., & Piggott, D. (2015). Defining elite athletes: Issues in the study of expert performance in sport psychology. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ulrich, R., Pope, H. G., Cléret, L., Petróczi, A., Nepusz, T., Schaffer, J., et al. (2017). Doping in two elite athletics competitions assessed by randomized-response surveys. Sports Medicine.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4.Google Scholar
  51. Vargo, E. J., James, R. A., Agyeman, K., MacPhee, T., McIntyre, R., Ronca, F., et al. (2015). Perceptions of assisted cognitive and sport performance enhancement among university students in England. Performance Enhancement & Health, 3, 66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2015.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Widaman, K. F., Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., & Sawalani, G. M. (2011). On creating and using short forms of scales in secondary research. In K. H. Trzesniewski, M. B. Donnellan & R. E. Lucas (Eds.), Secondary data analysis. An introduction for psychologists (pp. 39–61). Washington: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. World Anti-Doping Agency (2017). 2016 Anti-doping testing figures. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/laboratories/anti-doping-testing-figures. Accessed 2 Feb 2019.Google Scholar
  54. World Anti-Doping Agency (2018a). 2019 List of prohibited substances and methods. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/wada_2019_english_prohibited_list.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019.Google Scholar
  55. World Anti-Doping Agency (2018b). Welcome to ADeL. https://adel.wada-ama.org/. Accessed 2 Feb 2019.Google Scholar
  56. World Anti-Doping Agency (2019). Prohibited association list. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/asp_list_15012019.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2019.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Sport und ErziehungCarl von Ossietzky Universität OldenburgOldenburgGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Sport und TrainingCarl von Ossietzky Universität OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations