De Nederlandse topsporter en het antidopingbeleid / Irene Eijs, Aarno Havenga, Olivier de Hon. - Dopingautoriteit; NL Sporter; Vereniging van Contractspelers (VVCS); AtletenCommissie NOC*NSF. - Capelle aan den IJssel : Dopingautoriteit, 2010
Background and research methods
Doping use is a real threat to sports. It undermines the spirit of fair play and poses health risks to the athletes. Athletes have no choice but to follow existing doping procedures. The Anti-Doping Authority the Netherlands (‘Dopingautoriteit’) periodically assesses the opinions of Dutch (elite) athletes on several aspects of doping policies in order to evaluate these policies, and possibly to adjust them. In 2009/2010 this study was performed in cooperation with NL Sporter (the Dutch independent interest group for elite athletes), the ‘Vereniging van Contractspelers’ (VVCS, the Dutch representative organisation for professional football/soccer players), and the Athlete Committee of the National Olympic Committee NOC*NSF. The study was financed by the Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sports. In cooperation with certified research company Intomart GfK a digital questionnaire was sent to 888 elite athletes with an official ‘elite status’, as determined by NOC*NSF. In addition, 453 professional football/soccer players (all members of the VVCS) were approached via email. A representative group of 38% of all ‘status athletes’ responded. The response amongst football players was 21% and can be considered to be indicative of this particular group of athletes. The study was performed in the first few months of 2010.
Whereabouts , dopingcontrols en Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs)
One of the most recent changes in the doping regulations, the introduction of a whereabouts administration, is the most controversial antidoping rule. Less than 20% of all status athletes think this rule is necessary for their own sport, with 61% having experience in fulfilling this requirement. A group of 38% of these athletes regularly experiences problems in filing whereabouts information. This percentage is somewhat lower in younger athletes and in females. The two most important antidoping organisations that collect whereabouts information from Dutch athletes receive similar complaints, but WADA’s ‘ADAMS system’ experiences technical and software related problems more often than Dopingautoriteit’s ‘Sportergegevens’. Athletes perceive whereabouts regulations as a major impact on their personal lives. The software used to collect whereabouts information is considered unnecessary laborious and filing whereabouts information, and keeping them updated, costs a lot of time. The combination of not knowing where one will be at a certain point of time in the future, and the knowledge that administrative mistakes may lead to ‘missed tests’ and possible sanctions leads to a high level of uncertainty. This uncertainty is increased by the fear that a doping control officer might not be able to find an athlete, even when the athlete is present at the specified location. This leads to the situation that of all athletes that have to fulfil whereabouts requirements, 47% feels that the influence of doping regulations on their personal lives is too big. Amongst those athletes who do not have this requirement, this percentage is much lower: 19%. There are strong clues that irritation about the whereabouts requirements seriously lowers the support of antidoping regulations in general.
Submitting to the practice of doping controls receives far more support. Problems are encountered less frequently and more than half of the ‘status athletes’ find it important that out of competition controls are performed to discourage doping use. 79% Of these athletes have been tested themselves in the previous year; in the last survey (in 2003) this was 57%. Football/ soccer players are tested less frequently (32% has been tested in the previous year). One in every twenty athletes (of those who have been tested) has one or more registered ‘missed tests’ in its name. These were most often caused by filing the wrong whereabouts information, or sudden changes in schedule due to traffic jams, changed weather, or other unforeseen circumstances. It is of more concern that two cases of registered ‘missed tests’ have been caused by the inability to find the particular athlete, who actually was present at the filed location.
Athletes are well-informed on the possibility to ask for a therapeutic exemption to use prohibited substances or methods (TUE procedure). Knowledge about, and experiences with, this procedure is somewhat scarcer amongst football/soccer players. Approximately 20% of all athletes with TUE-experience has encountered a problem of some sort, like the return of an (incomplete) request or a lack of clarity related to the duration and/or region of validity of the acquired exemption.
Attitudes ,policy, and knowledge
The attitude of Dutch athletes towards doping in general is very dismissive. No less than 91% would feel guilty if doping would be used and 95% states that they only want to win if this can be achieved on their own strength. Athletes prefer that antidoping efforts are predominantly focussed on internationally harmonised policies, increased education in general, and especially targeted at coaches and support personnel. Relatively speaking, older athletes expect more often that tougher sanctions and the availability of alternative methods to improve performance (better training facilities, better nutrition, innovations) will be efficient deterrents of doping use. When compared to other athletes, football/soccer players favour more out of competition controls. Knowledge on the Prohibited List is reasonable; on the procedures surrounding doping controls it is even better. In the past seven years, knowledge on doping related issues has improved.
Education
Of all educational materials that are offered by ‘Dopingautoriteit’, the fan booklet and the website are best known, and are used most often. Status athletes seek doping related information at the Dopingautoriteit, or consult a specialised sports physician. Football/ soccer players seek this sort of information in their direct (club) environment; they have not yet found the way to Dopingautoriteit. Over the last decade, the general practitioners are increasingly less often consulted on doping matters. Consultation of specialised physicians, internet, and NOC*NSF is on the rise.
Existing educational materials receive great satisfaction. One noticeable result is that satisfaction about educational meetings has dropped somewhat over the last seven years (from 95% to 84%). These meetings could be personalised and targeted at specific questions and requests of the athletes that are present. An email service ranked highest for athletes when asked in what way they would like to receive future updates on doping related issues.
The ‘100% Dope Free’ campaign’, started in 2007 at the initiative of the Athlete Committee of NOC*NSF and Dopingautoriteit, is not yet known amongst all elite athletes. About two thirds of all status athletes are familiar with the campaign; for football/soccer players this percentage is just 8%. The different aspects of the campaign are judged in a positive manner by 50-66% of all athletes.
Based on the results, a number of actionable recommendations have been made. These are listed in the last paragraph of this report (page 23).
