Purpose
The purpose of this research was to examine coaches’ attitudes, awareness, and perceptions of their role and actions in athletes’ doping and anti-doping behaviour.
Rationale
Research examining athletes’ attitudes and behaviours in relation to doping has identified coaches as a potential precipitating factor (e.g., Backhouse, Atkin, McKenna, Robinson, 2007; Dimeo, Allen, Taylor, Robinson, 2012; Kirby, Moran, Guerin, 2011; Lazuras,
Barkoukis, Rodafinos, 2010) and a protective or prohibiting factor in athlete doping (e.g., Backhouse et al, 2007; Cléret, 2011; Dimeo et al, 2012; Dubin, 1990; Kirby et al., 2011). However, little is known about coaches’ perceptions and awareness of their role in doping and
anti-doping.
Theoretical Approach
Research demonstrates that coaches’ perceptions of their coaching role guides their behaviours, the issues identified, and acted on (Bennie & O’Connor, 2010; Gilbert & Trudel, 2001; 2004; Nash, Sproule, & Horton, 2008). Furthermore, experts regularly reflect
upon their beliefs about their role to monitor their professional practices (Schempp, McCullick, Busch, Webster, & Mason, 2006). Schön’s (1983) theory of reflection has been used to examine coaches’ perceptions of their role and its relation to their actions (e.g., Gilbert & Trudel, 2001; 2004). According to Schön, the way practitioners frame their role determines the issues that are identified as ‘problematic’ and the strategies developed to address them. Therefore, coaches who do not view anti-doping as part of their role would be less likely to identify potential issues surrounding athlete doping. Consequently, they may unknowingly reinforce doping behaviour through their ‘inaction’. In contrast, coaches who see anti-doping as important to their role may recognise issues/situations that may predispose or tempt athletes to engage in doping behaviour. As a result, and consistent with Schön’s notion of reflective practice, these coaches may act to intervene and reduce the likelihood of athlete doping behaviour.
Method: Twenty-three coaches working with performance athletes in Scotland participated in the study (Men = 17, Women = 6; average age = 42.6 years; average coaching experience = 19.0
years). Coaches participated in semi-structured interviews where they discussed general coaching roles, awareness of and attitudes towards doping and anti-doping, perceptions of their role and actions in doping and anti-doping and their experiences with anti-doping education and support. Through analysis of the transcribed interviews the data were organised into three areas: Role frame; Reflective conversation; Education. Within each area lower and higher order themes were developed.
Results: Role frame. The 12 higher order themes relating to the coaches’ role frame were organised into internal components (personal beliefs and values) and boundary components
(influential situational factors) The coaches’ held a clear anti-doping stance and there were strong anti-doping foundations
evident in their role frame such as:
- a personal belief in ‘clean’ sport
- holistic approach to preparation and performance
- Scottish and British sport culture
- responsibility to athletes
- prevalence of doping
Despite a role frame largely conducive to doping prevention coaches recognised the limitations of their ‘reach’ and the potential influence of the wider sport environment.
However, a strong anti-doping foundation and role frame components such as clarity of responsibility, potential for benefit to performance, and prevalence of testing also contributed to anti-doping having a low priority for many coaches. In contrast, in sports where there is clearevidence of performance benefits and a history of systematic doping globally, anti-doping held a higher priority.
Results: Reflective conversation
The 22 lower order themes relating to the reflective conversation around doping and anti-doping were organised into Schön’s four concepts: issue appreciation, strategy, action, and evaluation. The priority assigned to antidoping was reflective of the extent to which doping was deemed problematic in their sport. The more doping was identified as an issue, the greater the engagement in structured and planned anti-doping activities.
The role frame of coaches shaped the problems identified and their reflective conversations:
- Issue appreciation. Coaches’ identified doping as a generic issue in international sport, however, for most of the coaches doping was not an identifiable problem in their sport, particularly in Scotland. Anti-doping was assigned a low priority for many coaches. In contrast, inadvertent doping was a concern for most coaches.
- Strategy generation. A somewhat limited range of sources contributed to anti-doping strategy generation. This may be, in part, due to a relatively low level engagement with anti-doping strategy generation. The main sources were experience as an athlete, enlisting experts and anti-doping materials.
- Action. Only a small number of coaches had well-developed integrated anti-doping strategies. For all coaches anti-doping actions focused on doping control and minimising inadvertent use through medications. Many coaches preferred to keep things informal and
react to situations as they arose.
- Evaluation. Practical engagement was viewed as more effective.
Results: Education. The 7 lower order themes relating to coaches’ experience with education related to anti-doping were organised into two higher order themes: education is primarily for athletes and education for coaches. The coaches recognised that education opportunities were directed towards athletes. Their own education came from personal interest, experiences as an athlete. Due to the low priority many coaches assigned to anti-doping their own education was also a low priority.
Conclusion
The coaches in this study are a prohibiting factor in doping, however, their potential in this role is not being maximised.
- The coaches’ role frame provides a strong foundation for anti-doping.
- For many coaches anti-doping was an implicit rather than explicit part of a coaching and programme philosophy.
- Coaches recognised limits to their own influence and the potential for influence from outside the ‘coach-controlled environment’.
- Anti-doping was a relatively low priority for many coaches.
- Some coaches felt they did not have sufficient knowledgeable to engage in anti-doping actions.
- Those for whom anti-doping was a higher priority engaged in structured, planned, practical anti-doping activities.
- Anti-doping activities focused on control procedures and inadvertent use through medications.
- Coach education was a relatively low priority, however, more information is desired in relation to supplements.
Recommendations
- Continue to explore ways to raise the priority of anti-doping education for athletes and coaches.
- Encourage sport governing bodies to embedded anti-doping ideals and education as an expected part of a high quality performance programme so that anti-doping awareness becomes an intrinsic part of a high performance system.
• Encourage sport governing bodies and coaches to clarify the responsibility for, and to allocate roles for, the education and monitoring of doping prevention.
• Encourage coaches to become knowledgeable about doping issues so they are confident to engage in informal discussions with athletes on issues related to doping and antidoping.
• Develop coach education that goes beyond the understanding of doping control procedures to include case studies, examples, and practical experiences relating to how and when to engage athletes in anti-doping conversations and experiences.
• Link anti-doping education to topics that coaches’ desire information about such as supplements.
• Highlight the sports and nations that foster a strong anti-doping culture in order to provide a reference point for those wishing to strengthen their anti-doping culture.
• Explore through in-depth case studies how an anti-doping culture and philosophy is developed and maintained so that best practice can be disseminated globally.
