Psychosocial factors facilitating use of cognitive enhancing drugs in education: a qualitative investigation of moral disengagement and associated processes

2 Jul 2919

Psychosocial factors facilitating use of cognitive enhancing drugs in education : a qualitative investigation of moral disengagement and associated processes / Andrew Robert Heyes, Ian David Boardley

  • Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 26 (2019) 4, p. 329-338
  • DOI:10.1080/09687637.2019.1586831
  • Special Issue: Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement


Abstract

Illicit use of prescription drugs (e.g. modafinil) to enhance academic performance – termed cognitive enhancement (CE) – is a legal, health, and ethical issue. Guided by Bandura’s social cognitive theory of moral thought and action, this study investigated whether student users of CE evidenced specific psychosocial mechanisms (i.e. mechanisms of moral disengagement) when explaining their reasons for CE. Following ethical approval from the lead author’s institution, in-depth-semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine students with experience of CE. Data were content analysed deductively, using definitions for the eight mechanisms of moral disengagement; six of the eight mechanisms were identified through data analysis: diffusion of responsibility (DR), advantageous comparison (AC), distortion of consequences (DCs), displacement of responsibility, moral justification, and euphemistic labelling. In addition, inductive data analysis identified three further themes; self-medication, family and friends, and institutional position. Overall, the study findings suggest students may morally disengage to justify and rationalise use of CE to minimise negative emotional responses (e.g. guilt) that may be expected to result given the potential legal-, health-, and ethics-based deterrents to CE.

Dopingautoriteit Annual Report 2021 (Netherlands)

2 Aug 2022

Dopingautoriteit Annual Report 2021 (Netherlands) / Anti-doping Authority Netherlands (Dopingautoriteit). - Capelle aan den IJssel : Dopingautoriteit, 2022

Contents:

Chapter 1 – Education
Chapter 2 – Doping control
Chapter 3 – Intelligence & Investigations
Chapter 4 – Disciplinary Proceedings
Chapter 5 – Legal Affairs
Chapter 6 – Scientific research
Chapter 7 – Knowledge management
Chapter 8 – Therapeutic Use Exemptions
Chapter 9 – International Affairs
Chapter 10 – People & organisation
--------------------------
Annex 1 - Financial overview
Annex 2 - Members of Advisory Board and Committees
Annex 3 - Personnel
Annex 4 - Overview of presentations and scientific publications
Annex 5 - Secondary positions
Annex 6 – Abbreviations
Annex 7 – Result management

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Yelena Arzhakova

11 Jul 2022

Ms. Yelena Arzhakova is a Russian Athlete competing at the Helsinki 2012 IAAF European Championships and at the London 2012 Olympic Games.

Previously the Athlete served a 2 year period of ineligibility from January 2013 until January 2015 for a ABP violation including disqualification of her results from 12 July 2011.

In 2016, Professor Richard McLaren issued two reports about systemic doping in Russia. These reports identified a significant number of Russian athletes who were involved in, or benefitted from, the doping schemes and practices that he uncovered.

Hereafter in January 2019 the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) recovered the internal database of the Moscow Laboratory (LIMS). Following investigation of allegations of organized doping practices, and in particular of the LIMS, WADA provided international federations with investigation reports on the athletes implicated in these organized doping practices.

As a result in December 2021 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics reported a new anti-doping rule violation against the the Athlete Yelena Arzhakova for the use of the prohibited substances Ostarine and Testosterone.

After notification the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications. Without her response the AIU deems that she has waived her right to a hearing, to have accepted the asserted anti-doping rule violations and the sanction rendered by the AIU.

The AIU considers that the Athlete had already served a 2 year period of ineligibility until January 2015, including disqualification of her results from 12 July 2011. Under the Rules the AIU concludes that the 2012 violations shall be considered as a single first violation together with the previous violations committed.

Further the AIU holds that the Athlete's 2012 violations can be subject to a more severe sanction. Consequently due to aggravating circumstances an additional period of ineligibility of 2 years can be imposed on the Athlete for the 2012 anti-doping rule violations including disqualifation of all her results.

Therefore the AIU decides on 11 July 2022 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the Decision. All the Athlete's results from 29 January 2015 onwards are disqualified with all of the resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, points, prize money and prizes.

iNADO Update #2022-07

11 Jul 2022

iNADO Update (2022) 07 (11 July)
Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations (iNADO)


Contents:

iNADO Community

  • iNADO 2022 Workshop
  • National Integrity Framework - Sport Integrity Australia
  • Partnership for Clean Competition Podcast

Bulletin Board

  • iNADO Member-Only Webinar: AFLD’s Compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code: Challenges and Achievements
  • iNADO Welcomes Adoption of a Declaration of 'Guiding Principles for the Future of Anti-Doping'
  • Uneven Accountability in Anti-Doping: The Role of Socio-Economic and Political Factors Unobserved in the Current System
  • Jeremy Roubin, Secretary General of AFLD

Science

  • Optimizing detection of erythropoietin receptor agonists from dried blood spots for anti-doping application

Practical Development in Anti-Doping

  • Swiss Sport Integrity creates 'Parents' Forum'

Feature of the Month

  • WADA Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) Symposium

iNADO Partners & Sponsors

  • New at the Anti-Doping Knowledge Center

CCES 2022 CCES vs Scott Lieph

4 Jul 2022

In May 2022 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the softball player Scott Lieph after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances Mesterolone and Oxandrolone.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES.

Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Early Admission and Acceptance Form the Athlete received a 1 year reduction from CCES.

Therefore CCES decides on 4 July 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 26 May2022.

Minderjarigen en het antidopingbeleid – Deel 2

1 Jul 2022

Minderjarigen en het antidopingbeleid – deel 2 / H. Ram

  • Tijdschrift voor Sport & Recht (2022) 1, p. 1-10



In dit tweede deel van dit artikel wordt de jurisprudentie inzake door minderjarige sporters begane dopingovertredingen besproken. Daarbij wordt eerst onderzocht hoe de regels in de Wereld Anti-Doping Code (WADC) die specifiek betrekking heeft op minderjarige sporters, inclusief de specifieke regels die het verloop van dopingcontroles bij minderjarige sporters beheersen, worden toegepast. Vervolgens wordt onderzocht hoe minderjarigheid wordt meegewogen en welke factoren daarbij een rol spelen, in het bijzonder bij het bepalen van de strafmaat. Het artikel sluit af met enige conclusies en een jurisprudentieoverzicht.

ITF 2022 ITF vs Stéphane Houde

30 Jun 2022

In October 2021 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the French wheelchair tennis player Stéphane Houde for his whereabouts filing failures and 3 missed tests within a 12 month period.

After notification the Athlete the Parathlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the ITF Independent Tribunal.

The Athlete denied the charge, confirmed the second Missed Test and disputed the validity of his first and third Missed Tests. Further he alleged that the misconduct of a ITF Review Board Member should invalidate the procedure and should effect the outcome of the case.

The Panel dismissed the Athlete's allegations regarding the Review Board Member and finds this request in any event without merit. The Panel assessed in detail the circumstances and the conduct of the Athlete and DCO in question regarding the first and third missed tests.

The Panel concludes that the Athlete had acted with a degree of Fault in his obligation to be present and available for testing. Bij contrast the Panel concludes that the DCO did what was reasonable in the circumstances to locate the Athlete.

The Panel regards that the Athlete had been tested before out-of-competition without issues for many years. He had long been an advocate for anti-doping and after the Missed Tests he made serious attempts to correct his mistakes.

Further the Panel establishes that there had been delays in the proceedings not interely attributed to the Athlete whereas there were no grounds to retroactively disqualify the Athlete's results.

Therefore the ITF decides on 30 June 2022 to impose a 15 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting backdated on 27 December 2021.

World Athletics 2021 WA vs Joel Maina Mwangi

29 Jun 2022

In November 2021 the Commission of the Italian Ministry of Health reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Joel Maina Mwangi after he tested positive for the prohibited substances 9-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone Nandrolone.

The Athlete admitted the violation and on 25 January 2022 he accepted a 2 year period of ineligibility rendered by the Procura Nazionale Antidoping (PNA), the Italian National Anti-Doping Prosecutor Office.

Hereafter in January 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics was notified about the Italian Decision. After review the AIU deemed that it could not recognise this Italian Decision as an anti-doping rule violation under the WADA Code because the Commission of the Italian Ministry of Health was not an Code Signatory.

Nevertheless the AIU deemed that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation because the Athlete was subjected to the applicable Rules, he had admitted the violation and the analysis of his sample was conducted in the WADA accredited Roma Laboratory in accordance with the ISTI.

After notification in June 2022 the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The Athlete explained with medical evidence that he suffered from an injury and that the doctor in the hospital had injected him Deca-Durabolin as treatment whereas he was unaware that this medication contained prohibited substances.

The AIU finds that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional and considers that the Athlete had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form in order to receive a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore World Athletics decides on 29 June 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 23 June 2022.

CCES 2022 CCES vs Zeyad El-Karsh

27 Jun 2022

In May 2022 the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the weightlifter Zeyad El-Karsh after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substances LGD-4033 (ligandrol) and Tamoxifen.

After notification the Athlete gave a prompt admission, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by CCES.

Because the Athlete signed and submitted the Early Admission and Acceptance Form the Athlete received a 1 year reduction from CCES.

Therefore CCES decides on 27 June 2022 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 13 May 2022.

ECB 2022 ECB vs Tom Wood

24 Jun 2022

In February 2022 the English and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Cricket player Tom Wood after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Terbutaline.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the National Anti-Doping Panel.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He demonstrated with evidence that he suffered from asthma since he was a child and that the Terbutaline was used as prescribed medication.

The Athlete requested for a reduced sanction on the basis of No Significant Fault or Negligence. He asserted that in his career the Club's medical staff was aware of his use of his inhaler whereas the anti-doping training he had received was inadequate.

He understood that as a second team player using medication he could apply retrospectively. Yet, his application for a retroactive TUE was rejected in December 2021.

The ECB already had accepted that the violation was not intentional and that the substance was used as prescribed medication. The ECB acknowledged that in the ADR and in the material published online it remained unclear to determine if a player is in the National TUE Pool and whether he must apply in advance for a TUE or can apply retroactively.

Considering the evidence in this case the Sole Arbitrator did not accept the Athlete's assertion that the anti-doping training he had received was inadequate in respect of advance or retroactive TUE applications.

Yet, on a balance of probabilities the Sole Arbitrator concludes that the Athlete and his Club were convinced that applying for a TUE for the Athlete and his inhaler in the case was not a priority and that he could apply retroactively if he was ever tested and it returned positive.

In view of the circumstances the Sole Arbitrator deems that the Athlete acted with No Significant Fault or Negligence. Further the Sole Arbitrator regards that there was some substantial delay in the proceedings due to the Athlete's application for a retroactive TUE based upon advice received.

Therefore the National Anti-Doping Panel decides on 24 June 2022 to impose a 6 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting back dated on 8 January 2022.

Category
  • Legal Source
  • Education
  • Science
  • Statistics
  • History
Country & language
  • Country
  • Language
Other filters
  • ADRV
  • Legal Terms
  • Sport/IFs
  • Other organisations
  • Laboratories
  • Analytical aspects
  • Doping classes
  • Substances
  • Medical terms
  • Various
  • Version
  • Document category
  • Document type
Publication period
Origin