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.

In Mei 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Reuben Kiprop Kipyego. The AIU deemed that the Athlete had 3 Wherabouts Failures within a 12 month period:

• a Missed Test and Filing Failure on 8 September 2023;
• a Missed Test and Filing Failure on 5 January 2024; and
• a Filing Failure on 12 March 2024.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered while the Athlete failed to respond to the communications of the AIU. Because of his failure to respond to the charge within the set deadline the AIU deems that the Athlete has admitted the anti-doping rule violation, waived his right for a hearing and accepted the consequences thereupon.

Therefore the AIU decides on 17 July 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 27 Mai 2024.

In July 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf on World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Daniel Muindi after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone).

After notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU determines that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Because he had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 15 July 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 10 July 2024.

In May 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenya Athlete Judith Jerubet  after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substanceTriamcinolone acetonide.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. Thereupon the Athlete failed to respond to the AIU communications.

Because she did not respond within the set deadline the AIU determines in July 2024 that the Athlete was deemed to have waived her right for a hearing and accepted the consequences. Moreover the AIU determines that she had had failed to sign and submit the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form.

Therefore the AIU decides on 15 July 2024 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 7 June 2024.

Report of the Anti-Doping Audit Review Committee to the World Aquatics Bureau / Anti-Doping Audi Review Committee. - Lausanne, Switzerland : World Aquatics, 2024

On 3 May 2024, the World Aquatics Bureau established an anti‐doping audit review committee (the Committee) to review the matter involving 23 Chinese swimmers whose samples collected in 2021 were found to have trimetazidine (TMZ) present in them (the TMZ Case).

The Committee was tasked with examining the processes and procedures employed by World Aquatics, previously known as FINA, in addressing not only the TMZ Case, but all doping cases under its jurisdiction. The objective of this review was to provide World Aquatics with recommendations that could fortify its anti‐doping protocols for the future and ensure that its systems and controls are best‐in‐class.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee was not tasked to review if CHINADA’s decision not to sanction the 23 Chinese swimmers who tested positive to TMZ in 2021 was right. Similarly, the Committee was not tasked with reviewing whether CHINADA handled this matter in accordance with the World Anti‐Doping Code. No forensic examination or investigation of those issues took place in preparing this report.

This report represents the culmination of rigorous examination, thoughtful deliberation, and collaborative effort undertaken by the members of the Committee and the Aquatics community. Hundreds of pages of documentation were examined, a summary of the actions taken by FINA in 2021 in relation to this case, and the operating procedures of World Aquatics effective in 2021 (and still currently in force). The Committee also consulted with more than twenty Aquatic stakeholders, including international‐level swimmers and coaches, National Federations, the International Testing Agency (ITA), the Executive Director of World Aquatics, the Athletes Committee of World Aquatics, a member of the Anti‐Doping Advisory Body of the Aquatics Integrity Unit, a senior representative of the United States Anti‐Doping Agency (USADA), and other leading anti‐doping organisations.

Through this report, the Committee wishes to provide a comprehensive assessment of the processes involved and to offer recommendations that, once implemented, will assist in strengthening the fight against doping in Aquatic sports.

In July 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf on World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Mexican Athlete Jose Eduardo Rodriguez after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Boldenone.

Following notification the Athlete timely admitted the violation, waived his right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The Athlete assumed without corroborating evidence that the positive test likely had been caused by:

• an injection administered by a doctor in April 2024;
• medication used in Brazil in May 2024; 
• a pre-workout supplement purchased and used in Brazil in May 2024; 
• meat consumption in Brazil in May 2024.

The AIU deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Because he had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 10 July 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 1 July 2024.

In May 2024 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf on World Athletics, reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Lucy Karimi after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Erythropoietin (EPO).

Following notification the Athlete initially failed to respond. Yet, in June 2024 she timely admitted the violation, waived her right for a hearing, accepted a provisional suspension and the sanction proposed by the AIU.

The AIU deems that the Athlete failed to establish that the violation was not intentional. Because she had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violations and Acceptance of Consequences Form she received a 1 year reduction from the AIU.

Therefore the AIU decides on 9 July 2024 to impose a 3 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 23 May 2024.

In March 2024 Drug Free Sport New Zealand (DFSNZ) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player Inoke Taragalailai after his samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. He requested for a proportional sanction and argued that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings.

DFSNZ accepted that the Athlete's use of Cannabis was not intentional, yet denied that there had been substantial delays. It deemed that the violation was in-competition and that there are no grounds for a proportional reduced sanction.

The Panel considered whether thare are grounds for a proportional reduced sanction and whether there had been substantial delays in the testing of the sample not attributed to the Panel. Because there was a Panel majority opinion there was also a dissenting decision rendered.

The Panel assessed and addressed the Parties arguments and a majority concludes that there are grounds for a proportional reduced sanction despite the violation was in-competition. In view of the circumstances the Panel majority agrees that there had been substantial delays not attributed to the Athlete.

Therefore the majority of the Panel decides on 3 July 2024 to impose an 8 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting backdated on 14 December 2023.

In July 2022 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), on behalf of World Athletics, reported and anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Lawrence Cherono after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine. 

Following notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete responded and filed a statement in his defence.

The Athlete initially alleged that he had stomach problems and that a doctor had given him erythromycin and an injection with an unknown substance. However the AIU did not accept this explanation.

In August 2022 the Athlete explained that in May 2022 his wife inadvertently had provided him a Carvidon tablet instead of a painkiller for his muscle pain. He submitted medical documents issued by the Wayside Medical Centre about his wife's condition and the prescribed medications, including the Carvidon tablets.

The AIU determined that there were several inconsistencies in the Athlete's explanations about his wife's alleged medical treatments in May 2022. Therefore the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) conducted for the AIU an investigation into his explanations and supporting medical documents. 

In December 2022 ADAK's investigation revealed that the filed medical documents from the clinic were falsifications. Therupon between December 2022 and March 2024 further investigations conducted by the AIU and ADAK were obstructed, delayed and undermined by the clinic and the Athlete.

After a Court Order in April 2024 the clinic finally cooperated and stated that there were no records available about any medical treatment given to the Athlete's wife. The clinic confirmed that the medical documents in question were falsifications produced by unauthorised persons.

Consequently in June 2024 the AIU reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for:

• presence of a prohibited substance; and
• tampering with any part of the doping control.

After notification of these charges the Athlete gave a timely admission and accepted the sanction proposed by the AIU. The AIU deems that the Athlete had failed to demonstrate that these two violations were not intentional, nor exeptional circumstances for a reduced sanction.

Because the Athlete had signed and submitted the Admission of Anti-Doping Rule Violation and Acceptance of Consequences Form he received a 1 year reduction from the AIU. The Athlete must serve the imposed two sanctions consecutively.

Therefore the AIU decides on 2 July 2024 to impose a 7 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 16 July 2022.

• Summary Report Issued on July 1 2024 by Eric Cottier (hereinafter: the Investigator), in Lausanne, to President of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), in Montreal in fulfilment of the mandate given by WADA on 6 May 2024.
  
  
• Case of the 23 swimmers who tested positive for Trimetazidine on January 1, 2 and 3, 2021

Summary Of The Main Investigative And Analytical Acts Carried Out By WADA From The Receipt Of CHINADA's Decision To The Decision Not To File An Appeal (15.06.2021 – 31.07.2021)

On 9 July 2024, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) held an extraordinary Executive Committee (ExCo) meeting to discuss the interim report (and annex) delivered by Independent Prosecutor, Mr. Eric Cottier, regarding his review of WADA’s handling of the China Anti-Doping Agency’s (CHINADA’s) no-fault contamination case involving 23 swimmers from China in 2021. 

During the virtual ExCo meeting, Mr. Cottier took members through his interim report that included his conclusions outlined below in relation to two questions: 

1. Is there any indication of bias towards China, undue interference or other impropriety in WADA's assessment of the decision by CHINADA not to bring forward anti-doping rule violations against the 23 Chinese swimmers?   

• There is nothing in the file – which is complete – to suggest that WADA showed favouritism or deference, or in any way favoured the 23 swimmers who tested positive for trimetazidine (TMZ) between 1 and 3 January 2021, when it proceeded to review CHINADA's decision to close the proceedings against them without further action. 
• The Investigator did not find any evidence to suggest any interference or meddling in WADA's review, as described above, either within the Agency or externally, from any entity or institution, including CHINADA or the Chinese authorities. 
• The investigation did not reveal any irregularities on the part of WADA in the review of CHINADA's decision; this review was detailed and covered all relevant issues in determining whether or not to appeal the decision. 

2. Based on a review of the case file related to the decision by CHINADA not to bring forward Anti-Doping Rule Violations against the 23 Chinese swimmers, as well as any other elements that WADA had at its disposal, was the decision by WADA not to challenge on appeal the contamination scenario put forward by CHINADA a reasonable one? 

• All the elements taken into consideration by WADA, whether they come from the file produced by CHINADA with its decision or from the investigation procedures that it carried out, show the decision not to appeal to be reasonable, both from the point of view of the facts and the applicable rules. 

About the Independent Prosecutor Review 

The decision to appoint Mr. Cottier was endorsed by WADA’s ExCo on 25 April, following requests for such a review by a small number of stakeholders. The 16-member ExCo is made up of independent members as well as athletes, Governments from all regions of the world, and the Sport Movement, who represent their respective constituency groups.  

As outlined in Mr. Cottier’s letter of engagement, he was asked to use his best endeavors to issue his full report by the end of June 2024. However, in the event that the full reasoned report could not be issued within that timeframe, he was asked to consider issuing a summary interim report before Paris 2024, including the outcomes of his inquiry, which he has now done. 

About the Independent Prosecutor Eric Cottier 

Entirely independent of WADA, the Sport Movement and Governments, Mr. Eric Cottier is a prosecutor of 39 years’ experience, who was the Attorney General of the Canton de Vaud, Switzerland, from September 2005 until his retirement in December 2022. Prior to that, he had been a public prosecutor from 1984 to 1991, President of the 2nd District Court in Vevey and Lavaux from 1991 to 1998, and a cantonal court judge from 1999 until 2005. He was Special Prosecutor at the federal level in Switzerland from 2016-2018. He is currently a member of the Board of the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, and a member of a working group at the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), an independent, inter-governmental organization based in Rome, Italy.