Attitudes Toward and Susceptibility to Doping in Spanish Elite and National-Standard Track and Field Athletes: An Examination of the Sport Drug Control Model

8 Jun 2021

Attitudes Toward and Susceptibility to Doping in Spanish Elite and National-Standard Track and Field Athletes : An Examination of the Sport Drug Control Model / Elena García-Grimau, Ricardo De la Vega, Rafael De Arce, Arturo Casado. - (Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021) 679001 (June); p. 1-9)

  • PMID: 34168599
  • PMCID: PMC8219072
  • DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.679001


Abstract

The Sport Drug Control Model (SDCM) is likely to be the model which most explicitly represents the theoretical paradigm of the psychological study of the use of doping in sport. This model can be further developed through its analysis in different populations and cultures. The main aim of this study was to empirically test the SDCM while analyzing for the first time the intentions and attitudes toward doping in Spanish track and field athletes. A secondary aim was to assess the extent to which the variables in the model together predict attitude, susceptibility, and behavior toward the use of performance-enhancing substances. Participants were 281 Spanish elite and national-standard track and field athletes from whom 80.1% were 18-28 years old and 49.5% were females. Participants completed the SDCM questionnaire measuring morality, legitimacy, benefits appraisal, threat appraisal, self-efficacy to refrain from doping, reference groups' endorsement of doping methods/substances, use of legal supplements, availability and affordability of doping, attitudes toward doping, susceptibility to doping and, self-reported use of banned performance-enhancing substances or methods. Structural equation modeling supported a good fitness of the SDCM and confirmed that positive attitudes toward doping predicted high susceptibility to doping (β = 0.55, p < 0.001), which is in turn associated with the use of prohibited substances and methods (β = 0.12, p < 0.05). The factors that have most influence on attitudes toward doping are morality (β = 0.46, p < 0.001) and reference group opinion (β =0.62, p <0.001). Self-reported doping use was 9.6%. These findings confirm SDCM reproducibility and variability (as it accounts for several variables) in Spanish track and field competitive athletes. It is recommended to implement preventive programs which allow athletes to acquire a strong moral stance against doping and coaches to employ the tools required to instill and educate their athletes in rejecting these illegal practices that corrupt the integrity of competitive sport.

NADO Flanders 2017 Disciplinary Commission 20177484

5 Sep 2021

In May 2017 NADO Flanders reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for use and possession after an imported parcel was intercepted addressed to the Athlete containing Testosterone. Thereupon a police search in the Athlete's residence revealed the presence of the prohibited substances Metandienone and Tamoxifen.

After notification the Athlete was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission. Against the police and at the hearing the Athlete admitted the use of the substances for the purpose of fitness and sports enhancement.

Based on the evidence and the Athlete's admission the Commission finds that the he had intentionally committed the anti-doping rule violations.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 5 September 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete starting on the date of the Decision. 

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne by the Athlete.

NADO Flanders 2017 Disciplinary Council 20177482 - Appeal

24 Nov 2017

Related case:

NADO Flanders 2017 Disciplinary Commission 20177482
September 5, 2017

On 27 June 2017 the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission sanctioned the Athlete (Decison 1#) after the police had searched the Athlete’s residence and found multiple prohibited substances: Boldenone, Metenolone, Nandrolone, Testosterone and Trenbolone.

After the Athlete timely had objected to Decision 1#,  rendered in absentia of the Athlete, the Disciplinary Commission reopened the case and annulled Decision 1#. Based on the evidence and the Athlete's admission the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decided on 5 September 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete (Decision 2#) starting on the date of Decision 2#.

Previously in July 2017 the Athlete had already appealed Decision 1# with the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council. The Athlete asserted that Decision 2# had to be annulled based on ne bis in idem and due to the Disciplinary Commission had not timely responded.

The Disciplinary Council establish that the Athlete against the police and at the hearing(s) had admitted and reconfirmed the possession and use of the substances for the purpose of fitness and sports enhancement. Accordingly the Disciplinary Council deems that the Athlete intentionally had committed the anti-doping rule violations.

The Disciplinary Council holds there are no grounds for ne bis in idem and finds that after the Athlete had objected to Decision 1#, the Disciplinary Commission had reopened and annulled Decision 1#. After a hearing attended by the Athlete the Commission had redered Decision 2# on 5 September 2017.

The Disciplinary Council upholds the imposed fine and the sanction of 4 year and deems that the commencement of the ineligiblity period shall to start on the date of Decision 1#.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Council confirmes the fine and sanction of 4 years imposed on 5 September 2017 (Decison 2#) and decides that the period of ineligibility starts back dated on the date of Decision 1#, i.e. on 27 June 2017.

Fees and expenses for this Council shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

NADO Flanders 2017 Disciplinary Commission 20177482

5 Sep 2017

Related case:

NADO Flanders 2017 Disciplinary Council 20177482 - Appeal
November 24, 2017


On 27 June 2017 the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete after the police had searched the Athlete’s residence and found multiple prohibited substances: Boldenone, Metenolone, Nandrolone, Testosterone and Trenbolone.

Hereafter in July 2017 the Atlete timely objected to the decision rendered in absentia and the Disciplinary Commission decided to reopen the case. Against the police and at the hearing the Athlete admitted the possession and use of the substances for the purpose of fitness and sports enhancement.

The Commission deems that the Athlete intentionally had used the prohibited substances and accordingly that he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 5 September 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the Decision.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

NADO Flanders 2017 Disciplinary Commission 20177481

10 Jul 2017

In May 2017 NADO Flanders has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for possession and use after the police had searched the Athlete’s residence and found the prohibited substance Methandienone.

After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission and a Decision was rendered in absentia of the Athlete.

Since the Athlete had admitted against the police the use and possession of the substance for the purpose of fitness the Disciplinary Commission finds that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation. 

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 10 July 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the Decision.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

NADO Flanders 2017 Disciplinary Commission 20177480

9 May 2017

In 2017 NADO Flanders has reported two anti-doping rule violations against the Athlete for possession and use after the police had searched the Athlete’s residence and found the prohibited substance Methandrostenolone (Metandienone).

After notification the Athlete failed to attend the hearing of the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission and a Decision was rendered in absentia of the Athlete.

Considering the evidence in this case the Disciplinary Commission finds that had been established that the Athlete had committed and anti-doping rule violation. Further the Commission holds that against the police the Athlete had admitted the intentional use of the substances for the purpose of fitness training.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 9 May 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the Decision.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

NADO Flanders 2017 Disciplinary Commission 20177479

28 Nov 2017

In October 2017 NADO Flanders has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete for her Refusal or Failure to submit to sample collection. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission.

The Athlete refused any cooperation to provide a sample during Doping Control although she was warned about the consequences. At the hearing the Athlete confirmed her refusal.

The Disciplinairy Commission deems that the Athlete intentionally had refused to submit to sample collection and accordingly that she had committed the reported anti-doping rule violation.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 28 November 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. 5 October 2017.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

NADO Flanders 2017 Disciplinary Commission 20177478

5 Sep 2017

In May 2017 NADO Flanders has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for prohibited substance 19-norandrosterone (Nandrolone). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordinghly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Commission deems that the violation was intentional since he could not explain how the prohibited substance had enterend his system..

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 5 September 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 May 2017.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

NADO Flanders 2017 Disciplinary Commission 20177477

10 Jul 2017

In May 2017 NADO Flanders has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the cyclist after his sample tested positive for prohibited anabolic substance Oxandrolone.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission where he admitted the intentional use of the substances.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordinghly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Commission deems that the violation was intentional.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 10 July 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 4 May 2017.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

NADO Flanders 2017 Disciplinary Commission 20177476

10 Jul 2017

In April 2017 NADO Flanders has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after his sample tested positive for prohibited anabolic substances and Anastrozole (Selective estrogen receptor modulators.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete was heard for the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission where he admitted the intentional use of the substances.

The Disciplinary Commission finds that the presence of the prohibited substances has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordinghly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. Further the Commission deems that the violation was intentional.

Therefore the NADO Flanders Disciplinary Commission decides on 10 July 2017 to impose a fine and a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 19 April 2017.

Fees and expenses for this Commission shall be borne partially by the Athlete.

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