HUMAN MOVEMENT 2007, vol. 8 (1), 57–64
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE AMONG POLISH ATHLETES AND THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD DOPING AND ANTI-DOPING POLICY Krzysztof Sas-Nowosielski1*, Longina Świątkowska2 1 2
Department of Pedagogy, Chair of Humanistic Bases of Physical Culture, University School of Physical Education, Katowice, Poland Department of Statistics, Faculty of Pharmacology, Silesian Medical Academy, Katowice, Poland
ABSTRACT Purpose. The study aims to answer three questions: (1) What do Polish athletes know about doping control and the World Anti-Doping Code? (2) What are their attitudes toward doping and anti-doping policies? (3) How are the athletes’ knowledge and attitudes related to selected socio-demographic variables – age, sex, duration of sports career, type of sport (team, individual). Basic procedures. 830 athletes (including 263 females) filled in an anonymous questionnaire to assess their knowledge about and attitudes toward doping and anti-doping policy. Main findings. The subjects provided merely 45.22% of positive answers to questionnaire items assessing knowledge. The highest percentage of correct responses was observed in items related to the knowledge of athlete’ rights and responsibilities (50.75%), while the lowest in items about anti-doping principles and procedures (41.77%). The respondents’ attitudes were diagnosed as moderately positive (M 3.90, SD 0.07). The most positive was their attitude toward doping control (M 4.12, SD 0.82), while the least positive was their attitude toward sanctions (M 3.68, SD 0.79). Some differences in attitudes and knowledge were observed. In relation to attitudes significant differences were noted between female and male athletes (Wilks’ l 0.96; F(4, 780) = 8.55; p = 0.000), with higher results achieved by female athletes; and between age groups (Wilks’ l 0.95; F(8, 1558) = 4.63; p = 0.000) from which the group of 18–24-year-olds achieved higher results than the remaining two age groups. Differences in the knowledge were observed in relation to subjects’ sex, age, type of sport and duration of sport career. Conclusions. Athletes’ knowledge of doping control is far from satisfactory. The subjects’ attitudes are positive; however, their strength is moderate. The results of the study suggest that campaigns aimed at anti-doping education among Polish athletes should be intensified in relation to their knowledge of the problem and attitudes toward it. Key words: doping, knowledge, attitudes
Introduction “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is an old but still meaningful saying in the context of health care. It is also equally well-grounded in the context of the “doping disease” which has been consuming modern sport since its very onset. In the fight against doping a significant role has been played by the doping control systems and legal sanctions. The system of doping control has been constantly improved in the areas of legislation, organization and laboratory research. Without underestimating the significance of the existing doping control system, it must be noted that doping control is mostly reactive and it suppresses the symptoms rather than the causes of the disease. The latter are manifold and inherent in individual athletes (lack of satisfaction about sports results, psychical and physical dependence, lack of self-confidence, perception of dop* Corresponding author.
ing as not necessarily unethical behaviour, etc.) and in society at large (on a microsocial scale, i.e. the athlete’s immediate surroundings exerting, more or less openly, pressure on him or her to reach for prohibited substances; and on a macrosocial scale, e.g. outrageous cases of state-run organized doping in former East Germany). The diversification of the sources of the doping in sport undoubtedly reduces the possibilities of preventive measures. Even though it can be concluded that doping control will only be successful if reactive measures are matched with proactive ones, in particular, with proper education. The significance of proper anti-doping education was noticed as early as 1966 by the then Chairman of Medical Committee of the IOC (predecessor of the later Medical Commission) Sir Arthur Porritt, who stated that prevention of escalation of doping in sport can only be effectively implemented through a long-term educational policy concentrated on physical and moral aspects of doping [1, p. 67]. Even if his optimism was a bit detached from reality, it can be stated 57
HM_07_1_057_064d.indd 57
06/18/2007, 12:43:37 PM
HUMAN MOVEMENT
F = 3.74 p = 0.0242 3.79 a 0.88 4.00 0.94 4.05 a 0.86 F = 0.36 p = 0.5478 3.95 0.96 * ANOVA for four dependent variables ** ANOVA for each of the four dependent variables a, b mean values with the same index were statistically significant in post hoc test (p < 0.05)
3.99 0.88 F = 7.22 p = 0.0008 4.00 b 0.92 3.85 0.93 M SD Behaviour
4.24 0.81
F = 32.02 p = 0.0000
4.04 a 0.87
3.63 ab 0.87
F = 0.43 p = 0.6499 3.78 0.76 3.85 0.76 3.82 0.75 F = 1.95 p = 0.1626 3.87 0.78 3.80 0.73 F = 7.66 p = 0.0005 3.91 ab 0.75 3.76 0.76 M SD Ethics
3.96 0.71
F = 12.49 p = 0.0004
3.74 a 0.71
3.61 b 0.80
F = 1.91 p = 0.1492 3.58 0.84 3.72 0.77 3.73 0.77 F = 2.22 p = 0.1371 3.74 0.79 3.66 0.79 F = 5.77 p = 0.0032 3.77 a 0.77 3.61 0.83 M SD Sanctions
3.85 0.64
F = 14.99 p = 0.0001
3.59 a 0.77
3.53 0.84
F = 2.54 p = 0.0796 4.15 0.78 F = 0.00 p = 0.9609 4.12 0.81 4.12 0.82 F = 8.37 p = 0.0003 3.86 b 0.96 4.21ab 0.79 4.03a 0.78 F = 10.54 p = 0.0012 4.26 0.72 4.05 0.85 M SD
ANOVA* F(8, 1558) = 4.63 p = 0.0000 ANOVA** F(1, 783) ANOVA* F(4, 780) = 8.55 p = 0.0000
Tests
ANOVA** F(1, 783) ANOVA** F(2, 782)
ANOVA* F(4, 780) = 1.68 p = 0.1516
Individual Team ≥ 25 18–24 ≤ 17 F M
4.17 0.78
4.00 0.91
ANOVA** F(2, 730) ANOVA* F(8, 1554) = 1.41 p = 0.1870
≥ 10 5–10 ≤5
Competitive experience Type of sport Age Sex
that the subsequent escalation of doping in sport was partially a consequence of negligence of effective prevention. Still, contemporary educational programs can play an invaluable role in fighting the use of prohibited substances in sport. An important aspect of doping prevention is assessment of athletes’ knowledge of and attitudes toward doping, which would allow identification of areas at which particular programs should be aimed. Studies on determinants of health-oriented behaviour show that even the most comprehensive knowledge and most positive attitudes do not guarantee proper behaviour [2]. The knowledge of and the attitudes toward doping remain, however, significant components of behavioural intentions. Studies on the knowledge of and attitudes towards doping among different social groups (university students, athletes, doctors, etc.) have been carried out by a number of researchers in Poland and other countries [3–6]. In Poland such research was conducted by T. Rychta, M. Mikołajczyk and M. Guszkowska [7], M. Mikołajczyk [8], M. Taniewski, B. Wilk and A. Walentukiewicz [9], M. Taniewski, A. Treder-Mentuch and K. Szewczyk [10], W. Gawroński, R. Smoleń and Z. Szyguła [11], and G. Bielec [12]. These studies revealed a diverse state of knowledge of and attitudes toward doping. M. Taniewski, B. Wilk and A. Walentukiewicz [9] in their studies of sailors, basketball players and judokas noted that their subjects had a good knowledge of doping control, prohibited substances and methods and their adverse effects. On the other hand, studies by G. Bielec [12] or W. Gawroński, R. Smoleń and Z. Szyguła [11] showed a rather low awareness of these issues. In the latter merely 25% of respondents were able to enumerate categories and methods of doping in sport, and 50% were able to do it only selectively. The results of studies on attitudes were much better but hardly consistent. In G. Bielec’s [12] studies most subjects considered doping to be a serious violation of moral principles of sport rivalry. The studies by M. Taniewski, B. Wilk and A. Walentukiewicz [9] showed that 15% of respondents supported legalization of doping in sport. It should also be noted that a similar polarization of attitudes toward doping can be observed among scientists, who would seem to be unanimous in their judgment of the problem. Meanwhile professional literature abounds in lively debates and argumentation for and against banning of doping in sport [13–18]. The present study was conducted as a part of Social Science Research sponsored by the World Anti-Doping
Table 1. Statistical analysis of variance and post hoc test results in reference to attitudes toward doping control
K. Sas-Nowosielski, L. Świątkowska, Knowledge about and attitudes toward doping
58
HM_07_1_057_064d.indd 58
06/18/2007, 12:43:39 PM
HUMAN MOVEMENT K. Sas-Nowosielski, L. Świątkowska, Knowledge about and attitudes toward doping
Agency (WADA) with three objectives: 1. to assess the knowledge of provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code among athletes; 2. to assess athletes’ attitudes toward anti-doping policy; 3. to examine whether or not and to what extent selected socio-demographic variables affect the subjects’ knowledge of and attitudes toward doping. Material and methods The study was conducted using the method of diagnostic survey (questionnaire), between March and May 2006, among athletes from sports clubs from Upper Silesia and from the AZS club of the University School of Physical Education in Katowice. The subjects were instructed about the aim of the study and expressed their consent to participate in the questionnaire survey. They were also informed that the study results would be used for scientific purposes only. One thousand questionnaire forms were distributed among the respondents. 830 forms were returned, including 567 (68.31%) from men and 263 (31.69%) from women. The subjects were athletes practicing winter sports (biathlon, cross-country skiing, downhill skiing, ski jumping, snowboarding, ice hockey), team sports (football, handball, volleyball and basketball), swimming, track and field, strength sports (weight lifting, Olympic triathlon), combat sports (boxing, karate, judo, taekwondo), archery, gymnastics, water sports (kayaking, windsurfing), cycling, fencing and lawn tennis. The subjects’ age ranged from 14 to 40 years (M 20.02, SD 3.96), and their length of competitive experience from 0.5 to 29 years (M 7.82, SD 4.04). The athletes’ knowledge was assessed using a questionnaire form designed by the authors for the purpose of the study. The subjects assessed the authenticity of 45 questionnaire items by answering TRUE, FALSE or I DON’T KNOW. About one half of the items required the answer TRUE. The questionnaire items were aimed to assess the athletes’ knowledge in three areas: 1. athlete’s rights and responsibilities related to doping control (11 items, e.g. “If a prohibited substance was detected in an athlete’s blood sample specimen A, this athlete has the right to be present at the analysis of blood sample specimen B”; “The tested athlete must be alone at the testing station”; “An athlete can refuse to be tested for prohibited substances”). 2. principles and procedures of doping control (17 items related to testing procedures, sanctions, antidoping institutions, etc., e.g. “Tests can only be car-
ried out in-competition”; “If one test reveals the presence of two prohibited substances in one athlete, the athlete will be penalized more severely”; “The list of prohibited substances and methods should be published at least two times a year”). 3. prohibited substances and methods and their effects on the athlete’s body (16 items, e.g. “The use of steroids leads to depression and frequent mood swings”; “One of the results of using ephedrine is an increase in muscle mass”; “Caffeine is considered to be a prohibited stimulant”). The result achieved by each respondent was the percentage of correct answers, incorrect answers and “I DON’T KNOW” answers. These percentages were calculated for each question and each area of knowledge. Athletes’ attitudes were assessed using the author’s 20-item questionnaire, on a five-point Likert scale (1 – I totally agree, 5 – I totally disagree; or in some items, 1 – I totally disagree, 5 – I totally agree). The attitude questionnaire consisted of four sections: 1. attitude toward doping control, e.g. “Tests are a hypocrisy and should be abolished,” “Tests are necessary in the struggle for purity in sport.” 2. attitude toward sanctions for violation of anti-doping rules, e.g. “Penalization of drug-taking athletes is fair as it protects the interests of ‘clean’ athletes”; “Penalization of athletes for taking prohibited substances is wrong since it can ruin their careers;” 3. attitude toward the ethical foundations of anti-doping policy, e.g. “Doping violates the rules of fair play”; “Banning doping in sport violates one’s right of self-determination;” 4. athlete’s behavioural disposition to the use of doping, e.g. “I would be ready to use doping knowing it will be a guarantee of victory”; “I would never use doping, even though my chances for victory would be smaller.” The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using the Cronbach alpha coefficient adopting the value of α = 0.60 as the threshold of reliability of the research instrument [19]. The alpha coefficients for individual sections amounted to 0.63, 0.66, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively. The result achieved by each respondent was the mean value of correct answers to all questionnaire items. In order to examine whether or not and to what extent the knowledge of and attitudes toward doping control depend on selected socio-demographic variables, particular groups of subjects were compared (as follow59
HM_07_1_057_064d.indd 59
06/18/2007, 12:43:42 PM
HUMAN MOVEMENT K. Sas-Nowosielski, L. Świątkowska, Knowledge about and attitudes toward doping
ing [20]): men, women, “adolescents” (13–17 years), “young adults” (18–24 years) and “adults” (25–44 years), team players, individual athletes and athletes with different lengths of sports experience (> 5 years, 5–10 years, < 10 years). Within each group of subjects their knowledge was assessed by analyzing the distribution of correct, incorrect and “I don’t know” answers using χ2. For calculation of differences between the attitudes ANOVA tests for four dependent variables were carried out. Then ANOVA was taken for each variable separately, with Tukey’s post hoc test when the differences between the variables under study were statistically significant. Most calculations were made with the use of STATISTICA 5.0, with the exception of the significance of differences in the area of knowledge made in SPSS. Results Knowledge of doping control and anti-doping rules The general index of correct answers (for all questionnaire items) amounted to 45.22%, which indicates a rather moderate level of knowledge of the issues under study. The comparison of results within the distinguished groups of subjects shows that distributions of answers within each group differ significantly. The statistical results of χ2 amounted to χ2df=2 = 50.70, p = 0.000 for gender, χ2df=2 = 27.49, p = 0.000 for type of sport, χ2df=4 = 32.78, p = 0.000 for age and χ2df=4 = 126.66, p = 0.000 for sports experience, respectively. In comparison with women, men provided more correct and fewer incorrect answers (46.42% and 42.63%; and 30.40% and 33.38%, respectively). In the case of type of sport the percentage of correct answers was similar (45.27% among team players; 45.12% among individual athletes) and the difference between them measured with the test of difference between two structural indices and the χ2 test was non-significant. There were differences in incorrect answers (24.16% and 22.16%) and “I don’t know” answers. The comparison of results achieved by athletes from different age groups showed that the young adults (18–24 years) provided the relatively highest percentage of correct answers (47.48% vs. 43.12% in adults and 41.92% in adolescents). In terms of competitive experience, subjects with the experience ≤ 5 years provided the lowest percentage of correct answers (41.09% vs. 46.02% in the 5–10 years and 46.59% in > 10 years categories) as well as the highest number of “I don’t know” answers.
In terms of areas of knowledge, the highest results were achieved by the respondents in the area of athletes’ rights and responsibilities (50.75%), and the lowest in the area of knowledge of general principles and procedures of doping control (41.77%). The differences in distributions of answers between the three areas of knowledge were statistically significant (χ2df=4 = 579.61, p = 0.000). In the area of athletes’ rights and responsibilities the highest percentage of correct answers referred to the assessment of the athlete’s awareness of his responsibility for substances detected in his body, even if the prohibited substance was taken accidentally (75.30%), and the lowest to the athlete’s right to be assisted in placing a urine sample specimen in a container to be sent to the laboratory (10.72%). In this area no differences between men and women were observed (χ2df=2 = 2.62, p = 0.271), or between individual athletes and team players (χ2df=2 = 3.07, p = 0.215). The differences were, however, statistically significant between the age groups (χ2df=4 = 30.23, p = 0.000), with the highest percentage of correct answers in the group of young adults (51.82%; detailed analysis showed that this result differed significantly in the oldest age group; in the youngest group a tendency towards the significance of differences was merely observed; the subjects from the oldest age group provided “I don’t know” answers more often) and between groups with different lengths of sport experience, with the highest percentage represented by athletes with 5–10 years of sports experience, and the lowest by athletes with competitive experience shorter than 5 years (χ2df=4 = 45.50, p = 0.000). In the area of knowledge of prohibited substances and methods and their impact on the athlete’s body the highest percentage of correct answers was observed among the answers to the questionnaire item: “Taking anabolic-androgenic steroids causes unwanted mental and psychical effects” (72.62%); and the lowest in the answers to the item “Is creatine a prohibited anabolic substance?” (22.05%). Statistically significant differences were noted between men and women (χ2df=2 = 52.46, p = 0.000), with men achieving a significantly higher percentage of correct answers; between team players and individual athletes (χ2df=2 = 26.02, p = 0.000; detailed analysis revealed differences merely in the number of incorrect and “I don’t know” answers); between age groups (χ2df=4 = 139.27, p = 0.000; the highest percentage of correct answers was achieved by respondents from the age group 18–24 years); and between athletes with different lengths of competitive experience
60
HM_07_1_057_064d.indd 60
06/18/2007, 12:43:43 PM
HUMAN MOVEMENT K. Sas-Nowosielski, L. Świątkowska, Knowledge about and attitudes toward doping
(χ2df=4 = 64.37, p = 0.000; the lowest percentage of correct answers was noted in athletes with the shortest competitive experience, and the highest in athletes with the longest experience; however, between the oldest group and the age group of 5–10 years merely a tendency toward significance of differences was observed). In the third area of knowledge, i.e. general principles and procedures of doping control, the highest percentage of correct answers was observed in answers to the questionnaire item about the awareness of existence of prohibited substances in medicines and nonprescription supplements (84.34%), the lowest in answers to the item about the periodical publication of the prohibited list (7.35%). Statistically significant differences in the distribution of the answers were similar to those discussed above (sex: χ2df=2 = 9.77, p = 0.008; sport type: χ2df=2 = 18.75, p = 0.000; age: χ2df=4 = 48.17, p = 0.000; competitive experience: χ2df=4 = 43.04, p = 0.000). The subjects were also asked about their sources of knowledge about doping and doping control. 769 athletes provided answers. The most frequently indicated source of knowledge was television (n = 527; 68.53%) followed by the Internet (n = 415, 53.97%), peers (n = 414, 53.84%), coach/instructor (n = 283, 36.80%), sports press (n = 187, 24.32%; especially bodybuilding magazines such as Muscle, Flex, Kulturystyka i Fitness (Bodybuilding and Fitness), Men’s Health; theme periodicals such as Pływanie (Swimming), Basketball, Piłka Nożna (Soccer) and sports newspapers such as Przegląd Sportowy (Sports Digest) or Bravo Sport) and books (n = 87, 11.31%; monographs such as Doping w sporcie (Doping in sport) as well as investigative journalism, e.g. Co ukrywa Lance Armstrong? (What is Lance Armstrong hiding?). 76 subjects (9.88%) learnt about anti-doping procedures from their own sports experience. 19 subjects (2.47%) indicated their sources of knowledge as “other”, e.g. from physicians, classes, university lectures, parents, leaflets from sports clinics and their own experience with taking doping. Attitudes toward doping The mean value of general attitude index amounted to 3.90 (SD 0.07) indicating a positive direction, but rather moderate strength of the attitudes of the population under study. The most positive turned out to be the subjects’ attitude toward doping control (M 4.12, SD 0.82), and the least positive the attitude toward sanctions for violation of anti-doping rules (M 3.68, SD
0.79). The differences between the means of individual questionnaire sections were statistically significant: Wilks’ λ = 0.74, F(3, 782) = 89.34, p = 0.000. The post hoc analysis revealed that the differences were present in each pair of the variables compared. Statistically significant differences in the results of the attitude test were observed in sex and age groups: Wilks’ λ = 0.96, F(4, 780) = 8.55, p = 0.000 and Wilks’ λ = 0.95, F(8, 1558) = 4.63, p = 0.000, respectively. In general, women declared more positive attitudes than men. In the case of age, the young adults expressed the most positive attitudes toward the tests, sanctions and ethical foundations of doping control. In the range of behavioural dispositions the highest results (lowest readiness to use doping) were achieved by adolescents. In all variables the adults demonstrated the least positive attitudes. No differences were noted between individual athletes and team players (Wilks’ λ = 0.99, F(4, 780) = 1.68, p = 0.152), and between groups of athletes with different lengths of competitive experience (Wilks’ λ = 0.98, F(8, 1554) = 1.41, p = 0.187). In the last category, the analysis of each of the four variables revealed a statistically significant difference in reference to behavioural dispositions (F(2, 730) = 3.74, p = 0.024), where athletes with the shortest experience gained significantly more positive results (lowest readiness to use doping) than the two remaining groups of subjects. All the results have been presented in Tab. 1. The quantitative analysis was followed by qualitative analysis based on the subjects’ comments written at the bottom of the questionnaire form. Only 52 athletes included such comments. Almost one half of them (n = 23, 44.23%) expressed opinions classified as declarations of strong support for doping control, e.g. “I think tests are necessary, as it is not good to fight against someone who is not fair to you. I do sports myself and, unfortunately, many sports stars who used to be the role models for me used prohibited substances themselves”, “In some sports tests should be conducted more frequently”, “I think doping is needless and the use of prohibited substances should be severely punished”, “I think doping is a plague that kills the true spirit of competition”, “Using doping is not fair and I don’t understand people who use the prohibited substances. If they can’t win without doping, why do they do sports?”, “Doping tests should be more frequent and penalties more strict. More money should be spent on anti-doping research, since it is much easier to produce a new substance than detect it.” Eight respondents (15.38%) opted for legalization of 61
HM_07_1_057_064d.indd 61
06/18/2007, 12:43:45 PM
HUMAN MOVEMENT K. Sas-Nowosielski, L. Świątkowska, Knowledge about and attitudes toward doping
doping in sport, e.g. “In my opinion tests should be abolished as all athletes use doping anyway. Only those few unlucky ones are caught who don’t know when to stop or don’t have money and have to use low-quality substances”, “Let’s abolish all tests. Then all athletes can use doping and have equal chances of winning. Now only those use doping who know how to get it”, “An athlete is an ancient gladiator. About 50% of athletes (usually world class athletes) use doping; only some of them are caught. I’m for legalization of doping on a high level of competition.” 19 subjects (36.54%) expressed rather pessimistic opinions about the existence of ‘pure sport’, but without demonstrating either definitely positive or negative attitudes toward doping, e.g. “Doping is one of many phenomena that will always be present in sport at an elite level. Some people will keep inventing new detection methods, other will keep inventing more effective substances that will be more and more difficult to detect”, “I think the more sport is about money and publicity, the more athletes will use doping. With advances in medicine, “pure” sport is highly unlikely to exist”, “Let us not be naive. As long as there is money in sport, there will always be doping. Faster–Higher–Stronger is a closed chapter of sport history”, “People taking doping are always one step ahead of medicine. It is after some time that it is disclosed who took and what. It’s sad but I can’t see any chance of improvement.” Two subjects responded in an ambiguous way: “Tests should be carried out more frequently, but the penalties are too severe”, “The range of doping substances should be constantly modified and published in the form of detailed registers for each sport. Every athlete should be able to get acquainted with these lists.” Discussion The socio-economic conditions of modern sport make complete elimination of doping very unlikely, especially in view of the ongoing debate of various professional groups on the future of sport, including its ethical dimension [13–18]. It is a hard fact, however, that because doping is against the fundamental values of modern sport, different efforts on different levels have been made to curb its extent. Their effectiveness is often arguable. The establishment of the World Anti-Doping Code by WADA should be regarded as one of the most significant initiatives on doping control aimed at improve-
ment of effectiveness of anti-doping policies and their uniformization in all sports. The establishment of the code brought about the necessity to broaden athletes’, coaches’ and sports activists’ knowledge of the issue. As little has been known about the level of athletes’ knowledge of the World Anti-Doping Code, one of our objectives was to update the existing data. In doping prevention also the recognition of athletes’ attitudes toward doping is of crucial importance. Finally, another aim of the study was to determine what socio-demographic variables affect the knowledge of and attitudes toward doping. The variables examined by other authors have most often been the subjects’ age and sex [7, 8], and more seldom, the athletes’ length of competitive experience [8]. In one of the most recent publications on doping in sport A. Alaranta et al. [6] suggested that an important variable influencing the attitudes toward doping is the type of sport. They examined attitudes of 446 athletes who represented four types of sport: team sports, strength and speed sports, endurance sports and sports requiring high-level motor skills (“Do you believe doping positively affects sports results? Do you know anyone who used doping? Will you be willing to reach for prohibited substances if they are legalized? Is it possible to reach the top level in your sport without doping?”). The authors noted that attitudes toward doping differed significantly, depending on the sport practiced by subjects. The strongest inclination to use doping was noted in strength and speed sports; the least inclined were athletes in sports requiring high-level motor skills. It should be noted that the length of competitive experience and the type of sport are also significant variables in studies on relationships between sport and moral values [21–23]. It was revealed that athletes with a longer competitive experience and team players achieved lower results in questionnaires assessing moral reasoning (for possible explanation of this phenomenon see [24]). Contrary to the above, in our study the type of sport (team players vs. individual athletes) or the length of competitive experience did not differentiate the athletes’ attitudes toward doping. Only in reference to the length of competitive experience a statistically significant difference was observed in the section of the questionnaire assessing the declared readiness to take up doping. This readiness was greater in athletes who practiced their sport for ten years or longer, which can be explained by the fact that the longer the competitive experience, the more an athlete is inclined to reach for doping facing
62
HM_07_1_057_064d.indd 62
06/18/2007, 12:43:47 PM
HUMAN MOVEMENT K. Sas-Nowosielski, L. Świątkowska, Knowledge about and attitudes toward doping
the unavoidable decline in training effects. In relation to attitudes toward doping control a tendency toward significance of differences was noted in athletes with the longest competitive experience who declared the least positive attitude. The subjects’ attitudes differed significantly between men and women as well as between the age groups. Overall, women demonstrated more positive attitudes than men, and respondents aged 18–24 demonstrated more positive attitudes than the two remaining age groups. The subjects aged 18–24 demonstrated the highest level of knowledge about doping control, providing the highest percentage of correct answers in the questionnaire. It was quite opposite in the case of women, although they demonstrated far more positive attitudes toward doping control than men. This could be an indirect confirmation of observations of some authors that attitudes toward and knowledge of doping rarely go hand in hand (see, for example, [25]). Some other differences observed seemed to be less consistent and they require further research. Conclusion The obtained results point to the need of intensification of educational activities about doping control among Polish athletes, as most of their knowledge about this issue comes from questionable sources, e.g. TV (sometimes broadcasting more pro- than anti-doping programs, e.g. a documentary broadcast by one of commercial stations in Poland in December 2005 suggested possible legalization of doping rather than doping control systems in sport) or the Internet (some anti-doping sites are actually guides for usage of prohibited substances). These educational activities should account for provisions of the World Anti-Doping Code, whose knowledge among the studied population was insufficient and conducive to numerous misunderstandings that may lead to unintentional violation of anti-doping rules, which is not that unlikely (see an interesting study by M. Yonamine, P.R. Garcii and R.L. de Mores Moreau [26]). Certainly, one must remember that these educational activities should not be confined to mere passing on information, as such an approach affects the psychological determinants of behaviour and formation of attitudes to a very limited extent. This has been emphasized by many authors [27–30]. In this context the contents of educational programs should be aimed at formation of moral knowledge and processes of moral
reasoning, such as ethical arguments against doping in sport or psychosocial consequences of doping. The obtained results show that such activities should be diversified in terms of their contents depending on their target audiences. References 1. Todd J., Todd T., Significant events in the history of drug testing and the Olympic Movement: 160-1999. In: Wilson W., Derse E. (eds.), Doping in elite sport. The politics of drugs in the Olympic Movement. Human Kinetics, Champaign 2001, 65–128. 2. Bandura A., Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav, 2004, 31, 143–164. 3. Dièye A.M., Ndiaye M., Kane M.O., Diop B.M., Faye B., Retail pharmacists and doping in sport: Survey on knowledge and attitudes in Dakar in Senegal. Sci Sports, 2003, 18, 104–108. 4. Laure P., Drugs, recreational drug use and attitudes towards doping of high school athletes. Int J Sports Med, 2004, 25, 133–139. 5. Jost K., Attitudes toward doping and recreational drug use among French elite student-athletes. Sociol Sport J, 2004, 21, 1–18. 6. Alaranta A., Alaranta H., Holmila J., Palmu P., Pietila K., Helenius I., Self-reported attitudes of elite athletes towards doping: Differences between types of sport. Int J Sports Med, 2006, 27, 842–846. 7. Rychta T., Mikołajczyk M., Guszkowska M., Knowledge and attitudes toward doping among students of schools of sports champions [in Polish]. Sport Wycz, 1993, 5–6, 77–87. 8. Mikołajczyk M., Attitudes toward pharmacological doping in sport [in Polish]. Psychol Wych, 1993, 3, 240–253. 9. Taniewski M., Wilk B., Walentukiewicz A., Opinions of athletes on pharmacological doping [in Polish]. Med Sport, 1999, 11, 42–46. 10. Taniewski M., Treder-Mentuch A., Szewczyk K., Opinions of youth on doping in sport [in Polish]. Med Sport, 1999, 12, 30– 33. 11. Gawroński W., Smoleń R., Szyguła Z., Assessment of knowledge on performance enhancing drugs and doping in Polish slalom canoeists [in Polish]. Med Sport, 1999, 9, 16–17. 12. Bielec G., Knowledge and attitudes of swimmers toward doping [in Polish]. Sport Wycz, 2005, 1–2, 52–59. 13. Vossen D.P., Toward a philosophical justification for the bans against performance-enhancing substances in Olympic sport. Sixth International Symposium for Olympic Research, 2002, 185–192. 14. Miah A., Genetically modified athletes. Biomedical ethics, gene doping and sport. London-New York, Routledge 2004. 15. Koyser S., Mauren A., Miah A., Viewpoint legalization of performance-enhancing drugs. Lancet, 2005, 366, 21. 16. Savulescu J., Faddy B., Clayton M., Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport. Br J Sports Med, 2004, 38, 666–670. 17. Sas-Nowosielski K., An opinion in discussion on legalization of doping in sport [in Polish]. Sport Wycz, 2006, 3–4, 59–65, 18. Sas-Nowosielski K., Will sanctioned evil not be an evil? Reflections on legalization of doping in sport [in Polish]. Sport Wycz, 2002, 5–6, 32–40. 19. Sokołowski, A., Sagan, A., Analysis of data in marketing and public opinion research. In: Examples of statistical inference
63
HM_07_1_057_064d.indd 63
06/18/2007, 12:43:49 PM
HUMAN MOVEMENT K. Sas-Nowosielski, L. Świątkowska, Knowledge about and attitudes toward doping
20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
25.
26. 27.
28.
with the use of Statistica. [in Polish]. Statsoft, Warszawa 1999, 8–12. Spirduso W.W., Physical dimensions of aging. Human Kinetics, Champaign 1995. Lumpkin A., Stoll B.K., Beller J.M., Sport ethics. Mosby International 1994. Bredemeier B.J.L., Shields D.L.L., Character development and physical activity. Human Kinetics, Champaign 1995. Jones C., McNamee M., Moral reasoning, moral action, and the moral atmosphere of sport. Sport, Ed Soc, 2000, 5, 131–146. Kavusannu M., Ntoumanis N., Participation in sport and moral functioning: Does ego orientation mediate their relationship? J Sport Exerc Psych, 2003, 25, 501–519. Anshel M.H., Russell K.G., Examining athletes’ attitudes toward using anabolic steroids and their knowledge of the possible effects. J Drug Educ, 1997, 27, 121–145. Yonamine M., Garcia P.R., de Mores Moreau R.L., Non-intentional doping in sports. Sports Med, 2004, 34, 697–704. Laure P., Lecerf T., Prevention of doping in sport in adolescents: evaluation of a health education based intervention. Arch Pediatr, 1999, 6, 849–854. Goldberg L. et al., Effect of an anabolic steroid education program on knowledge and attitudes of high school football players. J Adolesc Health Care, 1990, 11, 210–421.
29. Goldberg L. et al., Effects of a multidimensional anabolic steroid prevention intervention: The Adolescents Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids (ATLAS) program. JAMA, 1996, 276, 1555–1562. 30. Goldberg L. et al., The adolescents training and learning to avoid steroids program: Preventing drug use and promoting health behaviors. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2000, 154, 332– 338. The project has been carried out with the support of the WADA.
Paper received by the Editors: November 30, 2006. Paper accepted for publication: March 12, 2007. Address for correspondence Krzysztof Sas-Nowosielski Katedra Humanistycznych Podstaw Kultury Fizycznej Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego ul. Mikołowska 72b 40-065 Katowice, Poland e-mail:
[email protected]
64
HM_07_1_057_064d.indd 64
06/18/2007, 12:43:51 PM
