Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education

ISSN: 1935-7397 (Print) 1935-7400 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yssa20

“Athlete suspended for presence of banned

substance”: A storied approach to protecting
student-athletes from doping in sport

Kelsey Erickson

To cite this article: Kelsey Erickson (2019): “Athlete suspended for presence of banned
substance”: A storied approach to protecting student-athletes from doping in sport, Journal for the
Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, DOI: 10.1080/19357397.2019.1648149

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19357397.2019.1648149

Published online: 05 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 77

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yssa20
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPORTS AND ATHLETES IN EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/19357397.2019.1648149

“Athlete suspended for presence of banned substance”: A

storied approach to protecting student-athletes from
doping in sport
Kelsey Erickson
Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Banned substance use is a growing issue among student- Doping; student-athlete; risk
athlete populations but limited research has addressed this factors; narrative; sanctioned
concern. The aim of this research was therefore to explore athlete
the lived experience of a sanctioned student-athlete in
order to expose the contexts and experiences surrounding
their sanction and illuminate student-athlete specific
doping risk factors. A narrative approach was adopted and
one male student-athlete (“Tyler”) serving a doping sanction
was interviewed. Data is presented in the form of a creative
non-fiction story. The story demonstrates the interplay
between multiple risk factors that ultimately combined and
led to Tyler’s doping sanction. Injury and supplementation
emerged as particularly significant, as did Tyler’s family life.
Informed by the story presented, practical implications are
offered for supporting student-athletes in avoiding banned
substance use. It is hoped that the story will trigger a
critical conversation and collective effort towards
proactively protecting student-athletes from their doping
susceptibility.

University student-athletes are tasked with successfully navigating the dual roles
of “student” and “athlete” despite various time-constraints and external press-
ures (Parsons, 2013). They face a range of challenges and stressors associated
with combining both pursuits (Beauchemin, 2014) and these are compounded
by the need to satisfy financial and social obligations (Rao & Hong, 2016).
Perhaps as a means for coping with these demands, a large percentage of
student-athletes engage in some type of high-risk substance use behavior
(Yusko, Buckman, White, & Pandina, 2008) and, at times, this includes sub-
stances that are prohibited in sport (prohibited substances). Student-athletes
are at elevated risk for prohibited substance use (Buckman, Farris, & Yusko,
2013; Yusko et al., 2008), especially in the North American context, where the
prevalence of, exposure to and availability of doping substances has been a
concern at the collegiate level for over a decade (Yusko et al., 2008).

CONTACT Kelsey Erickson k.erickson@leedsbeckett.ac.uk

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 K. ERICKSON

The reality is that student-athletes have as much, if not more, to gain by using
banned substances than other sub-populations of athletes as they are often
seeking entry into professional sport (Weaving & Teetzel, 2014). They have
also experienced at least one key transition by the time they reach collegiate
sport (i.e. move from high school to university sport1) and these are considered
potential “tipping points” in athletes’ careers and constitute a possible doping
risk factor (e.g. Lentillon-Kaestner & Carstairs, 2010). Moreover, the risk is
heightened when the transition is linked to a sponsorship opportunity (e.g. scho-
larship; Mazanov, Huybers, & Connor, 2011). For the purposes of this paper,
risk factors are considered individual characteristics, interpersonal relations,
or social conditions that increase the probability of an individual becoming
involved in anti-social behavior (e.g. doping) and that behavior continuing
(Rennie & Dolan, 2010).
Further known doping risk factors include: male gender (e.g. Lucidi et al.,
2008); previous use of nutritional supplements (e.g. Hauw & Bilard, 2012);
contact with dopers, being offered drugs, availability of drugs (e.g. Pappa &
Kennedy, 2012); contact with more experienced athletes (e.g. Ohl, Fincoeur,
Lentillon-Kaestner, Defrance, & Brissonneau, 2015); enhanced injury-recovery
and economic rewards (e.g. Whitaker, Long, Petróczi, & Backhouse, 2013);
early specialization (e.g. Hauw, 2013a); type of team an athlete exists in and
the level of supervision provided (e.g. Ohl et al., 2015); situational temptation,
attributing success to external factors (e.g. Barkoukis, Lazuras, & Tsorbatzoudis,
2014); number of years in elite sport (e.g. Hauw & Bilard, 2012); moral disen-
gagement (e.g. Ring & Hurst, 2018); and the influence of peers, parents, cultural
norms and sporting culture (e.g. Bilard, Ninot, & Hauw, 2011).
Additionally, “risky” personality factors associated with doping vulnerability
include: low ratings of self-esteem, integrity, confidence and high trait anxiety
(e.g. Petróczi & Aidman, 2008); dissatisfaction with one’s appearance, impulsive-
ness, a “win-at-all-costs” attitude (e.g. Mitić & Radovanović, 2011); over-con-
forming (e.g. Coakley & Pike, 2009); dispositional risk taking, and sensation
seeking (e.g. Petróczi & Aidman, 2008); suspicion/conviction that everyone
else is using (e.g. Zabala, Morente-Sánchez, Mateo-March, & Sanabria, 2016);
high levels of extrinsic motivation and perfectionism (e.g. Zucchetti, Candela,
& Villosio, 2015); exclusive athletic identity (e.g. Wilson & Potwarka, 2015);
and the fear of failure (e.g. Pappa & Kennedy, 2012). Emerging from the litera-
ture is a general agreement that no single factor predisposes an individual to use
prohibited substances in sport. Rather, doping is a complex issue influenced by
multiple risk factors which can act individually, collectively and/or in sequence
to support doping behavior (Backhouse, Whitaker, Patterson, Erickson, &
McKenna, 2016). The majority of doping literature still relies on proxy measures

1
The terms “collegiate sport” and “university sport” are used interchangeably throughout this paper to refer to the
same thing.
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPORTS AND ATHLETES IN EDUCATION 3

of doping behavior (e.g. attitudes, intentions) though, which represents a major

limitation to the current evidence-base and underlines the novelty of this
research.
The significance of morality in relation to doping behavior is a particularly
pertinent example of the complexity of doping behavior. Indeed, personal
morals are frequently highlighted as a deterrent to doping (e.g. Erickson,
McKenna, & Backhouse, 2015; Kegelaers, Wylleman, De Brandt, Van Rossem,
& Rosier, 2018), whereas moral disengagement is believed to increase doping
likelihood (e.g. Hodge, Hargreaves, Gerrard, & Lonsdale, 2013; Ring & Hurst,
2018). One mechanism of moral disengagement that may be particularly perti-
nent to doping behavior is moral justification (transforming the behavior by por-
traying it as facilitating a valued moral or social purpose; e.g. “doping is okay
because I am just returning to my normal performance level, not exceeding
it”). Via the mechanism of moral justification, it is possible for an athlete to
rationalize their doping behavior and construe it as acceptable, despite the
fact that it violates the rules of sport.
Alongside attention being channeled towards the issue of morality in relation
to doping behavior, the concept of anticipated guilt has garnered interest in anti-
doping literature (e.g. Erickson et al., 2015; Kavussanu, Yukhymenko-Lescroart,
Elbe & Hatzigeorgiadis, in press; Ring & Hurst, 2018) given its potential to
proactively deter individuals from doping. Those athletes who view being
moral as important to their personal identity are more likely to experience a
sense of guilt should they dope (Kavussanu et al., in press); essentially, they
experience an affective self-sanction (Ring & Hurst, 2018). It is therefore feasible
that by helping athletes make the connection between doping and a sense of guilt
that will (potentially) follow, athletes will be less likely to dope. Anticipated guilt
can therefore counteract the influence of moral justification and prevent an
athlete from comfortably rationalizing doping behavior. Taken together, the
relationship between doping and morality is complex and is potentially
equally likely to deter and incentivize doping, depending on the individual
athlete in question (and the environment surrounding them). It is therefore
necessary to consider the significance of morality in relation to doping behavior
on a case-by-case basis rather than viewing doping as purely (im)moral.

Doping and university sport

Despite growing awareness for the threat that prohibited substance use poses to
collegiate sport, literature on doping in university athletics is concerningly
sparse (Yusko et al., 2008) and (potential) doping risk factors have not been con-
sidered within this important population. Student-athlete research to date has
focused predominantly on the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA; governing body that oversees US collegiate sport). Within this,
Yusko et al. (2008) specified that 17.8% of NCAA male and 3.2% of female
4 K. ERICKSON

student-athletes reported life-time use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).

Meanwhile, self-reports regarding banned PED use in the past year were 9.7% for
male and nil for female student-athletes. Further research compared substance use
behaviors between NCAA males who self-reported ergogenic substance use while
at college (labeled “PED-users”) and those who did not (labeled “PED non-
users”). For every substance queried (anabolic steroids, ephedrine, alcohol, ciga-
rettes, spit tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, narcotics), student-ath-
letes who were categorized as “PED-users” reported higher prevalence rates
compared to “PED non-users”. Use of recreational drugs was at least twice as
high among “PED-users” compared to “PED non-users” (Buckman et al.,
2013). In the most recent NCAA Substance Use Survey (see Cook, Radford, &
Durham, 2018), 0.4% of student-athletes reported the use of anabolic steroids,
1.5% stated they had used amphetamines (Male: 2.1%; Female: 0.7%), and 3.8%
indicated the use of cocaine (Male: 5.2%; Female: 1.7%) within the past 12
months (these substances are all banned in the NCAA). Finally, in a rare qualitat-
ive study (see Diacin, Parks, & Allison, 2003), eight NCAA male student-athletes
indicated that they generally rejected the use of PEDs in intercollegiate sport, sup-
ported testing procedures, and considered teammates, peers and coaches the
primary shapers of their PED perceptions.
Looking beyond the NCAA, research exploring doping in USport (the gov-
erning body for Canadian university sport) is extremely limited. Wilson and
Potwarka (2015) found that USport athletes with a strong obsessive passion
for their sport maintained a more favorable attitude towards PEDs than those
with weaker obsessive passion and that varsity athletes viewed PEDs more favor-
ably than recreational athletes. In relation to actual substance use behaviors, the
most recent Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES; body responsible for
administering Canada’s Anti-Doping Program) Annual Report indicates that
ten total USport athletes representing four sports (football, basketball, hockey,
track and field) were sanctioned for doping between 1 April 2017 and 31
March 2018 (CCES, 2018).
Although there is limited research exploring substance use in collegiate sport,
the existing evidence demonstrates that doping is an issue in the North Amer-
ican collegiate context. It is therefore important to consider what rules, regu-
lations and policies are in place to detect, deter and prevent student-athletes
from doping. It is also necessary to explore potential risk factors for doping
within this unique population in order to ensure that student-athletes are receiv-
ing the best support and protection possible which, in turn, can enable them to
resist the temptation (and opportunity) to dope.

Anti-doping movement
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is the global governing body tasked
with deterring doping in sport and a key responsibility of the WADA is to
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPORTS AND ATHLETES IN EDUCATION 5

produce and update The Code (WADA, 2015) – a global rulebook outlining
what is and is not considered an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV). Alongside
The Code, the Prohibited List (WADA, 2018) specifies which substances and
methods are banned in sport and under what conditions (e.g. in-/out-of-compe-
tition, particular sports) and the current standard sanction for committing an
ADRV is a four year ban from engaging in any WADA-sanctioned sport. Impor-
tantly, not all sport organizations fall under the WADA’s jurisdiction. The
freedom to self-determine adherence (or not) to the Code means that anti-
doping rules can differ across national borders and this is particularly noticeable
in the collegiate context. Illustrating this, the NCAA is not WADA-compliant
whereas USport is WADA-compliant. These divergent statuses have significant
implications for student-athletes, especially in relation to doping consequences.
Indeed, the standard sanction for an NCAA student-athlete who tests positive
(first offense) for a steroid is one year. Meanwhile, that same student-athlete
would be liable to a four-year sanction within the USport system. Same sub-
stance, competitive level, and sport; yet, very different consequences.
Another important implication associated with being WADA-compliant versus
non-compliant is the fact that NCAA doping sanctions are (generally) not made
public whereas USport doping sanctions are published on the CCES website and
remain public knowledge. The announcement includes the name of the individual
sanctioned and the ADRV that they have committed. What it (generally) does not
include is the story behind the sanction. That is, the experience(s) that contributed
towards that individual being in a position to receive an ADRV. This is significant
considering there has been a shift from viewing doping as a deliberate and per-
sonal choice made by an athlete towards positing instead that the behavior is
strongly influenced by an athlete’s social environment (Hauw, 2013b); that is,
the “dopogenic environment”. The dopogenic environment acknowledges the
sum of influences produced by the surroundings, opportunities and conditions
that promote an ADRV (Backhouse, Griffiths, & McKenna, 2017). Despite recog-
nition for the significance of this environment on athletes’ doping behaviors,
limited research has directly explored its influence. This is perhaps because
accounting for it requires one to engage with sanctioned athletes and this presents
many challenges. Practically, there is a small pool of athletes to draw from given
the majority of athletes do not use banned substances. Also, athletes may be reluc-
tant to share insights that might facilitate detection of doping (Engelberg, Moston,
& Skinner, 2015). Ensuing from these challenges, athletes with experience of
doping are largely underrepresented in the literature (Backhouse, McKenna,
Robinson, & Atkin, 2007).
No research to date has considered the experience(s) of collegiate sanctioned
athletes, but there is a small body of literature that has explored this issue at the
elite level. Within this, there is an indication that doping is proceeded by “critical
moments” in athletes’ careers (Hauw & Bilard, 2012; Hauw & Mohamed, 2015;
Kirby, Moran, & Guerin, 2011), including the transition from junior to elite level
6 K. ERICKSON

(Piffaretti, 2011). Yet, further research (see Engelberg et al., 2015) suggests that
there is actually no clear trigger point for doping so presently no conclusions can
be made. Sanctioned athletes have also noted that social sanctions are particu-
larly difficult to deal with (Georgiadis & Papazoglou, 2014; Kirby et al., 2011)
and this has prompted researchers to view the doping athlete as a suffering
athlete (Hauw & Bilard, 2012) who is in need of support throughout the sanction
period (Piffaretti, 2011). Finally, sanctioned athletes commonly suggest that the
benefits of using banned substances outweigh the risks (Hoff, 2012). But, are
these experiences and views representative of the sanctioned student-athlete
experience? The present research will provide critical insights relating to this
important question.

Current study
The lived experience of university student-athletes is underrepresented within
existing literature (Weaving & Teetzel, 2014) and there are currently no accounts
of student-athletes’ doping experiences. The intent of the present research was
therefore to develop an understanding of the lived experience of a sanctioned
student-athlete. Specifically, to account for the experiences and contexts sur-
rounding the individual before, during and following the doping experience
and, in turn, providing initial insights into (potential) student-athlete doping
risk factors and opportunities to proactively intervene.

Methodology and method

Philosophical underpinnings

Underpinned by the epistemology of social constructivism, the investigator and

participant were recognized as co-constructing the findings as this investigation
unfolded. The results emerged alongside the dialogue carried out between the
investigator and participant (Blodgett, Ge, Schinke, & McGannon, 2017) and
the investigator’s values have inherently influenced every step of the investi-
gation – from its conception through to the final product (Douglas & Carless,
2015). In line with the aims of the research project, the role of the investigator’s
voice within this paradigm is that of the passionate participant (Guba & Lincoln,
1994). In other words, the investigator was tasked with playing the role of both
the participant and the facilitator in the pursuit of advocacy and activism. In this
instance, in relation to exposing the complexity of doping in university sport.

Participants
The author has worked in the anti-doping field for eight years and has spent the
majority of her time exploring the issue of doping within the student-athlete
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPORTS AND ATHLETES IN EDUCATION 7

context. Given her growing reputation as an expert regarding student-athlete

doping-related issues, a colleague informed her of a student-athlete who had
been sanctioned for doping and was interested in confidentially sharing his
story. In response, and following ethical approval from the host institution,
the author sent an email to the identified student-athlete and invited them to
share their story. The author offered to travel to the participant in order to
conduct the interview in person, which the student-athlete accepted.
One scholarship student-athlete in the sport of (American) football partici-
pated in this research. At the time of the interview, “Tyler” (name has been
changed to protect anonymity) was in his fourth year of university and had
just commenced serving the second year of his doping sanction. Tyler’s nation-
ality and further demographic details have been removed to protect anonymity.
The participant was provided with information about the research project and
assured that anything he shared would be kept confidential, that all identifiers
(e.g. names of people and places) would be removed and that he did not need
to share anything that he was uncomfortable discussing. An interview was
then scheduled and informed consent was received.

Data collection
A face-to-face conversational interview was conducted in order to provide (a)
the participant with a high degree of control over the conversation and (b)
the investigator with the opportunity to respond to the story whenever necessary
(Blodgett, Schinke, Smith, Peltier, & Pheasant, 2011). In adopting this approach,
storytelling is invited rather than suppressed (Chase, 1995) and this was con-
sidered important given the participant was identified as someone who had a
story to tell but had not yet had an opportunity to share it. The conversation
therefore opened with the researcher inviting the participant to: please share
with me how you have been personally impacted by PEDs in sport? Probing
follow up questions were then offered to elicit further details in relation to par-
ticular aspects of the story (e.g. what did it feel like when you first got the news
that you had tested positive?). The interview was audio-recorded with the par-
ticipant’s permission and lasted 1 h and 3 min. It was then transcribed verbatim
by the researcher.

Data analysis and representation

In light of the original aims of this research (i.e. to shed light on the experiences
underpinning a student-athlete’s doping sanction and expose student-athlete
related doping risk factors), creative non-fiction (CNF) was considered the
most appropriate method for representing the findings. CNF was selected for
its ability to: (1) protect anonymity, (2) present results that are available, acces-
sible and understandable to multiple audiences, (3) elicit an emotional response
8 K. ERICKSON

from the reader, (4) explore taboo issues that are often excluded from research,
(5) keep participants’ words intact and (6) provide the possibility of portraying
the complexity of lived experience (Douglas & Carless, 2009; Smith, 2013).

Story creation
The interview transcript was used to develop the story. First, the transcript was
read multiple times by the author in order for her to become familiar with it and
key words, quotes and ideas that seemed to represent significant details related to
the participant’s experience of doping and being sanctioned were highlighted.
Next, the highlighted segments were copied into a separate document consistent
with the order in which they had been shared. The individual segments were
then rearranged and linked together by writing around them in order to
create a full and flowing representation of the participant’s experience. Once
the initial story had been drafted, the original transcript was reviewed and com-
pared to the story multiple times to ensure that no content relating to the par-
ticipant’s experience was overlooked. Caution was taken to preserve the
individual’s spoken word and minimize any personal interpretations but, in
line with the philosophical underpinnings employed in this research, the story
naturally and unavoidably reflects the author’s personal interpretations (Blod-
gett et al., 2011).
Consistent with Cheney’s (2001) view that the best CNF stories do not tell
readers how they should think or feel but, instead, show – the story offered
here presents the participant’s experience with minimal altering. The story is
not completely in the words of the participant though because CNF should
provide vivid description and utilize fictional techniques (e.g. vernacular
language, tone shifts, etc.) to communicate results to the reader in compelling
ways (Smith, 2013). Words and descriptions have therefore been inserted in
various spots in an attempt to create a logical flow and capture the reader’s
attention.

Criteria for judgement

There is no universal list of criteria for judging the quality of qualitative research,
rather, researchers in this field are challenged and invited to determine appro-
priate criterion for judgement on an individual project basis (Smith & McGan-
non, 2018). Given the unique purpose and design of the present research, the
suggested list of criteria offered by Smith et al. (2015) was considered particularly
useful. In line with their suggestion, criterion from the list that were particularly
relevant to this research were adhered to rather than arbitrarily applying all of
them. Specifically, this research sought to satisfy the following: (1) Substantive
contribution and worthiness: is the research relevant, timely, significant and
interesting?, (2) Expression of a reality: does the story embody a fleshed out,
embodied sense of lived experience?, (3) Engagement: does the research keep
me emotionally and intellectually interested?, (4) Incitement to action: Does
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPORTS AND ATHLETES IN EDUCATION 9

the research move me, intellectually and emotionally?, and (5) Meaningful
Coherence: does the study achieve what it purports to be about? The reader is
encouraged to consider these questions when reading the story.

The story
The following CNF story offers interrelated, shifting, nonlinear sub-plots that
illuminate Tyler’s experiences before, during and following his doping sanction.
This story presents fluid and overlapping narratives consisting of single
moments that Tyler is fluidly moving in and out of, some of them unraveling
even during the interview. The reader is invited to join alongside Tyler as he
recounts his doping sanction.

“Athlete suspended for presence of banned substance”

I read this story about this nice girl who was kidnapped, and after they found her
she was part of a terrorist organization. They did a study on her to see how that
could happen. The question they ask is, do you blame the girl because she’s a
murderer, or do you blame the influences that she was surrounded by? Is
there any in-between, or is it simply – she’s a murderer and deserves life in
prison despite everything she has been through?
That story is like my story. Do I really deserve the straight four year ban?
When you test positive for a banned substance, it’s four years right away. You
can’t play any kind of sport and they don’t even want to hear your side of the
story unless you are willing to expose everybody that is involved. If not, it’s
four years. Final answer. Your story doesn’t even matter. But I know there are
other people out there – other student-athletes – who are dealing with so
much stress and are in a similar situation to mine. You don’t think you’ll take
a drug, but you’re surrounded by social influences and eventually … you take
it. I want those people to hear my story.
So … here it is. This is the story I would have told if I had been given the
opportunity.
I was put in a complex life situation. I was living alone with my mom and
football was everything to me – it brought me everywhere. I wasn’t sure what
I wanted to do before university, but I knew I wanted to play football. So, I
dropped out of school and played in the city league. One day I ran into a guy
who played professional football and he became my mentor. He recognized
my passion for football and he brought me to the next level – I was able to
get a scholarship to come here, to university. Despite dropping out of school,
everything was suddenly mapped out for me. I would go to university, play foot-
ball for two or three years and then go pro. I was supposed to come to this
university.
That isn’t how my story unfolded though.
10 K. ERICKSON

During my second year at university I was playing flag football with team-
mates and I broke my leg. I had never had a serious injury before that so it
was really depressing, but I was training every day to try and come back and
after a few months of recovery I was doing pretty good. By the next spring
camp, I was feeling okay and needed to start working on my cardio, but I still
couldn’t play football yet because I wasn’t going to risk getting hurt. Instead, I
ended up playing basketball with some guys from the team and somebody
stepped on my foot and actually fractured a small bone. At that point I was
like, “what the fuck is happening?” It had been a year since my first injury,
I’m ready to go and now I’m hurt again? Seriously? How is that possible?
You have to understand my life situation to really appreciate the impact of
those injuries. When I started university, I moved downtown to be close to
the university facility but my little brother would call me and say, “mom
hasn’t been home in a few days” or something like that, so I would send him
money. I wasn’t working a lot at the time though so that wasn’t easy. Eventually,
I ended up moving back home because I knew something was happening with
my mom – she was gone for a week or two. I didn’t know where she was, I
couldn’t go get her and I bought her a cell phone but she lost it, so I was just
trying to keep my brother in a positive state through everything.
The thing about my mom is, she was always encouraging me. She was
banking on me going professional so she did anything she could to try to
promote me. She was a really big supporter but when I got hurt I could see
her slowly becoming more depressed. I don’t know if maybe she kind of felt
like I wasn’t going to be as successful as I could have been with football? Or,
it may have had to do with what happened with my older brother? I was
good at football, but my brother was the football player of the family. He was
all-star every year, MVP of the league, everything – he was number one. But,
he didn’t want to go to school and he didn’t have a mentor like I did so he’s actu-
ally in jail now and my mom took that hard. So, my injury had a pretty big
impact on her since everything was so promising and I was really accelerating,
but then I got injured. When it happened, she didn’t want to talk to anybody,
especially me, because I was her golden kid going to university – I don’t think
anybody in my family went to university. It was tough for her. She tried to
hide her true feelings but over time they kind of exposed themselves. And for
me, seeing that – I just wanted to get back on the field. I would do anything
to get back on the field.
That’s when I started to notice the noise in the background about people on
and off the team who were taking – not steroids. Not something that involved a
needle – just medication to help recovery. I trained at other gyms outside of the
team too and I knew a few guys who were going professional that were taking
drugs because they had injuries and they never tested positive. Actually, I had
a friend who had played on the team with me and he had a nagging pain, and
he was pretty stressed with his life, so he started taking some drug. Then I
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPORTS AND ATHLETES IN EDUCATION 11

knew a guy who was playing for another team and he was taking the same one. I
saw them getting better while I was working hard all year to return and I was just
getting worse and starting to feel depressed. Everybody was telling me to do it.
They were saying things like, “there’s really no negative side effect”; “you’re not
going to get caught with something like this”; “it’s not what they test for,” and
stuff like that. Meanwhile, I’m thinking, “my bones are too weak. I need
something”.
Obviously football meant a lot to me so not playing was not an option. I never
really thought about the consequences of getting caught for a drug because it
never occurred to me to worry. For one, I didn’t know if this drug was legal.
Also, it wasn’t a needle so I figured if you were taking steroids, yeah – you are
going to test positive. But this wasn’t anything like that. At one point, my
friend actually took the drug right beside me. He just mixed it in his drink.
He always asked me if I wanted some, he would say, “it’s going to help you
for sure. You work too hard for this”, but I would constantly say “no”. Eventually
though, I just thought, “yeah it’s true”. I looked at it and it said it helped promote
bone growth and stuff like that so I was just like, “you know what? This could
actually be helpful and it might be something I need if I do ever want to play
football again”. In my head I was thinking, “there’s a good chance I’m not
even going to play so it doesn’t really matter. By the time I actually do play, I
probably will not even need this”. The way I saw it, I wasn’t going to play
anyways so as long as I wasn’t taking anything that required me to actually
stick a needle into myself, I really didn’t see the harm in doing it.
While all this was going on in my head, I also felt bad because everybody kept
asking me to come back and play football and here I was, hurt. Again. And I have
to go through the whole experience again. The injury wasn’t as serious the
second time but I couldn’t walk and having that feeling again? I don’t even
know how to explain it. It’s so tough. I was weak-minded at that point and
open to trying this drug to help me cope with everything that was going on.
The injury, the pain that I was feeling – all of it. I was stuck taking care of my
little brother, I obviously seriously depended on football because that’s all I
really knew, my mom had a drug problem, all my family was basically on
drugs and in jail; so, I felt really pressured into looking for some sort of aid. Pain-
killers like Advil just weren’t allowing me to meet the demands on the football
field. I had all kinds of pressures from the coaches and the staff. At the same
time, my mom was asking me when I’m going to play again so it was tough
to deal with. I would do anything to get back on the field to try and lift her
spirits a bit.
So, I took it. And I continued to take it once a week. That’s how it happens.
You take it once and it’s just like this rippling effect. My friend gave it to me
once, I tried it, and I said, “yeah I’ll try it. Send me a bottle”. He ended up
buying one for me from wherever he gets it and I would just use it occasionally
when my leg was hurting. I realize that it might sound impulsive, but the thing is
12 K. ERICKSON

– you take supplements. Especially on the football field, everybody has their own
lockers and stuff like that. Me, it was just something that I kept at my house and
took in the morning. It was pretty low key. Honestly, I didn’t think anything of it
at the time. I was just like, “okay this is positive because it’s going to help me get
better”. I didn’t do the research that I should have done so I wasn’t even think-
ing, “I’m so scared. I’m taking steroids” or anything like that. It was more like,
“maybe I shouldn’t be taking this. I can’t go to a grocery store to go buy it”.
That’s the only thing that was kind of bothering me but after you take sup-
plements like protein and pre-workout stuff, you kind of just get used to
taking supplements to get an advantage. So, I just wasn’t worried.
I started taking it and I was training like normal. The coach saw how hard I
was working so he gave me the opportunity to go to an All-Star Camp as soon as
I was ready and healthy. It was a month or two after I had started taking the
drug, so I stopped taking it and then a month or two before the actual camp,
I got drug tested. I only took the drug for two or three months and then I
stopped. But, I didn’t know if I had stopped taking it early enough to pass the
test.
I really wasn’t sure what was going to come back. I was sitting there question-
ing, should I tell my coach? What do I tell my mom? And what about my little
brother who looks up to me? My thoughts were racing. I kind of wanted to keep
it to myself. I was praying so much that it wouldn’t come back positive. That’s
when I looked up the drug. It wasn’t until that point that I started actually
researching it. Before then, I hadn’t even looked. I knew what it was called
and what it was for – it was used to treat elderly patients with bad bones.
As I was doing the research though I saw that it had different names associ-
ated with it and then I read that three or four other university students were
caught using the same drug that year so right away I knew everything was
over for me. For the next few days I was just depressed and scared because I
didn’t know when they were going to come back with the results. It could
have been any day, so I didn’t know if I should train and prepare myself for
the next game or what exactly I should be doing.
After what seemed like eternity, I got the news back that I had tested positive.
Next thing I know, it’s all over Facebook and all my former teammates are mes-
saging me about it, some immediate family are messaging me about it and what
do you say to people? They don’t understand what happened and I don’t really
want to talk about it with everybody. That stage was probably the toughest. I
didn’t get any help from my university other than them making it clear that
they didn’t want me to talk about anything in the media. They were super
nice with me and made it seem like they had my back, but afterward they basi-
cally said, “you can’t come back to the complex anymore”. On top of that, I was
working at the university fitness centre at the time so not only was I banned from
doing anything with the football team, but I was immediately fired from my job.
The stress of processing the ban, caring for my brother and losing my job was
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPORTS AND ATHLETES IN EDUCATION 13

crazy. The football committee had no consideration for anything in my family

situation though. All they cared about was how the drug got in my system.
They didn’t take into consideration the fact that I was impacted by all of it.
The whole situation. Family, being around the drug and the pressure of
people taking it, the coach pressing me to be back on the field – asking me
every day. I tried coming back but it is the worst feeling when you’re on the
field but you’re not comfortable because you feel the injury. Then people were
making jokes because of the way I was running and the fact that I wasn’t as
fast anymore and it was hurting me. It all just piled up on me and ultimately
resulted in me taking the drug. I was faced with a lot of different challenges
so it was super hard. I don’t know that I would have without all of the pressures.
Maybe I just would have stopped playing. I don’t know. I can’t help but wonder
though, if the university would have heard my story, would they have given me
some sympathy? I think it would have been helpful. Instead, I just got ridiculed
thanks to the way the media portrays it. You can Google my name and it will
blow up with news on my sanction.
I didn’t want to tell anybody when it happened, but it’s not something that I
want to hide now because I know there are people in similar situations to mine –
people who don’t think they’ll take a drug and then because of social influences,
they take it. Maybe my story can help them resist the temptation.

Discussion
The purpose of this research was to progress understanding in the anti-doping
movement by shedding light on the experience(s) of a sanctioned student-
athlete. Specifically, to account for the experiences and contexts surrounding
the individual (the dopogenic environment) before, during and following their
doping experience with a view to uncover potential student-athlete specific
doping risk factors and inform the development of bespoke support programs.
Consistent with previous claims (see Backhouse et al., 2016), the story presented
here demonstrates that multiple risk factors both in and out of sport combined
and contributed towards Tyler’s doping behavior. Many of the risk factors
exposed in the story map against known doping risk factors, but this is the
first time they have been documented in the student-athlete context specifically.
It is for this reason that the following section: (a) discusses the prominent risk
factors identified and (b) outlines implications for university athletic depart-
ments. In doing so, the significance of the dopogenic environment (Backhouse
et al., 2017) for shaping Tyler’s behavior is illuminated.
Tyler’s story noticeably links to many of the dominant risk factors for doping;
namely, a transition, being male, regularly using nutritional supplements, having
regular contact with dopers, consistently being offered drugs, having access to
drugs, being in contact with more experienced athletes, seeking enhanced
injury-recovery, experiencing situational temptation, sponsorship being at
14 K. ERICKSON

stake, knowledge that peers were using drugs, moral disengagement (i.e. moral
justification) and being heavily influenced by peers, parents, and sporting
culture. Tyler also exhibited the risky personality factors of maintaining an
exclusive athletic identity and the fear of failure. Collectively, it seems these
factors put Tyler at an increased likelihood to engage with banned substances.
These insights are important as they substantiate existing literature; however,
they also advance understanding by moving beyond the use of proxy measures
for exploring doping risks factors. In doing so, this story is able to expose why
and how these specific factors increased Tyler’s doping vulnerability and this
is particularly noticeable in relation to: (1) injury and (2) previous use of
supplements.
Considering first the role that injury played in Tyler’s doping experience, the
consecutive nature of his injuries and lack of explanation for why he was sud-
denly prone to injury appears to have played a role in him first considering
the use of banned substances. Second, Tyler felt that his injury (negatively)
impacted his mom’s mental state. From his perspective, the injury was con-
sidered a threat to his potential to go professional and that triggered her
depression and, in turn, led to her disappearance from the home. Importantly,
Tyler felt that the only way to counteract his mom’s reaction was to get back
on the football field and in his mind, a prompt return required chemical assist-
ance. Third, being injured influenced the way Tyler’s coach engaged with him
and Tyler perceived his coach’s comments as an expectation and pressure to
speed up his return to the field. Fourth, Tyler was in contact with other
injured athletes who were using banned substances to help them rehabilitate.
As a result, he had easy access to banned substances and was regularly encour-
aged (peer pressured) to take advantage of their ability to accelerate his return
from injury. Taken together, Tyler’s injuries – and the experiences and emotions
that they triggered – combined to leave him feeling both physically “weak” and
“weak-minded”. In turn, this self-diagnosis left him at heightened doping risk.
An additional risk factor that Tyler’s account references is the normalization
of supplement use. Tyler specifically stated that supplementation was common-
place within his football team and did not draw attention. The thought of enga-
ging with further drugs therefore seemed fairly insignificant. Research (e.g.
Backhouse, Whitaker, & Petróczi, 2013) has previously suggested that personal
use of supplements may place athletes at increased risk of eventually transition-
ing to doping. However, consideration for the influence of supplement use by
peers (i.e. social norms) in relation to one’s doping susceptibility has not been
explored. Tyler’s story suggests that being mindful of supplement behaviors
within particular athlete groups is necessary as they can (potentially) influence
an athlete’s behavior towards doping. This possibility warrants further
exploration.
It is important to stress that this research extends current understanding by
exposing a novel doping risk factor that could feasibly be specific to adolescent
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPORTS AND ATHLETES IN EDUCATION 15

and young adult athletes: the influence of one’s home life. Tyler took responsi-
bility for his younger brother’s well-being and this appears to have contributed
towards the urgency he felt to get back on the field. Being able to provide for his
brother financially was essential and not being on the field meant he was limit-
ing his chances of going professional and securing a contract (financial impli-
cations). Tyler also observed the (perceived negative) impact that his injury had
on his mom and felt responsible for lifting her spirits. He once again deter-
mined that the best way to do that was a quick return to play. The urgency
for this triggered by these two family-related factors was noticeably exacerbated
by the fact that: Tyler was the first person in his (extended) family to go to
college, multiple family members were in jail, financial instability was a consist-
ent issue, Tyler was raised in a parent home with an absent father figure and
there was an expectation that Tyler would be more successful than his family
members. It appears that Tyler’s home life prior to and during his student-
athlete experience played a significant role in leading him to make the decision
to use a banned substance. Importantly, Tyler did not suggest that his home life
justified his doping behavior (i.e. moral justification); rather, he shared details
of it to provide context to his story. It is therefore worth considering whether or
not student-athletes are being adequately equipped to manage and cope with
various forms of adversity (e.g. broken families, financial difficulties, etc.)?
This question should be urgently considered given a failure to provide such
resources (potentially) places student-athletes at increased risk for doping.

Implications
Sport participation inevitably poses a risk of injury, which makes it critical that
student-athletes are provided with sufficient support to (a) help prevent injuries
and (b) cope if/when they encounter them. Also, in order to reduce the tempta-
tion to morally justify their use of banned substances as a means of returning to
– but not exceeding – their normal performance level. Particularly relevant to
Tyler’s experience, stress is recognized as a common precursor to injury and
can also lead to poor recovery (Reese, Pittsinger, & & Yang, 2012). Tyler was
noticeably dealing with high levels of stress prior to his initial injury (e.g.
caring for his brother, absentee mom, etc.) and these factors remained present
during his recovery which, in turn, potentially contributed towards his second
injury. At that point, the injuries presented: a threat to Tyler’s ability to
provide financially for his brother, the onset of depression for Tyler’s mom, (per-
ceived) pressure from his coach to quickly return to sport, being consistently
offered banned substances and, ultimately, a “weak-mind” that left Tyler
partial to using banned substances. Together, these stressors eventually led
Tyler to assume that he had no choice but to take a banned substance in
order to return from injury. Perhaps if Tyler had been proactively equipped
16 K. ERICKSON

with skills and tools to help him (a) prevent and (b) cope with his injuries he
would have felt he had alternative options?
The possibility of Tyler benefiting from proactive efforts to prevent and cope
with injury points to the importance of simultaneously considering risk and pro-
tective factors in the context of doping. Protective factors constitute the personal,
social and environmental factors that serve to moderate, buffer or insulate against
risk (Rennie & Dolan, 2010). Scholars (e.g. Erickson et al., 2015) have previously
suggested that protective factors may be particularly pertinent for helping ath-
letes refrain from doping when they encounter tipping points or critical incidents
in their careers (e.g. injuries). The present research reinforces this suggestion and
points to the importance of providing student-athletes with psychological inter-
ventions since they are known to lower sport injury rates and/or injury-time loss
(Gledhill, Forsdyke, & Murray, 2018). Accordingly, they present an ideal means
for supporting athletes both prior to and after injury. To maximize levels of pro-
tection and support, psychological interventions should be supplemented with
advice on fueling (through food) one’s recovery and effective strength and con-
ditioning programs. There is an opportunity for athletic trainers, strength and
conditioning coaches and sport psychologists to collectively be utilized for
these purposes given their close proximity to student-athletes and subject knowl-
edge. This multifaceted approach also begins to engage relevant agents in the
dopogenic environment (Backhouse et al., 2017).
This story also points to the importance of monitoring and investing in
student-athletes’ daily lives. Tyler’s home situation clearly impacted both his
athletic and personal life. Thus, addressing one part of his life while neglecting
the other would offer insufficient support. To this regard, sport psychologists are
becoming increasingly visible within university contexts so encouraging student-
athletes, teams and support staff to utilize their expertise would represent a posi-
tive shift in current student-athlete support provision. Messages and reinforce-
ment of this nature should come from the coaching staff, fellow student-athletes,
athletic administrators and sport psychologists. Ensuring that student-athletes
are familiar with the psychological resources that are available to them and
able to contact such individuals if/when necessary is critical. Student-athletes
should be proactively signposted to these resources so that they are equipped
to utilize them if/when they encounter challenges rather than left scrambling
to find resources during or after such an experience.
Finally, university athletic departments must acknowledge and accept the fact
that doping is an issue in the university context. Athletic departments have a
responsibility and obligation to provide innovative and consistent anti-doping
education and resources to their student-athletes. Requiring student-athletes
to complete a standalone online tutorial at the start of each new academic
year is not sufficient for protecting them against the temptation and opportunity
to dope and it minimizes the complexity of the issue. Instead, student-athletes
should be regularly provided with information on current rules, policies and
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPORTS AND ATHLETES IN EDUCATION 17

anti-doping efforts and offered information and instruction on how to improve

performance and return from injuries without relying on banned substances
(e.g. nutrition advice, appropriate training programs, sufficient sleep, etc.). Pro-
visions of this nature will require university athlete support personnel (e.g.
coaches, sport psychologists, athletic trainers, etc.) to be familiar with anti-
doping rules and efforts and actively engaged in supporting the pursuit of
doping-free sport. The significance of the dopogenic environment (Backhouse
et al., 2017) at the university level must be acknowledged and each component
addressed – what are the surroundings, opportunities, and conditions that are
enabling doping at the collegiate level? Once these are identified, strategic
measures must be taken to address them because failure to do this places
student-athletes at increased risk for doping.

Conclusion
Through the use of a CNF story, Tyler’s experiences and contexts before, during
and after his doping sanction are presented here and expose significant factors
associated with his doping behavior. This is the first time that a student-
athlete doping experience has been presented in the literature and the story
offers important insights into the thinking and experiences of a contemporary
student-athlete. The risk factors illuminated substantiate existing research and
also position multiple established risk factors within the student-athlete
context for the first time. The story also extends current understanding by
exposing the significance of one’s family life in relation to their potential
doping susceptibility. As demonstrated, banned substance use is an issue at
the student-athlete level. The insights provided here should therefore be used
to inform the development and delivery of student-athlete specific anti-doping
education interventions and programs. Importantly, key individuals (e.g. athletic
trainers, sport psychologists) should be engaged with to reinforce these anti-
doping messages. The dopogenic environment influences athletes’ behaviors
and in order to best protect student-athletes, every individual and group
within this context must be engaged with. It is hoped that this story will spark
a critical and necessary conversation regarding how best to protect and
support student-athlete well-being.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Dr Kelsey Erickson is a Senior Research Fellow in the Institute for Sport, Physical Activity
and Leisure (ISPAL) at Leeds Beckett University, UK. Her expertise is in the psychology
18 K. ERICKSON

of drug use in sport and she is particularly interested in developing an understanding of (a)
the psychosocial factors that influence appearance and performance enhancing drug use and
(b) the issue of whistleblowing on doping. Given her cross-cultural background (former US
and UK student-athlete), exploring potential cultural and contextual differences associated
with doping and whistleblowing behaviors are also of principal interest.

ORCID
Kelsey Erickson http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3226-824X

References
Backhouse, S. H., Griffiths, C., & McKenna, J. (2017). Tackling doping in sport: A call to take
action on the dopogenic environment. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(23), 1485–1486.
Backhouse, S. H., McKenna, J., Robinson, S., & Atkin, A. (2007). International literature
review: Attitudes, behaviors, knowledge and education – drugs in sport: Past, present and
future. Leeds: Leeds Metropolitan University.
Backhouse, S. H., Whitaker, L., Patterson, L., Erickson, K., & McKenna, J. (2016). Social psy-
chology of doping in sport: A mixed narrative Synthesis. Retrieved from https://www.wada-
ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/literature_review_update_-_final_2016.pdf.
Backhouse, S. H., Whitaker, L., & Petróczi, A. (2013). Gateway to doping? Supplement use in
the context of preferred competitive situations, doping attitude, beliefs, and norms.
Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23(2), 244–252.
Barkoukis, V., Lazuras, L., & Tsorbatzoudis, H. (2014). Beliefs about the causes of success in
sports and susceptibility for doping use in adolescent athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32
(3), 212–219.
Beauchemin, J. (2014). College student-athlete wellness: An integrative outreach model.
College Student Journal, 48(2), 268–280.
Bilard, J., Ninot, G., & Hauw, D. (2011). Motives for illicit use of doping substances among
athletes calling a national antidoping phone-help service: An exploratory study. Substance
Use & Misuse, 46(4), 359–367.
Blodgett, A. T., Ge, Y., Schinke, R. J., & McGannon, K. R. (2017). Intersecting identities of
elite female boxers: Stories of cultural difference and marginalization in sport.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 32(Supplement C), 83–92.
Blodgett, A. T., Schinke, R. J., Smith, B., Peltier, D., & Pheasant, C. (2011). In Indigenous
words: Exploring Vignettes as a narrative Strategy for Presenting the research Voices of
Aboriginal Community members. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 522–533.
Buckman, J. F., Farris, S. G., & Yusko, D. A. (2013). A national study of substance use beha-
viors among NCAA male athletes who use banned performance enhancing substances.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 131(1–2), 50–55.
CCES. (2018). Canadian sport sanction Registry. Retrieved from: https://cces.ca/canadian-
sport-sanction-registry.
Chase, S. E. (1995). Taking narrative seriously: Consequences for method and theory in inter-
view studies. In R. Josselson, & A. Lieblich (Eds.), Interpreting experience: The narrative
study of lives (pp. 1–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cheney, T. (2001). Writing creative nonfiction: Fiction techniques for crafting great nonfiction.
Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Coakley, J. J., & Pike, E. (2009). Sports in society: Issues and controversies/Jay Coakley,
Elizabeth Pike. London: McGraw-Hill.
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPORTS AND ATHLETES IN EDUCATION 19

Cook, M., Radford, C., & Durham, M. (2018). NCAA national study on substance Use Habits
of college student-athletes. Retrieved from: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/
2018RES_Substance_Use_Final_Report_FINAL_20180611.pdf.
Diacin, M. J., Parks, J. B., & Allison, P. C. (2003). Voices of male athletes on drug Use, drug
testing, and the existing order in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26(1), 1.
Douglas, K., & Carless, D. (2009). Exploring taboo issues in professional sport through a
fictional approach. Reflective Practice, 10(3), 311–323.
Douglas, K., & Carless, D. (2015). Life story research in sport: Understanding the experiences
of elite and professional athletes through narrative. London: Routledge.
Engelberg, T., Moston, S., & Skinner, J. (2015). The final frontier of anti-doping: A study of
athletes who have committed doping violations. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 268–279.
Erickson, K., McKenna, J., & Backhouse, S. H. (2015). A qualitative analysis of the factors that
protect athletes against doping in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16(Part 2),
149–155.
Georgiadis, E., & Papazoglou, I. (2014). The experience of competition Ban following
a positive doping Sample Of elite athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 8(1),
57–74.
Gledhill, A., Forsdyke, D., & Murray, E. (2018). Psychological interventions used to reduce
sports injuries: A systematic review of real-world effectiveness. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 52(15), 967–971.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hauw, D. (2013a). How unethical actions can be learned: The analysis of the sporting life
courses of doping athletes. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32(1), 14–25.
Hauw, D. (2013b). Toward a Situated and Dynamic understanding of doping behaviors. In J.
Tolleneer, S. Sterckx, & P. Bonte (Eds.), Athletic Enhancement, Human nature and Ethics
(1 ed. Vol. 52, pp. 219–235). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hauw, D., & Bilard, J. (2012). Situated activity analysis of elite track and field athletes’ use of
prohibited performance-enhancing substances. Journal of Substance Use, 17(2), 183–197.
Hauw, D., & Mohamed, S. (2015). Patterns in the situated activity of substance use in the
careers of elite doping athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 156–163.
Hodge, K., Hargreaves, E. A., Gerrard, D., & Lonsdale, C. (2013). Psychological mechanisms
underlying doping attitudes in sport: Motivation and moral disengagement. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35(4), 419–432.
Hoff, D. (2012). Doping, risk and abuse: An interview study of elite athletes with a history of
steroid use. Performance Enhancement & Health, 1(2), 61–65.
Kavussanu, M., Yukhymenko-Lescroart, M., Elbe, A. M., & Hatzigeorgiadis, A. (in press).
Integrating moral and achievement variables to predict doping likelihood in football: A
cross-cultural investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise.
Kegelaers, J., Wylleman, P., De Brandt, K., Van Rossem, N., & Rosier, N. (2018). Incentives
and deterrents for drug-taking behaviour in elite sports: A holistic and developmental
approach. European Sport Management Quarterly, 18(1), 112–132. doi:10.1080/
16184742.2017.1384505
Kirby, K., Moran, A., & Guerin, S. (2011). A qualitative analysis of the experiences of elite
athletes who have admitted to doping for performance enhancement. International
Journal of Sport Policy, 3(2), 205–224.
Lentillon-Kaestner, V., & Carstairs, C. (2010). Doping use among young elite cyclists: A
qualitative psychosociological approach. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in
Sports, 20(2), 336–345.
20 K. ERICKSON

Lucidi, F., Zelli, A., Mallia, L., Grano, C., Russo, P. M., & Violani, C. (2008). The social-cog-
nitive mechanisms regulating adolescents’ use of doping substances. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 26(5), 447–456.
Mazanov, J., Huybers, T., & Connor, J. (2011). Qualitative evidence of a primary intervention
point for elite athlete doping. Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport, 14(2), 106–110.
Mitić, P., & Radovanović, D. (2011). The motives for doping drug use in nonprofessional ath-
letes and methods of prevention. Facta Universitatis: Series Physical Education & Sport, 9
(2), 203–212.
Ohl, F., Fincoeur, B., Lentillon-Kaestner, V., Defrance, J., & Brissonneau, C. (2015). The
socialization of young cyclists and the culture of doping. International Review for the
Sociology of Sport, 50, 7.
Pappa, E., & Kennedy, E. (2012). ‘It was my thought … he made it a reality’: Normalization
and responsibility in athletes’ accounts of performance-enhancing drug use. International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, 43(3), 1–18.
Parsons, J. (2013). Student athlete perceptions of academic success and athlete Stereotypes on
Campus. Journal of Sport Behavior, 36(4), 400–416.
Petróczi, A., & Aidman, E. (2008). Psychological drivers in doping: The life-cycle model of
performance enhancement. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention & Policy, 3, 1–12.
Piffaretti, M. (2011). Learning about psycho-social determinants of doping behavior through the
testimony of sanctioned athletes. Retrieved from: https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/
social-science/learning-about-psycho-social-determinants-of-doping-behavior-through-the.
WADA. (2018). Prohibited list. Retrieved from: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/
files/prohibited_list_2018_en.pdf
Rao, A. L., & Hong, E. S. (2016). Understanding depression and suicide in college athletes:
Emerging concepts and future directions. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50, 136–137.
Schwab Reese, L. M., Pittsinger, R., & Yang, J. (2012). Effectiveness of psychological interven-
tion following sport injury. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 1(2), 71–79.
Rennie, C. E., & Dolan, M. C. (2010). The significance of protective factors in the assessment
of risk. Criminal Behavior & Mental Health, 20(1), 8–22.
Ring, C. & Hurst, P. (2018). The effects of moral disengagement mechanisms on doping like-
lihood are mediated by guilt and moderated by moral traits. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 40, 33–41
Smith, B. (2013). Sporting spinal cord injuries, social relations, and rehabilitation narratives:
An ethnographic creative non-fiction of becoming disabled through sport. Sociology of
Sport Journal, 30, 132–152.
Smith, B, & McGannon, K. (2018). Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and
opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 101–121.
Smith, B., McGannon, K. R., & Williams, T. L. (2015). Ethnographic creative non-fiction:
Exploring the whats, whys and hows. In M. Gyozo & L. Purdy (Eds.), Ethnographies in
sport and Exercise research (pp. 59–73). London: Routledge.
Weaving, C., & Teetzel, S. (2014). Getting Jacked and Burning Fat: Examining doping and
gender Stereotypes in Canadian university sport. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 7(2),
198–217.
Whitaker, L., Long, J., Petróczi, A., & Backhouse, S. H. (2013). Using the prototype willing-
ness model to predict doping in sport. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in
Sports, 24(5), 398–405.
Wilson, A. W., & Potwarka, L. R. (2015). Exploring Relationships between passion and atti-
tudes toward performance enhancing drugs in Canadian collegiate sport contexts. Journal
of Intercollegiate Sport, 8(2), 227–246.
 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF SPORTS AND ATHLETES IN EDUCATION 21

WADA. (2015). World anti-doping Code. Retrieved from: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/

default/files/resources/files/wada_anti-doping_code_2018_english_final.pdf
Yusko, D. A., Buckman, J. F., White, H. R., & Pandina, R. J. (2008). Alcohol, tobacco, illicit
drugs, and performance enhancers: A comparison of use by college student athletes and
nonathletes. Journal of American College Health, 57(3), 281–289.
Zabala, M., Morente-Sánchez, J., Mateo-March, M., & Sanabria, D. (2016). Relationship
between self-reported doping behavior and Psychosocial factors in adult Amateur
Cyclists. Sport Psychologist, 30(1), 68–75.
Zucchetti, G., Candela, F., & Villosio, C. (2015). Psychological and social correlates of doping
attitudes among Italian athletes. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(2), 162–168.