The doping self-reporting game: The paradox of a 'false-telling' mechanism and its potential research and policy implications

Sport Management Review

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 513-517

  Petróczi, Andrea ^a   Haugen, Kjetil K ^b  

^a KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b MOLDE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE   (Norway)

Author keywords

Doping; Epidemiology; Game theory; Self report bias; Survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865977031     PISSN: 14413523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.smr.2012.04.002     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Backhouse S., McKenna J., Robinson S., Atkin A. Attitudes, behaviours, knowledge and education - Drugs in sport: Past, present and future 2007, World Anti-Doping Agency, Canada, Available at: http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/Backhouse_et_al_Full_Report. pdf (accessed on 10.10.2011).
2. Banfi G., Lombardi G., Colombini A., Lippi G. A world apart: Inaccuracies of laboratory methodologies in antidoping testing. Clinica Chimica Acta 2010, 411:1003-1008.
3. Böckenholt U., Barlas S., van der Heijden P.G.M. Do randomized-response designs eliminate response biases? An empirical study of non-compliance behaviour. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2009, 24:377-392.
4. Butch A.W., Lombardo J.A., Bowers L.D., Chu J., Cowan D.A. The quest for clean competition in sports: Are the testers catching the dopers?. Clinical Chemistry 2008, 57:943-947.
5. Dunn M., Thomas J.O., Swift W., Burns L., Mattick R.P. Drug testing in sport: The attitudes and experiences of elite athletes. International Journal of Drug Policy 2010, 21:330-332.
6. Hanstad D.V., Skille E.Ǻ., Thurston M. Elite athletes' perspectives on providing whereabouts information: A survey of athletes in the Norwegian registered testing pool. Sport und Gesellschaft 2009, 1:30-46.
7. Kayser, B., Mauron, A., & Miah, A. (2007). Current anti-doping policy: A critical appraisal. BMC Medical Ethics, 8:2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-8-2.
8. Lentillon-Kaestner V., Ohl F. Can we measure accurately the prevalence of doping?. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 2011, 21:e132-e142.
9. Ostapczuk M., Musch J., Moshagen M. Improving self-report measures of medication non-adherence using a cheating detection extension of the randomized-response-technique. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2010, 10.1177/0962280210372843.
10. Petróczi A., Naughton D.P. Impact of multidisciplinary research on advancing anti-doping efforts. International Journal of Sport Policy 2011, 3(2):231-254.
11. Petróczi A., Uvacsek M., Deshmukh N., Shah I., Nepusz T., Aidman E.V., et al. Incongruence in doping related attitudes, beliefs and opinions in the context of discordant behavioural data: In which measure do we trust?. PLoS One 2011, 6(4):E18804.
12. Pitsch W., Emrich E. The frequency of doping in elite sport: Results of a replication study. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 2011, 10.1177/1012690211413969.
13. Simon P., Striegel H., Aust F., Dietz K., Ulrich R. Doping in fitness sports: Estimated number of unreported cases and individual probability of doping. Addiction 2006, 101:1640-1644.
14. Sottas P.E., Robinson N., Fischetto G., Dolle G., Alonso J.M., Saugy M. Prevalence of blood doping in samples collected from elite track and field athletes. Clinical Chemistry 2011, 57:762-769.
15. Striegel H., Ulrich R., Simon P. Randomised response estimates for doping and illicit drug use in elite athletes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2010, 106:230-232.
16. Tourangeau R., Yan T. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychology Bulletin 2007, 133:859-883.
17. WADA Laboratory Statistics. (2009). Available at: (accessed on 07.10.2011). http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Science_Medicine/Anti-Doping_Laborator ies/Lab_Statistics/WADA_2009_LaboratoryStatisticsReport_Final.pdf.
18. Werner P. The science of doping revisited: Fallacies of the current anti-doping regime. European Journal of Sport Science 2009, 9:87-95.