By Ask Vest Christiansen and John Gleaves

In the United States, politicians have returned to doing (well, more or less) what they are used to doing. Amidst the normal debates over taxes, laws, and partisanship, at least one member of the United States’ House of Representatives remembered the rule stating that every doping scandal must be followed by a hearing with lots of cameras, preferably sport celebrities, and resolute promises to finally solve the problem of drugs in sport. Thus on February 27, 2017, Olympians Michael Phelps and Adam Nelson joined Travis Tygert, the CEO for the United States Anti Doping Agency, and WADA officials Richard Budgett and Rob Koehler.

Read the rest of the editorial here.

By Emmanuel Macedo, California State University, Fullerton.

At the turn of the 21st century, WADA provided international sport much needed unity in the face of an overlapping, confusing, and porous anti-doping movement. However, the agreement to put rules in place that exclude certain drug use and methods is not to say that the sport world suddenly procured a single set of policies. Instead, some sport organizations, like those in the United States, adopted different policies and methods of legislation (i.e. unions/players associations). The below table compares the prohibited list, sanctions, and testing methods of three major sport organizations: the National Football League (NFL), Major League Baseball (MLB), and the National Basketball Association (NBA) with the policies of WADA. As scholars have mapped WADA’s anti-doping system, analyzing every detail of the paradigmatic approach, this table reveals the similarities and inconsistencies (of testing, sanctions, and prohibited lists) with other functioning systems.

Read the rest of the commentary here

By Francisco Javier Lopez Frias, Assistant Professor of Kinesiology and Research Associate in the Rock Ethics Institute, Pennsylvania State University

In recent interview, the tennis star Garbine Muguruza said: In tennis, its difficult to be friends between women, we are very competitive [...]we all hate each other. Literally. And who says the opposite is lying (Izaguirre, 2016). Muguruzas words illustrate the win-at-all-cost mentality that anti-doping proponents regard as one of the main causes of doping. By adopting such a mentality, professional athletes become willing to do anything to gain a competitive advantage. Thiscreates an atmosphere that hinders the display of friendship (Hyland, 1978). The lack of friendship and the prevalence of defection and distrust among stakeholders is certainly one of the main challenges of WADAs anti-doping efforts (Houlihan, 2015). Such a challenge does not only have to do with the athletes mentality but also with how International Federations (IFs) use sport as a means to pursue financial and political goals. The recent Russian doping scandal is a proof of it. If WADA, IFs, and athletes do not commit and cooperate to the cause of abolishing doping, the pursuit of a doping-free sport is doomed to fail (Waddington, 2011).

Read the rest of the commentary here.

As most readers of this Newsletter will be aware of, the 2017 INDR conference will take place in Aarhus, Denmark on 24-25 August.

Authors from any field are encouraged to present research that relate to the conference theme or to themes related to the INDR mission. This year’s theme is “Doping in sport, doping in society – lessons, themes, and connections”.

Deadline for submitting abstract to be considered for the conference is 14 April 2017, via the INDR online submission; Easychair. It should be straightforward to use the system, but in case you need instructions for using the Easy Chair submission system, you will find them here.

In addition, conference registration is now open via this link: https://auws.au.dk/INDR2017. Early bird Registration before 15 May is 1725.00 DDK (= approx. 230 €) – ordinary. Student price is 1350.00 DDK (= approx. 180 €). After 15 May prices are 250 € and 200 € respectively.