Finding connections and finding community: Reflections on the 2017 INDR conference

By Jules Woolf, Assistant Professor, Exercise Science, Health Studies, Physical Education, & Sport Management, Adelphi university, jwoolf@adelphi.edu

Researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders alike converged on Aarhus last August for the biennial International conference of the INDR. The theme for this, the network’s seventh conference, was ‘Doping in Sport, Doping in Society – Lessons, Themes and Connections’. As with past conferences, there was much to learn and digest from this assembly’s edition. Much information was packed into the two-day conference, such that by the end I was both exhausted and exhilarated.

Sometimes a conference theme can appear trite. However, this year’s collection of presentations fitted together so well that it is of little wonder that a book has been proposed to chronicle the proceedings. First, consider the Lessons. Ian Ritchie demonstrated how much we can learn from history and how a failure to act can have negative repercussions. In his presentation he revealed the existence of a document from the 1990 Dubin’s Commission written by Bruce Kidd and Rob Beamish. This paper, largely overlooked, defined and predicted the issues that doping was to present to society. But perhaps more importantly, as Ritchie argued, the paper urged the Canadian authorities to reconsider the nature of sport. Had their call been heeded, we might have experienced a Canadian sport system better designed to promote inclusion and participation. Instead, an ethos favoring high-performance sport emerged, while today sport participation in Canada continues to decline.

Bertrand Fincoeur also taught us how the design of sport systems can have negative, unintended consequences. In his nuanced description of the organizational structure of cycling teams, he explained that the extent of supervision, coupled with job (in)security may influence the decision to doping. Thus, rather than just assuming that doping is an individual choice, Fincoeur cleverly explained how social structure may affect the individual and potentially make them more, rather than less, vulnerable to doping.

Presentations from colleagues, such as Ritchie and Fincoeur, demonstrate the complexity of doping that we have all become familiar with. However, doping is not just a complicated subject, but also one that is becoming increasingly so.  Thus the Theme of ‘changing challenges’ emerged for me as I listened to many presentations. For instance, one of the Key Note speakers, Lars Jørgensen, discussed his experience as a journalist who investigates doping. As sometimes happens with presentations, the Q&A sparked much conversation. The changing nature of the media, the rise of social media, and the image of ‘mainstream media’ generally have all made Jørgensen’s work that much more difficult to conduct. Gaining access to people has always been difficult. Add to this the issue of transparency and we can see that operating in this domain is a thorny endeavor.

Such was the experience of Liverpool John Moores University doctoral student Charlotte McLean, who presented her work on the experience of female bodybuilders. Her research combined ethnography with in depth interviews. A central theme of her presentation was the challenge of becoming embedded within a community where drug use occurs. She was among people she knew and people she wanted to get to know; yet she had to navigate the ethics of studying people prior to approaching them for consent. It is studies like this that remind us that doping involves people and we have to consider their rights. The issue of rights is commonly debated when it comes to doping. Which is why the final contributor I will mention here provided such a memorable talk.

John Gleaves asked us to consider whether performance-enhancing drugs should be provided to elderly people to enhance their quality of life. At issue was whether this would constitute an enhancement or a treatment for naturally induced age-related decline. He urged us to think beyond the anti-aging movement in America and elsewhere, and instead focus on the everyday physical challenges faced by the elderly. With an aging population in many Western countries, we may witness increased interest and demand for doping products, albeit in a somewhat different context. His presentation generated considerable debate that continued well after his session, which I would do a disservice to if I tried to summarize here. However, it does illustrate the changing challenges of doping in sport and society.

The last presentation at the conference served to highlight the importance of Connections. Malene Radmer Johannisson from Anti-Doping Denmark reported on the practicalities of implementing anti-doping policies in a public setting – in this case, fitness gyms. Here she chronicled her experience and the importance of developing dialogue with gym owners. Most interesting was the evolution of Anti-Doping Denmark’s (ADD) approach to education. Whereas in the past they relied on a purely informative campaign (though one that I commented was designed to invoke fear), they had shifted to communicate a more inspirational message. In discussions with INDR co-director Ask Vest Christiansen it became apparent that ADD was connecting with, and hearing the work of INDR scholars.

Stories like this provide evidence to me that the promise of the INDR can be realized. While we strive “to understand the doping phenomenon in its broadest social, cultural, and political dimensions”, we also wish to connect to the society we serve. This conference, like no other I attend, provides the platform for these connections to form.

We described ourselves as a network, however that term for me provokes images of clusters of segmented groups occasionally connected by strings of association. Instead, I see us as a community. While I am not advocating for another name change, I do believe that the strength of the INDR comes from the community and the connections we make among researchers, practitioners and other stakeholders. In my own presentation I discussed how organizations learn and develop. Learning is inherently social. We learn not just from those with the most experience, but also from the new member who ventures into our conference to declare that they have something to say; some idea to put forth. We learn from the realities of practitioners and the insights of the most reflective scholar. This is the value of the INDR and our biennial conference. It is one I look forward to each and every time and where I hope to see old and new faces alike.