the significance of social learning processes for doping...

Draft – please do not distribute or quote without permission from the author! David Hoff, School of Social Work, Lund University 2015-02-02

1

The significance of social learning processes for doping use in the elite sport environment: An interview study of AAS-using athletes David Hoff

Abstract The importance and meaning of social processes in the sport environment for the use of doping in sport has hardly ever been studied or discussed. In doping literature, the use of doping has usually been regarded as an individual problem with individual causes. This may seem peculiar since we know that social influences have a major impact on individual behavior in every day life. This article investigates the meaning of the sport environment for elite athletes’ which have been using Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS). It is based on qualitative interviews with 11 elite athletes. The results showed that social processes in sport environment seemed to be of major importance for how the doping use emerged. The informants described a “doping culture“, and their use of doping started in what may be interpreted as a learning process in relation to social expectations and ideals existing in their sport environment. The informants doping use were analyzed with Lave and Wenger’s theories of learning, as a form of situated learned behavior in their sport community through an active participation in the practice of their sport – powerlifting.

Introduction Why do athletes use doping? In research this question usually has been studied from an individual perspective. The reasons for doping use have mainly been found in individual motives, individual socio-psychological factors and individual attitudes (Backhouse, 2007; Hoff & Carlsson, 2005; Hoff, 2008). Social processes in the sports environments has not been studied or problematized in any significant extent. The most usual motives for doping use found in research are: improving performance, winning races, make financial gains, loose weight and reduce pain (Backhouse et al., 2007). In studies of psycho-social background factors several results show that risk-taking individuals have greater propensity to use doping substances. Risk behavior usually includes alcohol and drug abuse, early sexual debut, crime, etc. The significance of risk behavior for the use of doping has been investigated in a number of studies, and most of them have found associations between abuse of drugs and alcohol and doping use (see for example: Kindlundh et al., 1999; Papadopoulos et al., 2006; Wichstrøm, 2006). Another psycho-social factor identified in studies as important for doping use is negative body image (“muscle dysmorphia”) and problems with eating disorders where the use of AAS is motivated by cosmetic reasons (Blouin & Goldfield, 1995, Brower et al., 1991, 1994; Kanayama et al., 2006, Pope et al., 1997, 2000, cf. Cohen et al., 2007). Donovan’s (et al., 2002) comprehensive model of factors influencing doping use in sport is a work that focuses on the importance of doping-attitudes. The model covers a wide range of factors relevant for athletes’ attitudes to doping. These doping attitudes are crucial, according to the authors, for whether athletes choses to use doping preparations or not. The factors which influences the doping-attitudes are: “threat appraisal” (perceived risks), “benefit appraisal”, “personal morality”, “legitimacy” (perceived legitimacy of the doping control organizations), (5) “reference group opinion”. (6) “personality/self-esteem, optimism”.


2

Donovan’s (et al., 2002) study is like the previously discussed studies on motives and psycho-social factors neglecting the relevance of the social processes in the sport environment. Although, there is one factor in Donovan’s model, “reference group opinion”, which in a way includes social factors in the athletes’ social and sporting environment. However, the factors primarily refer to individuals, not social processes, in the athlete’s environment who in different ways can affect the athlete’s attitudes and behaviors towards doping. It may be influences from the coach, competitors, club mates, the team physician, parents, etc. Studies have been investigating what Donovan et al. (2002) refers to as “reference group opinion”. Özdemir et al. (2005) have studied 883 individuals (of which 433 were active in sport) in Turkey, and 41.3 percent of those who used doping had been invited by a friend to use the forbidden substances. When asked about the motives for use 11.3 percent of the informants explained the use with social pressure from the environment. The authors point to the perception that other athletes are using doping seems to have a major impact on own use (Özdemir et al., 2005). This attitude among athletes has also been reported by Curry & Wagman (1999) in a study of 15 powerlifters in the U.S.; all of them did suspect all that other powerlifters used AAS (cf. Wagman et al., 1995). Other studies on the “the reference group opinion” have investigated providers of doping preparations. Laure et al., (2004) study of 1459 of high school athletes (58% boys) in France, report that athletes using doping had obtained their drugs from: a friend (26%), a physician or pharmacist (19%), black market (14%), coach (12%), a parent (7%), another source (22%). They also reports that 5 percent of the survey population said they would try doping if a friend offered it to them (Laure et al., 2004; see also Lucidi et al., 2004; Wiefferink et al., 2008). In an interview study of collegiate athletes in the US, the informants reported that performance enhancing drugs often was introduced by the high school coaches (Peters et al., 2005). The importance of “the reference group opinion” becomes even more apparent in a study of doping among 2650 students at tertiary education in five European countries and Israel (Papadopoulos et al., 2006). The results showed that it was seven times more likely to use doping among informants who know someone who was using. The above studies have primarily investigated different influences from other individuals in the athlete’s sport environment (coach and competitors) and social environment (family and friends). The studies indicate, that social influences in athletes’ sport and social environments are relevant to look closer into, if we want to understand the use of doping substances, but none of the studies have examined how the sport environments and it’s social beliefs, values, norms and expectations, affect athletes’ use of doping substances. The purpose of this paper is to analyze social influential processes on doping use in the sport environment. The paper is based on qualitative interview study of 11 elite athletes who have been using AAS. The article illuminates social processes in the informants’ sport environment under various themes from the interviews. The first theme is about how the informants describe their sport environment in relation to doping, the second theme focuses on the first time the informants used doping, and the third theme addresses how the informants motivate their use of doping. The results are analyzed by theories of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998).


3

Theoretical framework Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998) have developed theory’s on learning which focus on the social character of learning processes, which provide the article with a framework for analyzing the social processes of learning to use doping with focus on the sport environment. They suggest that learning is a social process of participation in communities of practice over time. The community of practices include every place were learning takes part (school, work, family etc.). In this study sport are considered as a learning process in different communities of sport practices. Crucial elements in the individual learning process are according to Lave and Wenger (1991) to create meaning and identity in the community of practice – as for instance in a powerlifter environment. Learning is a multifaceted ongoing social process in a space and for a time period. The participation in a community of practice is at first legitimate peripheral and increases gradually in engagement and complexity where the participants gradually create meaning of the practice and are also creating a new identity in relation to the community of practice. Learning is not primarily about learning by instructions from a teacher or a master, or when we are talking about the sporting environment, learning is not primarily about taking instructions from the coach or to internalize doping norms from sporting officials (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger 1998).

Method Individuals convicted of at least one doping offence in Sweden 1990 to 2006 were included in the study. The total number of convictions during this period was 398. A total of 35 individuals remained after applying the selection criteria’s high level sport and intentional doping (e.g. not “doping by mistake”). The first criterion was used to be able to focus on doping with sporting ambitions in a competition environment and to avoid to involve persons who maybe have been using doping preparations with other motivations, as for example cosmetic ones. The second selection criterion, intentional doping, was used to avoid getting doping suspended athletes which were not admitting use in the sample. Also currently suspended athletes have been excluded to avoid possible fear to speak freely when they are subject to a doping suspension. These persons may also be in an appeals process, which makes it inappropriate to involve them. The amount of 35 individuals was considered to be a sufficiently large sample to get together a sufficient number of informants. In the selection of 35 individuals the majority was powerlifters, and all except one of them were men. There were only a few other sports represented such as cycling and weightlifting in the sample. This of course was reflected on the 11 informants whom finally agreed to be interviewed, where all but one were powerlifters, and everyone were men. One informant was a weightlifter. This could be a methodological problem due to possible lack of relevance for other sports and for doping among women. On the other hand, we have to study doping where it occurs. Powerlifting and weightlifting were at the top in terms of total number of convictions during the period 1990-2006 in Sweden, and men were in an overwhelming majority among the suspended athletes. With the qualitative approach of the study, it may rather be an advantage to penetrate one sport more intensive than trying to cover and analyze a great number of sports (cf. Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Alvesson & Sköldberg, 1994). The advantage of interviewing individuals convicted further back in time is that these individuals


4

have got some distance from there sporting careers and their use of doping preparations. They also have had time to reflect on their former doping behavior, which may be useful for the study. The disadvantage is that there probably have been some changes in sport in respect to doping during the past 20 years, and the informants’ experiences may have less relevance to understand the current doping situation in sport. Another disadvantage is the risk that informants who have used doping 5-20 years ago may have forgotten how they were thinking and acting in relation to doping at the time. On the other hand, a doping suspension in sport is such an overwhelming incident in an athlete’s life that he probably has relatively good recollection. The interviews were semi-structured and followed an interview manual containing a number of themes and suggested questions for each theme (cf. Kvale, 1997). Some themes were chosen to give the informants as free space as possible to be able to provide their experiences that may be relevant for the understanding of doping use (e.g. Use of doping – first time). Other themes were drawn from previous research and theories explaining the use of doping (e.g. Risk behavior and social context/background). The interview manual has not been followed slavishly; it has rather functioned as a support and a way to check that I did not miss anything important in the interviews. The questions were adapted in relation to the direction the conversations were going (cf. Kvale, 1997). A priority in the interviews has been to try to create a trustful conversation with the informants about their doping behavior by not taking a condemning attitude towards their doping use. The length of the interviews varied between 45 minutes and 3 hours, most of them lasted for about 2 hours. Eight were recorded and three were not recorded as a requirement of the informants – in these interviews notes were taken. All the recordings have been transcribed verbatim.

The use of different types of doping substances can result in serious negative health consequences for athletes, and the ethical justification of the study is that knowledge about the use of doping substances as AAS in sport is crucial to be able to prevent the use, and thus reduce the risk of athletes exposing themselves for these health risks. The study is not obligated to any formal ethical review since a doping conviction in sport (peer see) is not a criminal act in Sweden and the registers of convicted are not official and public documents. In any case, it is important to make ethical considerations in relation to the persons involved in the study. The most important measures which has been implemented in the study were to clearly inform the informants about the purpose of the study and that the participation was voluntary (both written and oral); to obtain a consent from the informants; to treat the personal data confidential; to anonymize the informants in the text (article/report); and not disclose any personal data to third party, such as. authority’s or doping control organizations (cf. Vetenskapsrådet 2010 [The Swedish Research Council]). The informants are referred to as “Informant 1” to “Informant 11”. In the citations of the informants I occasionally anonymize people and places. When I do this, it is done with the letters N.N. (people) and X (places, years) between quotes. Clarifying comments by the author are placed between [brackets]. Some of the informants are well known former elite athletes, and to protect their identity the personal information in the chapter The social background of the informants have not been connected to any informant-number due to ethical considerations, and furthermore, most of the individual background information is summarized on a group level for the same reason. All the citations have been translated from Swedish to English.


5

Findings

The social background of the informants The informants had been convicted of a doping offence sometime during the years 1990 to 2006 by the National Sports Confederation of Sweden. Most of them had been convicted in the early 1990s: one in 1990, four in 1991, three in 1992, one 1995, one 1996 and one informant 2006. Seven informants had tested positive in competitions, and the other four tested positive at exercise. All informants had been convicted only once, except for two of them who had been convicted two times. Several informants had a good international track record as powerlifters (and as a weightlifter in one case) and had participated in the national team. Best merits are medals at Nordic and World championships. A couple of them had not made any results at elite level, but had nonetheless exercised their sport with a commitment above recreational sport ambitions. All of the informants acknowledged use of doping and every one had used anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS). None of them reported use of other doping agents, except for amphetamines, cannabis and cocaine, which were used by some of the informants as social drugs, and not for performance enhancement. Some of the informants stated that they had used several types of AAS at the same time, but this was an unusual. The informants had usually grown up in secure families, their parents had long-lasting marriages without divorce, and most of the informants had siblings. Almost all informants were from working class homes where the father typically worked in the industry and the mother was a housewife when the children were small and then worked part time in retail when the children become older. The majority of informants were themselves also workers, some of them run or had run their own businesses, one of the informants worked as a clerk and one as manager in a production company. Generally the informants had a positive image of their school background, with good friends and with average or good school-performances. Most of them had attended a vocational program in high school, some had no secondary education. None of the informants had a university degree. The two informants with the highest education had attended a theoretical program at high school and then further training, respective have attended vocational high school and later in career attended some university courses. The informants were well mixed as to whether they lived in a city respective a small town, both in terms of childhood and present. Some of them lived and had lived in rent apartments and some in small houses. About half of informants were living with a partner as married or cohabiting, and about half of the informants were single usually after one or more divorces or separations. All informants except one had children. Almost none of them believed that there was something in their social background that may explain their doping use and only few/some of them reported socio-psychological background factors connected to social problems (and additionally to doping use). One informant talked about a childhood with a lot of problems related to substance abusing parents, which eventually also led to own substance abuse. Another informant who also had abused drugs and alcohol reported on some alcohol related problems in the home environment. Both of these informants had divorced parents. A third informant told about


6

extensive problems with bullying that he suffered from during elementary school. Only one of these informants connected his problems in the past with his use of doping preparations.

The informants sporting environment For powerlifters and weightlifters the gym is the natural sport environment. The gym is a special sport environment; it is a stadium mixed with different sports and athletes. For some like powerlifters, weightlifters and bodybuilders, it is the main arena for work-out and competition, but for many other sports and athletes are weight training at the gym a complementary exercise. The gym is also a place for individuals who do not have any sporting ambitions other than to work-out for pleasure, become stronger and healthier, or to get a more beautiful body. This means that different sports cultures meet at the gym. Different attitudes to training are also all elements in a gym environment. Although there are all these different cultures at gyms, the main focus in the informant stories is on the specific powerlifting environment. The powerlifting environment stands out as a distinct “sport environment” in sense of being what the informants described their environment. They were talking about other powerlifters, they were talking about the Powerlifting Federation, and they were talking about powerlifting competitions and so on. The informants were fairly unanimous on how widespread the use of doping was in the sport environment, both specifically in the powerlifting community and generally at the gym. This is some examples of how they described the prevalence of AAS:

... Very widespread it was, and there were some clubs that stood out ... (Informant 5). *** ... I understood that stuff were eaten , so it was...chaps in the club...stuff was eaten…there it was “gorging”…/…/ I also told a guy once: in the top 100 in Sweden, I only knew two guys who did not take stuff. The others were using stuff, I swear ... (Informant 8). ***

Everyone was eating .../..../. I do not know anyone who I have competed with not using (Informant 1).

However, some other informants pointed out that there were active lifters who did not use AAS. But that type of statement can rather be interpreted as a support for the opinion that doping use was well spread, or else it would not have been necessary to emphasize that it existed clean lifters. An unusual feature in the powerlifting sport, in relation to many other sports, which was revealed in the interviews, was the absence of coaches and trainers. The powerlifters usually practiced by them self even at elite level, except from the support they got from the Federation when participating in the national team. There seems to have existed a culture in which various people at the gym helped out when needed. Several informants said that they were discovered and encouraged by senior powerlifters. In some cases, these older lifters also were mentors and suppliers when it came to doping. One of the informants expressed the social influences from the more experienced lifters:


7

It was probably because others did use, uh...it was the talking...they were beginning to talk: -You have sort of potential to compete; you can be successful in this. Sure, it was nice to hear, it was fun to hear when you are 20 years...Like this it was. Then someone did supply it. Sure, it would be fun to try. (Informant 7)

The lifters gradually, with help of older and more experienced lifters, became part of the environment. This informant also received advice from the more experienced lifters to avoid being caught in doping controls:

...they said, again I was a green, the gentlemen who had routine, they said: -quit them these days in advance. Was done of course...before, but it was ... it was of course...it was not enough, so to speak [relates to when he was caught in a doping control]. (Informant 7)

There were also informants who reported on how different powerlifters already in the junior national teams talked about AAS:

...when we joined the junior national team for example, we were picked up “X-year” for the first time, we understood at once what it was about - to become big and strong... So “X-year” when I was in “Nation-X”, I and “NN-1”, “NN-2” and “NN-3”, would go to ... “Nation-X”: -Do you have some stuff?, “NN-3” said. -What kind of stuff?, I said. I do not know, protein powder, or what?[irony] -No, damn, you know, steroids. -But you know, you should not ...you can get busted by the doping police; you should not do it [irony]. -Do not be daft, he said...but only call me if you need some stuff, I have just about everything... (Informant 8)

Several of the informants’ reported that many sport leaders and staff in the Federation of powerlifting were aware of the extensive prevalence of AAS in the powerlifting environment, and they also reported that many of the leaders had been using AAS during their own former sporting careers. One informant also told that an official at the Federation provided lifters with AAS. Another informant reported that he purchased his AAS-preparations of a powerlifting leader outside of Sweden:

...The last time I got it from abroad, prescribed by a physician, to a person who was head of the country's powerlifting, both youth and juniors, women and men. So he did send it to me. /…/ At this time I was acquainted with all the world leaders; some was more open than others, but there was no one who denied the steroids ... (Informant 1)

The presence of AAS in the sport environments was also reflected in the clubs. One informant told this about the board in his club:

...many of them, who were on the board of our club, they were...they had experienced this happy 80’s, when it almost was legal, then, ehh...so they said not really much about it. Many of them had used themselves. That they admitted without any hesitation. They did not really know what it was, back then. (Informant 6)

Another way to understand the doping culture in the sport environments is to look at how training mates, club management, coaches, etc. reacted when they found out that the informants have been suspended for steroid use. The general picture from the informants indicates limited reactions from the environment:

... thus, there was no one who raised his eyebrows, then, or cared. It was soon over with, I was welcomed back afterwards. There was no one who said anything in the club or else. I was even accepted to join the national team, they did not question me, they did not do any


8

doping tests on me when I joined the team. So it was ... it may well be surprising actually. (Informant 5)

***

It was clear that that they knew, on the board, what was going on... ... they have never thrown any out from the club. Because when it is someone such who has been failing, he has always have been allowed to participate during the work-out sessions as usual... (Informant 8)

But there were also informants who felt excluded in the sport environment when they were suspended, at least by the Sport Federation, which they experienced as a double standard in the powerlifting environment. In summery the informants reported that the use of AAS was very well spread in their sporting environment. They describe a power-lifting environment in which there were social influences between different lifters with different experience of AAS. Often older more experienced lifters influenced the rookies. The informants were also reporting on an environment where Federation officials and club leaders were well aware of the extensive prevalence of AAS and of doping behaviors.

Using – the first time In the interviews the informants were asked to narrate what happened the first time they used doping; how the idea came up, how they reasoned, which feelings they had, if they had any doubts etc. By asking questions about what happened the “first time”, the informants have a possible historic occurrence to refer to when answering – a story that probably will say a lot about processes behind their decision to use doping. I also asked the informants if anything important happened before the “first time” that led to thoughts about trying illegal performance enhancing drugs. In the narratives of the informants about the “first time” in almost all of them were concerned with their sporting environment. This quotation, which is a “thick” description from one of the informants of the process from first having discovered the extensive use of AAS in the environment to when he himself started to use AAS:

…in my “hometown” there was never any talk about doping agents, or so, but then when I came to “X-big city”, there was hockey training...the hockey-“team X” practiced there, every one...the athletes exercised there, because this gym had no sport club affiliation, so the Sport confederation could not visit the gym [for testing], it was commercially independent, so everyone went there training. And I realized then, the talk were going on in the locker room, all sports categories, athletes, lifters, hockey players, all who were there was eating “Russian five's”... Clearly one raises an eyebrow at first...thinking: what is this? But then somehow you pass into it gradually, and it became an everyday...habit. In the end, it was not so remarkable; all did it more or less. And then if I lifted a little more they asked,-what do you take? I said,-I don’t take anything; -ah you cannot lift them weights if you do not take something. And then you were thinking...to try. Was on a competition and there it happened. There was one guy who is from, what did he come from? ... What is it called?...”X-small town” which was some kind of dealer. So he was sitting there selling bottles. So I bought my first bottle, uh...to try this. And then you asked your friends...-How do you take this? How does it work? (Informant 5)


9

If we look a little bit closer at the citation above we can see different episodes in a social process which lead to the informants “first time” of doping use. First, he was experiencing a environment were doping use is frequent, and he was surprized. Second, the extensive use of AAS was gradually seen as a normal behaviour. Third, when the informant performed well, he got questions about what AAS-preparations he was using (even though he was clean at the time). Fourth, he was not believed when he was saying that he did not use any doping preparations. Fifth, he was exposed for the AAS-products by a dealer at a gym. Sixth, he purchased his first AAS-tablets. Seventh, he asks a friend in the training milieu about how he should administer his AAS-preparations. As we see in the above citation the informant describes an expectation from the social environment which can be formulated as follows: If you make a good result - then you are using steroids. The same expectation we can see in the following quotation, added with a little bit of encouragement: You are performing so well without using steroids – what if you actually would use...

I competed in the National championships of Body Building1, I became “X:a” [high position]. None of the competitors did believe that I never had been eating steroids. /.../ Then when I got back to “X” [hometown], where I lived, they said, the others, that -you ended up at such a high position, if you would begin to eat steroids, you would be the best in the world... (Informant 1)

This could be interpreted as a “dual negative-positive influence” from the sporting environment. The “negative influence” implies that people in the environment question that you are clean, when you are performing well. In such a way, you could just as good use AAS since everyone nevertheless believes that you are on steroids. The “positive influence” consists of a possibility; “you are at this level without out using AAS – imagine if you would use”. Both of these processes could of course influence athletes to use doping, but together the influences would be even stronger. Other things that emerged in the stories of the “first time”, was that a couple of informants were affected by the big guys at the gym, they wanted to look like them. A few informants referred to abuse of drugs and alcohol as a gateway to doping, when they told about the “first time”. To summarize the informants’ narratives of the “first time” they used doping preparations the importance of the sports environment for their decision to use doping becomes clear. They describe sports environments in which doping are common, and they talk about the environment. Several of the informants also have been offered to purchase AAS at the gym where they were exercising.

Stated motives for doping When the informants narrated about the first time they used doping, they described events that actually have happened or thoughts they have had. Certainly one can remember wrong, but the thoughts at least revolve around experiences. However – when asked about motives for doping, or: why did you use doping substances? – the answers take off in much more complex thoughts; thoughts which concerns both experiences and value opinions, involving

1 The informant have competed for a short period in body building, his main sport was although powerlifting.


10

explanations or justifications of a doping behavior. It may seem, that you are held accountable, and you need to defend your actions, and defend it in a rational and intelligible way, and in a way that may seem logical and reasonable for the party bringing you to account (e.g., a researchers who do interviews). Due to this the informants’ narratives about their motives may be interpreted more careful, than narrates relating to present or historical events that they have been involved in (cf. Kvale, 1997). This does not mean that the informants were entirely unable to describe motives which seemed to be relevant explanations of their use of doping, especially when the stated motives could be connected to other underlying processes for doping use, reported in this study or in previous research. When the informants talked about their motives in the interviews, there emerged some interesting “driving forces” for doping use, which were not mentioned when they told about the “first time”. Usual motives was to improve the athletic performance, a will to win, to catch up with the exercise when being behind, and to achieve results faster, where doping becomes a shortcut. A curiosity about what the AAS-preparations could do have also motivated informants to try. Some none sporting motives was also revealed; motives like “searching” (for acknowledgement) and liberation (“youth revolt”). Also cosmetic reasons, to be big and muscular, existed among two of the informants. The most common motive for the use of doping was: all other uses, and then, by implication, you also must use to be competitive and to be able to compete on equal terms:

... I grasped this quite quickly, that if I want to play along; I have to use what all others are using. (Informant 8)

The perception that the competitors were using doping substances, as a motive for own use, is also an impact from the sport environment. It is athletes in the sports environment that is perceived to use doping. The question is, if there is any justification for this perception. Is it really true that most others use doping? Or is it just an excuse for own doping use? Of course it is difficult to know for sure.

Discussion Learning can be done by instructions and teaching from coaches in the community, and also by rules of powerlifting, and according to the rules it is illegal to use doping substances. But if when turn to Lave and Wenger (1991), they state that teaching and learning by instructions are very limited, at least if the instructions are not applied in the practice of the learning individuals. The authors also suggest that learning ordinarily is taking place between members in different communities of practice. Communities of practice are everything from a work and school to family and hobbies. In this study we can refer community to the powerlifter community, and practice to powerlifting. Lave and Wenger (1991) criticize the view on as an individual process of observation and imitation. Instead learning is about participation and engagement in practice. And as we had seen in the empirical findings, all of the informants in the study of course were aware of the doping rules, but their behavior were learnt in the situation of the practice at the gym, in a process of participation in the community – where the doping rules and teaching coaches were very peripheral elements in the community where teammates, other athletes and often senior lifters were the most influencing actors in relation to doping.


11

In the empirical findings we can see how the informants have described how their doping behaviors have emerged in relation to what could be interpreted as “doping culture” in their sport environment. This “culture” is characterized by several social occurrences, expectations and situations in the sporting environment of the informants’. If we apply Lave’s and Wenger’s (1991) and Wenger’s (2000) theories of learning as a social process (and not an individual process) we can understand the process of beginning using doping substances as a learning process. The informants learn that other in the community are using doping substances; they learn that officials are aware of the extensive doping use, and several of them have also used doping preparations in their careers; they learn from often senior lifters about AAS – how to use the preparations, and how to avoid being caught in a doping control; they learn that athlete colleagues in the community are expecting that they are using AAS if they are performing well; they learn that they will be questioned if they asserts that they are not using; they learn that if they should use AAS – they can be a lot better; they learn that most of your competitors are using doping; they learn where they can purchase AAS – and they can purchase them in the powerlifting community; and finally they learn how to administer the doping preparations by more experienced powerlifters in the community. However this is not only an communicative influence process, learning takes place is a multifaceted process and includes creating meaning of the occurrences, expectations and situations which were found in the empirical material, and the meaning of this will most likely be that use of AAS is an essential tool in the community and practice of powerlifting. According to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning starts as legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice, or as for the informants in this study, a legitimate peripheral participation in the powerlifting community, where the practice could be defined as powerlifting (exercise and competition). This means that the informants in the beginning of their powerlifting career have a peripheral but legitimate place in the powerlifting community. They are inexperienced but they have a right to exercise and compete in powerlifting. In the community they try to create meaning of what is going on in the community. The informants try to understand the community and practice by observation, interaction and participation. And, the practice of and interaction with the senior and more central individuals in the community are of greater importance in the learning process. This was also something which became obvious in the empirical findings where some respondents pointed out the older more experienced lifters as their mentors in relation to doping use. The processes of understanding and create meaning includes for example how to work-out, how to treat other powerlifters, strategies for competitions, strategies for using AAS to be able to train more efficiently etc. The learning process is also an identity process, according to Wenger (1998). Learning changes your identity. The learning process creates personal histories of becoming a person in the community of practice. The informants in this study were becoming great powerlifters, and to achieve this they also had to become dopers.

Conclusion The use of doping preparations has in previous research usually been analyzed as an individual process. The explanations of a doping behavior have been found in the individual socio-psychological background factors or in an individual decision-making process (attitudes and motives). But the picture is broader and more complex, which has been shown in this paper, where the focus instead has been on social learning processes in the environment of the athletes using doping substances like AAS. The results have shown that


12

the community of practice – the powerlifting community – is important in the process of beginning with AAS, at least for the informants in this study. However, the paper does not discriminate individual explanation of doping use, they rather add a new perspective to the understanding of doping, where social learning processes are important as well as the community of practice, and the conclusion will be that, if we want to understand the use of doping in sport we need to not only focus on individual factors influencing use of doping, we have to look deeper into the social expectations and values surrounding the athletes, and how the “doping culture” is learned and reproduced by participation in the community of practice.


13

References Alvesson, M. & Deetz, S. (2000) Kritisk samhällsvetenskaplig metod. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. (1994) Tolkning och reflektion: Vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Backhouse, S., McKenna, J., Robinson, S., Atkin, A. (2007) International literature review: Attitudes, behaviours, knowledge and education – Drugs in sport: Past, present and future. Leeds: Carnegie research institute. Blouin, A.G. & Goldfield, G.S. (1995) ”Body image and steroid use in male bodybuilders”; International Journal of Eating Disorders, 18. Brower, K. J., Blow, F. C., Young, J. P., Hill, E. M. (1991) ”Symptoms and correlates of anabolic androgenic steroid dependence ”; British Journal of Addiction, 86. Cohen, J., Collins, R., Darkes, J., & Gwartney, D. (2007) ”A league of their own: demographics, motivations and patterns of use of 1,955 male adult non-medical anabolic steroid users in the United States”; J. Int. Soc Sports Nutr., 4; 12. Curry, L. A. & Wagman, D. F. (1999) ”Qualitative description of the prevalence and use of anabolic androgenic steroids by United States powerlifters”; Perceptual Motor skills. 88. Donovan, R.J, Egger, G., Kapernick, V., Mendoza, J. (2002) ”A conceptual framework for achieving performance enhancing drug compliance in sport”; Sports medicine, 32; 4. Hoff, D. & Carlsson, B. (2005) Doping- och antidopingforskning: En rättssociologisk inventering av samhälls- och beteendevetenskaplig forskning och publikationer. Rapport 2005:1, Stockholm: Riksidrottsförbundet. Hoff, D. (2008) Doping- och antidopingforskning: En inventering av samhälls- och beteendevetenskaplig forskning och publikationer 2004-2007. Rapport 2008:1, Stockholm: Riksidrottsförbundet. Kanayama, G., Barry, S., Hudson, J.I. (2006). ”Body image and attitudes toward male roles in anabolic-androgenic steroid users”; American Journal of Psychiatry, 163; 4. Kindlundh, A. M., Isacson, D. G., Berglund, L., & Nyberg, F. (1999). ”Factors associated with adolescent use of doping agents: anabolic-androgenic steroids”; Addiction, 94; 4. Kvale, S.(1997) Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Laure, P., Lecerf, T., Friser, A., Binsinger, C. (2004) ”Drugs, recreational drug use and attitudes towards doping of high school athletes”; International Journal of Sports Medicine, 25; 2.


14

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge Univ.Press: Cambridge. Lucidi, F., Grano, C., Leone, L., Lombardo, C., Pesce, C. (2004). ”Determinants of the intention to use doping substances: An empirical contribution in a sample of Italian adolescents”; International Journal of Sport Psychology, 35; 2. Papadopoulos, F.C., Skalkidis, I., Parkkar, J., Petridou, E. (2006). ”Doping use among tertiary education students in six developed countries”; European Journal of Epidemiology, 21. Peters, R.J., Adams, L.F., Barnes, J.B., Hines, L.A., Jones, D.E., Krebs, K.M.A., Kelder, S.H. (2005). ”Beliefs and social norms about ephedra onset and perceived addiction among college male and female athletes”; Substance Use and Misuse, 40. Pope, H. G., Jr., Gruber, A. J., Choi, P., Olivardia, R., & Phillips, K. A. (1997). ”Muscle Dysmorphia: An underrecognized form of body dysmorphic disorder”; Psychosomatics, 38; 6. Pope, H. G., Phillips, K. A., & Olivardia, R. (2000). The Adonis complex: the secret crisis of male body obsession. New York: Free Press. Vetenskapsrådet (2010) [The Swedish Research Council] Forskningsetiska principer inom humanistisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. [Ethical principles of humanistic and social science] <http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf> Wagman, D., Curry, L., Cook, D (1995) ”An investigation into anabolic androgenic steroid use by elite US powerlifters; Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 9. Wenger, E (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge Univ.Press: Cambridge. Wichstrøm, L. (2006) ”Predictors of future anabolic androgenic steroid use”; Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38; 9. Wiefferink, C. H., Detmar, S. B., Coumans B., Vogels T., Paulussen, T.G.W. (2008). ”Social psychological determinants of the use of performance-enhancing drugs by gym users”; Health Education Research, 23; 1. Özdemir, L., Nur, N., Bagcivan, I., et al. (2005). ”Doping and performance enhancing drug use in athletes living in Sivas, mid-Anatolia: A brief report”; Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 4; 3.

the significance of social learning processes for doping...

Documents