Anti-doping policy is a key component of integrity in sports, and one for which science and technology are central resources. It represents a genuinely transnational sector of policy-making that so far has received little attention in science and technology studies. Anti-doping has evolved into a worldwide detection and sanctioning system, supervised by a central regulatory body, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Looking at anti-doping as a case study of regulatory science in action, we analyze how WADA portrays and uses science and expertise in policymaking. We interpret these practices as performances directed toward the agency’s various audiences, which reveal its modes of producing and legitimizing knowledge and shaping its civic epistemologies. We are working from publicly available WADA meeting minutes, regulatory documents, and other communications released by WADA. We use the rise of contamination concerns—from WADA’s creation in 2000 through 2023—as a prism of study. Contamination was chosen as a sensitive and complex issue that shows the dilemmas that WADA faces, as it mobilizes science and expertise and exposes boundary conflicts in scientific advice. Our analysis illustrates how transnational policymakers participate in configuring civic epistemologies specific to an international community bound by a common legal and moral order.
BourdieuP. (1991). The peculiar history of scientific reason. Sociological Forum, 6(1), 3–26.
5.
ChappeletL.MrkonjicM. (2013). Basic Indicators for better governance in International Sport (BIBGIS): An assessment tool for international sport governing bodies. IDHEAP, University of Lausanne.
6.
CusworthG.BriceJ.LorimerJ.GarnettT. (2023). When you wish upon a (GWP) star: Environmental governance and the reflexive performativity of global warming metrics. Social Studies of Science, 53(1), 3–28.
DemortainD. (2023). How scientists become experts—or don’t: Social organization of research and engagement in scientific advice in a toxicology laboratory. Social Studies of Science (p. 03063127231204578). Sage Publications Ltd.
9.
DimeoP. (2007). A History of drug use in sport: 1876 - 1976: Beyond good and evil. Routledge.
10.
DimeoP.MøllerV. (2018). The anti-doping crisis in sport: Causes, consequences, solutions. Routledge.
11.
DuffyJ.HendersonT.O’BrienJ. (2023). The regulation of threshold levels for prohibited substances in the world anti-doping program. International Sports Law Journal, 23(2), 198–211.
GiraudS.JoyeC.SaugyM.ViretM. (2014). Role of anti-doping laboratories in the fight against doping. Causa Sport, 4, 331–344.
14.
GleavesJ.LlewellynM. (2014). Sport, drugs and amateurism: Tracing the real cultural origins of anti-doping rules in international sport. International Journal of the History of Sport, 31(8), 839–853.
15.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
16.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
HammersleyM. (2003). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: Methods or paradigms?Discourse & Society, 14(6), 751–781.
19.
HilgartnerS. (2000). Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford University Press.
20.
HobermanJ. (Ed.). (2002). Mortal engines: The science of performance and dehumanization of sport (1st ed.). The Blackburn Press.
21.
HoulihanB.Vidar HanstadD. (2019). The effectiveness of the world Anti-Doping Agency: developing a framework for analysis. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11(2), 203–217.
22.
HuntT. M. (2011). Drug games: The International Olympic Committee and the politics of doping, 1960–2008. University of Texas Press.
23.
JasanoffS. (1998). The Fifth Branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press.
24.
JasanoffS. (ed.) (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. International Library of Sociology, Routledge.
25.
JasanoffS. (2005). Judgment under siege: The three-body problem of expert legitimacy. In MaasenS.WeingartP. (Eds.), Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making (pp. 209–224). Springer.
26.
JasanoffS. (2011a). The practices of objectivity in regulatory science. Social knowledge in the making307 (pp. 312–317). University of Chicago Press.
27.
JasanoffS. (2011b). What is the regulatory science? Concept and history in United States and in Japan. Clinical Evaluation, 39(1), 167–180.
28.
JasanoffS. (2012). Science and public reason. Routledge.
29.
JasanoffS. (2014). Serviceable truths: Science for action in law and policy symposium: Science challenges for law and policy. Texas Law Review, 93(7), 1723–1750.
30.
KayserB.MauronA.MiahA. (2005). Viewpoint: Legalisation of performance-enhancing drugs. Lancet, 366, S21.
31.
KazlauskasA. (2014). Making sense of complex dynamic spaces: The wicked problem of doping control in sport. Faculty of Business - Papers (Archive), 131–138.
KissA.LaknerZ.SoósS.PetrócziA. (2022). Women’s footprint in anti-doping sciences: A bibliometric approach to research impact. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, 866648.
35.
KriegerJ. (2016). Dope Hunters: The Influence of scientists on the global fight against doping in sport, 1967-1992. Common Ground Publishing.
36.
MacKenzieD. (2003). An equation and its worlds: Bricolage, exemplars, disunity and performativity in financial economics. Social Studies of Science, 33(6), 831–868.
37.
MartinelliL. A., NThrowerS.HeyesA.BoardleyI. D.BackhouseS. H.PetrócziA. (2023). The good, the bad, and the ugly: A qualitative secondary analysis into the impact of doping and anti-doping on clean elite athletes in five European countries. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 15, 3–22.
MetushiI. G.WagnerA.AhrensB.EricssonM.RabinO.SobolevskyT.TygartT. T. (2024). Breaking boundaries: Exploring performance enhancement and anti-doping testing in sports. Clinical Chemistry, 70(7), 897–904.
40.
OhlF.SchochL.BozziniF.ViretM. (2024). Advocating for athletes or appropriating their voices? A frame and field analysis of power struggles in sport. Sociological Review, 72, 611–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261231217869
41.
OhlF.SchochL.FincoeurB. (2021). The toxic doxa of “clean sport” and IOC’s and WADA’s quest for credibility. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 56(8), 1116–1136.
42.
OverbyeM. (2016). Doping control in sport: An investigation of how elite athletes perceive and trust the functioning of the doping testing system in their sport. Sport Management Review, 19(1), 6–22.
43.
PapeM. (2019). Expertise and non-binary bodies: Sex, gender and the case of Dutee Chand. Body & Society, 25(4), 3–28.
44.
PielkeR. (2016). The edge: The war against cheating and corruption in the cutthroat world of elite sports. Roaring Forties Press.
45.
PielkeR.BoyeE. (2019). Scientific integrity and anti-doping regulation. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11(2), 295–313.
RommetveitK.van DijkN. (2022). Privacy engineering and the techno-regulatory imaginary. Social Studies of Science, 52(6), 853–877.
48.
SaugyM.GiraudS.ViretM. (2016). The view of the laboratory and the scientist [Conference session]. Arbitrating Disputes in a Modern Sports World -5th Conference CAS & SAV/FSA Lausanne 2014. Bernasconi Michele. Weblaw (pp. 13–38).
49.
SchamaschP.RabinO. (2012). Challenges and perspectives in anti-doping testing. Bioanalysis, 4(13), 1691–1701.
50.
SimsB.HenkeC. R. (2012). Repairing credibility: Repositioning nuclear weapons knowledge after the Cold War. Social Studies of Science, 42(3), 324–347.
51.
SweetP. L.GiffortD. (2021). The bad expert. Social Studies of Science, 51(3), 313–338.
52.
Van HilvoordeI.VosR.De WertG. (2007). Flopping, klapping and gene doping: Dichotomies between ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ in elite sport. Social Studies of Science, 37(2), 173–200.
ViretM. (2020). Using interdisciplinary tools to improve anti-doping: Utopia or necessity?International Sports Law Journal, 20(1–2), 82–113.
55.
ViretM.OhlF. (2025). Managing ignorance to preserve anti-doping cosmology – the case of contamination. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 17(1), 117–135.
56.
ViretM.SaugyM.BotrèF. (2023). Creating equality through differentiation in doping control. International Sports Law Journal, 23(3), 293–313.
57.
WaddingtonI.MøllerV. (2019). WADA at twenty: old problems and old thinking?International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11(2), 219–231.
58.
WagnerU. (2009). The World anti-doping Agency: constructing a hybrid organisation in permanent stress (dis)order?International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 1(2), 183–201.
