Precipitating or prohibiting factor: Coaches’ perceptions of their role and actions in anti-doping

Abstract

Coaches are frequently cited as potentially precipitating or preventing athletes’ engagement in doping. However, little is known about coaches’ perspectives. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine coaches’ perceptions of their role and actions in athletes’ anti-doping behaviour. Twenty-three coaches (M = 17, F = 6) working with performance athletes in Scotland participated in semi-structured interviews where topics related to doping and anti-doping were discussed. Thematic analysis, guided by Schön’s role frame and reflective conversation concepts, was used to develop themes. Analysis led to the development of four internal role frame themes: clean sport value, approach to preparation and performance, responsibility to athletes and knowledge; and five boundary role frame themes: Scottish/British sporting culture, potential for benefit, prevalence of doping and testing, clarity of responsibilities and consequences, and beyond coaches’ control. The coaches’ role frame supported an anti-doping stance, but, it also presented a risk and was insufficient to ensure action. Analysis of coaches’ reflective conversations revealed the issues set by the coaches differed and influenced subsequent actions and evaluations.

Keywords

Coach beliefs doping drugs in sport reflection values

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

Taylor

Dimeo

et al.

Predicting elite Scottish athletes’ attitudes towards doping: Examining achievement goals and motivational climate. J Sport Sci 2015; 33: 899–906.

Backhouse SH, Atkin A, McKenna J, et al. International literature review: Attitudes, behaviours, knowledge and education – drugs in sport: Past, present and future. Report to the World Anti-Doping Agency, https://www.wada-ama.org/en/social-science-research-projects (2007).

Backhouse

McKenna

. Reviewing coaches’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding doping in sport. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2012; 7: 167–175. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/social-science-research-projects .

Kirby

Moran

Guerin

. A qualitative analysis of the experiences of elite athletes who have admitted to doping for performance enhancement. Int J Sport Policy Politics 2011; 3: 205–224.

Lazuras

Barkoukis

Rodafinos

et al.

Predictors of doping intentions in elite-level athletes: A social cognition approach. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2010; 32: 694–710.

Lentillon-Kaestner

Carstairs

. Doping use among young elite cyclists: A qualitative psychosociological approach. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010; 20: 336–345.

Smith

Stewart

Oliver-Bennetts

et al.

Contextual influences and athlete attitudes to drugs in sport. Sport Manage Rev 2010; 13: 181–197.

Engelberg

Moston

Skinner

. The final frontier of anti-doping: a study of athletes who have committed doping violations. Sport Manage Rev 2015; 18: 268–279.

Engelberg

Moston

. Inside the locker room: a qualitative study of coaches’ anti-doping knowledge, beliefs and attitudes. Sport Soc 2016; 19: 942–956.

10.

Cléret

. The role of anti-doping education in delivering WADA’s mission. Int J Sport Policy 2011; 3: 271–278.

11.

Dimeo P, Allen J, Taylor J, et al. Team dynamics and doping in sport: A risk or a protective factor? Report to the World Anti-Doping Agency, 2012.

12.

Mazanov

Backhouse

Connor

et al.

Athlete support personnel and anti-doping: Knowledge, attitudes, and ethical stance. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2014; 24: 846–856.

13.

Sullivan

Feltz

LaForge-MacKenzie

et al.

The preliminary development and validation of the doping confrontation efficacy scale. Psychol Sport Exerc 2015; 16: 182–190.

14.

Bennie

O’Connor

. Coaching philosophies: Perceptions from professional cricket, rugby league and rugby union players and coaches in Australia. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2010; 5: 309–320.

15.

Gilbert

Trudel

. Learning to coach through experience: Reflection in model youth sport coaches. J Teach Phys Educ 2001; 21: 16–34.

16.

Gilbert

Trudel

. Role of the coach: How model youth team sport coaches frame their roles. Sport Psychol 2004; 18: 2–43.

17.

Nash

Sproule

Horton

. Sport coaches’ perceived role frames and philosophies. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2008; 3: 539–554.

18.

Schempp

McCullick

Busch

et al.

The self-monitoring of expert sport instructors. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2006; 1: 25–35.

19.

Schön

. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, New York: Basic Books, 1983.

20.

Burgess

The unstructured interview as conversation. In: Burgess

(ed). Field research: A sourcebook and field manual, London: Allen & Unwin, 1982, pp. 107–111.

21.

Fontana

Frey

From structured questions to negotiated text. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds). Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000, pp. 645–672.

22.

QRS International. NVivo 10 for Windows - 2012, www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx (accessed 9 August 2017).

23.

Braun

Clarke

. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006; 3: 77–101.

24.

Lombardo

. The humanistic coach: From theory to practice, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1987.

25.

Lombardo

. Coaching in the 21st century: Issues, concerns, and solutions. Sociol Sport Online 1999; 2: 1.

26.

Jones

Wallace

The coach as ‘orchestrator’. In: Jones

(ed). The sports coach as educator, London: Routledge, 2006, pp. 51–64.

27.

Moston

Engelberg

Skinner

. Athletes’ and coaches’ perceptions of deterrents to performance-enhancing drug use. Int J Sport Policy Politics 2015; 7: 623–636.

28.

Ericksen

McKenna

Backhouse

. A qualitative analysis of the factors that protect athletes against doping in sport. Psychol Sport Exerc 2015; 16: 149–155.

29.

Laure

Thouvenin

Lecerf

. Attitudes of coaches towards doping. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2001; 41: 132–136.

30.

Moston

Engelberg

Skinner

. Perceived incidence of drug use in Australian sport: a survey of athletes and coaches. Sport Soc 2015; 18: 91–105.