This article investigates how publics interpret and debate doping scandals in sport within YouTube’s communicative environment. It draws on theories of deviant behavior, labeling, moral panic, the digital public sphere, and McLuhan’s insight that media formats shape meaning. The study conceptualizes YouTube comments as a site where narratives of fairness, responsibility, and institutional trust are constructed. The empirical material comprises 1,304 comments under three types of sport-related videos: a news report, a documentary, and an athlete interview. A multimethod design integrates automated text and sentiment analysis, topic modeling, and network analysis. The findings reveal a predominantly neutral, analytical tone and low levels of meaningful interaction despite high formal connectivity, alongside a fragmented discourse in which politicized, scandal-oriented narratives overshadow medical and technical interpretations of doping. The article’s primary contribution is theoretical: it introduces fragmented rationality, which refines public sphere theory for digital environments, and routinized deviance, which extends moral panic theory to explain discursive fatigue under continuous scandals. It also offers a methodological contribution by combining computational text analysis, network modeling, and qualitative interpretation to understand audience fragmentation on digital platforms.
AbezaG. (2023). Social media and sport studies (2014–2023): A critical review. International Journal of Sport Communication, 16(3), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2023-0182
2.
AlexanderD.HallwardL.CaronJ. G. (2019). Is there still hope for clean sport? Exploring how the Russian doping scandal has impacted North American sport culture and identity using an ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(5), 618–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1589561
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.JohnsonJ. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks (2nd ed.). Sage.
7.
BrymanA. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
8.
BurchL.Fielding-LloydB.HaydayE. (2023). ‘Get back to the kitchen, cos u talk s*** on tv’: Gendered online abuse and trigger events in sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, 24(4), 957–978. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2023.2227643
9.
BurgessJ.GreenJ. (2018). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
10.
ButterworthM. L. (Ed.), (2017). Sport and militarism: Contemporary global perspectives. Routledge.
11.
ChadwickA. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
12.
СohenS. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the Mods and Rockers. MacGibbon and Kee.
13.
CorazzaO.NegriA.Al SarrafA.TownshendH.PrilutskayaM.SimonatoP.SilviaR.AngelaS. (2019). Digital pathways to doping: An innovative netnographic approach on the use of untested supplements. World Anti-Doping Agency / University of Hertfordshire.
14.
CouldryN.HeppA. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Polity Press.
15.
DemasA. (2025). Panem, corticoids and circenses: The ethical fallout of Enhanced Games. Journal of Medical Ethics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-111085
16.
EngelbergT.MostonS.SkinnerJ. (2015). The final frontier of anti-doping: A study of athletes who have committed doping violations. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2014.06.005
17.
EngelbergK.MostonS.SkinnerJ.ZakusD.MillsC. (2012). Public perception of sport anti-doping policy in Australia. Sport Management Review, 15(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2011.590556
18.
FayC. (2018). Text mining with R: A tidy approach [Review of the book text mining with R: A tidy approach, by J. Silge & D. Robinson]. Journal of Statistical Software, 83(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v083.b01
19.
FentonA.KeeganB. J.ParryK. D. (2023). Understanding sporting social media brand communities, place and social capital: A netnography of football fans. Communication & Sport, 11(2), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479520986149
20.
GillespieT. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
GrimmerJ.RobertsM. E.StewartB. M. (2022). Text as data: A new framework for machine learning and the social sciences. Princeton University Press.
23.
HabermasJ. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press.
24.
KavanaghE.LitchfieldC.OsborneJ. (2023). Social media and athlete welfare. International Journal of Sport Communication, 16(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2023-0116
25.
KavanaghE. J.LitchfieldC.OsborneJ. (2020). Sporting women and social media: Sexualization, misogyny and gender-based violence in online spaces. International Journal of Sport Communication, 12(4), 552–572. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2019-0079
26.
KnudsenA. G. (2020). Dealing with doping: Representations of morality and responsibility in Norwegian sports journalism. In Media health: The personal in public stories (pp. 121–142). Scandinavian University Press. https://doi.org/10.18261/9788215040844-2020-7
27.
KrippendorffK. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage.
28.
LeventalO. (2023). Online sports fans communities: Humor, trivial knowledge, and anti-modern tendencies. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 5, Article 1280519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2023.1280519
29.
LiuB. (2015). Sentiment analysis: Mining opinions, sentiments, and emotions. Cambridge University Press.
30.
LuhmannN. (2000). The reality of the mass media (K. Cross, Trans.). Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1996).
31.
MatarunaA. F. G. (2022). The portrayal of sports doping in the media: A systematic review of the literature on doping in the context of the theories of agenda-setting and framing. Motricidade, 18(S1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.6063/motricidade.25422
32.
MazharM. Z.BuzT.SuY. (2025). Are online sports fan communities becoming more offensive? A quantitative review of topics, trends, and toxicity of r/PremierLeague.
33.
McLuhanM. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw Hill.
34.
MostonS.EngelbergT. (2016). The presumption of guilt relating to athletes accused of doping. World Sports Advocate, 14, 8–11. https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/46829/.
35.
PapacharissiZ. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
SipersteinG.RomanoN.IskenderogluG.RomanA.FloydF. J.DrascherM. (2013). The American public's perception of illegal steroid use: A national survey. Center for Social Development and Education Publications.
38.
SukumaranC.KarafilA. Y.MarimuthuK.ChokkalingamS. (2024). Exploring the evolving perception of sports doping through text analytics: Figuring out public sentiments. Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Sport Sciences, 2(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10899883
39.
Van DijckJ.PoellT.de WaalM. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
40.
WangY.ZhangJ. S.HanX.LvQ. (2020). Jump on the bandwagon? Characterizing bandwagon phenomenon in online NBA fan communities. In Proceedings of the international conference on social informatics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60975-7_30
41.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
WestmattelmannD.SprengerM.HokampS.ScheweG. (2020). Money matters: The impact of prize money on doping behaviour. Sport Management Review, 23(4), 688–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.09.005
