GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Hello, my name is Fabien Ohl and I teach at the University of Lausanne in

Switzerland. I'm a Professor of Sociology of Sports and I work at the Institute of
Sports Science of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, which is an
institute that trains sports specialists in a variety of subjects, namely doping.
The institute itself is nestled in an exceptional environment with Lake Geneva on
one side and The Alps on the other. On a campus with great sports installations, top
notch training and research facility but also because Lausanne is the Olympic
capital. In a city where many international federation including the Olympic
Committee are based. This has encouraged us to focus our expertise of doping. I am
launching this course on doping sports organization and sciences because the issue
of doping is a fascinating phenomenon. Research into it is never boring. Doping is
fascinating, because it is a crossroads for many different fields of scientific
research. This course will allow you to grasp the many dimensions of doping in
sociological, psychological, legal and biological perspectives. The more you know
about doping, the more you realize that it is often portrayed in a caricature and
oversimplified way.
It is true that doping scandals are a godsend for the media great audience figures
who . Just look at Oprah Winfrey, the famous talk show host who said that in terms
of publicity, Lance Armstrong's confession was one of the most important moments
of his career.
It is also a boon for moralists who claim to understand doping through binary vision
of reality. For them, there are the cheaters, on the one hand, and ethical athletes on
the other.
This is why one of the objectives of this course is to overcome this
often sensational, oversimplifying, moralizing, and often caricature approaches to
doping.
First, it will allow you to identify the cultural dimension of doping. That is, as a
practice that has a history, linked to the transformation of social norms.
The second objective is to go from a binary way of thinking, for or against doping,
to an understanding of the complexity of this phenomenon which is biological,
psychological, and sociological all at the same time.
The third is to understand how the social and organisational context
influences individuals' decisions and how this can be changed by preventive
measures.
Finally, one must understand the institutions, the agents but also what is being
done to fight against doping to understand how it works and how tests are carried
out.

I have just stated that doping was often presented in over-simplified caricatured
ways.
Let me explain, it is often seen as an individual deviance, cheaters will go against
poetics. Leaders, journalists and trainers are eager to state that doping has nothing
to do with sports and that triathletes do not use substances. At times, however, it is
said that doping is everywhere and that there are no clean athletes that sports
haven't corrupted. Sports institutions, notably federations, often have been
complicit with the generalization of doping.
Of course, there are athletes without morals that cheated their whole career.
Doping has also been organized by teams, federations, and even nations. But
denouncing every individuals and every single organization and institution is
exaggerated for several reasons.
Firstly, because denunciation does not help to really understand doping. You
cannot simply say that the athletes, leaders, physicians, and trainers have nothing
to do with sports.
Secondly, because stating that everyone is complicit is not realistic. Obviously, not
every institution and federation has been implicated in doping.
Sport institution are also involved in the fight against doping by putting into place
measures of repression or prevention. Moreover, even in the most questionable
organization there are and have been people committed to fighting against doping.
The third, is that it isn't just athletes and federations that are concerned. The
situation is far more complex. You need to take in account all the agents involved in
the world of sports. Nations, for instance, have been complicit with doping, namely,
during the Cold War.
The media, sports journalists, who were well aware of what was going on, did not
write about it. also mentions sports fans, or even ordinary persons that call out
injustice every time the national champions are suspected of substance use.
The fourth, is that history shows us that ordinary athletes, people with values, use
substances. Some regret and repent. In a context of wide distribution of
performance-enhancing products, particularly, athletes that were neither cheaters
or immoral to begin with use substances. Imagine that you are a 20 year old
athlete, and that you have been training intensively for ten years. That you dropped
out of school, that your life ambition is to be a professional athlete, and that your

whole life is organized around this passion. Now, imagine that everyone in your
team using performance enhancing substances. What would you do? Personally, I'm
totally against doping, but I honestly do not know if I would be strong enough to
resist.
The idea is to distance yourself from sensational and moral views and to try to
understand doping. This is why we have organized this course in four modules
around four main subjects.

The first module is about how people identify with doping.

There is a lot of talk about doping but few people really know anything about it.
This course will allow you to know the definitions of doping, but also to put them
into perspective.
Doping corresponds to a stabilization of legal norms that defines
legitimate ways of producing athletic performances.
The second module is about what makes people use substances.
History shows us that ordinary, good willed athletes gave into doping.
It is therefore necessary to understand why people, while not initially in to doping
change their personal standards and start to use doping substances.
The course will study motivation but also the effects that athletes' social and
institutional context has by trying to understand what makes athletes' relationship
to doping evolve.
The third module will analyze the ways the fight against doping is organized .
If doping is identifiable, it is because there are institutions such as the World AntiDoping Agency, federations, the court of arbitration for sport that take care of
organizing the fight against doping and fixing the rules that make it possible to
accuse athletes or to defend them. Interviews with leader of the Court of Arbitration
for Sport, the World Anti-Doping Agency, the UEFA and from prevention
organizations. We will help you to better understand what these sports
organizations are doing to fight against doping.
Finally, to fight against doping you need laboratories and techniques that allow you
to find traces of substances and to prove that they have been used. This is why the
first module we call up an specialist of bio-analytical and forensic approaches to
doping. We will explain how this methods of testing work and how is able to adopt
to new doping techniques.

Welcome to MODULE
substance use.

1, that focuses in the identification and definition of

As I have already mentioned in the general introduction, this course intends to go

beyond the relative visions of substance use in order to grasp doping in all of its
complexity. Substance-use is a fascinating field of research, but doping scandals
through the ongoing hatred of substance-use, it's strong rejection by athletes or
denunciation from Sports Organizations, make it hard for anyone to approach you to
its critical distance. That is why we are offering in this first module to take us to
back by adopting a perspective that is based on social sciences. Therefore this
module has five goals.
First, to analyze the socio-historical dimensions of the definition of substance-use.
Second, to identify the difficulties in understanding substance-use
Third, to know the definition of substance-use according to the WADA's legal
standards.
Fourth, to be able to adopt critical distance vis-a-vis our object of study.
And finally, to understand the benefits of bringing a sociological perspective to
substance-use analysis.
The fourth video in this module will allow you to understand in what way social
norms concerning the production of athletic performances are being transformed
and are shifting to become long-lasting legal standards, which in turn define
substance-use. Let's discover the first video of module one.

1. DEFINING DOPING
The main objective of this first video is to help you to understand that what we
call doping is the result of a sociohistorical process.
Even though the different definitions of doping are much clearer today than they
were in the past, they are complex. The limits of doping are continually being
questioned.
What is considered legitimate, to obtain a certain level of performance remains
controversial.
So as to understand the difficulty in defining doping, I've chosen to begin this
course with interviews carried out in 1962 by two French journalists Robert Chapat
and Lucien with some of the best cyclists of the time. This should allow you to
distance yourselves and come to understand how cyclists in the 1960s were
confronted with issues around doping.
We'll see that in the 60s substance use was beginning to be condemned and
yet there was still great difficulty in defining what doping was and was not.
Such is the case of Jacques Anquetil, five times winner of the Tour de France,
who, as you will see, hesitates when it comes to defining doping.
Doping, it would be good to know what this word really means. I think this word is
beaing advertised an awful lot. Jacques Anquetil.
Jaqcues Anquetil not the only one to have doped. For example, Oskar Plattner, a
Swiss cyclist, several times sprint world champion, also talks about how some
people seem to confuse doping and taking vitamins. Some people seem to confuse
doping and taking vitamins. I think that real doping should really never be accepted
in sports. Oskar Plattner
Obviously, we can suspect Oskar Plattner of trying to fool the journalists and the
audience listing to the show.
But all the testimonies really show that the limits between what was acceptable
and what was not were fuzzy. In the same interview, Jacques Anquetil, who won the
Tour de France several times, tells us that cyclists had to take substances to be
efficient.
The journalist asked, in the time trial stages in the Tour de France, for example, or in
the Tour d'Italie or in the Grand Pris des Nations or for the hour record, have you
ever raced without any stimulants, other that your own self-esteem and
class? Jacques Anquetil answered: stimulants are necessary in order to achieve
great performances, otherwise previous performances would never be beaten.
Jacques Anquetil's words would create a scandal today, but they obviously didn't at
the time. Of course, what Jacques Anquetil actually meant by stimulant would need
to be clarified, but it is fairly clear that norms, in terms of what doping was, were

not fixed. Of course, cyclists could be thought to be pretending not to understand

what doping was, and to believe that audiences were more naive than they really
were.
But there are many other examples such as Dr.Dumas, physician at the National
Institute for Sports in France, who testified of the very uncertain definition of
doping. As you will notice, Dr. Dumas focuses on the distinction between amateurs
and professionals.
The distinctions that Dr. Dumas makes between amateurs and professionals seems
to suggest that amateurs must be protected because they might be children, but
that it is much more difficult to prevent professionals from using various substances
in order to do their job.
Conclusion: these interviews of cyclists in the 1960s allow us to understand a
number of things:
First, that one cannot think of doping in the past using present definitions.
Secondly, in the 60s, the definitions of doping were fuzzy because they were in the
middle of their construction process.
Thirdly, one might be tempted to believe that today this fuzziness has
disappeared. This is partly true since the current definition of doping is fixed by the
World Anti-Doping Agency.
But what is surprising is that the limits of doping are still being questioned.
For example, what is legitimate or not in terms of medical care or pharmacological
support with regeneration products continues to be debated. This introduction to
the module through practical example of uncertainty around the definition of doping
helps to better understand the process that led to making doping an important
issue, an issue we'll talk about in the next videos.
2. SUBSTANCE USE AS ORDINARY PRACTICE
This sequence has two objectives.
To question common beliefs about doping
And to help you understand that substance use is part of ordinary techniques of
athletic performance optimizing, techniques which were not really questioned until
1945.
Let's begin by questioning common beliefs around doping so as to overcome
commonsense that's beginning to think of doping as a social norm.

The answer to what is doping seems obvious, doping is cheating by using

substances designed to improve performance. Commonsense has it that this is
wrong and that in order to fight against doping, cheaters must be identified and
punished. This conception is based on three fallacies.
First, we tend to think that doping is a historical invariant. That it has always
existed, that Ancient Greeks already used various substances.
Secondly, we tend to think that doping is linked to a lack of ethics or a lack of
character, and that real athletes don't use substances, that doping is not a part of
sports.
Finally, that the main motive for doping is money. Corrupting the values of so
called true sportsmanship.
These three misconceptions are based on several misunderstandings.
The first misunderstanding is to confuse substance use and doping. Ancient
Greeks did indeed use various substances but it was not considered doping. In the
same way, the use of various substances at the end of the 19th century was not
considered doping either.
One cannot consider this as cheating. Or a lack of ethics or character since at
the end of 19th century. This use was simply seen as a technique improvement or
experimentation on performance. To say that real athletes don't do drugs will force
us to rewrite history. Unless we think that the many athletes that use substances
from the beginning of competition until today, most of which were never sanctioned
are not real athletes.
For that matter, sports organizations, federations, and nation-states were at the
heart of the organizing of doping, so it's not simply a matter of cheating, or of
athlete lacking character. But on the contrary of a culture that produces
performance to which many actors of the world of sport contributed.
Finally to state that these athletes were corrupted by money does not explain
doping. Just think of all the amateurs that used substances or of sports that do not
have professional divisions or even of body builders who are only interested in
transforming their appearance.
It is necessary to distance one's self from these ready made ideas to start to
understand doping.
One also has to take into account that substance use was an ordinary technique of
optimizing training until the late 1940s.

One of the easiest ways to distance ourselves is to look back at history. Historical
examination allows us to see how norms where constructed and how what seemed
normal at one moment, is later considered problematic.
History allows us to understand how a sport, signs, history collegians, the media,
politics or even economics, interact in the process of forming and fixing norms
around doping.
Of course I cannot tell you the entire story in just a few minutes. So I recommend
you with Paul Dimeo and John Hoberman's works on this subject. But I will underline
a few important points.
The first, is to consider substance use as one of the elements of the progressive
rationalization of performance production. Hoberman demonstrates that at the end
of the 19th century, substance use is part of what sports physiologists are
interested in. He also shows that, at the time, athletic performance was considered
less important than acquiring knowledge about the human body. During the 6-day
races in the 1890s, cyclists took heroin, cocaine, and strychnine mixed with sugar.
Punishing substance use would have seemed inconceivable. Substance use was part
of the many techniques used to enhance performance, and was not considered
problematic.
Stimulating products, such as were recommended to cyclists during long races.
One could imagine that this is a proof that cyclists were on drugs at the end of the
19th century already.
But not at all for these same substances were recommended for mountain climbers
after reaching summits, pastors, after long sermons, physicians after collecting their
pills(?), dancers after two hours of waltzing at. People took substances for all kinds
of activities in the aim of optimizing their performance progression and offering
their bodies physiological support.
This was perceived as very positive because it was understood as using science in
the name of progress.
Eighties within this context and this mental dispositions that substance use in sports
must be examined. So when in 1924, Journalist spoke to Henri Francis and Alvin
Pelissier. They were cycling champions of the beginning of the 20th century. And
Alvin Pelissier won the Tour de France in 1923. It was possible for them to talk about
the techniques, of support without risking being disqualified from the Tour de
France. From the interview published in Le Petit Parisien in June 1924.
Alvin Pelissier states, we suffered from the beginning to end. You want to know how
we do it? Here! He takes a flask out of his bag and hands it to the journalist and
says, this is cocaine for my eyes, this is chloroform for my gums. This, says Alvin,

also emptying his satchel, is ointment for my knees. And pills, how many pills you
want? Here, here are some pills.

They each take three boxes out and show them to the journalist. Anyway, says
Francis, we've got dynamite.
Of course, the text must be placed in its original context. The Pellisier brothers were
deliberately addressing the journalist in a provocative manner. And it would appear
that the journalist recorded what they said rather naively.
But at the time, no one took offense at substance use because athletic efforts were
considered great.
The Pellessey brothers were not different from the other racers. They were inventive
in a way, and used various techniques to make it to the end of the Tour de France
and win.
There was only minor criticism of the Pellissier brothers' method.
The main preoccupation in sports was the opposition between professionals and
amateur, not doping.
Of course, the first controversies around doping appeared between the 1920s
and the mid 1940s, but they appeared with other apparently detrimental effects of
sports.
So when Pierre de Coubertin in his opening speech to the International Olympic
Committee in 1923 declared that politics have a tendency to take over sports, that
there is a growing mercantile interest in champions and idolatry of sports,
overthrowing the established hierarchy of values: Chauvinism, brutality,
overexertion, over-training, and doping.
His speech was putting doping, brutality, over-training, etc., at the same level,
suggesting that doping was not such an important problem.
1. In conclusion, even the first prohibition of doping in 1928 in track and field, the
controversies around substance use were minor.
2. Substance use was not considered problematic. Performance enhancement
practices have been present since the beginning of athletics.
3. The International Association of Athletics Federation's prohibition was mainly a
prohibition by principle since there were no anti-doping policies nor means of
testing athletes.

4. Doping had a very different meaning from the one it has today, and it
was still considered a relatively legitimate way of producing performance.
In the next video, we shall see how, from 1945 on doping is defined and norms start
to emerge and are fixed over time.

3. THE EMERGENCE OF NORMS

The three main objectives of this sequence are:
1. To understand how from 1945 to 1965, controversies around performance
enhancing substance-use are developed.
2. To distance ourselves and identify doping as a practice defined by social norms,
that limit what is authorized to optimize athletic performance.
3. To understand why, paradoxically, the putting into place of legal norms and the
spreading of doping practice happened at the same time.
Let's start by looking at how substance use became a problem.
Optimizing training, which included substance use, continued well into the 1940s
supported by ever growing scientific research. After 1945, changes were even more
striking. During the war, products had been developed and experimented with,
namely amphetamines and this encouraged their spread. Also research on
hormones encouraged the propagation of anabolic steroids.
At the end of the 1950s, a real change had started to take place in
how performance enhancing substance used was perceived.
Doping started being considered as an ethical problem as well as a health issue for
several reasons:
First, because of a change in perception of athletics by the medical field. Before the
1950s, a vast majority of medical professional were not in favor of competitive
sports that were perceived as dangerous for one's health. Jacques Gleyse's
research, however, indicates a change in mentalities in the early 1950s.
Also because people were worried about the transformations taking place in sports
and by the risk ignorance to its growing professional and commercial dimensions. It
was here that sports would drift far away from the aristocratic ideal of
sportsmanship.

Fighting against doping was a way of reestablishing these values and the ethics that
seemed to be shaky.
The second point I would like to raise today is to understand that the difficulties in
defining doping were connected to norms that were being constructed. After 1945,
social norms progressively shifted and from 1963 on, there was a clear desire on the
behalf of certain physicians, athletes, and representative of states to condemn
doping. This was not, however, a unanimous point of view. Many athletes, doctors
and coaches continued substance use and did not take these various norms into
account.
One of the consequences of the diverging attitudes toward doping was the issue
that was raised around the identification of the methods and substances and so the
definition of doping itself became an important question.
This is why the desire to define doping suddenly arose, but the first attempts of
identification were heterogeneous to say the least. According to doctor Knipfer who
was interested in sports in the 1940s, food taken with the intention of accomplishing
an athletic performance was to be considered doping.
His list covered extremely different types of food, ranging from anything from
yogurt to sugar. Also, the caffeine in coffee, cocoa, tea, as well as narcotics
and alcohol were considered stimulants capable of enhancing performance.
A few doctors went so far as to suggest considering massages or the audience's
applause as doping. The desire to condemn doping then raised the question of
identifying exactly what doping was through its methods and substances.
So the first symposium in Uriage-les-Bains in France in 1963 brought together
athletes, physicians and researchers.
They attempted to define doping.
One of the proposition made by professor Boissier was that substances
taken during or right before competition were to be considered doping,
whereas those taken during training could almost be considered part of a
well conceived, balanced diet.
On the other hand, Dr. Delezenne who worked for the Central Medical
Commission for the French Food Federation, stated that medical treatment
designed to bring a tired athlete back to normal, should not be considered
doping. Today, this would probably be considered doping in most of the cases.
Let's take a look at the paradoxical way in which the putting into place of legal
norms and the spread of doping practices happened at the same time.

Debates around the definition of doping continued, and eventually, doping came to
be defined legally. Belgium and France issued the first laws prohibiting doping in
1965.
These laws largely echoed the debates of the 1963 symposium and
demonstrate the construction of a social norm, out of many, and very different
representations. But it is the increasing importance of athletic organizations that
make qualitative regulations possible, as Julie Demeslay pointed out in her book on
International Doping Institution.
In particular, the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency in 1999 played a major
role in unifying various norms. Even though, definitions remain fuzzy, doping was
progressively defined and conditions were ripe to put into place an arsenal of
repressive and legal measures.

What may seem surprising to us today is that at the same time,

economic, scientific, and political forces led some teachers, researchers, doctors,
and even coaches to continue to develop doping techniques to improve
performance.
The Cold War years turned sports into yet another battlefield for both communist
and Western capitalist regimes. Hence as J Hoberman explains in his book Mortal
Engines, each side developed their own research on doping techniques, and as a
consequence, various agents of sports and performance production put athletes'
lives at risk.
In conclusion, recent history shows us that the emergence of doping as a
major problem is linked to the conjunction of the spread of new substances and the
desire on the part of athletes and the International Olympic Committee to maintain
an ethics of disinterest(?).
Certain physicians and also professionals from the world of sports committed
themselves to fight against doping by defining legal norms and putting into place an
arsenal of repressive measures.
But at the same time, other issues linked to the Cold War, for example, encouraged
athletes, coaches, physicians, and scientists to perfect doping techniques. In the
next video we shall talk more precisely about how a World Anti-Doping Code was
put into place to deal more effectively with doping.

4. STABILIZING LEGAL NORMS

This video has three main objectives.
First, it is to grasp the key elements of the legal definition of the world antidoping agency.
Second, it is to identify the complexity of what is considered doping today.
The third is to understand some of the social stakes that lay hidden behind this
definition.
We saw in the earlier videos that the definition of doping was a result of a history
code construction of norms. Nowadays, these norms are elaborated by the World
anti doping agency. Which has created a world anti-doping code so that the same
rules might be applied to all athletes across the world.
And in this international code, doping is not simply a matter of substance use. It is
far more complex. So what does doping mean?
Doping is defined as one or more violations of the following eight anti-doping
rules. The violations of any of these rules leads to sanctions.
The first rule is about the occurrence of prohibited substances in the body. The
world agency publishers list of prohibited substances. The criteria to be on that list
is that the substance or method answers to at least two of the following three
principals.
First, it is unhealthy.
Second, it enhances performance,
Third, it is contrary to sports ethics.
The second rule states that the use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or
method is an infraction. Each athlete must make sure that no prohibited substance
enter his or her body.
It is sanctioned even if it is unintentional.
That is to say that if you contaminate yourself by accident, by taking the wrong
medication, for example, then you are committing an infraction.
Alain Baxter, the Scottish slalom bronze medalist in Salt Lake City in 2002 really
illustrates the constraints of this rule. He explained his testing positive by selfadministering Vicks nasal spray that he had taken to clear a headache he had
before the race. He had bought the product in the United States. In the US, the
nasal spray contains a very strong stimulant whereas the British version does not.

Since the regulation states that athletes are responsible for any prohibited
substance in their bodies, he should have checked the contents the Court of
Arbitration for Sports sanctioned Mr. Baxter by stripping him of his medal,
excluding him from the Salt Lake City Olympic Games, and suspending him for three
months. The court however, did state that the judges were sympathetic in this case
and found him to be sincere and honest. Without intention of benefiting from the
substance use within the competition.
You can find all the Code of Arbitration for Sports' verdicts on their website.
The third rule is about refusing or failing to submit to blood or urine sample
collection without valid justification, so for example, to avoid or fail to show up after
having been notified.
The fourth rule is about non-compliance to availability requirements. Professional
athletes must provide information about their whereabouts, one hour a day, as well
as make themselves available for out of competition testing. This is generally
referred to as, quote unquote, whereabouts, the obligation of providing information
to their whereabouts using advanced software.
This is what happened with Frenchman Teddy Tamgho who became the 2013 triple
jump world champion with an 18.04 meter jump. Anti-doping controls attempted to
collect samples three times, but he was never available at the right place at the
right time.
He was suspended for a year without ever having been tested positive. He did not
choose prohibited substances or methods such as blood transfusion but he was
sanctioned because he violated the fourth rule about availability requirements for
athletes out of competition testing and the obligation to provide information about
his whereabouts.
The fifth rule is concerned with tampering with the sample collection or sample
analysis.
Athletes have been known to hide urine samples to give clean urine samples during
testing.
For example in 2004 Hungarian Robert Fasikas was unable to provide the minimum
of 75 millilitres of urine required right after having won the discus throwing gold
medal. He claimed to be victim to psychological trauma. The Code of Arbitration for
Sport judges were not convinced. They suspended him for two years upon having
discovered that he had actually been let down by the valve of a mini urine pouch he
had hidden in his rectum.
In 2013 Italian Devis Licciardi 10 kilometer specialist was caught using a fake penis
full of clean urine. He was sanctioned by a three year suspension by the Italian
Olympic committee.

Rule number six punishes the possession of prohibited substances or the use of
prohibited methods by athletes and the members of their entourage.
This is what happened to cyclist Lorenzo Balducci. Police found doping substances in
his home in 2010. It was never proved that he had taken these substances yet, he
was suspended from professional cycling for five years because he was in
possession of these substances. And that on top of that, he had already been
sanctioned for doping in the past.

Rule number seven is concerned with the trafficking of prohibited substances

or methods.
In most cases, the people trafficking are no longer active athletes. Being suspended
or excluded from a competition is not a real punishment for them.
That is why some countries apply sanctions comparable to their legislation on
narcotics. who was a member of one of the best cycling teams of the Tour de
France from 1975 to 1977, was sentenced to six months imprisonment in 2003 by
French authorities. In 2000, border guards seized a package that had been sent to
him. Inside were about 30 doses of Belgian stew, a mixture of amphetamines,
painkillers, heroin and cocaine.
Other time, he worked for a sport brand and had been dealing these substances to
cyclists.
Rule number eight is about administering or attempting to administer a
prohibited substance or method to an athlete. Assisting an athlete or encouraging
them to use prohibited substances is also an infraction.
Let me draw your attention to two things.
First, the world code adapts extremely quickly. For example, xenon, a gas which
apparently boosts the body's natural capacity to create EPO which is a hormone,
that in turn, boosts red blood cell production, was added to the list of prohibited
substances in 2014. It seems it was used by athletes during the Sochi Olympic
Games. But, scientific knowledge on the effects and users of Xenon are
controversial.
Some anti-doping laboratory directors are not convinced at how quickly is a project
was added to the list.
Secondly, the code raises ethical and societal issues. The codes have always been
organized around norms which limits are hardly debated on the basis of
ethical, practical, scientific, and cultural principles.

This is why in 2015 a new code was introduced in which rule eight has been
revised. It's reign is less wide, however two new, more precise rules complete
it.
Rule 9 is concerned with complicity. Which used to be in rule eight, defined as
assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up or any other type of
intentional complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, attempted anti-doping
rule violation or violation.
And rule 10, which is concerned with the association by an athlete or another
persons subject to the authority of an anti-doping organization in a professional or
sport related capacity with any Athlete Support Person who has been convicted or
found in a criminal, disciplinary or professional proceeding to have engaged in
conduct which would have engaged in conduct which would have constituted a
violation of anti-doping rules.
We can see that norms change, and that the code evolves according to the issues
anti-doping is confronted with.
Anti-doping testing is not without problems, especially when it comes to
whereabouts information. For that matter, for researchers Kaiser and Smith, these
new repressive measures raise questions in terms of human rights and basic
freedom. If one were to consider sports as any other job, it would indeed seem
difficult to demand that, for professional reasons, a worker must provide
information about his or her whereabouts when he or she is not working.
But to forego this requirement would make out of competition testing
simply impossible. If this type of sample correction is made impossible, it would
raise as many, if not more ethical questions and risk two things. It would risk
excluding at least that do not use substances out of competition but also increasing
experimentation with doping as a systematic training preparation.
In conclusion, what can be learned from the putting into place of these legal
norms?
First of all that substance use or possession prohibited methods, providing
information about one's whereabouts. Complicity or trafficking are all part of the
definition of doping today. It is indeed the fruit of what has been learned throughout
the history of sport, but also of the social stakes that were crucial in the stabilizing
of these norms.
Secondly, the word anti-doping code is the result of an agreement between several
sports, countries, and actors that each had different practices.
But if the code has brought a certain harmony in sports' jurisdiction, each country
still has their own legal system. In certain countries, like Italy for example, doping

can lead to legal sanctions and imprisonment. Whereas, other countries do not have
legislation against doping.
3. Surely the world code is adapted quite often. This is explicable by three factors.
1. norms evolved quickly at the beginning of the fight against doping.
2. due to new scientific knowledge.
3. to adapt to athletes' new practices.

5. CONCLUSIONS
1. This first module has shown us that the definition of substance-use is the
result of a socio historical process.
2. That ingesting products which enhance performance does not have the
same meaning today as it did at the the beginning of the twentieth century.
3. This socio-historical perspective has allowed us to understand the way in
which social norms. That provide a framework for athletic performance, are
slowly shifting and stabilizing to become the legal standards that define
substance use.
But deciding what is allowed and what is not, with regard to enhancing
athletic performances is not always sufficient for our kids to confront to. In a context
in which pharmacological offer a bounce and in which a critic performance our
economically encouraged by the media. This newly emerged standard have not
prevented the spread of substance use. This is why module two which we are about
to discover. We aim to help you understand why several athletes decided to engage
in substance use. Thank you for watching this first module.

Welcome to MODULE 2 in which we will try to understand the motivations of

athletes who engage in substance use.
The first module showed us how substance-use can be understood as a social norm
of performance production, which has grown in importance and imposed itself
historically.
But the existence of a social or legal norm, does not mean that every individual will
go along with it.
No social and legal norms are transgressed by some individuals. Which are then
called deviant.
The example of delinquency, speaks for itself on that matter. The situation is the
same in sports. The norm of substance free performance has impose in self over the
years, but that doesn't prevent certain athletes of transgressing the norms. The
norm of the substance free performance has imposed itself over the years, but that
doesn't prevent certain athletes of transgressing that norm.
This module is about these deviances and tries to understand how they work.
This approach has four goals:
The first is to overcome a simplistic vision which opposes cheaters and others by
trying to grasp the individual and social grounds of behavior.
The second is to grasp the social and psycho-social factors of substance-use.
The third aims to understand the roles of culture and sports organizations in the
existence of substance-use
The fourth and last goal is to take into account the diversity of why people resort
to substance use, for there is not only one form of deviance when it comes to
doping.
This module is composed of several classes and one interview with ?? of the
University of Lausanne which will help you understand what leads ordinary people
to give in to substance use. Let's discover the first video of module two.

1. WHY DO ATHLETES GIVE IN TO DOPING

Why do athletes give into doping has three objectives.
First, to understand that doping cannot simply be considered as a case
of individual misconduct due to a lack of ethics.
Second, that the explanation linked to social change provide a framework that
helps to understand substance use, but that they are not sufficient in explaining
why people do it. One must be capable of thinking critically about these structural
explanations of doping.
Third, the goal is to recognize that only by combining disciplines and analyzing the
phenomenon on different levels, can we begin to understand why athletes give in to
doping.
So let's talk about this quote unquote lack of ethics.
The essential idea when looking to explain doping is a lack of ethics in
athletes, causing them to do something morally reprehensible. But it ceases to be
an explanation, when one tries to understand what data means whether or not an
individual respects an ethical code. In common sense, it is believed that an absence
of ethics Is inconsistent with the values of sport. It is perceived as a deviance that
corrupts the very values of sport. But the following four observations contradict this
view.
First, because Hughes and Coakley's research shows that doping is commensurate
with a positive deviance.
That is a great deal of conformity to athletic values. Often an athlete is simply trying
to remain in a team or in a group and to gain recognition for his or her
performances.
Second, because athlete's entourage adheres to the idea that competition is a
major objective, that requires many sacrifices.
Consequently, doping can actually be a response, a way of living up to the high
expectations of coaches, parents, or leaders.
Third most often the idea of being a professional athlete is related to the idea that
the body must suffer and that bodily risks must be taken to progress.
Always going further in one's efforts, suffering, risking injury, are all part of athletic
norms, and doping is simply perceived as a continuation of this disposition to take
risks.
Fourth, in the small world of sports, information about nutrition, supplements or
preparation techniques that are borderline illegal is passed around.

Often, the use of illicit substances is perceived as just another one of these
techniques. There obviously are some very strong contradictions.
If from a legal standpoint, the line between what is legal and what is not is
extremely clear. These borders can become very blurry for athletes because of their
experience with training.
An athlete's entourage and socialization can make doping a kind of logical
continuation of his or her physical preparation.
This means that one can not grasp the ethical issue outside of the environment in
which athletes ethics is constructed, because it can lead to a shift in the perception
of doping.
Consequently, it is necessary to observe the social environment that causes athlete
perception of what is a morally reprehensible act or not to shift.
A doping friendly environment
When attempting to grasp social change, both Barrioli's book Sport and Society as
well as Letizia Paoli and Alessandro Donati's book The Sports Doping Market allow
us to identify six structural factors that contribute to creating an environment
favorable to doping.
First, a culture of excellence that only values victory. One might argue that the
decline of amateurism and of disinterest has led to over-emphasizing victory.
Second, the medicalization of society, in which substances designed to improve
physical and intellectual performance have become commonplace. Stimulants for
exams, biograph for sexual performance, growth hormone to fight against aging,
etc. All these things make it increasingly difficult to see why sport should be any
different, free of any doping substances because they are pervasive in the rest of
society.
Third, a rationalization of the body and of athletic performance production.
In their book Drugs in Sport Ian Wattington and Andy Smith showed that many of
the techniques likely to enhance athletic performance are taken from sports
medicine. The participation of sports physicians in producing better
performances rather than treating injuries is a big problem.
The fourth factor can be attributed to the politicization of sports, which, during the
Cold War for example, cast upon athletes the mission of defending a political, a
national, and or an ideological cause. This role led certain states to encourage

athletes to use performance enhancing substances. And gave them a

legitimacy, inciting them to go even further into use of pharmacological
preparation.
The fifth factor is an economical one. The commodification of sports and athletes
attracted sponsors and considerably increased the flow of funds into sports.
With the professionalization of a number of sports in the 1980s, investments and
profits were very important and put a lot of pressure on athletes, who in turn to
doping. To top it off, the development of the Internet created easier access to these
substances.
The sixth factor is linked to increased media coverage that has encouraged an
economy of celebrity. The symbol-linked status that is associated with an Olympic
medal, for example can be very profitable.
But none of these arguments that we have raised is sufficient. For example, it is
often believed that the money involved in sports provides an all-encompassing
explanation for substance use.
But what about doping in amateur sports where hardly any money is involved? And
what about bodybuilders that use substances without even taking part in
competitions?
As Jean Francois Bour, an economist clearly stated, there is no possible assimilation
between an athlete and hommo economicus because it is impossible to consider an
athlete has a strict maximizer of personal interest outside of any social relationships
or institutional context.
As convincing as I may be, it is different factors merely form favorable
conditions. They are hardly sufficient in explaining doping.
They do, however, allow us to understand that it is not only an
individual misconduct, but that it is also largely due to other factors.
In conclusion, we have shown that the two most common approaches to
doping, first to say that it is moral misconduct due to a lack of ethics, and second
that it is due to social causes. These two approaches both have their weaknesses.
2. This dichotomy between individual misconduct and social explanation must be
overcome to truly understand doping.
Why you may ask?
Because there is great diversity in doping, a single explanation is therefore not
possible.

3. Because individual, contextual and social factors are intertwined. It does not
make sense to try to think of individuals outside of their context.
So psychological and social dimensions are articulated and this is why. In the second
module we proposed to look at doping through a multi-disciplinary approach taking
in to account the interactions between individuals and the social environment.
One of the ways of doing this is to observe athletes in their environment, which we
will do, observing body builders and cyclists. And at the same time, we shall
approach doping with a psychological lens. This is what we shall see in the next
videos. Thank you for watching.

2. BECOMING A BODYBUILDER AND USING PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES

As we saw in the last video, in an attempt to understand doping as more than
merely individual misconduct, we suggest taking a look at bodybuilders' practices.
This video has three objectives.
First, to critically approach stereotypical explanations of why people take
up bodybuilding.
Second, to identify various ways of analyzing bodybuilders' practices.
Third, to understand adherence to bodybuilding as a conversion process, explaining
how relatively ordinary people start using substances.
This work is mostly drawn from research Ronan Coquet and I carried out at the
University of Lausanne with the support of The Swiss National Science Foundation.
I will therefore be speaking mainly about bodybuilders in Switzerland.
So how does one become a bodybuilder?
Many explanations have been put forward to attempt to grasp why bodybuilders
resort to substance use.
The first common explanation is a financial one suggesting that doping is linked to
monetary gain. This is, however, highly unlikely since there is very little money to
be made in this sport.
The second common explanation is to think that bodybuilders use prohibited
substances because of the prestige linked to competitions.
But in Switzerland, the audience for bodybuilding is really quite limited and the
symbolic value that might be linked to peer recognition does not reflect widespread
media attention.
The third explanation is to affirm that body builders resort to substance use to
have beautiful muscles because they are a seduction tool. But that is not true
either. Bodybuilders are often quite embarrassed about their hypertrophic
muscles. Muscles can be an embarrassment or even a stigma, especially for
women.
A fourth common explanation which is more in line with actual research is to
point out that there is a connection between poor body image in teenage years
and bodybuilding.
Most body builders did not like their bodies, felt too skinny or too heavy.

Even though this seems to be relatively common among body builders, one might
also argue that poor body image during teenage years is fairly common in the
general population. Yet, not everyone becomes a bodybuilder. This explanation is
not satisfactory either.
Finally, continuing along this line of thought, there is far more psychological
explanations that evokes a narcissistic dimension, which is assimilated with selflove. This interpretation however, is problematic for two reasons. First, narcissism is
often understood as NLC love for oneself. It is however, according to modern
psychology, one of the foundations of self-confidence. For body builders, it is
therefore a lack of narcissism that would explain the low self-esteem of people who
take up bodybuilding. Their quest for self-confidence would find an answer in
bodybuilding.
Understanding why people work out. One might say that there are what's sociologist
Pierre Bourdieu might call certain predisposition to working out.
These are determined by social factors such as age, gender, social class and
culture.
But sociodemographics are not sufficient in explaining what motivates someone to
take up bodybuilding.
The first motivation is indeed conformity to athletic norms.
Diego, one of the people that was interviewed during the research conducted with
Ronan Coquet said, I was a ball of lard. So one day I looked into the mirror and said
to myself, this has got to stop.
Stated that she started because she was fat. So, she started to diet and to workout.
But the motivation for body builders is not simply conformity to athletic norms.
There is a second type of motivation. Leo, a hockey player, felt too small for his
sport. He said he started working out to gain bulk. He weighed about only 60 kilos.
In this case, it was about conforming to a athletic standards.
Finally, the third reason is hygienic. Like Beatrice, who says she does it to stay
in shape.
So there are at least three different reasons for working out. Ascetic ones,
athletic ones, and hygienic ones. These three reasons correspond to those of
ordinary people who are not particularly interested in bodybuilding per se and
misery must then be solved. Why do ordinary people become obsessed with
muscles? There is something mysterious about watching these ordinary
people transform and start using prohibited substances.

So what explanatory model should be used to grasp bodybuilding.

The first interpretation would be to follow sociologist Christopher
Lasch, thoughts in his book, The Culture of Narcissism. He shows that narcissism
has a social dimension.
The narcissism corresponds to a withdrawal from society due to a collapse of
authority and of normative identification sources.
This less classically normative socialization requires coming up with one's own set of
norms. Consumerism has a that solicits rather than constrains, creates a perfect
backdrop for this kind of under socialization. Embracing a career in bodybuilding is a
way of constructing a set norms that drove from the extremely normative
socialization of bodybuilding regarding diet, training, and substance use. If this
model serves as a backdrop, it still doesn't explain why most people who work out
do not become body builders. Only a minority does.
The second more persuasive model would be to study how people convert
to bodybuilding. It makes sense to use the word conversion almost in the
religious sense to explain the transformation of ordinary people into body builders.
As Guillaume puts it, I started off working out to lose a little weight, to become a
little more disciplined.
I knew competition was in no way an obligation.
This is similar to what sociologist Charles Seward describes in one of his books on
conversion in rural priests: It is through physical effort that the practice itself
gains importance in a person's life and that he or she is integrated into a
community.
For body builders, one does not observe a radical change, it is more a
gradual process, the spread of influence of the practice over different parts of the
body. Not only are all their body's muscle gradually transformed by
bodybuilding practices, but there is a shift in moral stance as well. Not only do body
builders think about their bodies differently than everybody else does. They also see
the world differently. Their activity progressively becomes center on the body. New
morals and a new set of norms characterize these conversions. They do not merely
workout. They abide by strict rules to an ascetic lifestyle made up of tough training
sessions, strict diets and of. How they express themselves, think and go about their
everyday lives has changed. For example, in the first stages of my investigations, I
suggested meeting a bodybuilder in a restaurant.
He answered that it was impossible for him because he couldn't eat out. Then when
we did finally meet in the middle of the afternoon, he asked if he could eat and he
took out five slices of ham that he quickly swallowed which were followed by a

Tupperware filled with an impressive amount of plain rice which he gulped down
very quickly as well.
The impact of bodybuilding on these people's life is very big and every activity
seems to be focused around gaining muscles. These internal processes of
conversion through physical effort are completed by other external elements.
There is of course a certain validation through specialized media, but that's not very
important in terms of conversion.
The two following paths of conversion have been identified .
The first, called consonant, is when being muscular is valued by the person's
immediate circle. Friends, family and at work. This is often the case of working class
individuals without higher education, who work in sectors related to security
for whom being muscular is valued in their social context.
Quentin works as a security guard tells us, it makes me look and feel good in my
uniform, the one I wear for work. I feel good, I feel like I occupy this polo shirt.
The second rather atypical path is referred to as introspective. These people are
generally more highly educated than their counterparts. Their professional situation
does not value strength but they all have felt vulnerable at one moment of their
lives. Bodybuilding is used as a way of overcoming this feeling of vulnerability.
Leo, a former executive in a big company converted to bodybuilding after his life
underwent major turmoil, including a divorce, burnout, and losing his
job. Committing to bodybuilding helped him gain a sense of control over his life. He
says that it helped him increase his self-esteem, and that the benefits in his
everyday life are what makes him really enjoy it.
The same is true for Kevin. He went through a bit of a rough patch, and describes
how bodybuilding helped him feel better.
He says, I was 18, I didn't have anything except multiple jobs I had to do to get
by. My life felt empty. I didn't have any hobbies. Because it's something I can
identify to. I never felt so good in my life.
Kevin's case suggests that bodybuilding can be used to confer meaning to one's
life. It is something that has made him feel good.
In conclusion, it's necessary to distance oneself from a number of preconception
to be able to grasp these processes.
Various ways of analyzing why people take up bodybuilding have been identified.
Analysis in terms of a conversion process seems adapted to the cases that we have
observed.

To learn more, read the article that Ronan Coquet and I published on the subject
that is available on the platform. Conversion is an important element to consider
when attempting to understand why people start to use prohibited substances
and how their perception of the risks incurred is transformed by this conversion.
This is what we shall look into in the next video. Thank you for watching.

3. BODY BUILDERSS ATITUDE TOWARDS RISK

This video has two objectives.
First, to understand how bodybuilder's attitude towards risk changes over time.
Second to be able to identify the main processes through which their perception of
risk changes.
Bodybuilder's attitude towards risk is especially interesting when it is understood
has an effect of the conversion process we talked about in the last video.
It can seem surprising to notice just how many bodybuilders use
prohibited substances even though they are generally well informed about the risks
involved.
We have identified seven factors that help to explain how their attitudes toward
doping change.
The first factor is a shift in norms in which doping becomes a normal practice.
This happens in two phases. The first phase is a shift in norms that is
characterized by a specific diet in the early stages of the practice. Slowly, shaping
one's body is no longer limited to working out.
So use of food supplements has become totally normal in fitness centers and
gyms. Products, such as protein powder, amino acids, creatine, or fat burners are
systematically sold in gyms. Advertising for such products fills the pages of
specialized muscle magazines and imagery of body builders use food supplements.
The second shift in norms that pushes body builder's to result to doping is
created within the body building community itself. Apparently the kind of muscle
quality required for competitions cannot be obtained without resorting to substance
use.
Serge's, one of the body builder's that we talked to seemed to suggest that there
was no alternative. He says, anabolic steroids and stuff like that, yeah, you
necessarily take them. Unless you want to end up 11th out of ten you have to,
everybody else is doing it.
The second factor explains the development of a feeling of risk control.
It is not the hot-headed, who would do anything for more muscles, that delve into
more intense pharmaco practice. A sociologist, Monaghan, states in his book,
Bodybuilding, Drugs and Risk, there is real experts in substance users. They
combine knowledge on training, nutrition, physiology, pharmacology, recovery, and
so on and so forward.

Acquiring this expertise confers a strong feeling of control over the muscle
production process and substance use becomes a part of such range of practices
they feel they master.
The third factor that modifies the way pharmacological products are perceived is
that risk are delegated to others.
Information comes from people who are more experienced in body building. A rookie
body builder will be guided by more experienced ones. Notably on methods of
administration.
Injections, for instance, are not an act most people are used to doing to themselves,
and requires learning how to do it.
Serge trusted one of his friends who encouraged substance use. He said that a more
experienced friend helped him with this first injection.
Because he didn't know how to do it and he didn't want to mess up because it was
important.
Gym owners or trainers who users trust are also frequently recognized as sources of
expertise in substance use. Guillaume says: For me, it was always a trainer who
knew what to take and how to take it, when, and how much.
These role models, particularly coaches, initiate a person to substance use and
thereby approve it.
This is also what Guillaume says:
He took a look at me and was like, have you ever taken any stuff? I was like, no,
never.
So he said, okay, so we'll start slowly then.
It's true. We started off with really small doses that got bigger and bigger.
Delegating expertise to a trainer establishes him or her as a trusted advisor. They
are perceived as possessing extensive knowledge in that field. They just know
everything, states another body builder we talked to.
To the role of these advisor's figures will then be added the person's own
experience with products and values techniques. This encourages trivialization of
new pharmacological practices. Knowledge on the dosage and the duration of
treatments are also elements give body builders a sense of control over the
situation.

This pharmacological culture has contributed to creating a hierarchy in doping

products and there is a sense that products at the bottom of the list so to speak are
harmless.
Moreover many bodybuilders rely on doctors to control their health which further
reinforces their feeling of risk control.
This is what Guillaume's says. My sport physician knows about everything. And so I
always have a check up before and after competitions. During the checkup there is
a blood sample. Complete checkup and ultrasound of my heart and an ECG. I have
made a point of it. I have always said to myself If there is the slightest problem, I
will quit straightaway. Guillaume feels reassured by medical surveillance and that
allows him to take doping substances and feel like the risks are contained.

The fourth factor is a process of neutralization which is linked to a certain

trivialization of practices. As Leo points out, I have nothing to hide, we know that it
is a highly competitive sport. We all go through this. I mean let's be realistic, you
really think that tennis champions that play for three hours in the boiling sun get by
only by drinking water?
Leo minimizes the risk by making doping a universal norm.
A fifth factor is way of changing perception and strengthening the sense of
expertise by criticizing novices.
Less experienced users that seem to be jumping ahead are condemned in alarming
and stigmatizing terms. For people who feel like experts, access to substances is
something to be earned, and a substance use is only deemed legitimate if an
athlete has a certain level of experience and a significant expertise.
Methods of self-administration are one of the limits between experts and
novices. For instance, there are those who refuse to use syringes because they
don't possess the know-how and therefore administer those substances orally.
Kevin states: all that's the worse, they just do it because they are scared. But in
terms of results, it doesn't go straight into your blood It will mess up your
liver. Intravenous is a way to go. I mean if you want to do it. You might as well do it
properly.
Serge agrees: really you lose a lot because it has to go through your liver and it's
really toxic. With injections, however, well, they are better, but hey.
For Serge, experts know how to take substances and novices take risks.
Serge's sense of control is increased by criticizing novice's practices.

The sixth factor corresponds to a shift in perceptions and leads to a normalization

of doping in the world of bodybuilding.
One must discover bodybuilding culture to truly comprehend why bodybuilders use
prohibited substances.
Unlike other spots in bodybuilding, doping isn't considered cheating.
It isn't looked down upon by other bodybuilders and sport officials. Doping does not
take away any of the value of a performance of the work accomplished. And unlike
traditional sports doping does not symbolically discredit athletes.
Leo for instance could not imagine a performance without chemical support. At the
end of the diet, we get less than 50 grams carbohydrates a day and we lift crazy
weight. So, without chemical substances it would be simply impossible.

The final factor is an enchanted experience of the body.

This might risk being trivialized. Some doubts do remain. But the feeling of power
that comes with substance use and exhilaration during competition seems to help
overcome these doubts very quickly.
One bodybuilder told us: I wouldn't say you feel like Superman, but pretty close.
Through peer recognition the moments in the spotlight during competitions are
described by bodybuilders as the utter climax of their existence. But what they also
experience is the feeling that their body is capable of amazing feats when they use
substances. Like Guillaume who says: when you start taking you feel like you could
stop a bus with your jaw. It's really satisfying. You feel great. You feel powerful.
In conclusion, if we distance ourselves from our own representations, we can
understand that bodybuilders are not irrational individuals that do not worry about
the risks involved in substance use.
2. But it is because they have converted, that they have taken on a new
culture. That they adhere to a certain number of beliefs linked to their
community. That their attitude towards doping and pharmacology has changed.
In the next video, I propose to help you understand another sports culture linked to
cycling this time in which doping is just as important. Again, in our approach with
body builders, our aim is to understand, not to judge. You have time to stay neutral;
we do not denounce, neither do we approve. Thank you for watching.
* World War II encouraged the more widespread use of amphetamines, which were
used experimentally by the various armies.

4. THE SOCIALISATION OF CYCLISTS AND PHARMACOLOGIES

This video has two main objectives:
The first is to understand how cyclists' socialization to pharmacology occurs.
The second is to identify the training and follow up measures that can modify
previous socialization.
The work presented here is based on two main sources:
-

a study on professional cycling that I conducted with Brissonneau and Obl

as well as the study from 2009 funded by the World Anti-Doping Agency.

Cyclist, like many other people consider doping to be an individual short

coming flow it is cheating.
But this is not the case. There is no reason why cyclists' morals should be any
different from those of other athletes. If there are differences, they must be
understood, and merely observing the individual is insufficient.
One might postulate that it is interesting to look at cyclist socialization to
understand why some are or have been prone to substance use.
One must understand how cyclists become cyclists, and how that might influence
substance use.
Cyclist socialization often begins at home in a family surrounding. Cycling is passed
between man from a father, an uncle, a brother, a cousin or a friend. There is family
logic in the taste for sports that is traditional in cycling.
Bertrand, a professional cyclist that we interviewed in the 90s for a study we were
conducting, told us: it was always cycling, since in our family, everyone loves
bicycles.
This can be likened to the pattern in lifestyles and tastes described by Pierre
Bourdieu.
Socialization as well as training affects perception of the body.
For instance, the young cyclist is going to change his or her relationship to pain.
Pain, over a long distance, almost becomes pleasure, says Bertrand.
Progressively, he focalized more and more on his body's performance by
mastering training techniques and from time to time, he used substances provided
by a relative.

This is also the case for Damien, another cyclist also interviewed in the 90s. Who
told us that: because since I was a child, his father was a cyclist, I've always heard
that cyclists injected stuff. It was all around. To me, this is normal.
But parents seem to be more distant in 2010 than what we observed in the
90s. Sports club rapidly take over cyclists socialization. And in the 1990s, there was
a strong influence of the older cyclists on the younger ones. I learned as the older
ones had before me, they told me it was a culture states, Damien.
Just like nutrition or training techniques, pharmacological culture was a path of their
socialization.
Charles, another cyclist, tell us that: before competitions, I would take vitamin C. In
the winter months, it would be vitamin C and triazin (??) polivitamins, liver extracts
to replace B12. If you cycle a lot, you have to do B12 at 1,000 or 10,000 units. In
the 90s, sports club physicians and national teams contributed to the spread of very
invasive techniques, including the use of syringes.
Nicolas said: when I turned 18, a team of France physician gave me an intravenous
shot of vitamin C. When you think about it, this is a doctor doing this to you.
Getting used to invasive medical measures such as injections is part of becoming a
cyclist.
Going from a legal product to an illegal one, is merely the continuation of these
techniques. The social context is very important in the normalization of
pharmacology and doping. These practices have since become less
common, especially since they became illegal in 2011. It is called the no needle
policy.
That is, that syringes are prohibited even when they are being used with authorized
substances. This is quite a coherent move as it avoids normalizing medical
support for performance.
A few observations show that cyclists' socialization does indeed change
practices. These changes go hand in hand with a shift in norms since prohibited
methods are penalized.
Substance use is a result of a collective process, where cyclists take on a new
culture through their interaction with the world of cycling. So it is not just the case
of people being cheaters or immoral. Betrays a deviance similar to what the
sociologist Howard Baker describes in his book Outsiders. Of course, this raises the
question of what measures might influence socialization.
I will use a study in which we compared socializations in three different countries,
Belgium, France and Switzerland. The results of the study show that there are
differences between these countries.

But as they are not linked to different mentalities, Belgians or the French do not
cheat more than the Swiss. However, it depends on the type of organization that is
in charge of the cyclists.
The differences in how cycling was organized and financed in these three countries
had a significant impact on how medical preparation and doping was approached.
In short, one could say that the more organization is structured by people adamant
on fighting against doping, the more the odds of cyclists using substances
decreases.
Our observation allowed us to identify three types of teams with different styles
of organization:
-

first, teams with intense supervision, which are more often French or Belgian.
second, teams with anti-doping convictions but who do not supervise their
cyclists very much.
three, teams made up of several individual elements, with little supervision.

One can state that in teams where there is a lot of supervision, the range of
this supervision includes training, nutrition, medical monitoring as well as mental
preparation.
Young cyclists in these teams are determined not to use substances, and at least at
the beginning of their careers, are often wary of ordinary pharmacology.
In teams that have anti-doping convictions but where supervision is less
important, cyclists are not tempted by doping, but are relatively open to ordinary
pharmacological support, that they are familiar with.
Finally, in the less supervised teams, cyclists are more independent and rely
mainly on older cyclists for training. They are aware of doping techniques and are
more likely to be tempted by substance use.
In conclusion, these studies shows that the trainers, leaders, and physicians have
a leading role to play in preventing doping being inculcated as a normal practice to
young cyclists.

We studied teams that were supportive of the anti-doping approach but obviously
teams can also be the ones initiating their cyclists to substance use. This was the
case in the 1990s, it seems that the numbers have decreased since:
first of all, because the risks are higher today due to more efficient testing

also, the culture of cycling is evolving and even if some teams present a
certain weak factorial, they are people and teams committed to fighting against
doping.
Thank you for watching. The next video, we shall take a look at the psychological
dimensions of doping.

5. CYCLISTS CAREERS AND DOPING

This video has two objectives:
The first is to understand doping as a particular culture of performance
production. This culture has a temporal dimension that we shall approach through
the concept of career.
The second is to understand the various evolutions of cycling culture in
relationship to doping.
In the last video, we talked about young cyclists' socialization. And we showed that
different teams have different ways of training and supervising their team
members. As we shall see, this is also true of professional teams. Cultures espoused
by cyclists within their teams can vary. To become a part of a team to race, to train
are all elements of learning processes that can be described as a career.
I will be referring to the concept of career as used by sociologist Howard Becker who
studied deviance notability on smokers of cannabis. Doping can be considered has a
kind of deviance. Has a substance using cyclist has shied away from athletic norms
in the legal sense. But just like delinquency, deviance is a result of a process which
can be understood as a career, just like the delinquent the cyclist learns several
things:
-

first they learn that deviant activity, doping requires know how. Cyclists learn
expertise on substances. The process can start during the socialization of
young cyclists and continue in several stages.
Parallel to this and this is important, the representation of whether cyclists'
jobs consist of also undergo transformation. Cyclists not only learn to use
substances but a shift in their interpretation of substance use also
occurs. Doping is normalized and cyclists learn to interpret the identity of
substance users differently. Here too, normalization happens in stages.
Instead of this negative image of an outsider, exterior to the world of cycling
may have knowing how to do substances progressively becomes a technique
and expertise. It becomes part of the job, and can even be valued or could at
least until 1998. Which means that substance users don't have a negative
image of doping nor of their identity as a professional athlete for that
matter. It is this double, often simultaneous, process of change in practices
and shift in representations, that we will take a look at now.

In the 1990s, the deviant career of certain cyclists who were becoming professionals
was progress being put together through different steps of changes in practices and
representations.
In sports clubs, cyclists learned to train. This training transformed their bodies, their
body was rationalized. For instance, if folds were planned and cyclists also learned
resistance to pain.

In clubs, some also learn to take ordinary pharmacologists.

The use of pharmacology was also systematic up until 2000. Today there is a great
diversity in practices.

As we saw in the last video, so the video before of module two, teams who have
strong supervision do not tolerate pharmacologists. But in the 90s, learning to be a
cyclist also meant being initiated to doping. It happens through a culture of
complicity and connivance.
When Christian, a professional cyclist was interviewed in the 90s, he explained that:
everybody knows, everybody knows because it is the general atmosphere and
people laugh about it. And when did we talk about this on our badge at the hotel the
night before the race, sure it was an open discussion, it was not special, it was
always in cycling you talk about three things. As I always say, highly competitive
sports are about three things sex, food, drugs. This connivance explains why they
would sometimes party together by taking some amphetamines for example. This
banalization of substances creates a shift in representations and removes obstacles
that might prevent substance use.
Representations and practices change simultaneously. However, it can be said that
a shift in representations helps change practices by making the use of
pharmacologist more ordinary.
Bernard, a professional cyclist interviewed in the 90s told us that: one cyclist as
many other cyclists and leaders before him said to me one day: Listen, you've got to
look after yourself, and since it was probably the 100th time I had heard this, I must
have answered something like: it's all very well. Everybody keeps saying that, but
nobody told me what to take. He answered something like: well, you could take
some steroids, and he gave them to me.
Bernard's case shows us how representations are changed by the surrounding
culture, making the use of steroids acceptable and even positive in the 90s.
More experienced cyclists play a role in this normalization. Igor said, there were all
the cyclists who took care of us and jokingly would more or less tell us to go see
such a doctor. Guys who would urge us struggle sometimes and say: well when I
was your age, I knew what to take. This advice is backed up by new bodily
experiences.
Damien said that the sensations were exceptional: all of the sudden, a sensation I
have never felt ever again. Maybe because it was the first time. I was
invulnerable. 30 seconds later I was invulnerable. I got to the car and kissed the
guy. I was so happy. It was awesome.

Like the deviance described by Howard Becker. Cyclists practices progressively

change and the representations shift with their experiences during their career.
Substance use becomes no more.
Herve, a professional cyclist explained, we will carry around our thermoses full of
EPO. When we went abroad, we never imagined that there would be a red.

And if doping is no longer a problem it is because:

-

first, cyclist's representation of health related to substance use have

changed.
second, cyclists believe that everybody uses substances.
third, they feel great sensations.
fourth, because physicians and leaders have incited them to.

But some experiences can also curb substance use. Pascal, a cyclist in the 90s was
frightened when taking EPO: When it happened, it really hit home, it was over. You
realize that you didn't see it coming, you felt like a super human. You were 120
pulses a minute. You felt like you shouldn't go to bed. What the hell? That was it. It
doesn't mean that I quit the little thing though.
These negative experiences can also lead to a change in career. Some refuse
substance use afterwards or at least limited.
This was also true in the 90s. But many positive experiences at the beginning confer
a feeling of efficiency. But one cannot think of substance use in 2015 using only
observations taken from the 1990s. It is always difficult to have an overview on
doping because these practices especially today, are kept hidden.
One can say that the fight against doping the numerous scandals and the work of
certain teams and people has had an effect.
First, because this organization is no longer visible. Professional teams no longer
distribute doping substances like they used to be able to in the 90s.
Second, one can postulate that there are great differences between teams. We saw
in the last video that certain young teams are at risk because they do not supervise
their cyclists enough. The same can be observed in professional teams.
Third, monitoring as well as socialization and learning processes depend on the
type of team. Certain teams test cyclists a lot. And within them, a cyclist carrier is
no longer a deviant to them. Training is monitored daily by coaches who seem to be

opposed to doping with technologies that allows quick identification of a typical

progression.
All the teams which are rarer in 2015 still function with all attitudes towards doping
which normalize it but do not necessarily organize it. The poor man's doping is done
the old way without medical or team support. This form of doping is linked to a lack
of supervision of the cyclists.
Cyclists left alone in countries where anti-doping testing is inefficient, can dabble in
substance use to keep their jobs in cycling.
There is also the rich man's doping. There are teams who organize doping more
discreetly. This is expensive because it requires skills and a good infrastructure.
But outside of these two types of doping, there are teams making real efforts
to avoid the normalization of doping within professional careers. These things
monitor the cyclists properly and even if they are not completely sheltered from
other related cases of substance use, risks are reduced.
In conclusion, doping must be considered as something that is learned throughout
a career. This explains how people who were against doping begin to use
substances as they learn to become professional cyclists. It is also because they
learn to normalize doping that people do not find it difficult to consider substance
use as part of their sport.
But there are several pitfalls to avoid who has not to systematically associate
cycling and doping:
First, one must avoid not paying attention to the diversity of learning
process within young cyclist' socialization.
Second, one must avoid not taking to account a diversity of professional teams.
Finally, one must avoid a third mistake, that is to believe that such cultures are
easily changed.
There is a certain inertia. Not all teams change, not all of them possess the mental
and cultural condition to be able to. But this also means that a cycling team as an
organization has a significant role to play in terms of fostering careers that do not
encourage substance use. This is what we shall look at in the last module. Thank
you for watching.

6. THE EMERGENCE OF NORMS THAT DEFINE DOPING PART I

D.H. - Good day, my name is Dennis Haww, I'm a professor of sports psychology at
the Institute of Sports Sciences of the University of Lausanne. I work specifically on
psychology and doping.
This is research work I've been carrying out for about 10 years. And these
researchers have, or have had some practical English because for a number of
years, before arriving here in Lausanne, I was the president of the association that
managed the French national anti-doping phone help service.
F.O. - Okay, Dennis, we're going to introduce this discussion. Could you tell us
perhaps how psychology documents issues of doping in sports?
D.H. Well, let me say that the issues of doping are something that
researchers have focused on and in general sports psychology for about 25
years. So there has been a lot of knowledge that has been generated
and paradoxically it is not very well known. All of this information is not widely
disseminated I should say. Now there are probably numerous reasons for this.
F.O. - Well when you mean it's not widely disseminated or used you're talking about
sports.
D.H. - In the sports environment, yes. And perhaps when you think about
interactions with other scientific approaches. I can't give you all the reasons, but I
think that we could, perhaps, mention a few important phenomena about this.
First of all, the idea that doping is mainly a medical issue. And the interests
were focused on the effects of the substances on the body . The body is a
tool and we forget that the body without the psyche isn't a human body, and
perhaps also because the definition of doping that we use is the definition of the
world anti-doping agency, in other words, it is closer to the violation of a rule. It's
associated with the violation of a rule and so as a result the psychological portrait of
someone who uses doping is immediate, it's a cheater. A cheater vis a vis the
standard or the rule. Perhaps somebody who is also a calculating sort of person who
knows how to circumvent the rules or how to game the rules and perhaps also it is
someone who has no morals, who can use these substances in order to reach their
target or goal, to be able to win.
Well, I think that the portraits that one heard in the media about Marion Jones
and Armstrong are in that category. And then after that we get the feeling that that
is sufficient. We feel like that is enough to define the portrait of someone who
dopes. But research and psychology shows that it's much more complex than
this. That there are all sorts of subtleties and nuances that have to be a part of the
picture. So I think that psychology provides detailed information about the typical

profiles. It also contributes detailed knowledge of the mental mechanisms. The

psychic development associated with the using of substances.
And it also provides information about the vulnerable situation that the athletes
might be in. And then it gives us a guide, relatively accurate, about the interactions
between individuals and the substances, at the various stages and various ages of a
sports career. Perhaps I could add, linked with what I said in the beginning, perhaps
I could add that research in the psychology of doping allows us to document
and develop a series of strategies supporting the idea of prevention, which is based
on the understanding of these psychological mechanisms.
F.O. - But when you talk about the psychological profile of athletes who use doping,
could you tell us a little bit more about that? Are you talking about the
characteristics of these profiles? Can you tell us a bit about those characteristics?
D.H. - Well on the idea of the profiles, there are two approaches. One is psychology
of the personality. And then there is a psychopathological approach which is
centered on the image of the body. Now research in the area of personality have
been carried out mainly using bodybuilders, but there is other research. Perhaps I
could begin with the one that was done on bodybuilders because it's the easiest one
to do because they are ready to say that they've taken doping substances, and this
research is conventional. They compare users of anabolic steroids with people who
do not use these substances. And these profiles then, which have been identified
show, for example, that the users of steroids have a rather higher level of
pathological narcissism. In other words, an inability to maintain a positive feeling of
self, so it's a higher pathological narcissism than those who do not use drugs, and
on the other hand, they have a low level of empathy. In other words, they're not
able to imagine what others feel or understanding what others think about them,
that's what's behind the idea.
Now other studies have come up with other psychological characteristics. In
particular, concerns about the body and the shape of the body. We're talking about
the weight, the volume, body shape. And some research has shown that these
athletes, these bodybuilders, specifically, are more perfectionists. But in an
obsessive way so it's an obsessive perfectionism. Now other research shows that
these body builders tend to be more depressed. They have anxieties. So basically
these are people who are in trouble, basically and focus on themselves.
Now research has been carried out in other sports disciplines in particular, young
American football players when I say young players I'm talking about university
students, they're not professional but it's one stage below the professional
level. Now that research is interesting because they tried to compare those who
be inclined to use doping substances who would accept to use anabolic steroids
or those were taking some compared with those who said, I don't want to take any, I

refuse to take any. It's interesting to note that there were many things that were
similar between the two groups.
First of all, no difference in terms of financial status, no difference in terms of
academic results, or the information about their weight and height.
Also no difference in terms of their understanding of the deleterious or negative
effects of these steroids on their health. Nor was there any difference about the
understanding of training methods to arrive at a certain performance level of the
kind of food they should be eating, the diet, and so on.
However, there were differences, and those differences were specifically the
following:
- they were more inclined to use alcohol and cannabis
- they were more aggressive and more impulsive at the same time those who use
the anabolic steroids
- they had an aptitude which was sort of based on gain at any cost.
This is what we mentioned earlier, I think. And then, there were two key elements in
the psychological profiles and portraits in spite of their metaphysical
characteristics, they were less satisfied with their body image. And it was more
difficult for them, some were given measured. It was more difficult to them to refuse
an offer of steroid use.
Now other research was carried out, this time using other substances and they were
connected to different personality profiles. One of them is very well-established in
substances and that is the one, which is the thrill seeking. Seeking of thrills and
there we consider that those who have that sort of personality tend to move tend to
go in the direction or are interested in thrilling sports. And they are predisposed to
use steroids, for example, in performance enhancement substances, but also
stimulant psychoactives. But we're not talking about American football here, are
we? No, no we're talking about other sports. We're talking about sports that involve
thrills, such as skydiving, for example, or extreme sports. And it's interesting, I
think, because the spectrum is becoming wider in this profile and we're not talking
only about steroids and body builders, it's been broadened. So what's interesting I
think about these psychoactive substances is that not only these athletes interested
in the sports that cause this sensation, these thrills, but they're more prone to
associate them with the use of psychoactive substances and they're also more
prone to use psychoactive substances when they stop practicing those sports. So
there's sort of an association mechanism between these various sports, which are
consistent with personality. So, they stop the sport now the words.
F.O. - But they continue to use the same substances?

D.H. - Well, we can talk about this all the research shows that there is change also in
the consumption or use patterns, but there is a link, because the idea is to seek
thrills. Because the substances make it possible to have greater thrills and to have
these thrills when you cannot get them or obtain them through the sports, but these
substances are going to increase the feeling in the body. Yes, it will enhance the
feeling. The feeling that you want is losing control, which are actually sought by
these people in their sports.
Finally, these on this research in the psychology of a personality. We have also
identified hyper ADHD, in other words and this makes it possible to the substances
help them to focus better when they have this ADHD. So, all of these profiles...
Predispose an individual to carry out certain practices and to use certain
substances.
That's about research on the personality, but there's another category of
research, which I mentioned earlier, which we characterize as psycho
pathology. Now that brings us to completely a different theoretical approach a
different postulates, as well. Now here, the idea is to say that these person's that
are using substances are in, I'm going to use a usual word, they are in unconscious
fantasmatic body image. So basically, it's the image or perception of the body that
fuels this. We shouldn't understand this in the common sense, the primary reflection
or image of one's body. Briefly, if I pick up the theoretical postulates that support
this. It's to say that a child, for example, will experience for the first time a mirror
and we'll see a self-unity. There will be an image that the child will see in the mirror,
it's the mirror image. And this mirror image is a reflection of the child as a unit
and as the child develops, the child will note that there is a discrepancy between
this image he or she had of himself. And all of these sensations, emotions that will
be experienced during the development of the child. And then all of a sudden, the
image will not be a unity. There is going to be this discrepancy between this image
of him or herself and what he perceives about himself, and what others tell him or
her about. So, what we're going to see is that the subject is going to try to maintain
the identity and this image. So, there's a conflict between the being and the
appearing. So, what is interesting is when we think about these conflicts between
being and appearing. I think we can say that there are some periods in one's life
when these conflicts affect the individuals more certainly. We've seen, for example,
in the self-help phone calls that I talked about earlier. We see some typical
pathological psychological profiles that are linked to this sort of tension in the body
images.
For example, in adolescents. We could say, here that the tension can exist. For
example, when adolescents call each other things like Fatso, skeleton, loser. All of
these names associated with the identity, which collide with this identity image of
an individual, this unconscious identity that the individual has. And this collision
might sometimes create muscle strengthening, strengthening of the muscles. And
these practices, which in fact are strengthening the identity and they are associated

with use of substances, because they maximize the strengthening of the

muscles. So the armor plating of the body, if you will contributes to work against the
identity difficulties and the artifacts of puberty, adolescents, for example, have
urges and they are going to have difficulties. Some more, some less and we've
identified several strategies who react to these urges.
The first category is control. Control of the body, control of the image as an
example here of young people who go and who sculpt their body in order better to
control it. If they control their body better, they control their activity better. If they
get involved in some body building, but when they look at themselves in the mirror,
for example, they're giving a solid structure to their body. They're solidifying the
their identities and then there's another way of facing down this tension or dealing
with this tension and that is one that involves exhausting the body, going beyond
the limits of the body. Always trying to go one step further without any limits in
terms of what one can do with the body. And there, this is very, very rigorous
training, increasing number of hours of training and also the use of some
substances that are associated with this. Now, we know that adolescents from a
pathological point of view suffer from body dysmorphic disorder as I mentioned
earlier. Theyre too skinny, the too fat, the too small. And this sort of tension, sort of
stress can lead to use of substances to cut down the Adonis complex describe by:
Which is a muscular dysmorphic disorder, affects adolescents, but adults later in
sports. Especially those who go to fitness places to sculpt their bodies as they seek
self-embellishment.
F.O. - But this leads to straining and stress. Doping but because they're adolescents
when there are pathologies such as anorexia for example. Is this similar it's a similar
mechanism?
D.H. - Yes indeed they're comparable because they are based on this image of the
body. And to conclude on this cycle pathological part, this image of the body, in fact,
traps the individual. It traps the individual in a sort of a narcissistic cage, and they
always want to go further, to do more. And they're trapped in this image of their
body, as was described by Schilder this sociological dimension which reaches back
to the emotions and all of the baggage that has been accumulated since the
childhood of an individual.
F.O. - What we see is that these profiles can vary and that a significant usage of
substances is possible for different people. Even in some cases can be
trivialized. And these athletes, are they taking risks? Well, they are taking risks,
objectively, but as psychology looked at the risk, examine the risks that they're
taking?
D.H. - Yes, mainly about the risk of addiction.

What it means is that there's a health risk, obviously, that's well established, well
known, sometimes controversial as well. But psychology has looked at how the
individuals could retain control over their bodies.
We have tried to advance research on this principle of addiction and were looking
for the neuronal circuits that through usage or a certain practice associate with a
certain satisfaction or positive feedback in such a way that after a certain amount of
time, the urge exceeds the control of the individual and they are then in a situation
where they are addicted.
So on this approach, some research has indicated that there is a risk of addiction in
the use of certain substances.
Even though it's controversial. But there is this risk for anabolic steroids, but also
for psychoactive substances, which are more conventional. And everyone seems to
agree more or less on this. It's more surprising for anabolic steroids. And there's
some discussions there.
Copeland, for example, are a group of 100 body builders identified only 23% who
were addicted.
So. Other states a minority and more research needs to be done here in this
area. But generally, we believe that there are three types of relationships
between the use of a substance and addiction. The first one, which is based on the
addictive potential of certain substances. I mentioned this earlier already, obviously
the amphetamines, cocaine, these have a potential, an addiction potential which is
stronger than others. But there are different stages or classifications. That's the first
one.
The second relationship, which has been more closely examined, is vulnerability
associated with intense sports. Because it shows the principle of this reasoning is to
involve saying that sports is something training leads to stress, there's stress on the
body, the stress on the body is physiological but is also psychological stress,
or tension and it generates and adaptation in the body. And the research shows that
when you generate the sort of stress in young children, and if you do it in a very
intense way, you create an addiction circuit that links this adaptation to stress
to pleasure feedback which means that the subject is in a situation all of a sudden
when the stress is gone, there is something missing.
There's something lacking and there you have an addiction which is created, an
addiction to stress, so we are creating vulnerability. And so, early intense training
has generated vulnerability because we note when these athletes are not in a
situation where they feel these stress levels they resort to substances which allows
them to simulate.

Well, for example, when they stop their careers you have some athletes who use a
substance known as Polbenge, the Belgian mixture or stimulants or alcohol. There's
a whole range of substances that can be used that would respond to this need for
stimulation. And what's interesting here is that the substance allows the individuals,
especially at the end of their sports career to continue to be what he or she
was. Somebody who is involved, who is stressed all the time, the training
stress. And the substance becomes a substitute so that the person doesn't die
actually.
F.O. - So taking risks during a career leads to continuing this risk taking afterwards.
D.H. - That's right and it's inherent to intense sports and it also happens when it's
very early intensive sports or training because there is a link or internalization of
this practice and it becomes almost automatic, with fewer resources to be able to
assimilate it and face it and take some distance vis a vis some of the things and as
a result, the individual becomes vulnerable. There is generation of vulnerability
which we tend to think that the, using substances after a career ends is
something that was established or built during the career. In other words, the stress
creates the addiction but there is a study by Lowenstein which is very interesting. It
was on follow-up of athletes who were addicted to substances after they created
shows that those who were addicted, of those, only 16% actually were using
substances were during their careers as athletes. That's what they said. So this
doesn't allow us to think that there is a drift or a slippage from drug assistance to
drug addiction.
Finally, in sports and in drug abuse, there is a risk that we have no control over. And
that is the risks of sports. Sports are talking about high level sports where there
are, and I think it's safe to say that the contact with doping is also a contact with
unpredictable things. And these unpredictable things are especially associated
with the fact that in these intense sports, high level sports, they become extremely
involved, so there is a wealth of circumstances which all come together. In fact that
it is getting difficult to anticipate the deleterious effects of this.
F.O. - Thank you Denny.

7. THE EMERGENCE OF NORMS THAT DEFINE DOPING PART II

F.O. - So in the earlier video about the link between addiction and personality, we
realized that practicing sports exposes one to risks, significant risks, and it's very
difficult to imagine or believe that all athletes have this level of risk and use
substances. So aside from the approaches which are focused on the development of
identity, in particular, in adolescence, what do we actually know about the links
between the actual practice of a sports at the competitive level and doping? Are
there factors that are going to favors its use?
D.H. - Well, there's a whole series, a set of research, we called them cognitive
research, on this particular subject. And they attempt to understand how athletes in
these competitive situations or situations where the offer of a substance is going to
come, how they're going to face this. So this cognitive research program is based on
a basic principle. And that basic principle underlies all of the research and its based
on a comparison of pros and cons. In other words, an athlete is considered to be a
calculating entity who is going to weigh the pros and the cons. And they're going to
look for the factors that show that the decision goes towards favoring it and not
favoring it. There are several models that we have. Some have been tested, others
will be tested. But globally on this research we come up with key factors that cut
across all of these factors and they help us to understand, what the tipping point is
and how an athlete can decide to use or decide's not to use a particular
substance. So there are three key factors that have been identified. The first one is
the morality of the athlete, the personal morals, the moral judgement, that an
athlete has about the use of a prohibited substance and its emotional impact. That
is a key factor, it's a deterrent certainly. And it can, of course, insight them as
well. The second one is opinions or views of reference groups that has a very
important impact coming from the people who are around the athletes. They play a
role sort of a protective cocoon, but it can also go the other way. And they can
encourage them to use substance, and this is why we started to look closely after
this entourage, if you will, of athletes. The third one is the perception of whether it
is legitimate or not to use a particular substance. In other words, the reasons why
certain substances can be used, should be used. And these three factors play a very
important role in the construction of a positive or negative attitude doping. And this
attitude can actually be assessed, it can be measured. There's a scale,
implicit. There's a scale and we consider that in this research. The way in which this
attitude is established or created, centered more or less on these different factors
on the one hand or on the other, that's the best way of predicting the intention of
using substances. In other words, if the question is, what is it that causes a enough
to go one way or the other? It is basically this attitude. The attitude that is
determined by the three factors that I have mentioned earlier. So this means that
we go back to the model at the very beginning. In other words, that they are
calculating but not necessarily cheating. They're calculating and assessing. But
what's interesting is that you talk about morality and noted that, the moral

approach. But how do these athletes justify circumventing the rules? Because today
they are very clear, very explicit, nobody can ignore them, they're reminded about
these rules all the time. Is it possible to justify morally such an attitude? Well, that's
the crux of the matter. It's the moral justification that we have to look at. If the rules
are there, what ways in a person's approaches the way they use. That's the
difference between knowing the rules and using them or representing them for
oneself. There's a real problem when it comes to this morality, and that is guilt. The
guilt that some people feel. There's double guilt. There's a guilt vis-a-vis
oneself. How can I justify myself when I look in the mirror and I'm using
substances, so there's that guilt, but then there's also social guilt that weighs in on
this. In other words, how are others going to judge me versus what I do. Especially
those who are close to me. So some research shows that indeed athletes use these
strategies to justify this use of substances. And we say that moral justification then
helps to disengage them from reality, in fact, from this reality. It's their psychic
reality. And to establish it to avoid having this feeling of guilt, they justify it. There
are different ways of justifying things. I can mention, for example, the moral
justification, that's one. The moral justification is athletes who use substances
and they say they have to use substances because that is what's going to make it
possible for them to perform.
6:31
So there's a moral justification for using substances. And then, there's another
justification which is often used and it's called the euphemistic labeling. In other
words, you change the name. You don't say you're taking drugs, you talk about
stuff, you're taking stuff. I mentioned the Belgian mixture, so you change the
word. And by changing the word you attenuate, you lower the level of guilt that one
might feel vis-a-vis the nature of the substances that are being used. And then,
there is the comparison approach that athletes use. The athletes say it's better to
do sports, but taking substances then to have a sedentary life and then just eat
potato chips. Which is clear from a psychic point of view. And then, another thing
which is often used is the responsibility shift of judicial situations where they say
that they're not in control of their consumption or use. I am the subject of
manipulation. I am under pressure to do this. If I don't do it, then I'm thrown out of
the system. And then, another one, another mechanism often used is the
mechanism involving distortion of consequences. For a while, >> So for
example, we analyzed the calls we were receiving. We had writers who called in and
were saying that they were using substances, but they were obliged to use
them. Because otherwise, they were injured, they could be injured. And the
consequence was to protect themselves from the specific nature of the sport they
were practicing, protect themselves from injuries. So, they find those sorts of
psychic and rational reasons, justifications, which allows them to reduce the level of
guilt, so that they might feel vis-a-vis the use of the substances. So we can see that
people want to maintain their health taking substances. So, these attitudes

change. They're associated with morality, but also to reference groups and the
question of whether the use is legitimate that can change as well. Can you give us
some elements that would help us understand the existence of what the actual
strategy is? And are there stages in this strategy and the way things develop? Well,
there's not much research. It's still an open field, probably because it's very difficult
to carry out this sort of research, because you have to be able to track the career of
an athlete and research is done on groups at a particular time one can
measure. The moral disengagement measures added to this vis-a-vis doping, it's
difficult to do it over time. Some research has been done, which was carried out
with my colleague Jean Velave retroactively. We compared two groups of
athletes. One group had taken substances and the other was substance free, and
we constructed their careers, and a few factors came out of this in which would help
to predict where things go. So there's early specialization, which we talked about
earlier and this early specialization associated with exclusive focusing on sport. We
noticed that these athletes were athletes who had left school very early. They were
focused exclusively on their performance on sports. High performance, achieving
high performance. They weren't taking dope, they weren't doping themselves at the
time, but they were very young. We also observed that these athletes also in life
had run into a number of difficult situations over and over again. Everyone does, but
what was special about this group is they had trouble finding solutions to their
difficulties they faced. In other words, there is an accumulation factor and this wade
on the way in which they developed as athletes. They all used substances to
enhance their performance not necessarily prohibited once, but they were taking
proteins, they were taking vitamins. Everything that can support performance
and everything was happening as if there were a number of factors that
predicted, that somebody could tip over into a situation where they substances as if
there was a precarious balance. And at one point, it headed towards
doping, because there was an effect of accumulation during the career. And when a
key point was reached in the career, then all of a sudden, they took a turn towards
doping. What we also noted is that some athletes were not going towards doping,
but they stopped their career instead. So there's an interesting dynamic there,
which says, there is instability. This instability has to find a sort of an outlet
somewhere and doping is one of those outlets, it's attractive as an outlet. What we
should add is that in the final analysis, this whole business of tipping one way or
another can be avoided. These athletes were having problems. If they had been
followed closely, they wouldn't have tipped over on the doping side. The other thing
that's very important is to stress the importance of the use of substances during
their lives, vitamins and so on. For some of them, at least some research is going in
that direction where they consider that these are gateways. That's the gateway
theory. Increasingly, people say that those that use a lot of these diet
supplements can move in the direction of doping. And so if people take vitamin C,
for example, then they might take something else. Yes, because it's become
trivialized.

13:30
Now you're talking about these dietary supplements and these doping substances,
so we see possible links there. >> >> Couldn't we think in terms of different usages
of these substances taking vitamin C without consequences or without heading
towards other substances? >> >> Could there be different uses, different
repercussions? What happens around this kind of use? Very interesting point, very
interesting question. Because a lot of research is telling us that an athlete will take
substances or not. There's this dichotomy, in other words. Either they're doping or
they're not doping. Whereas if you look into details, you can see that the different
ways of using the substances. And here, once again, there's very little
research, because you have to have access to the situations which provide the
information. It's very complicated to do that. I published some research in
2015, which identifies a number of uses different usages. For example, we see one
use, which reduces the difficulties which they face. That is the use of the athlete
who takes the substance to have fewer problems. But when they do this. >> >>
The difficulties, it's as if they were raising the degree of freedom, because freedom
is a limitation. When there a re to many possibilities, one doesn't know what to
do. And when you take substances, it makes things more easy. So, they take
substances without even thinking about it. It's done through somebody, there's
influence sometimes with the use there is a use of a substance without thinking
about it. It's a use that reduces the degree of freedom and that facilitates this sort
of action very much in terms of the constraints. It makes the world easier, if you
wish. No question asks. Take for substance and then you feel free. The subject will
feel free as a result and there are other types that we've notice. We have the
situation where the athletes are just trying them out, trying substances. What's the
effect of such and such a substance? But they don't have the This idea that they
would want to continue or they're not calculating in this way. Or it could be that they
try it out just to fix. For example, if they have an injury or some thing like that. They
say let's try this maybe it'll help. So that's like the model is experimental science on
one self. Yes but the researchers also the athletes do this, sometimes do
research, they're interested in a particular substance, and since there are very
few, there's a very low probability that they might be apprehended or caught. Just
like they look for techniques for training, they might seek a particular substance and
say let's take this and see.
16:48
Everything at risk is under control because I'm not going to do this over a long
period. So it's just trying things out, which is very different from their first case
where they're simply not thinking. Next, there is an optimization use. And that is
mass doping where one takes the substance with a very specific target in mind, a
certain amount of time.
17:16

It's the most typical one I think, and the last one is compensatory, where they're
compensating the negative effects of other substances. So you take a stimulant
and then you have to take a sedative to be able to sleep because you took
stimulants.
17:35
It's a sort of a pharmacopoeia, which is extraordinary. Because they're trying to
compensate the negative effects of something and bodybuilders know this very well
because they have a very extensive pharmacopoeia. They take certain substances
to attenuate the effects of what anabolic steroids do to their skin for example. And
this compensation is something that we see also in athletes other than the
bodybuilders. >> >> Thank you. Now after this- >> >> After this wide
description, this panoramic view, we can see the very interesting aspects of what
you've just described. Could you give us, could you tell us by way of a
conclusion. What can you tell us to conclude this extremely dense, this wealth of
information you've just provided us? Well, one has to conclude and one has to try to
see what the relationships between all these factors are. I think that psychology
gives us three approaches to dealing with the psyche of athletes vis-a-vis
doping. First of all, the id, the self image, the right attitude, the different levels of
measuring the self, and then also the image they have of themselves.
19:09
And then there would be an approach which would involve action, action being that
the site key is always in a specific context in a specific activity carried out by the
athlete which cannot be compared with
19:24
somebody who's not an athlete, a worker carrying out a different activity. And
among all the sports there are differences as well between the various sports. So
with these three levels of analysis, I think they complement one another. And I think
that- >> >> There's enough material here to have a fairly good understanding of
these psychological mechanisms which are associated with doping. >> >> Perhaps
I could also say that- >> >> I regret very much the impact of this research on
prevention.
20:00
I think there's, I didn't mention research which deals with the psychological analysis
of the effects that this might have. >> >> And that the use of this research and the
research that I just mentioned is hardly used in supporting athletes and finding
systems. And we complain that there are young. Athletes who are trapped in the
tests and we say, where's the prevention, why don't we develop more

prevention. So, I do regret this very much, that not more is done in terms of the
development of prevention. Thank you very much.

8. CONCLUSIONS
The second module has allowed you to better understand doping as a kind
of deviant behavior. You now know that it is a deviance that can be explained
simply through economic or individual reasons.
One does not start a doping career on one's own. An athlete's entourage, the
organizations that he or she works with, his or her group symbolic
representations, all interact to influence a life story of athletes.
Deviance is a process that helps to explain why certain athletes will transgress
doping norms, while others, will respect them.
Throughout history, sports organizations and people involved in the world of sports
have had ambiguous positions concerning these deviances. Some have encouraged
them while others have fought actively against doping.
This is the reason why we propose to take a look at how sports organizations fight
against doping in the next module, module three. You will learn how the WADA, the
UEFA, the CAS, and the UCI have put into place methods of fighting against
doping, by combining regulation, prevention and repression.