Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Doping Prevalence in Competitive Sport: Evidence Synthesis with “Best Practice” Recommendations and Reporting Guidelines from the WADA Working Group on Doping Prevalence

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Sports Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The prevalence of doping in competitive sport, and the methods for assessing prevalence, remain poorly understood. This reduces the ability of researchers, governments, and sporting organizations to determine the extent of doping behavior and the impacts of anti-doping strategies.

Objectives

The primary aim of this subject-wide systematic review was to collate and synthesize evidence on doping prevalence from published scientific papers. Secondary aims involved reviewing the reporting accuracy and data quality as evidence for doping behavior to (1) develop quality and bias assessment criteria to facilitate future systematic reviews; and (2) establish recommendations for reporting future research on doping behavior in competitive sports to facilitate better meta-analyses of doping behavior.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to identify relevant studies. Articles were included if they contained information on doping prevalence of any kind in competitive sport, regardless of the methodology and without time limit. Through an iterative process, we simultaneously developed a set of assessment criteria; and used these to assess the studies for data quality on doping prevalence, potential bias and reporting.

Results

One-hundred and five studies, published between 1975 and 2019,were included. Doping prevalence rates in competitive sport ranged from 0 to 73% for doping behavior with most falling under 5%. To determine prevalence, 89 studies used self-reported survey data (SRP) and 17 used sample analysis data (SAP) to produce evidence for doping prevalence (one study used both SRP and SAP). In total, studies reporting athletes totaled 102,515 participants, (72.8% men and 27.2% women). Studies surveyed athletes in 35 countries with 26 involving athletes in the United States, while 12 studies examined an international population. Studies also surveyed athletes from most international sport federations and major professional sports and examined international, national, and sub-elite level athletes, including youth, masters, amateur, club, and university level athletes. However, inconsistencies in data reporting prevented meta-analysis for sport, gender, region, or competition level. Qualitative syntheses were possible and provided for study type, gender, and geographical region. The quality assessment of prevalence evidence in the studies identified 20 as “High”, 60 as “Moderate”, and 25 as “Low.” Of the 89 studies using SRP, 17 rated as “High”, 52 rated as “Moderate”, and 20 rated as “Low.” Of the 17 studies using SAP, 3 rated as “High”, 9 rated as “Moderate”, and 5 rated as “Low.” Examining ratings by year suggests that both the quality and quantity of the evidence for doping prevalence in published studies are increasing.

Conclusions

Current knowledge about doping prevalence in competitive sport relies upon weak and disparate evidence. To address this, we offer a comprehensive set of assessment criteria for studies examining doping behavior data as evidence for doping prevalence. To facilitate future evidence syntheses and meta-analyses, we also put forward “best practice” recommendations and reporting guidelines that will improve evidence quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There is not a universal definition of doping. However, this study builds upon [1] definition where doping “refers to the set of prohibited substances and/or methods as identified by the ruling body of the particular sport”, which, “means that the term ‘doping’ in […] does not reflect other doping violations mentioned in the World Anti-Doping Code, such as whereabouts failures or trafficking.” We have also differentiated between therapeutic and unintentional use of prohibited substances to more clearly describe the phenomenon.

  2. The connection between controlled substances in sport (doping) and in general is a complicated one. First of all, not all substances prohibited in sport are controlled substances for the general population, and this varies from one country to another. One example for this is anabolic steroids (AS). AS are prohibited in sport both in- and out-of-competition for all athletes around the globe under WADA regulations. However, whilst using AS is also illegal in some countries (e.g., Australia, US, Norway, Saudi Arabia), in other countries (e.g., UK, Canada, South Africa, Turkey) personal use is not illegal but production and supply without license are, regardless of who uses it. In countries where doping is a criminal offence (e.g., Austria, Germany, France, Italy, Israel), AS use is only illegal and can carry a prison sentence for athletes if they are subject to doping control, but not for the general population. AS is not a controlled substance in some countries (e.g., Japan, Bulgaria, Russia, Mexico).

  3. Gender is the term used in official documents and reporting throughout sport governing bodies such as the International Olympic Committee, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the World Anti-Doping Agency to classify competition categories for men and women. As this evidence synthesis only related to competitive sport, the manuscript reflects the categorizations used by the competitive sport governing bodies.

  4. A multitude of indirect estimation models exists. In the applied literature, these are often referred to as ‘randomized response technique’, even though not all models rely on randomization. For simplicity and to avoid confusion, we accepted this terminology for the review while noting its inaccuracy.

References

  1. De Hon O, Kuipers H, van Bottenburg M. Prevalence of doping use in elite sports: a review of numbers and methods. Sports Med. 2015;45(1):57–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Maennig W. Inefficiency of the anti-doping system: cost reduction proposals. Subst Use Misuse. 2014;49(9):1201–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Grohmann K. WADA to ask commercial sponsors for money in anti-doping fight. Reuters. 2019 5 November.

  4. Pielke R Jr. Gather data to reveal true extent of doping in sport: drug cheats will not be tackled properly until anti-doping agencies do more to assess the scale of the problem scientifically. Nature. 2015;517(7536):529–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pielke R. Assessing doping prevalence is possible: so what are we waiting for? Sports Med. 2018;48(1):207–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ohl F, Fincoeur B, Lentillon-Kaestner V, Defrance J, Brissonneau C. The socialization of young cyclists and the culture of doping. Int Rev Sociol Sport. 2015;50(7):865–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Curtis A, Gerrard D, Burt P, Osborne H. Drug misuse in sport: a New Zealand perspective. NZ Med J. 2015;128:62.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dimeo P, Taylor J. Monitoring drug use in sport: the contrast between official statistics and other evidence. Drugs Educ Prev Policy. 2013;20(1):40–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Petróczi A, Backhouse SH, Barkoukis V, Brand R, Elbe A-M, Lazuras L, et al. A matter of mind-set in the interpretation of forensic application. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(11):1142–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Blank C, Kopp M, Niedermeier M, Schnitzer M, Schobersberger W. Predictors of doping intentions, susceptibility, and behaviour of elite athletes: a meta-analytic review. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):1333.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Backhouse S, Whitaker L, Patterson L, Erickson K, McKenna J. Social psychology of doping in sport: a mixed studies narrative synthesis. Project report. World Anti-Doping Agency, Montreal Canada. 2016

  12. Ntoumanis N, Ng JY, Barkoukis V, Backhouse S. Personal and psychosocial predictors of doping use in physical activity settings: a meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2014;44(11):1603–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sutherland WJ, Wordley CFR. A fresh approach to evidence synthesis. Nature. 2018;558(7710):364–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05472-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Donnelly CA, Boyd I, Campbell P, Craig C, Vallance P, Walport M, et al. Four principles to make evidence synthesis more useful for policy. Nature. 2018;558(7710):361–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05414-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bernard HR, Hallett T, Iovita A, Johnsen EC, Lyerla R, McCarty C, et al. Counting hard-to-count populations: the network scale-up method for public health. Sex Transmit Infect. 2010;86(S2):ii5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Monin B, Norton MI. Perceptions of a fluid consensus: Uniqueness bias, false consensus, false polarization, and pluralistic ignorance in a water conservation crisis. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003;29(5):559–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systems Control Found Appl. 2016;5(1):210.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sagoe D, Molde H, Andreassen CS, Torsheim T, Pallesen S. The global epidemiology of anabolic-androgenic steroid use: a meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis. Ann Epidemiol. 2014;24(5):383–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005;331(7524):1064–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hoy D, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, March L, Bain C, et al. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(9):934–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wong WC, Cheung CS, Hart GJ. Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008;5(1):23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Afolayan J, Adegboyega J. Knowledge and use of performance enhancing drugs among Nigeria elite athletes. IOSR J Appl Chem. 2012;1(5):31e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ajayi-Vincent O, Olanipekun J. An assessment of prohibited methods of doping among athletes in tertiary institutions in southwest, Nigeria. Kuwait Chap Arab J Bus Manag Rev. 2013;33(858):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Al Ghobain M, Konbaz MS, Almassad A, Alsultan A, Al Shubaili M, AlShabanh O. Prevalence, knowledge and attitude of prohibited substances use (doping) among Saudi sport players. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2016;11:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-016-0058-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ama P, Betnga B, Moor VA, Kamga J. Football and doping: study of African amateur footballers. Br J Sports Med. 2003;37(4):307–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Anderson WA, Albrecht RR, McKeag DB, Hough DO, McGrew CA. A national survey of alcohol and drug use by college athletes. Phys Sportsmed. 2016;19(2):91–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.1991.11702148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Backhouse SH, Whitaker L, Petroczi A. Gateway to doping? Supplement use in the context of preferred competitive situations, doping attitude, beliefs, and norms. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(2):244–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01374.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Barkoukis V, Lazuras L, Tsorbatzoudis H, Rodafinos A. Motivational and sportspersonship profiles of elite athletes in relation to doping behavior. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011;12(3):205–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Barkoukis V, Lazuras L, Lucidi F, Tsorbatzoudis H. Nutritional supplement and doping use in sport: possible underlying social cognitive processes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(6):e582–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12377.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Barkoukis V, Lazuras L, Ourda D, Tsorbatzoudis H. Are nutritional supplements a gateway to doping use in competitive team sports? The roles of achievement goals and motivational regulations. J Sci Med Sport. 2020;23(6):625–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.12.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Barkoukis V, Lazuras L, Tsorbatzoudis H, Rodafinos A. Motivational and social cognitive predictors of doping intentions in elite sports: an integrated approach. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23(5):e330–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12068.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Boardley ID, Smith AL, Mills JP, Grix J, Wynne C. Empathic and self-regulatory processes governing doping behavior. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1495. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01495.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Buckman JF, Farris SG, Yusko DA. A national study of substance use behaviors among NCAA male athletes who use banned performance enhancing substances. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;131(1–2):50–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.04.023.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Buckman JF, Yusko DA, White HR, Pandina RJ. Risk profile of male college athletes who use performance-enhancing substances. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2009;70(6):919–23. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2009.70.919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ming Chiang L, Shamsuddin AF, Tuan Mahmood TM. Knowledge, attitude and practice on doping of Malaysian student athletes. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2018. https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2018.v11i5.23598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Coopoo Y, Jakoet I. Substance abuse and knowledge thereof among elite South African sportspeople. S Afr J Sports Med. 2000;7(3):10–3.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Corbin CB, Feyrer-Melk SA, Phelps C, Lewis L. Anabolic steroids: a study of high school athletes. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1994;6(2):149–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Curry LA, Wagman DF. Qualitative description of the prevalence and use of anabolic androgenic steroids by United States powerlifters. Percept Mot Skills. 1999;88(1):224–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Silva PRPD, Maranhao Neto GA, Figueiredo VC, Santos AMPVD, Jacob MHVM, Rose EHD, et al. Doping survey in the youth school games in Brazil. Rev Brasil Med Esporte. 2017;23(6):436–40. https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-869220172306163303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Dezelsky T, Toohey J, Shaw R. Non-medical drug use behaviour at five United States universities: a 15-year study. Bull Narc. 1985;37(2–3):49–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Dietz P, Ulrich R, Niess A, Best R, Simon P, Striegel H. Prediction profiles for nutritional supplement use among young German elite athletes. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2014;24(6):623–31. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsnem.2014-0009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dodge T, Jaccard JJ. Is abstinence an alternative? Predicting adolescent athletes’ intentions to use performance enhancing substances. J Health Psychol. 2008;13(5):703–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105307082460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dodge T, Stock M, Litt D. Judgments about illegal performance-enhancing substances: reasoned, reactive, or both? J Health Psychol. 2013;18(7):962–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105312445079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Donahue EG, Miquelon P, Valois P, Goulet C, Buist A, Vallerand RJ. A motivational model of performance-enhancing substance use in elite athletes. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2006;28(4):511–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Elliot DL, Goldberg L, Moe EL, DeFrancesco CA, Durham MB, Hix-Small H. Preventing substance use and disordered eating: initial outcomes of the ATHENA (athletes targeting healthy exercise and nutrition alternatives) program. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(11):1043–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gallucci AR, Martin RJ. Misuse of prescription stimulant medication in a sample of college students: examining differences between varsity athletes and non-athletes. Addict Behav. 2015;51:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.07.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Goulet C, Valois P, Buist A, Côté M. Predictors of the use of performance-enhancing substances by young athletes. Clin J Sport Med. 2010;20(4):243–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Gradidge P, Coopoo Y, Constantinou D. Prevalence of performance-enhancing substance use by Johannesburg male adolescents involved in competitive high school sports. Arch Exerc Health Dis. 2011;2(2):114–9. https://doi.org/10.5628/aehd.v2i2.102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Green GA, Uryasz FD, Petr TA, Bray CD. NCAA study of substance use and abuse habits of college student-athletes. Clin J Sport Med. 2001;11(1):51–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Gucciardi DF, Jalleh G, Donovan RJ. An examination of the sport drug control model with elite Australian athletes. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14(6):469–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2011.03.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Hejabi A, Manouchehri J, Tojari F. Determining validity and reliability of doping behavior measurement instrument in young athletes cociety. J Appl Environ Biol Sci. 2015;5(3):246–53.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Horn S, Gregory P, Guskiewicz KM. Self-reported anabolic-androgenic steroids use and musculoskeletal injuries: findings from the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes health survey of retired NFL players. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009;88(3):192–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e318198b622.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Jalleh G, Donovan RJ, Jobling I. Predicting attitude towards performance enhancing substance use: a comprehensive test of the sport drug control model with elite Australian athletes. J Sci Med Sport. 2014;17(6):574–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. James RA, Nepusz T, Naughton DP, Petróczi A. A potential inflating effect in estimation models: cautionary evidence from comparing performance enhancing drug and herbal hormonal supplement use estimates. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2013;14(1):84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Judge LW, Bellar D, Petersen J, Lutz R, Gilreath E, Simon L, et al. The attitudes and perceptions of adolescent track and field athletes toward PED use. Perform Enhanc Health. 2012;1(2):75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2012.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kabiri S, Cochran JK, Severson R, Shadmanfaat SM, Rahmati MM, Sharepour M. Social and personal controls and performance enhancing drug use: toward an explanation of doping activity among professional athletes in Rasht, Iran. Deviant Behav. 2018;39(11):1483–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1486057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kabiri S, Shadmanfaat SM, Donner CM. Using control balance theory to examine sports doping among professional athletes in Iran. J Drug Issues. 2019;49(3):493–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042619837757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kersey RD. Anabolic-androgenic steroid use among California community college student-athletes. J Athl Train. 1996;31(3):237.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Kisaalita NR, Robinson ME. Attitudes and motivations of competitive cyclists regarding use of banned and legal performance enhancers. J Sports Sci Med. 2014;13(1):44.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Krowchuk DP, Anglin TM, Goodfellow DB, Stancin T, Williams P, Zimet GD. High school athletes and the use of ergogenic aids. Am J Dis Child. 1989;143(4):486–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lazuras L, Barkoukis V, Rodafinos A, Tzorbatzoudis H. Predictors of doping intentions in elite-level athletes: a social cognition approach. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2010;32(5):694–710.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lazuras L, Barkoukis V, Tsorbatzoudis H. Toward an integrative model of doping use: an empirical study with adolescent athletes. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2015;37(1):37–50. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Lindqvist A-S, Moberg T, Eriksson BO, Ehrnborg C, Rosén T, Fahlke C. A retrospective 30-year follow-up study of former Swedish-elite male athletes in power sports with a past anabolic androgenic steroids use: a focus on mental health. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(15):965–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ljungqvist A. The use of anabolic steroids in top Swedish athletes. Br J Sports Med. 1975;9(2):82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Lorente FO, Peretti-Watel P, Grelot L. Cannabis use to enhance sportive and non-sportive performances among French sport students. Addict Behav. 2005;30(7):1382–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.01.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Manouchehri J, Tojari F. Examining the conceptual model: relationships between sport orientation, doping attitude and doping behavior in Iranian elite martial artists. Eur J Exp Biol. 2013;3(2):175–82.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Manouchehril J, Tojari F. Development and validation of instruments to measure doping attitudes and doping beliefs. Eur J Exp Biol. 2013;3(2):183–6.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Molobe ID. Knowledge, attitude and practice on drug abuse among sports men and women in Lagos State, Nigeria. Int J Med Med Sci. 2012;2(3):77–85.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Morente-Sanchez J, Zandonai T, Zabala DM. Attitudes, beliefs and knowledge related to doping in different categories of football players. J Sci Med Sport. 2019;22(9):981–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.05.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Mudrak J, Slepicka P, Slepickova I. Sport motivation and doping in adolescent athletes. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(10):e0205222. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205222.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Muwonge H, Zavuga R, Kabenge PA. Doping knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Ugandan athletes’: a cross-sectional study. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2015;10:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-015-0033-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Naylor AH, Gardner D, Zaichkowsky L. Drug use patterns among high school athletes and nonathletes. Adolescence. 2001;36(144):627.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Nica-Badea D. Proximity influence of environment social support specific sportsmen and risk factors of intention and behavior doping. Pensee. 2014;76(7).

  75. Ntoumanis N, Barkoukis V, Gucciardi DF, Chan DKC. Linking coach interpersonal style with athlete doping intentions and doping use: a prospective study. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2017;39(3):188–98. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Ogama D, Omariba E, Sakwa MM. Exploring the impact of knowledge and attitudes on doping behaviour among athletics youthful Kenyan long-distance runners. Int Acad J Law Soc. 2019;1(2):35–47.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Ohaeri JU, Ikpeme E, Ikwuagwu PU, Zamani A, Odejide OA. Use and awareness of effects of anabolic steroids and psychoactive substances among a cohort of Nigerian professional sports men and women. Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp. 1993;8(6):429–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Özdemir L, Nur N, Bagcivan I, Bulut O, Sümer H, Tezeren G. Doping and performance enhancing drug use in athletes living in Sivas, mid-Anatolia: a brief report. J Sports Sci Med. 2005;4(3):248.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Petróczi A, Uvacsek M, Nepusz T, Deshmukh N, Shah I, Aidman EV, et al. Incongruence in doping related attitudes, beliefs and opinions in the context of discordant behavioural data: in which measure do we trust? PLoS ONE. 2011;6(4):e18804.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Petroczi A. Attitudes and doping: a structural equation analysis of the relationship between athletes’ attitudes, sport orientation and doping behaviour. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2007;2:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-2-34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Rodek J, Sekulic D, Pasalic E. Can we consider religiousness as a protective factor against doping behavior in sport? J Relig Health. 2009;48(4):445–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-008-9207-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Ruzdija K, Gontarev S, Lazar T. Doping attitudes and doping behavior in Macedonian professional wrestler. Res Phys Educ Sport Health. 2018;7(1):55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Sanchez-Oliver AJ, Grimaldi-Puyana M, Dominguez R. Evaluation and behavior of Spanish bodybuilders: doping and sports supplements. Biomolecules. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom9040122.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Schneider D, Morris J. College athletes and drug testing: attitudes and behaviors by gender and sport. J Athl Train. 1993;28(2):146.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Silvester J. Anabolic steroids at the 1972 Olympics! Coach Athletic Dire. 2006;76(3):8.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Soltanabadi S, Tojari F, Esmaeili MR. Variance analysis of sport motivation, doping attitude and behavior among pro athletes of team sports. J Appl Environ Biol Sci. 2015;5(3):254–8.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Stilger VG, Yesalis CE. Anabolic-androgenic steroid use among high school football players. J Community Health. 1999;24(2):131–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Striegel H, Ulrich R, Simon P. Randomized response estimates for doping and illicit drug use in elite athletes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;106(2–3):230–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.07.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Tahtamouni LH, Mustafa NH, Alfaouri AA, Hassan IM, Abdalla MY, Yasin SR. Prevalence and risk factors for anabolic-androgenic steroid abuse among Jordanian collegiate students and athletes. Eur J Public Health. 2008;18(6):661–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn062.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Terney R, McLain LG. The use of anabolic steroids in high school students. Am J Dis Child. 1990;144(1):99–103.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Tricker R, Connolly D. Drugs and the college athlete: an analysis of the attitudes of student athletes at risk. J Drug Educ. 1997;27(2):105–19. https://doi.org/10.2190/E8U0-42UM-PBLK-96RH.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Uduwana I, Madushani A. Identifying the reasons for the misuse of ergogenic aid in national level athletes in Sri Lanka. Eur= Int J Sci Hum. 2014;1(2).

  93. Uvacsek M, Nepusz T, Naughton DP, Mazanov J, Ranky MZ, Petroczi A. Self-admitted behavior and perceived use of performance-enhancing vs psychoactive drugs among competitive athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21(2):224–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01041.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Vâjială G, Epuran M, Stanescu M, Potzaichin I, Berbecaru C. Relation between motivation and temptation for using the doping substances in high performance sports. Ovidius University Annals, Series Physical Education & Sport/Science, Movement & Health. 2010;10(2).

  95. Wagman DF, Curry LA, Cook DL. An investigation into anabolic androgenic steroid use by elite US powerlifters. J Strength Condit Res. 1995;9(3):149–54.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Wanjek B, Rosendahl J, Strauss B, Gabriel HH. Doping, drugs and drug abuse among adolescents in the state of Thuringia (Germany): prevalence, knowledge and attitudes. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28(4):346–53. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-924353.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Whitaker L, Long J, Petroczi A, Backhouse SH. Using the prototype willingness model to predict doping in sport. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;24(5):e398-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12148.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Wroble RR, Gray M, Rodrigo JA. Anabolic steroids and preadolescent athletes: prevalence, knowledge, and attitudes. Sport J. 2002;5(3):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Yesalis CE III, Herrick RT, Buckley WE, Friedl KE, Brannon D, Wright JE. Self-reported use of anabolic-androgenic steroids by elite power lifters. Phys Sports Med. 1988;16(12):91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Zenic N. Comparative analysis of substance use in ballet, dance sport, and synchronized swimming: results of a longitudinal study. Med Probl Perform Art. 2010;25(2):75–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Erickson K, Stanger N, Patterson L, Backhouse SH. Substance use in university sport: a cross-national study of student-athlete substance use behaviors and perceived responses to witnessing substance use. Perform Enhanc Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2019.100151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Boardley ID, Smith AL, Ntoumanis N, Gucciardi DF, Harris TS. Perceptions of coach doping confrontation efficacy and athlete susceptibility to intentional and inadvertent doping. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019;29(10):1647–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Dietz P, Ulrich R, Dalaker R, Striegel H, Franke AG, Lieb K, et al. Associations between physical and cognitive doping—a cross-sectional study in 2.997 triathletes. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(11):e78702. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078702.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Dietz P, Dalaker R, Letzel S, Ulrich R, Simon P. Analgesics use in competitive triathletes: its relationship to doping and on predicting its usage. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(20):1965–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1149214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Elbe A-M, Pitsch W. Doping prevalence among Danish elite athletes. Perform Enhanc Health. 2018;6(1):28–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Pitsch W, Emrich E. The frequency of doping in elite sport: results of a replication study. Int Rev Sociol Sport. 2011;47(5):559–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690211413969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Pitsch W. Assessing and explaining the doping prevalence in cycling. In: Fincoeur B, Gleaves J, Ohl F, editors. Doping in cycling: interdisciplinary perspectives. London: Routledge; 2018. p. 13–30.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  108. Pitsch W, Emrich E, Klein M. Doping in elite sports in Germany: results of a www survey. Eur J Sport Soc. 2007;4(2):89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Seifarth S, Dietz P, Disch AC, Engelhardt M, Zwingenberger S. The prevalence of legal performance-enhancing substance use and potential cognitive and or physical doping in German recreational triathletes, assessed via the randomised response technique. Sports (Basel). 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7120241.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Ulrich R, Pope HG, Cléret L, Petróczi A, Nepusz T, Schaffer J, et al. Doping in two elite athletics competitions assessed by randomized-response surveys. Sports Med. 2018;48(1):211–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Morente-Sánchez J, Leruite M, Mateo-March M, Zabala M. Attitudes towards doping in Spanish competitive female Cyclists vs. Triathletes J Sci Cycl. 2013;2(2):40.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Aguilar M, Munoz-Guerra J, Plata MDM, Del Coso J. Thirteen years of the fight against doping in figures. Drug Test Anal. 2017;9(6):866–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2168.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Aguilar-Navarro M, Munoz-Guerra J, Del Mar PM, Del Coso J. Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015. J Sport Health Sci. 2020;9(2):160–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Al GM. The use of performance-enhancing substances (doping) by athletes in Saudi Arabia. J Family Community Med. 2017;24(3):151–5. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_122_16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Bahr R, Tjørnhom M. Prevalence of doping in sports: doping control in Norway, 1977–1995. Clin J Sport Med. 1998;8(1):32–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Marchand A, Buisson C, Martin L, Martin JA, Molina A, Ressiot D. Report on an anti-doping operation in Guadeloupe: high number of positive cases and inferences about doping habits. Drug Test Anal. 2017;9(11–12):1753–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2185.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Mazzeo F, Monda M. Doping in Italy: an analysis of its spread in ten years. Biol Med. 2016. https://doi.org/10.4172/0974-8369.1000263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Mercado KS, Camacho EF, Rodríguez LB, Rodríguez MF, Mendoza NM, Velasco-Bejarano B. Banned substances and their incidence: a retrospective view of the national laboratory of prevention and doping control of Mexico. Adicciones. 2019;31(3):201–11.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Pereira HM, Sardela VF. Stimulant doping agents used in Brazil: prevalence, detectability, analytical implications, and challenges. Subst Use Misuse. 2014;49(9):1098–114. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2014.907653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Van Eenoo P, Delbeke F. The prevalence of doping in Flanders in comparison to the prevalence of doping in international sports. Int J Sports Med. 2003;24(08):565–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Vouillamoz M, Thom C, Grisdale R, Saugy M, Giraud S, Robinson N, et al. Anti-doping testing at the 2008 European football championship. Drug Test Anal. 2009;1(11–12):485–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Faiss R, Saugy J, Zollinger A, Robinson N, Schuetz F, Saugy M, et al. Prevalence estimate of blood doping in elite track and field athletes during two major international events. Front Physiol. 2020;11:160.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Kuipers H, Moran J, Dubravcic-Simunjak S, Mitchell DW, Shobe J, Sakai H, et al. Hemoglobin level in elite speed skaters from 2000 up to 2005, and its relationship with competitive results. Int J Sports Med. 2007;28(1):16–20. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-924055.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Sottas PE, Robinson N, Fischetto G, Dolle G, Alonso JM, Saugy M. Prevalence of blood doping in samples collected from elite track and field athletes. Clin Chem. 2011;57(5):762–9. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2010.156067.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Aubel O, Lefevre B, Le Goff JM, Taverna N. The team effect on doping in professional male road cycling (2005–2016). Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019;29(4):615–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Maquirriain J. Epidemiological analysis of doping offences in the professional tennis circuit. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2010;5(1):30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Whitaker L, Backhouse S. Doping in sport: an analysis of sanctioned UK rugby union players between 2009 and 2015. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(16):1607–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. USADA. 2017 Athlete Test History. 2018. https://www.usada.org/news/athlete-test-history/. Accessed 21 April 2020.

  129. Alquraini H, Auchus RJ. Strategies that athletes use to avoid detection of androgenic-anabolic steroid doping and sanctions. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2018;464:28–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Petróczi A, Nepusz T, Cross P, Taft H, Shah S, Deshmukh N, et al. New non-randomised model to assess the prevalence of discriminating behaviour: a pilot study on mephedrone. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2011;6(1):20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Ulrich R, Schröter H, Striegel H, Simon P. Asking sensitive questions: a statistical power analysis of randomized response models. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(4):623.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Lensvelt-Mulders GJ, Hox JJ, Van der Heijden PG, Maas CJ. Meta-analysis of randomized response research: thirty-five years of validation. Sociol Methods Res. 2005;33(3):319–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Höglinger M, Jann B. More is not always better: an experimental individual-level validation of the randomized response technique and the crosswise model. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0201770.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. The Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. von Niederhäusern B, Guyatt GH, Briel M, Pauli-Magnus C. Academic response to improving value and reducing waste: a comprehensive framework for INcreasing QUality In patient-oriented academic clinical REsearch (INQUIRE). PLoS Med. 2018;15(6):e1002580-e. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Agosta S, Sartori G. The autobiographical IAT: a review. Front Psychol. 2013;4:519.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. Mullen B, Atkins JL, Champion DS, Edwards C, Hardy D, Story JE, et al. The false consensus effect: a meta-analysis of 115 hypothesis tests. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1985;21(3):262–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Goethals GR, Messick DM, Allison ST. The uniqueness bias: studies of constructive social comparison. In: Suls J, Wills TH, editors. Social comparison: contemporary theory and research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1991. p. 149–76.

    Google Scholar 

  139. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. 2018. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Accessed 21 April 2020.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work was conducted as part of the Working Group on Doping Prevalence of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The authors thank Tony Cunningham, Marcia MacDonald, and Olivier Rabin for their critical review and constructive comments on the manuscript; and Annie Bachman for her assistance in extracting and compiling data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Kinesiology, California State University Fullerton, 800 N State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA, 92834, USA

    John Gleaves

  2. Kingston University London, Kingston upon Thames, UK

    Andrea Petróczi & Dirk Folkerts

  3. University of Münster, Münster, Germany

    Dirk Folkerts

  4. Doping Authority Netherlands, Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands

    Olivier de Hon

  5. Penn State University, State College, USA

    Emmanuel Macedo

  6. University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Martial Saugy

  7. University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands

    Maarten Cruyff

Authors
  1. John Gleaves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Petróczi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dirk Folkerts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olivier de Hon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emmanuel Macedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martial Saugy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maarten Cruyff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Gleaves.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Conflicts of interest

This paper represents part of the work by the World Anti-Doping Agency Working Group on Doping Prevalence conducted between September 2017 and December 2019, but WADA had no control over the drafting or content of this manuscript. John Gleaves, Andrea Petróczi, Olivier De Hon, Martial Saugy and Maarten Cruyff served as members of the Working Group (2017–2019) and they prepared this paper in their capacity as Working Group members, in collaboration with DF and EM. The Working Group members receive no salary for their work but expenses related to the travel for work were covered. Andrea Petróczi received grant funding from WADA previously as part of the Social Science Research Program, served as a member of the first Working Group on Doping Prevalence (2011–2012); and is currently involved in providing analysis and evaluation support for WADA’s Outreach Program in an unpaid advisory role. Martial Saugy worked at the Swiss Laboratory for Doping analyses (LAD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland) until 2016 and received funding from WADA Science Department prior to his involvement in this project. Olivier De Hon works for the National Anti-Doping Authority Netherlands. Dirk Folkerts and Emmanuel Macedo declare they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The definitions, questions, and rater criteria for the Quality Assessment of Doping evidence—Self-Reported Prevalence (QUAD-SRP) and the Quality Assessment of Doping evidence—Sample Analysis of Prevalence (QUAD-SAP) are available in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S1 and S2, respectively. All extracted data from the studies are available in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S3. The complete scoring for all studies is available in Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix S4. All other datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current analysis are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authorship contributions

AP served as senior author on the project, conceptualized the study, led the development of quality assessment criteria, contributed to collating and synthesizing the independent quality assessments, contributed to the literature search, supervised DF and contributed to drafting the manuscript. JG drafted the manuscript, contributed to the development of quality assessment criteria, contributed to collating and synthesizing the independent quality assessments as well as the literature search and supervised EM. DF conducted the initial literature search, contributed to developing the quality assessment criteria and conducted independent quality assessment for all included studies under the supervision of AP. OH conducted independent quality assessment, contributed to developing the quality assessment criteria and literature search. EM conducted independent quality assessment under the supervision of JG. The best practice recommendations were formulated by AP, JG, OH, MS, and MC. All authors read and critically commented on the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gleaves, J., Petróczi, A., Folkerts, D. et al. Doping Prevalence in Competitive Sport: Evidence Synthesis with “Best Practice” Recommendations and Reporting Guidelines from the WADA Working Group on Doping Prevalence. Sports Med 51, 1909–1934 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01477-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01477-y