2005 Drug-Free Sport Survey

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey
3/27/06
5:51 PM
Page 52
UK SPORT > 2005 DRUG-FREE SPORT SURVEY
produced by
40 Bernard Street . London . WC1N 1ST Telephone: +44 (0)20 7211 5100 . Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7211 5246 email: info@uksport.gov.uk www.uksport.gov.uk
Design: www.pixelscene.com Photographs supplied by Getty Images. All Olympic photographs are reproduced with kind permission of the BOA.
3/27/06
5:51 PM
Page 2
>
Acknowledgements
This survey was conducted by 20/20 Research in Sheffield, England. 20/20 also produced the data tables for analysis. The survey would not have been possible without access to a very wide range of sportsmen and women and, in this respect, UK Sport greatly appreciates the support and cooperation of all sports involved in coordinating this research. In particular we thank the following individuals for their valuable assistance:
British Basketball League Ice Hockey Players Association Lawn Tennis Association Professional Cricketers Association Professional Footballers Association Professional Rugby Players Association Rugby League Players Association Sport England Sports Council for Northern Ireland
Andy Webb (and club coordinators) Jo Collins Dr. Michael Turner Jason Ratcliffe (and club representatives) John Bramhall Alex Anderson (and club representatives) Micky Cantwell Hamish McInnes Victoria Pace Andrea McKittrick Angela McVeigh David Seaton Elizabeth Karlicka-Cook Forbes Dunlop
Sports Council for Wales Sportscotland
Finally, and as always with research of this kind, our thanks go to the 874 sportsmen and women who took the time to complete this important questionnaire. UK Sport would like all participants to know that the information you provided and the views you expressed will add great value to the fight against doping in sport and to the ongoing education of UK sportsmen and women committed to competing cleanly in sport. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
If you have any comments or questions about this report please contact: Jerry Bingham Head of Strategy, Ethics & Research UK Sport 40 Bernard Street London WC1N 1ST Tel: 020 7211 5119 Email: jerry.bingham@uksport.gov.uk
<
2005 DRUG FREE SPORT SURVEY // www.uksport.gov.uk
>
Of the 2,995 surveys distributed, 874 were completed a response rate of 29%
>
3
3/27/06
5:51 PM
Page 4
>
Contents
1 2 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 7 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 9 9.1 9.2 10 Background Methodology The sample Full sample Athlete sub-sample Player sub-sample General perceptions of drugs and drug testing Importance of drug testing Extent of doping problem Type of drugs associated with doping problem Nature of the problem Athlete views Culture of road cycling Player views Supplements Use of supplements Type of supplements used Reasons for using supplements Experience of being tested The drug testing process Knowledge of drug testing procedures Knowledge of procedures following a positive result Confidence in testing process In-competition testing Frequency of testing Satisfaction with testing process Squad testing 7 8 9 9 11 14 16 16 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 21 21 22 24 26 26 27 27 29 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 32 32 32 33 35 35 36 37 38 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 44 45 47
Contents
LIST OF TABLES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Response rate by funding agency/sport Gender, age and seniority of respondents Seniority, gender and age of athlete respondents by funding agency Athlete respondents by funding source and sport Seniority, gender and age of Player respondents by sport Player respondents by competitive level Selected views on international differences in drug usage Respondents experience of drug testing Respondents views on the level of squad testing in 18 months before survey Delivery and usefulness of workshops Assessment topic 1: Prohibited Substances and Methods Assessment topic 2: Testing Assessment topic 3: Athlete rights and responsibilities Assessment topic 4: Supplements Page 9 10 11 13 14 15 18 24 30 38 39 40 40 40 Page 16 16 17 17 21 22 22 23 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 37 41 28
LIST OF FIGURES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Importance of drug testing programme Extent of doping problem Extent of doping problem by Athlete/Player Type of drugs associated with doping problem by Athlete/Player Use of supplements by gender Use of supplements by Athlete/Player Reasons for using supplements by gender Reasons for using supplements by Athlete/Player Knowledge of testing procedures Knowledge of testing procedures by testing experience Knowledge of procedures after a positive result Level of confidence in testing process Confidence in testing process by testing experience Number of times tested in competition in previous 18 months Number of times squad-tested in previous 18 months Reaction to being squad-tested Organisation dealing with test results Source of advice on drug-free sport by group Source of information on drug-free sport by Athlete/Player Usage of UK Sport resources Usage of UK Sport resources by Athlete/Player Respondents claiming to be well informed about testing procedures by use of UK Sport resources Issues on which respondents would like more information
10.1 Frequency of testing 10.2 Appropriateness of testing frequency 10.3 Reaction to being tested CONTENTS 10.4 Satisfaction with testing process 11 Getting the results 11.1 Time taken to receive test results 11.2 Responsibility for dealing with test results 12 13 Individuals providing information and advice Organisations providing information and advice
<
13.1 Sources of information 13.2 Use of UK Sport anti-doping resources and services 13.3 Usefulness of UK Sport anti-doping resources and services 14 Workshops 14.1 Workshop attendance 14.2 Delivery and usefulness of workshops 15 16 Awareness assessment Improving the drug-free sport system
>
CONTENTS 5
16.1 Information provision 16.2 Testing and test results 16.3 Knowledge gaps 17 Conclusions Annex 1: Supplements used by respondents Annex 2: Survey questionnaire (UK WCPP example)
>
3/27/06
5:52 PM
Page 6
>
UK Sport is proud of the role it continues to play in providing world-class anti-doping education and information
1 Background
As the UKs National Anti-Doping Organisation, UK Sport is responsible for the implementation and management of the UK's anti-doping policy. As part of this task, UK Sport co-ordinates the UK's anti-doping programme. It also provides UK competitors and their support personnel with a number of services and resources to help them make positive choices about anti-doping so they can continue to compete drug-free in sport. UK Sport is proud of the role it continues to play in providing world class anti-doping education and information to athletes and support personnel. In May 2005, UK Sport launched the new educational initiative 100% ME, a programme designed to increase the awareness and understanding that world class athletes have of anti-doping regulations and their rights and responsibilities. In order to ensure that the needs of UK athletes are being met, it is important to establish appropriate benchmarks. In this connection, UK Sport conducted a survey of high performance athletes from a range of sports including Olympic, Paralympic and professional sports: the main purposes of this survey were to examine:
> athletes receipt of key drug information resources and the perceived usefulness of those resources > the accessibility of drug information services and the perceived usefulness of those services > athletes knowledge about prohibited substances > athletes knowledge about their rights and responsibilities in relation to ant-doping > athletes attitudes towards testing programmes and procedures
<
>
BACKGROUND 7
>
3/27/06
5:52 PM
Page 8
>
2 Methodology
The research was conducted via a self-completed postal survey, administered on behalf of UK Sport by an independent research company, 2020 Research. The questionnaire was developed by UK Sports Drug-Free Sport team in discussion with Jerry Bingham (Head of Strategy, Ethics & Research) and with input towards the end of the process from the 20/20 Research team. The drug-testing programme operated by UK Sport extends across professional and Olympic/Paralympic sports. Testing tends to be focused on senior competitors at the higher end of the performance spectrum but may extend down to junior sportsmen and women and competitors operating at sub-elite levels of their sport. Against this backcloth, it was decided to survey a wide range of senior and junior, Lottery-funded athletes throughout the UK (collectively referred to in this report as Athletes) and professional players in football, cricket, rugby union, rugby league, tennis, ice hockey, and basketball (collectively referred to as Players). Correspondence with Athletes competing in sports funded by the respective Sports Councils was carried out via the Sports Councils; including Sport England, sportscotland, the Sports Council for Wales (SCW), the Sports Council for Northern Ireland (SCNI) and UK Sport. With Players, UK Sport took the view that it was more suitable to distribute the questionnaires through (where one existed) the sports respective Player Associations. On one level there was a practical imperative to this approach ie. Player Associations hold personal contact details for individual Players. On a different level, the ability to get questionnaires to Players direct increased the likelihood that recipients would correctly perceive the research to be independent of their governing body. Moreover, the fact that the survey was endorsed by their own member association was thought likely to be a factor that would encourage them to complete it.1 Questionnaires to cricketers, footballers and ice hockey Players were distributed respectively by the Professional Cricketers Association (PCA), the Professional Footballers Association (PFA) and the Ice Hockey Players Association (IHPA). For basketball and rugby union, questionnaires were sent by 2020 Research to British Basketball League and Zurich Premiership club representatives for onward distribution to individual Players, contact details for those representatives being provided respectively by the British Basketball League (BBL) and the Professional Rugby Players Association (PRA). For rugby league, 200 copies of the questionnaire were sent by 2020 Research to the Rugby League Players Association for distribution. Uniquely among the professional sports included in the survey, no questionnaires were returned by rugby league Players, and rugby league has been excluded from all calculation concerning response rates.
3 The Sample
3.1 FULL SAMPLE
TABLE 1 shows that questionnaires were sent to a total of 1630 Athletes and circulated for onward distribution to
1365 Players. For working purposes, the overall sample is therefore considered to be 2995. 874 completed questionnaires were returned (602 from Athletes and 272 from Players), an overall response rate of 29% (37% for Athletes and 20% for Players).
TABLE 1: Response rate by funding agency/sport

Distributing organisation Athletes (funding agency) UK Sport Sport England SCW SCNI sportscotland Total Athletes Players (sport) Basketball Cricket Football Ice Hockey Lawn Tennis Rugby Union Total Players UK Sport Sport England SCW SCNI sportscotland 530 400 175 225 300 1630 178 180 82 52 110 602 34 45 47 23 37 37 Questionnaires distributed (n) Questionnaires returned (n) Response rate (%)
BBL club reps PCA PFA IHPA LTA PRA club reps
110 200 550 100 45 360 1365 2995
10 34 144 11 15 58 272 874
9 17 26 33 16 20 29 THE SAMPLE
METHODOLOGY
UK Sports testing programme covers professional and Olympic/Paralympic sport
GRAND TOTAL
<
>
UK Sport or the appropriate Home Country Sports Council wrote to all relevant governing bodies at the time that questionnaires were being distributed to inform them that the survey was taking place and to explain the way in which the distribution was being carried out
>
9
3/27/06
5:52 PM
Page 10
>
TABLE 2 illustrates that the two sub-samples (Athletes and Players) were significantly different in composition. The
athlete sample comprised 52% men and 47% women, but the Player sample included only seven women all tennis Players. 44% of Players were aged 30 or over compared with just 15% of Athletes. The majority of Player respondents (63%) had become professional Players prior to 1997. Although Lottery funding for Athletes was only introduced in that year, the majority of Athlete respondents (53%) had joined their funding programme since 2002.
3.2
ATHLETE SUB-SAMPLE
TABLE 3 confirms that, among Athlete respondents, Athletes on UK Sports World Class Performance Programme
(WCPP) had an older age profile and were likely to have been on the Programme longer than Athletes funded by the Home Country Sports Councils. That said, 92% of SCNI-funded Athletes and 74% of SCW-funded Athletes described themselves as seniors, and only 10% of the former group were under 18. By contrast, half of Sport England and sportscotland Athletes were under 18 and, of the former group, 84% said they compete at a junior level in their sport.
TABLE 2: Gender, age and seniority of respondents (%)

Total Athletes Gender Male Female Age <18 18-23 24-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50+ Year joined Sports Council funding programme/became professional Player Pre-1997 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 THE SAMPLE Senior/junior Athlete2 Senior Junior (n) 62 36 602 272 874 8 6 7 11 11 14 16 20 3 63 4 9 6 5 6 2 2 1 18 7 5 6 9 10 12 12 16 2 30 33 20 8 2 2 1 2 3 19 33 36 7 1 22 28 24 17 4 2 1 2 52 47 97 3 66 33 Total Players GRAND TOTAL
TABLE 3: Seniority, gender and age of athlete respondents by funding agency (%)
UK Sport Gender Male Female Age <18 18-23 24-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50+ Year joined Sports Council funding programme3 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Senior/Junior Athlete Senior Junior (n) 178 100 16 84 180 55 45 110 92 6 52 74 23 82 62 36 602 16 15 13 15 10 12 8 10 1 3 2 3 11 18 21 23 17 1 5 4 7 12 7 12 15 25 5 8 4 4 6 8 6 13 38 8 9 1 5 7 9 11 20 33 5 8 6 7 11 11 14 16 3 THE SAMPLE 20 4 23 40 16 6 4 2 3 51 41 5 3 1 1 1 4 50 26 13 5 10 37 17 12 4 8 2 10 30 43 18 6 1 30 33 20 8 2 2 1 2 46 54 56 43 49 50 65 33 56 44 52 47 Sport England Sport Scotland SCNI SCW TOTAL ATHLETES
10
<
>
Senior athletes are categorised as those on UK Sports World Class Performance Programme and those Athletes funded by Sport England, sportscotland, SCW and SCNI who described themselves as competing at a senior level within their sport. Junior Athletes are categorised as those on the English World Class Potential and Start Programmes and those athletes funded by sportscotland, SCW and SCNI who described themselves as competing at a junior level within their sport.
The relevant funding programmes were UK Sport (World Class Performance Programme), Sport England (English World Class Performance Programme (n=28), World Class Potential Programme (n=92), World Class Start Programme (n=55)); sportscotland (Athlete Support Programme); SCNI (Athlete Support Programme); SCW (Elite Cymru)
>
11
3/27/06
5:52 PM
Page 12
>
TABLE 4 shows how the Athlete sample, though including respondents from 38 named sports, was heavily dominated
by track-and-field Athletes4 (17%, n=100), badminton Players (11%, n=64), cyclists5 (10%, n=58) and swimmers6 (9%, n=56). Five other funded sports provided 20 or more survey respondents canoeing, cricket (female and talented junior male Players), gymnastics, golf and rowing. 71% of Athletes (n=427) said that the sport in which they compete is an Olympic sport and 13% (n=81) said that their sport was a Paralympic sport7. Notwithstanding a small number of inconsistencies amongst these responses (ie. three Athletes indicated that their main competitive sport was both a disability sport and an Olympic sport, and two Athletes indicated that their sport was both able-bodied and Paralympic!), there were significant differences in the composition of the two Olympic-sport and Paralympic-sport sub-samples. In particular, 80% of the Paralympic cohort were senior Athletes (see note 2 above), compared with 55% of the Olympic cohort. All but one of the Paralympic seniors were supported by UK Sport, whereas 53% of the Olympic seniors were supported by one of the Home Country Sports Councils. Also, two-thirds of those Athletes competing in Paralympic sports (67%) were aged 24 or over, compared with just 30% of their Olympic-sport counterparts. These structural differences help explain a number of substantive differences that the survey found in the experiences and perceptions of Olympic- and Paralympic-sport Athletes. For example, Paralympic-sport Athletes were more likely to have had a squad test than Olympic-sport Athletes, indicated a higher level of knowledge about drug testing procedures and reported a greater degree of trust in the testing process. Paralympic-sport Athletes were also consistently more likely than Olympic-sport Athletes to have received information or advice from UK Sport and to have used UK Sport resources for information about drug-free sport.
TABLE 4: Athlete respondents by funding source and sport (no.)

UK Sport Athletics Badminton Cycling Swimming Cricket Canoeing Rowing Gymnastics Golf Athletics (disability) Shooting Hockey Sailing Squash Judo Boxing Modern Pentathlon Swimming (disability) Football Triathlon Equestrian Netball Archery Wheelchair rugby Wheelchair basketball Diving Ice skating Table tennis Table tennis (disability) Wheelchair tennis 4 4 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 178 28 92 55 9 61 11 49 2 48 3 4 61 1 19 1 2 1 4 6 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 6 1 7 9 5 3 2 1 4 1 2 1 5 4 1 4 1 1 1 5 11 7 9 3 9 3 7 8 1 4 1 2 8 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 9 21 7 1 11 8 1 9 21 14 2 1 11 2 2 1 4 7 1 1 22 1 7 Sport England Performance Potential Start 39 29 2 2 17 32 sportscotland Snr 5 2 5 8 Jnr 1 4 1 12 SCNI Snr 2 1 2 3 6 1 Jnr SCW Snr 6 4 3 1 2 6 Jnr 3 64 54 46 29 24 24 21 20 18 17 16 16 13 11 10 10 10 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 28 594* 4 81 TOTAL
THE SAMPLE
12
<
71% of respondents compete in an Olympic sport
Tennis Karate Powerlifting Shooting(disability) Taekwondo Waterskiing Boccia Fencing(disability) Other TOTAL
>
4 5 6 7
Includes both able-bodied and disabled track-and-field Athletes Includes both able-bodied and disabled cyclists Includes both able-bodied and disabled swimmers 15% of Athlete respondents (for example, netball players and squash players) indicated that their sport was neither an Olympic or a Paralympic sport
* In addition, eight Home Country-funded Athlete respondents (four cyclists, two hockey Players, one netball Player and one disability track-and-field Athlete) did not indicate which funding programme they were on, or their senior/junior status.
THE SAMPLE 13
>
3/27/06
5:53 PM
Page 14
>
3.3
PLAYER SUB-SAMPLE
TABLE 6: Player respondents by competitive level (no.)

Football Barclays Premiership Coca Cola Championship Coca Cola League One Basketball TOTAL PLAYERS 97 3 Coca Cola League Two Other Rugby Union Zurich Premiership Other Cricket County Championship Div 1 County Championship Div 2 Tennis ATP WTA ITF Senior Junior ITF Futures & Satellites Ice Hockey Elite Ice Hockey League British National League English Premier League English National League Basketball 5 2 3 1 3 3 1 1 4 2 17 15 57 1 (n) 16 34 39 44 10
TABLE 5 shows that over half the Player sample (53%: n=144) were footballers. Two other professional sports provided 20 or more survey respondents rugby union and cricket. TABLE 6 provides a breakdown of Player
respondents by their competitive level ie. the league, division or tour in which they normally compete.
TABLE 5: Seniority, gender and age of Player respondents by sport (%)

Football Gender Male Female Age <18 18-23 24-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50+ Year became a professional Player Pre-1997 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 THE SAMPLE 2005 (n) 144 58 34 15 11 10 272 1 1 1 1 3 3 82 3 29 5 7 9 14 16 12 7 2 48 9 6 12 6 9 9 13 13 40 7 27 9 20 60 18 9 18 10 45 10 63 4 9 6 5 6 2 2 1 3 1 9 26 51 13 1 31 50 19 24 32 32 3 6 40 53 27 45 27 20 10 70 3 19 33 36 7 1 100 100 100 53 47 100 100 Rugby Union Cricket Tennis Ice Hockey
TOTAL
268*
14
<
>
*Four Players (two cricketers, one footballer and one tennis Players) did not indicate at which level they competed in their sport
THE SAMPLE 15
British Basketball League
10
>
3/27/06
5:53 PM
Page 16
>
4 General perceptions of drugs and drug-testing

4.1 IMPORTANCE OF DRUG-TESTING
In order to establish a general sense of respondents attitudes to drug-free sport, respondents were asked to indicate how important they thought it was for their sport to have an effective drug testing system. Using a five-point scale in which 1 meant that an effective system was very important and 5 meant that an effective system was not at all important, the large majority of respondents (89%) agreed (with a score of 1 or 2) that it was important for their sport to have an effective drug testing system: 76% indicated that it was very important.
FIGURE 3 below shows that Athletes were slightly more likely than Players to give a score of 1 or 2 when asked to
rate the scale of the doping problem in their sport. We have interpreted ratings of this order as an indication that doping is at least a reasonably serious problem in respondents sport. It is also noteworthy that, of the 133 Athletes who provided ratings of 1 or 2 in this respect, 71% were from two sports athletics and cycling. By the same token, of the 29 Players who responded in these terms, 76% (n=22) were professional footballers. It should also be noted that whereas 49% of Olympic-sport Athletes (n-209) provided ratings of 1,2 or 3, only 22% of Paralympic-sport Athletes (n=18) responded in these terms and just 6% (n=5) indicated that doping was a reasonably serious problem.
FIGURE 3: Extent of doping problem by athlete/player (%)

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
43
Athlete Player
FIGURE 1: Importance of drug testing programme (%)
32
33 26
7 13
21 Very Important (1) 2
17 14 8 2 8
15
GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF DRUGS AND DRUG-TESTING
3 5
Base: all respondents (n=874: 602 Athletes/272 Players)
76
Not at all Important (5)
4.3 4.2 EXTENT OF DOPING PROBLEM
TYPE OF DRUGS ASSOCIATED WITH PERCEIVED DOPING PROBLEM
Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they considered there was a doping problem in their sport, this time using a 5-point scale where 1 meant there was a major problem and 5 meant there was no problem at all. FIGURE 2 shows that, overall, 40% of respondents (n=353) provided a rating of 1, 2 or 3, which we have interpreted as a perception that doping is to some extent an issue in respondents sport. To put this finding into context, however, it should be noted that only 6% of respondents indicated that doping was a major problem.
Those respondents who had indicated that they considered doping to be an issue in their sport were then asked to indicate whether the perceived problem was associated mostly with performance-enhancing drugs, social drugs, or a combination of the two. FIGURE 4 below shows a significant difference in the perceptions of Athletes and Players in this respect. While 82% of relevant Athletes (n=195) considered that the problem was associated with performanceenhancing drugs, only 12% of relevant Players (n=14) took this view. On the other hand, 44% of Players linked the problem to social drugs, compared with just 2% of Athletes (n=5).
FIGURE 4: Type of drugs associated with doping problem by athlete/player (%)
FIGURE 2: Extent of doping problem (%)

90
82 Athlete Player
16
<
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Major Problem (1) 2 3

6 12 22
36
80 70 60
23
>
50 40 30 20 10 0 Performance Drugs
12 2
44 34
Not a Problem (5)
Social Drugs
Both
Dont know
Base: respondents reporting a doping problem in their sport (n=353: 238 Athletes/115 Players) Base: all respondents (n=874)
GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF DRUGS AND DRUG-TESTING 17
Major Problem (1)
Not a Problem (5)
>
3/27/06
5:53 PM
Page 18
>
5 Nature of the problem

Those respondents who had indicated that they considered there to be a doping problem of some order in their sport were also asked to describe the nature of the problem as they perceived it.
There was also an international dimension to Athletes concerns about the rigour with which drug testing programmes are being implemented and enforced. One track-and-field athlete claimed that there is: a much better process of drug testing in countries (like GB) than others. Needs much greater continuity in all countries so there is less suspicion surrounding athletes from certain countries A badminton player reported that it is felt that there is drug taking in some countries but some associations/countries aren't concerned with drug free sport! It is felt they are one step ahead and doubt there are international (neutral) doping procedures taking place in their training camps! This needs to occur for the sport to become clean. A number of other Athletes expressed similar sentiments, such as a judo player who said it would appear that some countries back their athletes in performance enhancing drugs and a rower who was not convinced that every national governing body in rowing tests its athletes enough. More generically, there were complaints from a range of Athletes, including rowers, canoeists and triathletes, about what they considered to be low levels of testing in their sports. One canoeist explained how the lack of testing undermined athletes confidence in their sport being clean: Drugs are not unheard of in our sport but I believe it to be reasonable clean. But as there is never any drug testing at our national events you can never be sure8. Internationally our sport has drugs in it that is for sure but the British never get tested domestically. Many respondents raised questions about governing bodies integrity in dealing with positive results and their preparedness to impose sanctions on drug cheats. The following remarks the first two by track-and-field athletes, the second by a badminton Player represent the views of a number of Athletes: I dont think people with big names and profiles get tested and if they do they do not get caught as it would look bad for the country the athlete is from. Some Asian countries are rumoured to take drugs but it looks bad on the sport if the best Players test positive so I feel sometimes the officials turn a blind eye to it. Several other Athletes drew attention to the relative ease with which they believe it is possible to avoid or circumvent the testing system. One respondent, from the sport of weightlifting, claimed that Testing procedures are ineffective as athletes easily avoid testing - give false addresses, get friends, family and coaches to lie for them. It is very difficult to distinguish between an athlete who is simply not at home when a DCO calls and someone who chooses to avoid testing. A considerable number of Athletes were concerned about the reliability of testing procedures and the continuing ability of athletes to either cheat the system or escape bans on technical grounds. One track-and-field athlete articulated the frustration that (clean) Athletes experience in this respect when he stated that Athletes appear generally to know who is abusing the system but it takes a long time before the relevant bodies take action.
5.1
ATHLETE VIEWS
Among relevant Athletes (as indicated above, the large proportion of this group were track-and-field athletes and cyclists), several themes clearly emerged. These were:
> perceived differences in the use of drugs by UK and overseas athletes > concerns about the frequency and effectiveness of drug testing programmes > concerns about the integrity of results management procedures > the perceived prevalence of drug taking in (professional) road cycling
Perceptions about international differences in drug usage extended across many of the sports whose Athletes answered the question about the nature of drug-related problems. The following table provides an indication of the types of responses that Athletes made in this respect.
TABLE 7: Selected views on international differences in drug usage

Type of athlete Track-and-field athlete Comment Its frustrating knowing lots of international athletes are on the juice. I'd bet anything there is a new BALCO up and running and loads of athletes are juiced up. Some athletes have very good chemists who are light years ahead of drug testing procedures. Major problems I think in SE Asian countries + Eastern Europe. Some players appear different after long periods away from competition. I believe the problems are much greater and widespread in other countries where cycling has a much higher profile. Not sure whether all athletes follow the same rules, especially in some other countries Wouldn't be surprised if performers from other countries used performance enhancing drugs. I believe my sport in this country is clean Drugs being used by overseas athletes Suspicious about some particularly foreign competitors taking performance enhancing drugs in a very organised scientific manner I don't believe there is a significant problem in British Judo, but due to the professional nature of the sport abroad and experience I would say there is abuse abroad. Suspect EPO or such like used by some countries in our endurance based sport. Being an endurance sport - strongly believe that EPO and such substances are being used by athletes from certain countries
Badminton Player
Cyclist
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
Gymnast
Powerlifter Swimmer
5.2
CULTURE OF ROAD CYCLING
Judo Player 18
Cycling is a sport that has often been associated with drug misuse particularly in professional road racing - a situation to which many of the 58 cyclist respondents referred in the course of the survey. One rider commented that drug-taking is: Endemic in the professionals, which is a major concern for any young athlete who hopes to get a pro-contract in the future This view was endorsed by another rider, who described it as an: historical problem that has never been completely eradicated [albeit] more with the top end professionals Riders perceived similar problems of international consistency in cycling as other Athletes had perceived in different sports: Foreign riders take performance enhancing drugs but their governing bodies are too lenient even when the riders are positive
<
>
Rower
Triathlete
In reality, in 2005/6 UK Sport carried out 60 tests in canoeing at national level.
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 19
Canoeist
>
3/27/06
5:53 PM
Page 20
>
A number of cyclists went on to explore the reasons for cyclings difficulties: Cycling is a professional sport and very hard so I guess riders will do whatever it takes, or are pressured to take drugs [It comes from] the need to win and increase personal results/profile which results in personal gains, i.e increased sponsorship The dilemma that riders indeed all Athletes face was effectively expressed by one cyclist, who explained that one consequence of the drug culture is that: The standards to enter and win major championships are raised unfairly and clean Athletes are then also tempted to take drugs or drop out of the sport due to lack of achievement. Without year-round random testing in all participating countries, this problem will never be addressed and resolved
6 Supplements
6.1 USE OF SUPPLEMENTS
UK Sport strongly advises UK sportsmen and women to be cautious about the use of supplements. No guarantee can be given that any particular supplement, including vitamins and minerals, ergogenic aids, and herbal remedies, is free from prohibited substances as these products are not licensed in the same way as licensed medicines and are not subject to the same strict manufacturing and labelling requirements as licensed medicines. In order to help establish the true prevalence of supplement use amongst high performance sportsmen and women, respondents were asked to indicate whether they had ever used herbal or nutritional supplements. In total, 60% of respondents (n=528) reported using or having used such supplements. Athletes aged 24 or over (66%) were more likely than Athletes under 24 (50%) to have taken supplements. There was no significant difference in the overall extent of supplement use between men and women. However, under half of Paralympic-sport Athletes (46%) reported using or having used herbal or nutritional supplements, compared with 61% of Olympic-sport Athletes. Players (71%) were more likely to have taken supplements than Athletes (55%). Amongst the three professional sports providing 20 or more survey respondents, supplement use was most prevalent amongst rugby union players, with 86% (n=50) indicating usage. All 11 ice hockey players who completed the survey also said they had taken supplements. Amongst the nine funded sports providing 20 or more survey respondents, supplement use was most prevalent amongst rowers (88%), cyclists (78%), canoeists (71%) and track-and-field athletes (70%).
6.2
TYPE OF SUPPLEMENTS USED
5.3
PLAYER VIEWS
Among relevant Players, the large proportion of whom were footballers (53%) who considered the problem to be related to social drugs, the main theme that emerged was around the related issues of lifestyle, culture and the availability of drugs. One footballer considered that NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Young men with time and money on their hands can lead to adventures in the social drugs that are plentiful and easily available within society. Another observed that Lifestyle [is the] problem in so far as young footballers with disposable income will sometimes fall victim to temptation. The idea of footballers being easily influenced recurred in several respondents comments. One Player said: A lot of footballers like a night out and maybe there is pressure to take social drugs from friends i.e. cannabis, cocaine etc. Another was more critical: 20
Respondents were asked to indicate which supplements they were using, or had used, from a given list comprising creatine, iron, ginseng, multivitamins, vitamin C, caffeine, magnesium, whey protein, and echinacea. Overall, the most commonly used supplements were multivitamins (72% of supplement users), vitamin C (70%) and creatine (36%). Male supplement users were significantly more likely than female supplement users to have taken creatine (49%:12%), whey protein (40%:12%) and caffeine (29%:14%), while use of iron supplements was more prevalent among female users than male users (44%:23%). Players were significantly more likely than Athletes to have taken creatine (59%:23%), whey protein (46%:21%) and caffeine (36%:17%). Use of these three types of supplement was again relatively high amongst rugby union players. FIGURE 5 below and FIGURE 6 over the page detail the use of different supplements by gender and respondent type (ie. Athlete or Player) respectively.
FIGURE 5: Use of supplements by gender (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30
22 49 43 40 30 32 29 14 76 65 69 71
Men Women
<
Groups [of players go] out socially and [are] weak-minded, [they] will take drugs socially if easily led, remarked another. For others, part of the problem is related to the celebrity status of top players and the social circles in which they consequently move. Footballers in the limelight, mix with high class people [who] are not monitored for drugs e.g. film stars, actors etc, said one Player. I just think that a lot of footballers are offered social drugs in the circles that they are in, suggested another. Footballers most commonly called for better information and education and/or more frequent testing in order to address the problem. Several respondents suggested that drug-taking was confined to a relatively small number of Players but were still anxious that action was taken to deal with them and deter others: this view was exemplified by the comments of the following Player: It's only a small minority of footballers that use drugs and to stop these Players using drugs, bans should be given, therefore Players taking drugs know there would be a punishment if caught. However, other respondents regarded footballs problems as part of a wider social phenomenon. As one Player typically remarked: I feel this is a culture and generation problem and unless the government can prevent drug taking, then sport, especially football has no chance.
20
12
10 0
12
13 7
10 4
10
>
a C af fe in e M ag ne si um G in se ng
Iro n
Pr ot
ita
Vi ta
re a
tiv
Base: supplement users (n=528: 344 men/183 women)
he
ul
Ec
hi
na
O th er
in
tin
in
ce
ei
SUPPLEMENTS 21
>
3/27/06
5:54 PM
Page 22
>
FIGURE 6: Use of supplements by athlete/player (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
23 21 17 8 76 81 70 68 59
FIGURE 8: Reasons for using supplements by athlete/player (%)

80 70
Players 70 55 49 36 28 22 22 4 15 10 5 17 11 11 10 24 18 18 12 4 4 24 24
Athletes
Athletes Players
60 50
46 36 34 24 34 22
40 30 20 10 0
ce a C af fe in e M ag ne si um G in se ng
Iro n
O th er
m O ea ve ls rc om e in ju ry Tr ai n lo ng er
em
in
tin
ei
nc
gt
ne
th
in
Pr ot
re a
re n
na
ra
th
ita
ck
du
Vi ta
st
ar e
tiv
si
es
hi
Ec
en
id
he
ul
pr ep
pr ov
ai
Av oi
nt
ai
ha
to
En
6.3
REASONS FOR USING SUPPLEMENTS

Base: supplement users (n=528: 330 Athletes/193 Players)
The most common reasons given by respondents for taking supplements were to avoid sickness (63% of supplement users), to maintain strength (38%) and to enhance endurance (20%). While 24% of respondents said they had taken supplements on the advice of their doctor, this finding tells us nothing about the reasons for such advice. All age groups reported avoiding sickness and maintaining strength as their two principal reasons for taking supplements. Women (76% of female supplement users) were significantly more likely than men (56%) to take supplements to avoid sickness; men, on the other hand, were more likely than women to take supplements to maintain strength (49%:18%) and to enhance endurance (28%:5%). Women (31%) were more likely than men (21%) to take supplements on the advice of their doctor. Avoiding sickness, though easily the most significant factor for Athletes, was a second priority for Players especially rugby union players - who rated maintaining strength as their chief concern. Players were also more likely than Athletes to cite overcoming injury as a reason for using supplements, perhaps reflecting the particular pressures on professional Players to be available for selection. FIGURE 7 below and FIGURE 8 opposite detail the reasons for supplement use by gender and respondent type (ie. Athlete or Player) respectively. SUPPLEMENTS
Base: supplement users (n=528: 335 Athletes/193 Players)
tim
Do
nc
ct
or
ad
vi
ce
ss
er
FIGURE 7: Reasons for using supplements by gender (%)

90 80 70
76 Women 56 49
Men
63% of respondents states they take supplements to avoid sickness
22
<
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
>
28 18 5 22 13 19 10 17 6 21 16 15 4 3 31
em
ss
ry
ls
er
er
nc
gt
ea
ju
ng
ne
th
re n
ra
in
th
ck
du
st
ar e
si
in
es
en
id
pr ep
rc o
Tr a
pr ov
ai
Av oi
nt
ai
ha
to
En
Base: supplement users (n=528: 344 men/183 women)
tim
Do
nc
ve
ct
or
ad
lo
vi
ce
SUPPLEMENTS 23
>
3/27/06
5:54 PM
Page 24
>
7 Experience of being tested

In order to be able to evaluate respondents experience of the drug-testing system, it was important first of all to understand the profile of those respondents who had undertaken a drug test at some stage in their career. TABLE 8 below shows that 65% of respondents (n=566) had undertaken at least one drug test at some stage during their career whether in-competition or when training with their squad. 29% of respondents (n=253: 28% of Athletes and 32% of Players) had had at least one in-competition test and one squad test. Taken together, these results demonstrate that respondents collectively had considerable experience of the testing process, thus providing some degree of confidence in the validity and relevance of the views they have expressed via the survey. Of those respondents who had never been tested (n=298), nearly a half (48%) were under 18.
(n=269) had undertaken a drug test compared with just 30% of junior Athletes (n=66). This relativity is further illustrated in the testing experience of respondents on the UK World Class Performance Programme, all of whom are senior, high performing Athletes: 95% of this group (n=169) had been subject to a test. In other words, Athletes in this context are not a homogenous group: they comprise two different groups distinguished by seniority and experience. In terms of respondents separate experience of in-competition and squad testing, it can be seen that 52% of respondents (n=457) had been subject to an in-competition test (46% of Athletes and 66% of Players), while 41% of respondents (n=362) had undertaken a test when training with their squad (38% of Athletes and 50% of Players).
TABLE 8: Respondents experience of drug testing (%)

Any test UK WCPP Sport England Performance Potential Start sportscotland senior junior Sports Council for Wales senior junior Sports Council for Northern Ireland EXPERIENCE OF BEING TESTED junior Total senior (incl Performance) Total junior (incl Potential & Start) Other TOTAL ATHLETE Basketball Cricket Football 24 30 25 56 60 88 88 82 83 67 84 65 566 21 25 46 60 88 57 73 78 53 66 52 457 16 0 38 0 3 69 18 50 27 50 41 362 6 0 28 0 3 39 9 45 13 32 29 253 218 8 602 10 34 144 11 58 15 272 874 72 61 51 41 376 0 0 0 0 3 EXPERIENCE OF BEING TESTED senior 27 23 13 8 48 59 5 51 5 31 0 23 0 61 19 49 18 44 14 13 4 8 0 61 49 75 52 15 46 36 7 61 32 7 32 15 0 28 92 55 95 In comp. test 84 Squad test 79 Both tests 68 (n) 178
<
Ice Hockey Rugby Union Tennis TOTAL PLAYER GRAND TOTAL (n)
>
Although 84% of Player respondents (n=229) had been subject to a test of one sort or the other, only 56% of Athlete respondents (n=337) had done so. However, this disparity can be explained by looking at the different testing experience of senior9 and junior respondents within the Athlete cohort. This shows that 72% of senior Athletes
Senior athletes are categorised as those on the UK and English World Class Performance Programmes and those athletes funded by sportscotland, SCW and SCNI who described themselves as competing at a senior level within their sport. Junior athletes are categorised as those on the English World Class Potential and Start Programmes and those athletes funded by sportscotland, SCW and SCNI who described themselves as competing at a junior level within their sport.
84% of Players had been through a drug test
>
25
3/27/06
5:54 PM
Page 26
>
8 The drug testing process

Having established respondents experience of the drug-testing system, a second set of questions sought to evaluate their knowledge of drug testing procedures.
8.1
KNOWLEDGE OF TESTING PROCEDURES
Tested Athletes (71%) were more likely than tested Players (55%) to feel well-informed about procedures, a finding that may reflect Athletes relative closeness to Sports Council systems and the fact that, as shown above, Athlete respondents were more likely than Player respondents to have undertaken both an in-competition and squad test at some stage in their career. Amongst the group of 12 sports having 20 or more respondents, rowers (79%) and trackand-field athletes (72%) reported significantly higher-than-average levels of knowledge about procedures, while golfers (20%) and gymnasts (29%) reported significantly lower-than-average knowledge levels. In this connection, it should be noted that only 10% of the golfers and 43% of the gymnasts had ever had a drug test, compared with 73% of the trackand-field athletes and 88% of the rowers.
First, respondents were asked to say how well-informed they felt about drug-testing procedures using a five-point scale in which 1 meant that they felt very-well informed and 5 meant that they felt very poorly informed. FIGURE 9 shows that 51% of respondents (n= 449: 52% of Athletes/48% of Players) indicated (via a score of 1 or 2) that they felt wellinformed about drug-testing procedures i.e. the procedures that operate from the time a sportsperson is notified about a test to the time his or her sample arrives at the testing laboratory.
8.2
KNOWLEDGE OF PROCEDURES FOLLOWING A POSITIVE RESULT
FIGURE 9: Knowledge of testing procedures (%)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Very well informed (1) 2 3 4 Very poorly informed (5)
19 13 10 24
32
In terms of the procedures that follow if and when the laboratory reports a positive test, respondents were much less confident about their knowledge, FIGURE 11 showing that just 23% claimed to be well-informed (score of 1 or 2 on the five-point scale) while 47% considered themselves to be poorly informed (score of 4 or 5). Given that sportspersons are unlikely to be expecting or anticipating a positive result when they provide a sample, the chances are that they take much less interest in the procedures around this aspect of the system than they do in testing procedures more generally. The two sports that stand out as having significantly higher-than-average levels of knowledge about positive test procedures are athletics and football, where respectively 42% and 38% of respondents indicated that they were wellinformed. This finding is likely to reflect the particularly high level of media exposure given to doping offences when they occur in these two sports.
FIGURE 11: Knowledge of procedures after positive result (%)
30
26
25 20
16
24 21
15 10
7
THE DRUG TESTING PROCESS
Base: all respondents (n=874)
5 0 Major Problem (1) 2 3 4 Not a Problem (5)
Respondents who had undertaken a drug test at some stage in their career (see FIGURE 10) were considerably more likely to feel well-informed in this respect than respondents who had never undergone a test. 64% of respondents who had undergone a test said they felt well-informed, compared with only 27% of respondents who had never undergone a test.
No answer
FIGURE 10: Knowledge of testing procedures by testing experience (%)
8.3
40 35
38 Men Women 26 23 20 25 22 22
CONFIDENCE IN TESTING PROCESS
26
<
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Very well informed (1) 2 3 4

7 8 4
Respondents were then asked to indicate the extent to which they trusted the testing process using a 5-point scale where an answer of 1 meant that they fully trusted the process and an answer of 5 meant that they did not trust the process at all. Encouragingly (see FIGURE 12), two-thirds of respondents indicated, via a positive score of 1 or 2, that they did trust the process (n=574: 64% of Athletes/70% of Players), while only 8% of respondents (n=68) indicated, via a negative score of 4 or 5, that they did not.
>
Very poorly informed (5)
Base: all respondents ( n=874: 566 respondents had been tested/298 respondents had never been tested)
THE DRUG TESTING PROCESS 27
>
3/27/06
5:54 PM
Page 28
>
FIGURE 12: Level of confidence in testing process (%)

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Fully trust testing process (1) 2 3
5 3 25 25
9 In-competition testing
9.1 FREQUENCY OF TESTING
Respondents who had ever undertaken an in-competition drug test (n=457: 278 Athletes/179 Players) were asked to indicate the number of times they had been tested in competition in the last 18 months. Most of these respondents (62%; 66% of Athletes/56% of Players) reported having been tested in competition between 1-3 times during this period, while 28% said they had not been tested at all in this time. FIGURE 14 shows that there was a significant disparity between Athletes and Players in this respect, with 19% of Athletes who had ever been tested apparently having gone untested in the last 18 months, compared with 41% of such Players. Of the 44 respondents who reported having been tested more than three times in the previous 18 months, 50% were cyclists, track-and-field athletes or aquatic competitors (swimmers and divers).
41
Dont trust testing process at all (5)
FIGURE 14: Number of times tested in competition in previous 18 months (%)
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
66 56
Athletes Players 41
FIGURE 13 shows that respondents who had undertaken a drug test during their career were more likely to indicate
that they trusted the process (72%) than those who had never had a test (54%). The latter group were generally less certain about the integrity of the system, 32% providing a neutral response to the question, compared with 22% of those respondents with testing experience.
19 10 3 4 1
FIGURE 13: Confidence in testing process by testing experience (%)

45 40
THE DRUG TESTING PROCESS
42 39 32
Had been tested Never tested
1-3 times
4-6 times
7-10 times
11+ times
Nil
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Fully trust testing process (1) 2 3

15 30 22
Base: all respondents who had had an in-competition test (n=457: 278 Athletes/179 Players)
9.2
SATISFACTION WITH TESTING PROCESS
5 2
28
<
Dont trust testing process at all (5)
37% of tested respondents (31% of Athletes/47% of Players) said they did not know which organisation had conducted their last in-competition test. Of those respondents who did claim to know which organisation had last tested them (n=287), the large majority (80%: 77% of Athletes/88% of Players) identified UK Sport as the testing agency. Of those respondents who said they had been tested by UK Sport (n=231), 90% positively indicated that they were satisfied that the test had been carried out fairly and accurately. Only 3% (7 respondents) indicated any level of dissatisfaction with the testing process in this respect and only 5% (n=12) specifically said they had not been offered an explanation about the testing process at the time of the test.
>
Base: all respondents ( n=874: 566 respondents had been tested/298 respondents had never been tested)
IN-COMPETITION TESTING 29
>
3/27/06
5:55 PM
Page 30
>
10 Squad testing
10.1 FREQUENCY OF TESTING
Respondents who had ever undertaken an in-competition drug test (n=362: 226 Athletes/136 Players) were asked to indicate the number of times they had been tested in competition in the previous 18 months. As with in-competition testing, most of these respondents (67%; 69% of Athletes/63% of Players) reported having been tested in competition between 1-3 times during this period, while 22% said they had not been tested at all in this time. As with in-competition testing, there was again a significant disparity between Athletes and Players in this respect (see FIGURE 15), with 14% of Athletes who had ever been tested apparently having gone untested in the previous 18 months, compared with 35% of such Players. Of the 40 respondents who reported having been tested more than three times in the previous 18 months, over two thirds were track-and-field athletes or aquatic competitors (swimming and divers).
10.3 REACTION TO BEING TESTED

Referring to the last occasion they had undergone a squad test, respondents were also asked to indicate how surprised they had been when they found out they were to be tested. Using a five-point scale where 1 meant they had been very surprised and 5 meant they had not been at all surprised, 37% of tested respondents (n=131) recorded scores of 1 or 2 (see FIGURE 16). This may be construed as a disappointingly low proportion, suggesting that the testing programme may be too predictable.
FIGURE 16: Reaction to being squad tested (%)

90 80 70 60 50 40
67 64 80 72 75
FIGURE 15: Number of times squad-tested in previous 18 months (%)
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1-3 times
10 1 5 2 14 35 66 63
Athletes Players
30 20 10 0 Very surprised (1) 2 3 4 Not at all surprised (5)
Base: all respondents who had had a squad test (n=362)

Nil
Unsurprisingly, the data shows that more testing leads to less surprise: 68% of those 40 respondents (n=27) who had had been tested more than three times in the previous 18 months indicated (via scores of 4 or 5) that they had generally not been surprised when they had found out about their last test, compared with 37% of those 241 respondents (n=90) who had been tested between one and three times in the same period.
4-6 times
7-10 times
11+ times
Base: all respondents who had had a squad test (n=362: 226 Athletes/136 Players)
10.4 SATISFACTION WITH TESTING PROCESS

25% of tested respondents (15% of Athletes/43% of Players) said they did not know which organisation had conducted their last squad test: this was a smaller proportion than for the equivalent question on in-competition testing (37%), indicating that sportspersons are more likely to take in, or be receptive to, information about drug testing in a training environment rather than a competition environment. Of those respondents who did claim to know which organisation had last tested them (n=265), the large majority (87%: 86% of Athletes/88% of Players) identified UK Sport as the testing agency. Of those respondents who said they had been tested by UK Sport (n=230), 93% positively indicated that they were satisfied that the test had been carried out fairly and accurately. Fewer than 2% (4 respondents) indicated any level of dissatisfaction with the testing process in this respect and only 3% (n=7) specifically said they had not been offered an explanation about the testing process at the time of the test.
10.2 APPROPRIATENESS OF TESTING FREQUENCY

SQUAD TESTING Respondents who had been subject to a squad test at some stage in their career were asked for their views on the level of squad testing they had undergone in the previous 18 months.
TABLE 9: Respondents views on the level of squad testing in 18 months before survey (%)
Tested too many times Nil 1-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 11+ times TOTAL (n) 4 15 3 29 8 Tested about the right amount 29 64 50 75 100 56 203 27 97 12 42 359 Tested too few times 46 24 12 8 Not sure/ dont know 23 9 8 8 TOTAL (n) 77 240 24 12 4
30
<
>
TABLE 9 above shows that 56% of respondents (n=203) considered that the level of testing had been about
right, while 27% of such respondents (n=97) felt that they had been under-tested. Only 4% of respondents (n=15) said they had been tested too often. Players (32%) were more likely than Athletes (24%) to say that they should have been tested more than they had been.
SQUAD TESTING 31
>
3/27/06
5:55 PM
Page 32
>
11 Getting the results

11.1 TIME TAKEN TO RECEIVE TEST RESULTS
Respondents were asked to recall how long after their last drug test they had to wait before receiving the result of that test. Of 321 respondents who had been tested, had received the result and could remember how long it had taken to receive that result, 82% (n=262: 75% of relevant Athletes and 90% of relevant Players) said they had been notified within six weeks of the test, with 47% (n=151: 36% of relevant Athletes and 61% of relevant Players) saying they had been notified within four weeks. The large majority of the Players within this category were professional footballers. 156 respondents (116 Athletes and 40 Players) said they had not yet received the result of their last drug test. In an attempt to assess the lag between test and result notification, these respondents were asked to say in which year their last test had taken place. In some respects it is difficult to evaluate the acceptability of the time delay: the survey took place in early 2005 and a response simply indicating that a test had taken place in 200410 fails to inform us whether it had occurred one or 12 months before the survey. However, 23% of those respondents who had not yet received their test result (n=35) said that the test in question had taken place in 2003 or before. This group included five canoeists, four professional cricketers and four shooters.
12 Individuals providing information and advice

Respondents were asked to say whether they had ever received information and/or advice about drug-free sport from any of the following individuals:
> their coach (current or previous) > their GP (current or previous) > their team doctor (current or previous) > their team physiotherapist (current or previous) > an official from the governing body of their sport > a UK Sport official (not including a Doping Control Officer) > another Player
One way of examining the prevalence with which these personnel provide advice on drug-free sport is to calculate the net prevalence rate subtracting no answers (i.e. no, this person has not provided me with advice) from yes answers (i.e. yes, this person has provided me with advice). Working on this basis, FIGURE 18 below shows that, in overall terms, team doctors are the group most likely (+25% rating) to discuss drugs matters with respondents: indeed, they are the only group to register a net positive rating amongst both Athletes and Players. INDIVIDUALS PROVIDING INFORMATION AND ADVICE Coaches and governing body officials scored positively with Athletes (+6% and +12% respectively) but not with Players, while team physiotherapists registered a positive rating with Players (+60%), but a negative rating with Athletes (-15%). Overall, although one third of respondents (n=291) said they had received advice on drug-free sport from fellow Athletes or Players, a greater proportion (45%) said they had not done so. Players (-16% rating in this respect) were slightly less likely than Athletes (-8%) to have received advice from their colleagues or fellow competitors.
11.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEALING WITH TEST RESULTS

Finally in this section, respondents were asked if they knew which organisation had responsibility for dealing with the result of their drug test. Opinion was generally split three ways on this question (see FIGURE 17) with 27% of respondents (n=235) naming UK Sport, 28% of respondents (n=242) saying they did not know, and 32% (n=275) correctly naming their governing body11 Although there were no significant differences in the responses of Players and Athletes in this respect, it was notable that only 17% of professional rugby union respondents (n=10) named the Rugby Football Union as the responsible agency in England. As with knowledge of the procedures that operate after a positive result, it may be that the results management question was a problematic one ie. sportspersons would rarely have cause to find out or learn about results management responsibilities other than in the case of positive findings.
FIGURE 17: Organisation dealing with test results (%)
FIGURE 18: Source of advice on drug-free sport by group (% net ratings)

80 Coach GP 40 20 0 -20 Team doctor Team physio NGB official Total Athletes Players UK Sport official
35 30
GETTING THE RESULTS
27
32 28
60
25 20 15 10 5 0 UK Sport NGB
5 5
-40
IF
WADA
Dont know
32
<
-60 -80 Fellow athlete/player
>
Base: all respondents (n=874) Base: all respondents (n=874)
10 11
31% of those respondents who had not yet received their test result (n=48) said that the test in question had taken place in 2004. These figures exclude responses from tennis players, as the responsibility for results management in tennis may reside with national governing bodies or the professional tour authorities, subject to the nature of the event at which testing takes place
>
33
3/27/06
5:55 PM
Page 34
>
Among the non-professional sports with 20 or more respondents, team doctors appeared to be a significant source of advice for rowers (+75%), swimmers (+57%) and canoeists (+54%). Coaches also appeared to be a significant source of advice for cyclists (+48%), hockey players (+28%) and canoeists (+27%) but registered a negative rating amongst golfers (-60%), rowers (-29%) and badminton players (-13%). Rowers (+54%) were significantly more likely than respondents from other non-professional sports to have received advice from a governing body official: interestingly, rowers were, at the same time, the group of Athlete respondents least likely to have received advice from a UK Sport official (-63%). Amongst the professional sports, cricket bucked the trend towards team doctors, with only 32% of cricket respondents (n=11) indicating that they had ever received advice from their team doctor (41% said they had not). Among the three professional sports with 20 or more respondents (football, rugby union and cricket), cricketers were the one group to register a positive rating (+15%) in terms of having received information from a governing body official12. Cricketers also indicated that they were more likely than footballers and rugby union players to discuss drugs issues amongst themselves. When the responses of non-professional Athletes are analysed by performance level/seniority, some further interesting findings emerge. Amongst senior Athletes, coaches registered a negative rating of 1% in terms of ever having provided advice on drug-free sport. Amongst junior Athletes, however, coaches rated a positive score of +18% - i.e. 48% of junior Athletes (n=105) said they had received advice from their coach as against 30% (n=66) who said they had not. This is an encouraging result, suggesting that coaches are playing a more prominent role in young Athletes drug awareness and education than may have been the case in the past. The analysis also shows that the influence of team doctors is focused primarily on senior Athletes, 60% of whom (n=225) said they had received advice from their team doctor: by comparison, only 26% of junior Athletes (n=56) reported this.
13 Organisations providing information and advice

13.1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Respondents were asked to say from which of the following organisations they had ever received information about drug-free sport:
> UK Sport > the national governing body for their sport > the international federation for their sport > the World Anti Doping Agency > other organisations
UK Sport was the organisation from which respondents were most likely to have received information about drug-free sport, having reached 57% of respondents (n=497; 64% of Athletes and 40% of Players). National governing bodies also played a prominent role in information provision, having reached 51% of respondents (n=442: 58% of Athletes and 35% of Players). There is evidence that the receipt of information from UK Sport is to some extent associated with taking a drug test: 66% of respondents who had ever been tested (n=372) said they had received UK Sport information, as compared with 41% of those (n=122) who had never had a drug test. 14% of respondents (n=118) indicated that they had never received information about drug-free sport. Nearly a half of these (44%) were Athletes under the age of 18.
FIGURE 19: Source of information on drug-free sport by athlete/player (%)

70 60 50 40 30
23 40 35
64 58
Athletes Players
20 10
16 3
13 8 7
12 6
13
15
no
na
n tk
ov
Do
lg
io
na
W or ld
at
In
34
<
An
rn
Do
ev
ti-
at
er
re ci
er
pi
lf
>
io
te
Base: all respondents (n=874: 602 Athletes, 272 Players)
When those respondents who had ever received information (n=756) were asked to identify the source from which they most often received it, UK Sport was again the top scoring organisation, being mentioned by 51% of respondents (n=384: 57% of Athletes and 37% of Players). On this occasion, Players (33%) were marginally more likely than Athletes (30%) to say that their governing body was their most regular source of advice.
12
Among the professional sports with fewer than 20 respondents, tennis and ice hockey players also registered positive scores (+46% in each case) in terms of receiving advice from a governing body official
ORGANISATIONS PROVIDING INFORMATION AND ADVICE 35
INDIVIDUALS PROVIDING INFORMATION AND ADVICE
dy
cy
Sp or t
so ur ce
O th er
io
bo
en
at
Ag
U K
ng
er
ed
ng
ni
ev
ed
in
fo
>
3/27/06
5:56 PM
Page 36
>
13.2 USE OF UK SPORT INFORMATION RESOURCES AND SERVICES

As far as the full range of UK Sport drug-free sport information resources and services are concerned, slightly under half of the respondents (45%: 55% of Athletes and 21% of Players) indicated that they had used at least one resource. These resources are:
FIGURE 21: Use of UK Sport resources by athlete/player (%)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
18 14 17 13 8 9 34
73
70
Athletes Players 54
> Drug Information Database (www.didglobal.com) > Email - drug-free@uksport.gov.uk > Drug Information Line 0800 528 0004 > Advice Card > Testing Procedures Leaflet > Competitors and Officials Guide
In addition, 38% of footballers (n=55) said that they had used the Football Associations (FA) own Advice Card. 45 of these Players had used only this Advice Card for information about drug-free sport i.e. they had not used any of the UK Sport resources listed above. In total, therefore, 50% of respondents (55% of Athletes and 37% of Players) said they had used one of the UK Sport or FA drug-free sport information resources available to them.
ar d
de
ne
se
le
Le
ta
ic
Da
ur es
ls
dv
ia
tA
io
Pr oc
rm
Sp
&
fo
or
ug
tin
Dr
Te s
ORGANISATIONS PROVIDING INFORMATION AND ADVICE
45
Have used FA advice card only Have never used any UKS or FA resource
Base: respondents who have used at least one UKS resource (n=390: 334 Athletes/56 Players)
13.3 USEFULNESS OF UK SPORT RESOURCES

As far as the usefulness of resources was concerned, the Testing Procedures Leaflet was the top-ranked item, with 86% of user respondents indicating (via a positive response of 1 or 2 on a 5-point scale) that they had found the leaflet useful. 82% of Drug Information Database users and 77% of UK Sport Advice Card users said that those resources had been useful, as did 46 of the 55 footballers (83%) who said they had used the FA Advice Card. When respondents claims about the extent to which they feel informed about drug testing procedures (see Section 8) are related to their use of UK Sport resources, their perceptions of the usefulness of those resources appear to be endorsed. FIGURE 22 shows that users of the Testing Procedures Leaflet, the Drug Information Database and the Advice Card in each case felt better informed about drug testing procedures than non-users.
50
FIGURE 22: Respondents claiming to be well-informed about testing procedures by use of UKS resources (%)
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Testing Procedures Leaflet (123 users) Drug Information Database (189 users) UK Sport Advice Card (281 users)
47 46 77 71 62 47 Non-users
Among those funded sports providing 20 or more survey responses, at least two thirds of respondents from canoeing, rowing, athletics and swimming indicated that they had used at least one UK Sport resource. Amongst the professional sports, nine of the 11 ice hockey players and over one third of the cricket players who participated in the survey reported that they had used at least one UK Sport resource.
Users
36
<
The most used of the UK Sport resources were the Advice Card (used by 72% of those who had used at least one UK Sport resource), the Drug Information Database (48.5%) and the Testing Procedures Leaflet (31.5%). FIGURE 21 indicates that the Drug Information Database and the Testing Procedures Leaflet were more likely to be used by Athletes than Players.
>
Regarding the use of websites for obtaining information about drug-free sport and testing procedures, the UK Sport website was the site that respondents indicated they were most likely to use, with nearly a third (30%: 38% of Athletes and 12% of Players) claiming that they would do so. Just 7% of respondents claimed that they would be most likely to use their governing body site for this purpose. However, when asked to rate the usefulness of the UK Sport website, only 11% of respondents provided a rating, suggesting that actual usage of the site is somewhat less than potential usage.
ORGANISATIONS PROVIDING INFORMATION AND ADVICE 37
Have used at least one UKS resource
om
pe
tit
Dr
In
ug
In
FIGURE 20: Usage of drug-free sport resources (%)
ed
ffi c
or
at
fo
rm
at
io
Em
ba
af
ui
Li
ai
>
3/27/06
5:56 PM
Page 38
>
14 Workshops
14.1 WORKSHOP ATTENDANCE
Just under a fifth of respondents (19%: n=165) reported ever having attended a workshop on drug free sport. Whereas nearly one quarter of Athletes (24%: n=146) said they had been to a workshop, just 7% of Players (n=18) responded in these terms. Cycling, swimming, rowing and track-and-field athletics were the sports most heavily represented amongst workshop attendees, together accounting for nearly 40% of such respondents. Amongst Athlete respondents, rowers and disability swimmers were the Athletes most likely to have attended a workshop, around two thirds of each group of respondents reporting having gone to a workshop. Four out of six archers had also taken part. Overall, Paralympic athletes (35%: n=28) were more likely to have been to a workshop than Olympic athletes (24%; n=103). It is worth noting that respondents under the age of 19 had a higher than average attendance rate, 25% of this group (n=48) reporting having gone to a workshop. In a similar vein, 56% of workshop attendees said that their workshop had taken place since 2002. The indications are that workshops are successfully targeting younger sportsmen and women who are relatively new to the high performance system.
15 Awareness assessment
Finally, respondents were asked a number of questions designed to test how well information had been communicated to them in four key areas Prohibited Substances and Methods; Testing; Player Rights and Responsibilities; and Supplements. The results which provide a benchmark indicator of high performance sportspersons awareness of drug-free sport issues - are summarised, by key area, below. Respondents demonstrated reasonable levels of awareness across the range of subjects, although there were only four subjects on which at least 75% of respondents recorded a correct true or false response. These were around:
> the concept of sole responsibility > the non-safeness of supplements bought over the counter > the non-safeness of medications permitted in the UK but purchased overseas > staying in full view of a doping control officer once notified of a test
There were three subjects on which fewer than 20% of respondents provided a correct answer. Most respondents did not know, at a minimum, how often the WADA Prohibited List was published [every 12 months] nor whether urine or blood testing was the most effective testing method [urine]. 65% of respondents wrongly thought that UK Sport could tell them which supplements were safe to use. Respondents who had either taken a drug test at least once in their career, or had attended a workshop on drug-free sport, or had used UK Sport drug-free sport resources were all consistently more likely to record correct responses than those who had never been tested, attended a workshop or used UK Sport resources. The latter groups of respondents were almost always more likely to indicate that they did not know the answer to a question than to provide an incorrect response.
14.2 DELIVERY AND USEFULNESS OF WORKSHOPS

29% of attendees (n=48) said that the workshop they had attended had been delivered by UK Sport staff. TABLE 10 below refers. 18% of attendees (n=30) indicated that they had been to governing body-run sessions, with a similar proportion having been to workshops led by a team doctor. Ten of the 16 rowers who had attended a session said that this had been led by the team doctor. Coaches had run workshops for just seven attendees, five of whom were cyclists. Eight out of 18 Player attendees said their workshop had been delivered by a person other than from one of these specified categories, while 15% of attendees (including five Players) did not know who had delivered the workshop at which they had been present.
TABLE 10: Delivery and usefulness of workshops (%)

Workshop delivery Athlete UK Sport staff Team doctor Governing body staff Coach Other WORKSHOPS Don't know No response TOTAL n= 32.0 19.7 19.7 4.1 8.2 13.6 2.7 100.0 147 Player 5.6 11.1 5.6 5.6 44.4 27.8 0.0 100.0 18 Total 29.1 18.8 18.2 4.2 12.1 15.2 2.4 100.0 165 Usefulness of workshop Very useful 31.3 25.8 43.3 14.3 40.0 24.0 25.0 31.5 52 Useful 43.8 67.7 36.7 71.4 55.0 24.0 25.0 46.1 76 Very useful /useful 75.1 93.5 80.0 85.7 95.0 48.0 50.0 77.6 128
TABLE 11: Assessment topic 1: Prohibited Substances and Methods (in descending order of correct answer supplied)
Correct answer 1 In terms of the anti-doping rules, I am solely responsible for what I swallow, inject or apply to my body? If I buy a medication thats permitted in the UK, the same medication purchased overseas will be safe I have to submit a TUE application13 even if I am prescribed a prohibited medication by my doctor. Caffeine is a substance on the 2005 Prohibited List14 A new Prohibited List is published at least 90 (true) Incorrect answer 2 Dont know/ no answer 9 AWARENESS ASSESSMENT
78 (false)
20
58 (true)
39
4 5
50 (false) 14 (every 12 months)
21 14
29 72
38
<
13 14
A therapeutic use exemption (TUE) allows an athlete to take a medication deemed necessary for their health which appears on the WADA Prohibited List. The Prohibited List, published by the World Anti-Doping Agency, itemises substances and methods that are prohibited at all times, in and/or out of competition.
Respondents were asked to rate the usefulness of the workshop they had attended, using a 5-point scale where 1 meant the workshop had been very useful and 5 meant that the workshop had not been useful at all. Overall, 78% of workshop attendees (n=128) indicated (via a positive score of 1 or 2) that the workshop they had attended had been useful. Only five workshop attendees rated their workshop (via a score of 4 or 5 on the scale) as not being useful. 29/31 respondents (94%) who had attended a workshop led by a team doctor rated that session as very useful of useful. In comparison, 36/48 respondents (75%) who had been to a UK Sport workshop scored their workshop on a similar basis.
>
>
39
3/27/06
5:56 PM
Page 40
>
TABLE 12: Assessment topic 2: Testing (in descending order of correct answer supplied)
Correct answer 6 If I am notified that I am to be tested at an inconvenient time I can refuse to be tested? I should stay in full view of the doping control officer or chaperone once notified of doping control Once the doping control sample is collected and sealed and the paperwork is complete, it would be obvious if the sample had been tampered with before it reached the laboratory? My name should be on the form that goes to the laboratory so they can identify me? In most cases urine testing is more effective in terms of detection than blood testing? 71 (false) Incorrect answer 5 Dont know/ no answer 24
16 Improving the drug-free sport system

16.1 INFORMATION PROVISION
Improvements in the provision of information was a common response of Athletes and Players when they were asked whether there were any improvements they would like to see made to the drug-free sport system generally. When this subject was explored in more detail, respondents identified three main drug-free sport issues about which they would like to receive more, or more regular, information prohibited substances and methods (42% of respondents); the antidoping rules of their sport (36%); and testing procedures (21%).
81 (true)
16
61 (true)
33
FIGURE 23: Issues on which respondents would like more information (%)
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
47 (false)
31
22
44 36 38 31 23 15 11 8
Athletes Players
46
10
16 (true)
26
58
34
21
TABLE 13: Assessment topic 3: Athlete rights and responsibilities (in descending order of correct answer supplied)
Correct answer 11 12 It is my responsibility to be available for testing at anytime I should always be given a selection of sample collection equipment to choose from? During Sample Collection only a Doping Control Officer of the same sex should be present? I cannot take a representative of my choice to the Doping Control Station once I am notified of doping controls? I cannot warm down or attend a medal ceremony before going to the Doping Control Station? 69 (true) 65 (true) Incorrect answer 5 6 Dont know/ no answer 26 29
19 14 10 7 5 2 1
es
ur es
er
TU E
en
le
od
al
th
nc
ru
em
pe
sw
er
13 AWARENESS ASSESSMENT
64 (true)
31
14
51 (false)
10
39
Base: all respondents (n=874: 602 Athletes/272 Players)
15
51 (false)
13
37
TABLE 14: Assessment topic 4: Supplements (in descending order of correct answer supplied)
Correct answer Incorrect answer 5 Dont know/ no answer 12
On a sport-specific basis, in three of the 12 sports which had 20 or more survey respondents (cycling, gymnastics and swimming), over half of respondents said they would like more information about prohibited substances. Golf, gymnastics and cycling again, were the three sports of this type in which more than 50% of respondents indicated they would like more information about the anti-doping rules of their sport. Among the smaller sports, 10/17 shooters wanted more information on rules and 6/10 modern pentathletes wanted more information on rules and substances. From a different perspective, younger respondents and those who had never taken a drug test were generally more likely to request information than older respondents and those who had had a test. Another common theme concerned the availability of information about substances and supplements that sportsmen and women are able to take. In many cases, respondents wanted UK Sport itself to be issuing lists of safe-to-use products I would like UK Sport to rubber stamp safe products, was a typical response. One respondent added that what was needed was detail about the actual brand, not [just] the chemical make-up., a view shared by several others. In making these comments, respondents were clearly exhibiting their anxiety about the possibility of unknowingly taking banned substances. [Supplements] are often required to support hard training, explained one judo player, a reality which, for him, meant that advice simply not to take any supplements was of little value. A track-and-field athlete echoed this view when he said: Legal supplements such as creatine, L-Glutamine, protein do work and can make the difference in winning and losing, and for UK Sport to advise athletes not to take supplements at all is ignorant.15 For this athlete, the solution was for individual sports .. to produce or supply supplements that are legal, rather than not taking any responsibility16
40
<
16
If a nutritional supplement is bought from the pharmacy (over-the-counter), it must be safe to use. If a nutritional supplement contains a prohibited substance, it will always say so on the label. I can be sanctioned if I test positive after taking what I thought was a safe supplement. UK Sport can tell me which nutritional supplements are safe to use?
83 (false)
>
17
74 (false)
20
18
64 (true)
10
27
19
12 (false)
65
22
15
16
UK Sport provides an indicative guide to the status of UK-licensed medications and substances through its Drug information Database (DID). The information on the database is based on UK-licensed products and substances currently on the market. Without an approved quality standard, however, a guarantee cannot be given about the reliability of the manufacturing or labelling process, despite claims made by some manufacturers. Ibid
IMPROVING THE DRUG-FREE SPORT SYSTEM 41
ed
W AD A
bs
pr oc
ag
Ap
ng
pi
an
su
do
ti-
ite
in
An
Te st
ib
Pr oh
Re
su
lts
an
ta
>
3/27/06
5:56 PM
Page 42
>
When asked how they would prefer to be alerted to news about drug-free sport issues or changes to testing procedures, the majority of respondents (61%) chose by post. The next most popular method was email (27%) while text messaging was the preferred method of only 2% of respondents.
16.2 TESTING AND TEST RESULTS

As far as other areas of improvement were concerned, significant numbers of respondents some of whom claimed never to have been tested, or not to have been aware of testing taking place - called for increased levels of, and more visible, testing in their sport. For many others, a key issue was simply being informed about their test results. As one respondent put it: As a judo athlete, I was never told [about the] results of my tests. We were only told, if you dont hear, the results -[are] negative. I would have preferred to have been notified if it was negative than to assume
UK Sports new whereabouts system whereby sportsmen and women in an International or National Registered Testing Pool are required to notify their National Anti-Doping Organisation or International Federation of their whereabouts at training venues; their permanent residence or other residences; their workplace; university or sporting event17 also came in for criticism: I would like the out of competition drug testing and the notification of an athletes whereabouts for each and every day to be made a more realistic proposition. (Rower) How do you get round the problem of not being at your home address [three times] - it's very easy to be missed. (Cyclist) I feel that always having to give detailed whereabouts of where you may be and train is a little excessive. Training for me can vary from day to day - week to week and remembering to update your record information can be overlooked. (Boxer) While the new whereabouts system was in the process of being implemented at the time the survey took place and would therefore not necessarily have been familiar to all respondents, these and the preceding comments indicate that much work remains to be done in educating sportsmen and women about the principles on which the drug testing system is founded - and the responsibilities that they themselves carry in ensuring that the system works effectively.
16.3 KNOWLEDGE GAPS

While some respondents made a number of practical suggestions about improving the drug testing system, it was notable that many others revealed a lack of knowledge or understanding about fundamental principles of the system, such as openness, transparency and accountability. For example, several respondents complained about testing at times that disrupted their training or competition: I was called up for testing between 2 separate events at the same competition. This was a major distraction to my mental preparation. I was furious!! (Track-and field athlete) Test procedures should be carried out at the end [of a] competition on the final day not during competition, because it is unfair to expect an athlete to loose sleep and food etc. because of a late test. (Badminton player) The out of competition procedures need to be designed so as not to disrupt athletes during their hours of rest - especially in periods of very heavy training. (Disability swimmer) IMPROVING THE DRUG-FREE SPORT SYSTEM
Post-match testing is fine. Random [out-of-competition] testing is an intrusion [on] our civil liberties. (Footballer) Drug testing should not adhere so strictly to whereabouts forms and try several places mentioned as you do not necessarily know what you are doing tomorrow let alone next month! I think they should be allowed to call you rather than giving out no shows, for legitimate reasons (Track-and-field athlete) I thought the doping officer was supposed to try and find you at your training venue first, otherwise there is no point to completing the 3 months location forms we are sent. When I was last dope tested the doping officer arrived on my doorstep at 21.00, without having first tried to get me at my training venue. (Swimmer) Notification on day of testing before turning up (Track-and-field athlete) An athlete should have a freephone number that they have to call every week. They are informed if they are required for a test and if they are they are instructed to arrange a test. If an athlete fails to call or doesn't arrange a test they are avoiding testing and banned. (Respondent thought to be a weightlifter)
42
<
>
17
Athletes have to provide whereabouts details for at least one hour a day at at least one location 5 days of the week. They are not required to give details of their entire daily schedule and should only provide details for locations at which they know they will definitely be present..
IMPROVING THE DRUG-FREE SPORT SYSTEM 43
A number of other respondents seemed to struggle with the concept of no-notice testing, with some arguing for tests to be arranged in ways, or at times, that were convenient for them:
>
3/27/06
5:56 PM
Page 44
>
17 Conclusions
The results of the UK Sport 2005 Drug-Free Sport Survey are based on the responses of 602 (non-professional) Athletes and 272 (professional) Players. The composition of these two sub-samples was significantly different in terms of age, gender and experience. The Athlete sub-sample itself comprised two groups (seniors and juniors) of markedly different experience and levels of performance. The survey has significantly increased our understanding of doping issues in sport and the way in which athletes in the UK experience and perceive them. For the first time, we have an informed sense of the scale of the perceived doping problem in sport, with 40% of respondents indicating that they considered there to be, to some extent, a doping issue in their sport. The fact that Athletes tend to associate this problem with performance-enhancing drugs while Players tend to associate the problem with social drugs will help us considerably in the design and focus of our education and information programme. In the continuing effort to educate sportsmen and women about the potential hazards of using supplements in sport, we now have a proper understanding of the types of supplements that they use, and the reasons why they use them principally to avoid sickness (63% of supplement users), to maintain strength (38%) and to enhance endurance (20%). The finding that nearly a quarter of Players use supplements to overcome injury (the equivalent figure for Athletes was just 11%) highlights the particular pressures on professional players to be available for selection and signals the kind of circumstances in which they may be particuarly at risk of taking prohibited substances. We have found out, too, that sportsmen and women have a reasonably good understanding of those aspects of the drug testing system in which they are commonly involved (e,g. sample collection) but a less good understanding of those aspects in which they tend to have less first-hand involvement (e.g. the management of test results). The survey findings suggest that the experience of being tested increases sportspersons knowledge of the drug-testing system and leads to more positive attitudes. Respondents who had been subject to a drug test at some stage in their career were more likely than those who had not had a test to say that they felt well-informed about drug testing procedures and to say that they had confidence in the testing process. When respondents were asked a number of questions designed to test their knowledge of key aspects of the testing system, those who had been subject to a drug test were again consistently more likely to record correct responses than those who had never been tested. Use of UK Sports drug-free sport resources and services and attendance at an antidoping workshop, were also characteristics associated with those who provided correct answers. These are important messages for the design and implementation of the 100% Me programme as it seeks to raise awareness of drug-free sport issues across the sporting community particularly with young people. We also now have a clearer picture of the organisations and individuals from whom sportsmen and women receive information about drug-free sport, or to whom they turn for information and advice. UK Sport was both the organisation from which respondents (57%) were most likely to have received information about drug-free sport, and the source from which they most often received it (51%). The equivalent figures for national governing bodies were 51% and 31% respectively. As far as individual personnel are concerned, one of the surveys most interesting findings was that, for both Athletes and Players, team doctors rather than coaches or (other) governing body officials are the group most likely to discuss drugs matters with sportsmen and women. Although among senior Athletes, coaches registered a negative rating (of 1%) in terms of ever having provided advice on drug-free sport, among junior Athletes coaches achieved a positive score of +18% - i.e. 48% of junior Athletes said they had received advice from their coach as against 30% who said they had not. This is an encouraging result, suggesting that coaches are playing a more prominent role in young athletes drug awareness and education than may have been the case in the past. In all these respects, the research has set some important benchmarks which we will review when we repeat the survey in three and six years time. Finally, future surveys will also be instructive in assessing the extent to which sportsmen and women believe that progress is being made in addressing perceived doping issues and in improving the drug-free sport system in the UK. In this respect, respondents raised concerns about the frequency and effectiveness of drug testing programmes and about the integrity of results management procedures both when they were asked about the nature of doping issues in their sport and when they were asked how the system could be improved.
ANNEX 1: Supplements used by respondents (in addition to those specified on the survey questionnaire)
Substances referred to by respondents Aloe Vera Alpha-lipoic Acid Amino acids Arnica Black strap molasses Calcium Explanatory remarks
This is considered a supplement, but some forms are licensed drugs in the UK (such as calcium carbonate).It may also be an ingredient of an unlicensed supplement.
Calendula Carbohydrate & protein recovery drinks C-Glutamine, Chinese Tea chromium Chondroitin CLA Cod liver oil coenzyme Q10 Colostrum Cranberry juice tablets Cyclone Digestive enzymes Dried skimmed milk powder Echinacea tea bags Electrolytes Evening primrose oil Ferrous gluconate Fish oils Flax seed oil Folic Acid Garlic capsules Glucosomine Green magic Harpagophytum procumbens Herbalife Hydroxybetamethylbutyrate (HMB) Hydroxycut Immune support Kalms Lactibiane L-Carnitine Leppin (enduro booster - carbohydrate power). L-Glutamine lucozade Maitake mushroom Maltodextrin/Aspartame - Go Electrolyte Ache free
Also known as: conjugated linoleic acid
The trade name of a supplement These are supplements, but some are licensed drugs in the UK. Depending on how this is consumed, it may be considered a food, rather than a supplement.
This is considered a supplement, but some forms are licensed drugs in the UK. It may also be an ingredient of a supplement CONCLUSIONS - ANNEX 1
This is considered a supplement, but some forms are licensed drugs in the UK. It may also be an ingredient of a supplement
CONCLUSIONS
The trade name of a supplement A herbal supplement The trade name of a supplement The The The The trade trade trade trade name name name name of of of of a a a a supplement supplement supplement supplement
44
<
>
The trade name of a supplement
The trade name of a supplement
>
45
3/27/06
5:57 PM
Page 46
>
ANNEX 1: Supplements used by respondents (in addition to those specified on the survey questionnaire)
Substances referred to by respondents Meal replacements ('Build up' and 'Slim fast') Mega EPA Met-Rx protein Minadex MSN Multi mineral supplements Multibionta Musashi protein Olbas Oil Potassium Explanatory remarks
ANNEX 2: Survey questionnaire (UK WCPP example)
2005 Drug Free Sport Survey UK ATHLETE
The trade name of a supplement The trade name of a supplement
The trade name of a supplement This is considered a supplement, but some forms are licensed drugs in the UK. It may also be the trade name of a supplement Promex The trade name of a supplement
Thank you for taking part in UK Sports 2005 Drug Free Sport Survey, the first of its kind for nearly a decade. This is considered a supplement, but some forms are licensed drugs in the UK. It may also be an ingredient of a supplement This is considered a supplement, but some forms are licensed drugs in the UK. It is is also considered a nutritional supplement This is considered a supplement, but some forms are licensed drugs in the UK. It is is also considered a nutritional supplement UK Sport is committed to leading a world-class anti-doping programme for the UK. Educating athletes about drug-free sport, and about their rights and responsibilities in this regard, is a vital part of that commitment. To help us get the programme right, we need to find out what you think about drugs issues and testing procedures. So please complete this questionnaire to the best of your ability and return it to 20/20 Research, whom we have appointed to carry out the survey for us. Please be assured that your responses will remain confidential and that nothing that appears in the final report will be attributable to any individual athlete. 1 2 In which year did you first join the UK World Class Performance Programme? Is 1 2 3 the sport in which you compete ? An Olympic sport A Paralympic sport Neither an Olympic nor a Paralympic sport
Vitamin E Zinc
CONCLUSIONS - ANNEX 1
What is your main competitive sport?
THE CURRENT DRUG TESTING PROCESS

46
<
4 5 6
How well-informed do you feel about drug testing procedures - ie. the procedures that operate from the time you are notified about a test to the time that your sample arrives at the testing laboratory? How well-informed do you feel about the procedure that follows if and when the laboratory reports a positive test? To what extent do you trust the testing process i.e. the safe and secure collection, transportation, storage and analysis of a sample?
>
IN-COMPETITION TESTING
7 8 9 Have you ever undergone an in-competition drug test? If yes, how many times have you been tested in competition in the last 18 months? Thinking about the last occasion you were tested in competition, do you know which organisation conducted the test?
10 Were you offered an explanation of the testing process at the time? 11 To what extent were you satisfied with the explanation you received about the testing process? 12 Still thinking about the last occasion you were tested in competition, to what extent were you satisfied that the test was carried out fairly and accurately?
CONCLUSIONS - ANNEX 2 - QUESTIONNAIRE 47
Protein drinks Qlo Selenium Soya protein Sportsflex Starflower oil Sumpast Tribulous terrestris Vitabalance Vitamin B Vitamin B combined Forceval capsules Vitamin B complex Vitamin D
>
3/27/06
5:57 PM
Page 48
>
SQUAD TESTING
13 Have you ever undergone a drug test when you were training with your squad? 14 If yes, how many times have you undergone a squad test in the last 18 months? 15 Do you think the number of squad tests you have undergone in the last 18 months has been ? 1 Too many 2 About right 3 Too few 4 Not sure/dont know? 16 If you answered too many or too few above, how many times do you think it would have been appropriate for you to have had a squad test in the last 18 months? (open question) 17 Thinking about the last occasion you had a squad test, how surprised were you when you found out that you were to be tested? 18 Thinking about the last occasion you had a squad test, do you know which organisation conducted the test? 19 Were you offered an explanation of the testing process at the time? 20 To what extent were you satisfied with the explanation you received about the testing process? 21 Still thinking about the last occasion you had a squad test, to what extent were you satisfied that the test was carried out fairly and accurately?
28 Have you ever used any of the following UK Sport resources or services for information about drug-free sport issues and testing procedures? 1 Drug Information Database (www.didglobal.com) 2 Email - drug-free@uksport.gov.uk 3 Drug Information Line Line 0800 528 0004 4 Advice Card 5 Testing Procedures Leaflet 6 Competitors and Officials Guide 7 None of the above 29 How useful did you find the following resources and services?
WORKSHOPS
30 Have you ever attended a workshop on drug-free sport? 31 If yes, in which year did this workshop take place? 32 Thinking about the last occasion that you attended a workshop on drug-free sport, who delivered the workshop? 33 How useful did you find the workshop?
YOUR SPORT
34 How important is it to you that your sport has an effective drug testing programme? 35 To what extent do you consider there is a doping problem in your sport? 36 Would you say that the problem is mostly associated with ? 1 Performance-enhancing drugs 2 Social drugs 3 Both performance-enhancing and social drugs 4 Dont know CONCLUSIONS - ANNEX 2 - QUESTIONNAIRE 37 How would you describe the nature of the problem? (open question)
GETTING THE RESULTS

22 Thinking about the last occasion you underwent a drug test (in or out of competition), how long after the test did you receive the result of that test? 23 Which organisation would you say has responsibility for dealing with the results of your drugs tests?
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
CONCLUSIONS - ANNEX 2 - QUESTIONNAIRE 24 Have any of the following people ever provided you with information and/or advice about drug-free sport? 1 Your coach 2 Your GP 3 Your team doctor 4 Your team physio 5 An official from the governing body of your sport 6 An official from UK Sport (not including a Doping Control Officer) 7 Another player 25 From which of the following sources have you ever received information on drug-free sport? 1 UK Sport 2 National Governing Body for your sport 3 International Federation for your sport 4 World Anti-Doping Agency 5 Other 6 I dont know who it came from 7 I have never received information on drug-free sport
SUPPLEMENTS
38 Do you use or have you used herbal or nutritional supplements? 39 Which supplements do you use or have you used? 40 Why do you use supplements?
AWARENESS ASSESSMENT
(except where indicated, respondents were asked to respond to the following statements on a yes/no/dont know basis)
Assessment topic 1: Prohibited Substances and Methods

41 (The Prohibited List, published by the World Anti-Doping Agency, itemises substances and methods that are prohibited at all times, in and out of competition) A new Prohibited List is published at least 1 2 3 4 5 Every month Every three months Every six months Every 12 months Dont know
48
<
42 Caffeine is a substance on the 2005 Prohibited List 43 (A therapeutic use exemption (TUE) allows an athlete to take a medication deemed necessary for their health which appears on the list of prohibited substances in sport). I have to submit a TUE application even if I am prescribed a prohibited medication by my doctor. 44 If I buy a medication thats permitted in the UK, the same medication purchased overseas will be safe 45 In terms of the anti-doping rules, I am solely responsible for what I swallow, inject or apply to my body
27 Which of the following websites (if any) are you most likely to use to keep up-to-date with drug-free sport issues and testing procedures? 1 UK Sport website 2 Your National Governing Body website 3 Your International Federation website 4 World Anti-Doping Agency website 5 Other website 6 I dont really spend any time looking for information about drug-free sport issues and testing procedures
26 From which of the following sources do you most often receive information on drug-free sport? 1 UK Sport 2 National Governing Body for your sport 3 International Federation for your sport 4 World Anti-Doping Agency 5 Other
>
>
49
3/27/06
5:57 PM
Page 50
>
Assessment topic 2: Testing

46 If I am notified that I am to be tested at an inconvenient time, I can refuse to be tested 47 I should stay in full view of the doping control officer or chaperone once notified of doping control 48 Once the doping control sample is collected and sealed and the paperwork is complete, it would be obvious if the sample had been tampered with before it reached the laboratory 49 My name should be on the form that goes to the laboratory so they can identify me 50 In most cases urine testing is more effective in terms of detection than blood testing
Assessment topic 3: Athlete rights and responsibilities

51 I cannot take a representative of my choice to the Doping Control Station once I am notified of doping controls 52 During Sample Collection only a Doping Control Officer of the same sex should be present 53 I cannot warm down or attend a medal ceremony before going to the Doping Control Station 54 I should always be given a selection of sample collection equipment to choose from 55 It is my responsibility to be available for testing at any time
Athletes and Players want to see an improvement in the provision of anti-doping information
Assessment topic 4: Supplements

56 UK Sport can tell me which nutritional supplements are safe to use 57 If a nutritional supplement is bought from the pharmacy (over-the-counter), it must be safe to use. 58 If a nutritional supplement contains a prohibited substance, it will always say so on the label. 59 I can be sanctioned if I test positive after taking what I thought was a safe supplement.
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROCEDURE

CONCLUSIONS - ANNEX 2 - QUESTIONNAIRE 60 Are there any improvements you would like to see made to the drug-free sport system e.g. drug-testing procedures, anti-doping programmes etc? (open question) 61 Are there any specific drug-free sport issues and/or testing procedures about which you would like to receive more or more regular information? (please circle any number that applies) 1 World Anti-Doping Code 2 anti-doping rules of your sport 3 testing procedures 4 prohibited substances and methods 5 Therapeutic Use Exemptions 6 results management process 7 appeals 8 other (please specify) 62 By which means would you prefer to be alerted to news about drug-free sport issues or changes to testing procedures? (circle one number only)
CLASSIFICATION
63 What is your age group?
50
<
64 Are you ? 1 Male 2 Female 65 Do you have a chronic medical condition that requires treatment with a prohibited medication?
>
>
51

2005 Drug-Free Sport Survey

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2005 Drug-Free Sport Survey

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

UK SPORT > 2005 DRUG-FREE SPORT SURVEY

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

Sports Council for Wales Sportscotland

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

TABLE 1: Response rate by funding agency/sport

110 200 550 100 45 360 1365 2995

10 34 144 11 15 58 272 874

UK Sports testing programme covers professional and Olympic/Paralympic sport

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

TABLE 2: Gender, age and seniority of respondents (%)

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

TABLE 4: Athlete respondents by funding source and sport (no.)

71% of respondents compete in an Olympic sport

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

TABLE 6: Player respondents by competitive level (no.)

TABLE 5: Seniority, gender and age of Player respondents by sport (%)

British Basketball League

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

4 General perceptions of drugs and drug-testing

FIGURE 3: Extent of doping problem by athlete/player (%)

FIGURE 1: Importance of drug testing programme (%)

21 Very Important (1) 2

GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF DRUGS AND DRUG-TESTING

Base: all respondents (n=874: 602 Athletes/272 Players)

Not at all Important (5)

4.3 4.2 EXTENT OF DOPING PROBLEM

TYPE OF DRUGS ASSOCIATED WITH PERCEIVED DOPING PROBLEM

FIGURE 4: Type of drugs associated with doping problem by athlete/player (%)

FIGURE 2: Extent of doping problem (%)

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Major Problem (1) 2 3

Not a Problem (5)

GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF DRUGS AND DRUG-TESTING 17

Major Problem (1)

Not a Problem (5)

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

5 Nature of the problem

TABLE 7: Selected views on international differences in drug usage

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

CULTURE OF ROAD CYCLING

In reality, in 2005/6 UK Sport carried out 60 tests in canoeing at national level.

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 19

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

TYPE OF SUPPLEMENTS USED

FIGURE 5: Use of supplements by gender (%)

Base: supplement users (n=528: 344 men/183 women)

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

FIGURE 6: Use of supplements by athlete/player (%)

FIGURE 8: Reasons for using supplements by athlete/player (%)

REASONS FOR USING SUPPLEMENTS

Base: supplement users (n=528: 335 Athletes/193 Players)

FIGURE 7: Reasons for using supplements by gender (%)

63% of respondents states they take supplements to avoid sickness

Base: supplement users (n=528: 344 men/183 women)

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

7 Experience of being tested

TABLE 8: Respondents experience of drug testing (%)

84% of Players had been through a drug test

4363 Drug-Free Sport Survey

8 The drug testing process

KNOWLEDGE OF TESTING PROCEDURES