original research:
Why Players Engage in Drug
Abuse Substances? A Survey Study
Kumar Neeraj1, Paul Maman2,
Sandhu J. S.3
1Lecturer, Dept of
Physiotherapy, Saaii College of Medical Science and Technology,
Kanpur, U.P., India
2Lecturer, Faculty of sports Medicine and Physiotherapy,
Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India
3Professor, Faculty of Sports Medicine & Physiotherapy,
Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India
Corresponding author: Maman
Paul, B.P.T, M.S.P.T,
Lecturer, Faculty of Sports Medicine and Physiotherapy, Guru Nanak
Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India, Tel: +91-9815459353
Email: physioner [at] gmail.com
Submitted: 16 August 2010
|
Accepted: 21 February,
2011 | Published:
15 May,
2011
Copyright © 2011 by Neeraj
and colleagues, licensee The Doping Journal
Article view and respond
options:
ARTICLE
NAVIGATION MENU
ABSTRACT
Purpose
of this study was to find out the psychological and social support
factor which may possibly lead the players towards using drug abuse
substances. 303 players were surveyed with a battery of questionnaires
consisting questions about performance enhancement attitude,
motivation, perfectionism, self confidence, task, ego and social
support. 83 players accepted that they have taken banned substances,
significant differences were found in their performance enhancement
attitude (p<0.001), self confidence (p<0.05) and social support
(p<0.001). Result of this study suggested that psychological and
social support factors play an important role in players’ propensity to
engage in drug abuse substances. This will be the duty of coaches,
sports physiotherapist, sports psychologists and sports officials to
guide athletes towards a positive approach to encounter the pressure of
any competition.
Keywords: Drug abuse, psychology, performance enhancement, social
support
INTRODUCTION
Drug abuse is one of the biggest
problems in sports. It can also be referred to as substance abuse or
doping. Drug abuse involves the repeated and excessive use of chemical
substances to achieve a certain effect. It is an unacceptable part of
sports and it is illegal because of their adverse effects and
performance enhancing actions, moreover, several prohibited drugs may
have very high potential for addiction and abuse. These drugs help in
increasing muscle mass, strength, and resistance to fatigue, but the
utmost advantage of these drugs is their effect on the central nervous
system, which makes athletes more aggressive in training and in
competition [1].
Doping is a divisive and socially undesirable behaviour and it is an
enormously secretive behaviour. Athletes usually do not accept that
they are using dope. In the 1998, Tour de France, many of the riders
were engage in doping but they refused to accept it. When they got
caught in doping test they reacted strangely about its presence in
their body and shrugged it off by saying, I wonder how this substance
get into my body or I had never taken these drugs [2].
Athletes' use of illicit substances to excel in performance is a form
of cheating behaviour and this could be dangerous for their health and
career. The problem of drug use is very common in competitive sports
[3]. In spite of the complexity of doping, two
major problems arise:
health problem and unfair performance enhancement. Both these issues
sometimes seen in conflict with the right of autonomy which implies
that the athletes can use their body freely [4, 5, 6], but for the sake
of sports, another major issue need to be addressed while dealing with
doping is ‘spirit of sport’. The prevalence of doping is higher among
sports competitors and increases with age and level of competition
[7, 8]. There are numerous
psychological factors that contribute to a
player’s propensity to engage in drug abuse substances, like
performance enhancement, perfection, confidence, motivation, task, ego,
emotional status and low social support.
Unfortunately, much of the research on doping behaviour has so far
concentrated on individual differences in attitudes towards drug use
and towards drug testing programs. But it is not well understood, what
are the underlying psychological factors for the use of performance
enhancing substances in sports. There is empirical lack of studies
stating the role of psychosocial variables in the use of doping in
sports, like, some studies analyzed the performance enhancement
attitude with doping belief and sports orientation [9],
while few
researchers studied the social support determinants of the performance
enhancing drugs by gym user [10]. Hence, understanding player’s
attitudes and behavioural intentions towards performance enhancement is
critical for anti-doping intervention strategies. The current research
work was particularly interested in identifying psychological &
social variables that might have a link to performance enhancing drug
use. Additionally, the present research work will provide useful
information for the design of the doping attitudes, which hopefully
will serve both a practical and an academic application in the fight
against doping in sports. A deeper understanding of decision making
processes and player’s disposition towards performance enhancement may
point sport managers, officials, policy makers, coaches, sports
physiotherapists and even athletes towards a better-targeted approach
and may even point the anti-doping effort towards radically different
directions.
METHODOLOGY
A survey study with total of 303
subjects both male and female athletes, aged between 18-35 years,
associated with 17 different team or individual sports participated.
Athletes of university or higher level were included, whereas athletes
taking psychotherapy and handicapped athletes were excluded. Athletes
were selected from the various sports centres of Punjab (India). The
study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Guru Nanak
Dev University, Amritsar, India.
MEASURES
The
test consists of the following battery of questionnaires / documents.
1. Consent form:
The form allows the participant to state agreement to participate in
the study anonymously. The subjects were informed about the
confidential nature of the study. The participation was voluntary with
no compensation or credit to athletes.
2. Demographic questionnaire:
Information on this questionnaire includes personal details, questions
relating to sporting experience and doping-specific questions regarding
knowledge and use.
3. Performance Enhancement Attitude
Scale (PEA) [9]:
The PEA scale is a 17- item, six-point Likert-type attitude scale. A
high score on this scale will denote positive or permissive attitudes
to doping. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale is 0.85. The
score can range from 17 to 102.
4. Perceived Motivational Climate in
Sport Questionnaire (PMCSQ-2) [11]:
The PMCSQ is a 33-item, 5-point Likert-type motivational scale. It
contains two subscales (perceived task involving climates and perceived
ego involving climates). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale is
0.87. The score can range from 33 to 165.
5. Perfectionism in Sport Scale (PSS)
[12]:
The PSS is a 24-item, 5-point Likert-type scale to measure attitude and
expectations of competitive sport participation. It contains three
subscales (coach’s criticism, concern over mistakes, and personal
standard). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale is 0.80. The
score can range from 24 to 120.
6. Trait Sport Confidence Inventory
(TSCI) [13]:
The TSCI consists of 13-items in which the participants rate their
confidence on a 9-point Likert-type scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
for this scale is 0.93. The score can range from 13 to 117.
7. Task and Ego Orientation in Sport
Questionnaire (TEOSQ) [14]:
The TEOSQ comprises 13-items, 5-point Likert-type task and ego scale.
It contains two subscales (task orientation, and ego orientation).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale is 0.82. The score can
range from 13 to 65.
8. Duke-UNC functional social support
questionnaire (FSSQ) [15]:
It consists of 10-items social support scale to be measured on a
5-points Likert-type scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale
is 0.81. The score can range from 10 to 50.
PROTOCOL
The
athletes who volunteered to participate in the study were asked to
present on a prescribed date. Only 20 athletes were asked to report at
a particular date and time. All participants were assured about the
confidential nature of the study and the results will remain anonymous.
The participants first filled up the consent form and hand it over to
the researcher. After filling the consent form, the participants were
asked to complete all questionnaires and give their responses on the
response sheet. The participants were then instructed to fold the
response sheet, put it in the given envelope & drop it into the
prescribed drop box without making any mark on it.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Mean, standard deviation, standard
error and percentile were used to prepare summary statistics. Karl
Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) and Student's t test were used to
determine the association between various questionnaires. The
statistical analysis was done on SPSS v 16.00.
RESULTS
A total of 303 athletes with 277 (91%)
males and 26 (9%) females participated in the study. The average age of
the athletes was 24.08 (±4.4) years with 24.46 (±4.3)
years of males and 20.12 (±3.1) years of females. Average
experience of total athletes was 8.81 (±5.5) yrs. The study
comprised of athletes of 17 different sports with following
distribution: Archery - 22, Athletics - 48, Badminton - 5, Basket Ball
-
41, Boxing - 11, Cricket - 10, Soccer - 40, Gymnastic - 8, Hand Ball -
15,
Hockey - 23, Judo -13, Swimming - 11, Table Tennis - 1, Taekwondo - 3,
Volley Ball - 12, Water Polo - 21, and Wrestling - 19.
The level of participation of subjects ranged from university level to
international level with, International - 40, National - 181, State -
52,
District - 2, and University- 28.
Total 83 (27%) athletes accepted that they have taken banned substances
in which males and females were 74 (26.71%) and 9 (34.62%)
respectively. The average age of athletes who have taken banned
substances and who have not taken banned substances are 23.51
(±4.7) years and 24.3 (±3.3) respectively, as shown in
Table 1.
TABLE 1
Table 1 shows the No. of athletes with mean age and experience in
different categories
Category
|
No. of Athletes
|
Mean Age
|
SD
|
Mean Experience
|
SD
|
Male
|
277
|
24.46
|
4.3
|
9.24
|
5.5
|
Female
|
26
|
20.12
|
3.1
|
32.65
|
3.9
|
Athletes who have taken Banned
substances
|
83
|
23.51
|
3.3
|
8.56
|
4.6
|
Athletes who have NOT taken
Banned substances
|
220
|
24.3
|
4.7
|
8.9
|
5.8
|
Male who have taken Banned
substances
|
74
|
23.75
|
3.1
|
8.91
|
4.4
|
Female who have taken Banned
substances
|
9
|
21.44
|
4.2
|
5.77
|
5.3
|
Male who have NOT taken Banned
substances
|
203
|
24.71
|
4.7
|
9.36
|
5.8
|
| Female who have NOT taken Banned
substances |
17
|
19.41
|
2.1
|
3.41
|
2.9
|
Note:
you may need
to resize your browser window for better view of Tables
The levels of participation of athletes who have taken
banned substances are as: International - 15, National - 43, State -
17,
District - 1, and University - 7, as shown in Figure 1.
FIGURE
1
Distribution of level of participation of athletes who have taken
banned substances
Note: you may need
to resize your browser window for better view of Figure 1
Total 125 (41%) athletes with 114 (41.2%) males and 11
(42.31%) females accepted that they had received information about
banned substances in their sport with 178(59%) did not receive
information; distribution is shown in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2
Distribution of athletes on the basis of receiving information about
banned substances
Note: you may need
to resize your browser window for better view of Figure 2
Total 118 (39%) athletes with 102
(36.82%) male and 16 (61.54%) female accepted that they personally know
athletes who are taking banned substances whilst 185(61%) do not know
any athlete taking banned substances; its distribution is shown in
Figure 3.
FIGURE 3
Distribution on the basis of personally knowing any athlete who is
taking banned substances
Note: you may need
to resize your browser window for better view of Figures
The mean scores of each questionnaire
in different categories are given in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Scores (Mean±SD) of each questionnaire in different categories
Category
|
PEA
|
PMCSQ
|
PSS
|
TSCI
|
TEOSQ
|
FSSQ
|
Male
|
55.18 (±16.2)
|
132.81 (±25.5)
|
91.16 (±11.80)
|
91.03 (±13.8)
|
51.06 (±7.3)
|
32.73 (±8.6) |
Female
|
50.81 (±15.9)
|
140.23 (±13.1)
|
92.31 (±10.3)
|
88.19 (±28.2)
|
51.04 (±8.1)
|
32.65 (±6.9) |
Male who have taken Banned
substances
|
69.65 (±17.6)
|
136.39 (±18.5)
|
93.05 (±13.5)
|
89.25 (±15.2)
|
52.87 (±7.7)
|
27.03 (±9.2) |
Female who have taken
Banned substances
|
64.44 (±8.5)
|
138.44 (±17.3)
|
92.11 (±12.6)
|
69.44 (±36.9)
|
46.66 (±10.6)
|
32.66 (±6.7) |
Male who have NOT taken Banned
substances
|
49.92 (±11.9)
|
131.51 (±15.3)
|
90.47 (±11.1)
|
91.67 (±13.3)
|
50.41 (±6.9)
|
34.81 (±7.4) |
Female who have NOT taken Banned
substances
|
43.58 (±14.3)
|
141.17 (±10.7)
|
92.41 (±9.2)
|
98.12 (±15.9)
|
53.35 (±5.4)
|
32.65 (±7.3) |
Athletes who received
information about Banned
substances
|
51.76 (±17.4)
|
128.73 (±32.1)
|
87.48 (±10.5)
|
89.32 (±17.1)
|
50.78 (±7.5)
|
33.67 (±8.4) |
Athletes who did NOT receive
information about Banned
substances
|
56.95 (±14.9)
|
136.76 (±17.1)
|
93.92 (±12.2)
|
91.82 (±14.5)
|
51.26 (±6.9)
|
32.05 (±7.7) |
| Participants personally know
Athelets taking Banned
substances |
58.26 (±17.7)
|
136.92 (±32.9)
|
93.41 (±10.7)
|
90.98 (±17.3)
|
51.85 (±7.4)
|
29.42 (±8.5) |
| Participants personally DO NOT
know
Athelets taking Banned
substances |
52.61 (±14.7)
|
131.24 (±17.0)
|
89.89 (±12.1)
|
90.66 (±14.4)
|
50.56 (±7.2)
|
34.83 (±7.7) |
Note: you may need
to resize your browser window for better view of Tables
Descriptive statistics were calculated in the athletes who have taken
banned substances. Descriptive statistics on measurement level
variables are provided in Table 3. All the measures viz. Performance
Enhancement Attitude (PEA), Perceived Task Involving Climate (PTIC),
Perceived Ego Involving Climate (PEIC), Coach’s Criticism (CC), Concern
over Mistakes (CM), Personal Standard (PS), Task Orientation (TO), Ego
Orientation (EO), Trait Sport Confidence Inventory (TSCI) and
Functional social Support (FSSQ) were negatively skewed.
TABLE 3
Measurement level descriptive statistics
Variables
|
Min.
|
Max.
|
Mean
|
SE
|
SD
|
Variance
|
Skewnes
|
Kurtosis
|
Performance Enhancement Attitude
Scale
|
34
|
92
|
69.08
|
1.86
|
16.92
|
286.15
|
-.454
|
-1.146
|
Perceived Task Involved Climate
|
44
|
85
|
72.49
|
1.17
|
10.68
|
114.20
|
-.770 |
-.379 |
Perceived Ego Involved Climate
|
39
|
82
|
64.12
|
1.15
|
10.49
|
110.21
|
-.219 |
-.989 |
Coach's Criticism
|
14
|
30
|
23.08
|
.36
|
3.31
|
10.93
|
-.310 |
-.291 |
Concern over Mistakes
|
15
|
35
|
27.02
|
.55
|
5.04
|
25.41
|
-.346 |
-1.035 |
Personal Standards
|
28
|
55
|
42.83
|
.74
|
6.78
|
46.02
|
-.363 |
-.664 |
Task Orientation
|
14
|
35
|
28.92
|
.48
|
4.43
|
19.66
|
-1.052 |
1.075 |
Ego Orientation
|
12
|
36
|
23.53
|
.51
|
4.65
|
21.62
|
-.413 |
-.174 |
Trait Sport Confidence Inventory
|
36
|
115
|
87.11
|
2.13
|
19.42
|
377.19
|
-1.302 |
1.187 |
Functional Social Support
Questionnaire
|
9
|
47
|
27.64
|
.99
|
9.07
|
82.38
|
-.153 |
-.747 |
Note: you may need
to resize your browser window for better view of Tables
Student’s ‘t’ test were applied in the
score of questionnaires between one group of athletes who have taken
banned substances and athletes who have not taken banned substances,
the statistically significant differences were found in performance
enhancement attitude scale (p<0.001), trait sport confidence
inventory scale (p<0.05), and functional social support
questionnaire (p<0.001), as shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Differences in the questionnaires between athletes who have taken
banned substances and athletes who have not taken banned substances
Questionnaires
|
Athletes who have taken Banned
Substances
(Mean±SD)
|
Athletes who have not taken
Banned Substances
(Mean±SD) |
t-Value
|
PEA-Scale
|
69.08±16.9
|
49.43±12.2
|
9.68***
|
PMCSQ
|
136.61±18.3
|
132.25±15.2
|
1.935NS
|
PSS
|
92.95±13.3
|
90.62±10.9
|
1.422NS
|
TSCI
|
87.11±19.4
|
92.17±13.6
|
2.184*
|
TEOSQ
|
52.2±8.2
|
50.64±6.9
|
1.549NS
|
FSSQ
|
27.64±9.1
|
34.64±7.4
|
6.289***
|
***
- Significant p<0.001
* - Significant p<0.05
NS - Non Significant
Pearson correlation were applied
between PEA Scale and various psychological variables viz. Perceived
Task Involving Climate (PTIC), Perceived Ego Involving Climate (PEIC),
Coach’s Criticism (CC), Concern over Mistakes (CM), Personal Standard
(PS), Task Orientation (TO), Ego Orientation (EO), Trait Sport
Confidence Inventory (TSCI) and Functional Social Support (FSSQ) in the
group of athletes who have taken banned substances, as shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5
Correlation between PEA scores & other psychological variables
Scale
|
PEA Scale
|
r2
|
Perceived Task Involving Climate
|
0.07
|
0.53%
|
Perceived Ego Involving Climate
|
0.46**
|
21.71%
|
Coach’s Criticism
|
0.48**
|
23.14%
|
| Concern over Mistakes |
0.72**
|
51.98%
|
Personal Standard
|
0.43**
|
18.41%
|
| Task Orientation |
0.24*
|
5.63%
|
| Ego orientation |
0.43**
|
18.32%
|
Trait Sport Confidence Inventory
|
0.16
|
2.565%
|
Functional Social Support
Questionnaire
|
-0.008
|
0.006%
|
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
DISCUSSION
The
aim of the present study was to explore the role of psychological and
social support factors which could influence the use of drug abuse
substances in sports. Statistically significant differences were seen
in PEA-Scale (p<0.001), TSCI (p<0.05) and D-UNC FSSQ (p<0.001)
questionnaires between the athletes who have taken banned substances
and the athletes who have not taken banned substances.
Athletes who accepted that they have taken banned substances had much
higher score (mean) on PEA-Scale (69.08) as compared to the athletes
who have not taken banned substances (49.43), which demonstrates that
they really wanted to enhance their performance, no matter how. This
finding is consistent with previous research which suggests that
athletes’ win orientation have an effect on doping attitude [9]. It
could also be emphasised here that economic status might have inkling
towards the winning attitude in athletes as stated by economic theory
of doping which mainly assume that athletes act according to economic
rationality. Most of the athletes are likely to see doping as their
best option and the only feasible strategy to ensure winning [16].
The athletes who indulged in drug abuse substances were less confident
(87.11) in their sporting ability than the athletes who did not indulge
in such abuse of banned substances (92.17). These findings indicate a
direct influence of self confidence over athletes’ attitude to use
doping, which is parallel to the findings of Radovanovic et al. (1998)
and Donovan et al. (2002) [17, 18].
Further, it is also imperative to mention here that in a study
conducted by Skarberg et al. (2007) [19], it was
found that the
anabolic androgenic steroid users were having deprived relationship
with their parents and half of them had gone through physical or mental
abuse, moreover their childhood was also disturbed and they were
socially dissatisfied. The results of the present study also exhibit a
similar trend with athletes with low social support (27.64) inclined
towards drug abuse than the athletes with high social support (34.64).
Another important factor which has emerged from the findings of the
present study in curbing the drug menace in sports is the dissemination
of information among the athletes about the harmful effects of drug
abuse. The results of the present study also suggests that only
125 (41%) athletes received information about banned substances in
their
sport, whereas out of 83 athletes from the total of 303 who accepted to
have taken banned substances, only 28 (33.73%) athletes received
information about these substances and rest 55 (66.27%) athletes
received no information indicating lack of knowledge about banned
substances which probably lead athletes toward engaging in these
substances. Education about banned substances in sports is of utmost
important as stated by Hardy et al. (1997) [20]
that in the Australian
Football League doping is not a problem, most likely because an
education program is being run by the football authority, similarly
Ozdemir et al. (2005) [6] also emphasized on
education program of doping
in sports. In addition, another study by Dvorak et al. (2006) [21]
stated that FIFA’s anti-doping strategy relies on education and
prevention.
In the present survey, it was found that 118 (39%) athletes accepted
that they personally know athletes who are taking banned substances. In
total of 83 athletes who have taken banned substances, 54 (65.06%)
personally know athletes who were taking banned substances; it suggests
influence of peer pressure in athletes attitude towards engaging in
these substances, these results of present study are supported by the
findings of Backhouse et al. (2007) [22], who
stated that the
appropriate reason for using performance enhancement drugs were own
personal interest, personally knowing of athletes who are using and
non-conformity of peer group, and by study of Wieffernik et al. (2008)
[10], who stated that the psychosocial factors
which are more
susceptible for the use of performance enhancement drugs are individual
norms, to get better performance and noticeable use of others.
The results of the present study reveals statistically significant
correlation of PEA Scale with perceived ego involving climate (0.46),
and coach's criticism (0.48). These findings suggest that an athlete
who perceives high ego involving climate may be at risk for doping.
Also, it seems that the criticism made by coach on athletes’
performance creates a negative influence on their perception and could
lead them towards doping. Athletes believe that the coach creates an
ego involving atmosphere in their team and this ego climate which is
created by coach has a significant role in athletes’ behaviour [23].
The results of present study also show significant correlations of PEA
Scale with concern over mistakes (0.72) and personal standards (0.43).
The behaviour of athletes to show concern over their mistakes and to
gauge high personal standards also play a decisive role in drug abuse
as shown by the findings of the present study, which is in agreement
with Sleasman (2009) [24] who stated that for
improving perfection one
can move towards the shortcut through artificial stimulants and muscle
building hormones. The study by Petroczi et al. (2008) [16]
also
suggested that the anticipation of perfection for progress and
improvement or aspiration to win has an influence on the athletes’
behaviour.
Results of the present study show significant correlation of PEA Scale
with task orientation (0.24) and ego orientation (0.43). A high task
and ego orientation in sports also has a significant role in attitude
toward doping by athletes, as suggested by Petroczi et al. (2007) [9]
who stated that task and ego orientation had a rational association
with doping behaviour. A small negative (but non significant)
correlation between PEA Scale and FSSQ (0.008) was seen in the results
of present study which indicates athletes’ willingness to enhance
performance having low social support with the help of drug abuse
substances.
The result of the present study also showed that even the university
level players (25%) engaged in drug abuse substances, indicating
prevalence of doping at this level also; which is a matter of grave
concern. The beginner level competition should be fair and players
should know the importance of fair play. These results of the present
study are consistent with the finding of previous studies, who found
that the drug abuse substances are being used by high school athletes
in France [7, 25]. In another
study, Tahtamouni et al. (2008) [26]
found that more than half of the collegiate students of Jordan are
using AAS, and they gave emphasis to educate and warn adolescents and
mentors about the side effects of AAS abuse.
Therefore, the anti-doping strategies are required to prevent the use
of these substances by players rather than disqualifying them from
competition. A proper assessment of player is necessary, including,
medical history, social history and psychological history. An education
program for players is essential, as Chan et al. (2005) [27]
investigated the opinion, understanding and practice of doping in the
local sporting community of Hong Kong and found that the local athletes
have no clear picture about dope substances. To prevent local athletes
from using these substances, a tailored made education program about
doping control is necessary, whereas, Ama et al. (2003) [28]
investigated the use and awareness of lawful and unlawful substances by
amateur footballers in Cameroon and concluded that prevention of doping
through awareness is much essential and the study on prevalence of
doping among footballers is urgently needed. In another study, Kayser
et al. (2007) [29] reviewed the recent development
of increasingly
severe anti-doping control measures and found them based on
questionable ethical grounds and suggested that the main aim of the
current anti-doping strategy is to prevent doping in elite sports by
the means of all-out repression, and making it a public discourse. They
also suggested that doping prevention is an unachievable task in
sports; therefore, a more realistic approach should aim at control and
safe use of these drugs which may be practicable choice to deal with
doping. The current antidoping policy has received much criticism for
its elite focus, sanction-based approach and associated costs [30],
apart from these current anti-doping strategies, a need exist to find
the deep rooted causes of doping and the results of the present study
will help to focus and analyse the basic causes of doping. As such,
unless we do not know the basic causes of attitudes towards doping it
is very hard to obtain a dope free environment.
CONCLUSION
The present study reveals that several psychological and social support
factors may contribute to the athletes’ propensity to engage in drug
abuse substances. These factors include, willingness to enhance
performance, high perception of ego involving climate, criticism by
coach, much concern of athletes on their own mistakes, athletes’
personal standard, lack of self confidence, low social support, as well
as high task and ego orientations. Many athletes through self reported
measures revealed that they can improve their performance by engaging
in drug abuse in relatively short span of time instead of adapting to
advanced techniques. General psychology of the athletes is that in
their sports only performance matters, no matter how they achieve it.
Some athletes are of view that the banned substances should be
legalized in the competition. Inadequate knowledge of dope substances
and their adverse effect could also contribute to the use of these
substances by athletes.
Since less than 50% of athletes accepted that they received information
about banned substances in their sport, hence sports officials are
required to distribute information booklet to each and every player
informing them about the banned substances, because adequate knowledge
about these drugs and their adverse effects might help them to avoid
using these substances. Psychological factors are very important in
player’s decision towards using banned substances, so proper
counselling of athletes by sports psychologist is much required. During
counselling, social support factors should also be considered. There is
no short cut for performance enhancement, but if athletes take this
course of doping they may end up with jeopardizing their health. So to
save athletes from ruining their health and future of sports by using
these substances they should be encouraged to learn new skills and
techniques to enhance performance. This will be the duty of coaches,
sports physiotherapist, sports psychologists and sports officials to
guide athletes towards a positive approach to encounter the pressure of
any competition. Emphasis should be given on sports participation and
coaches should praise athletes for their effort whether they win or
lose, never criticize them for their mistake but try to motivate them
to learn from their mistakes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We
would like to thank all our participants to support us in completing
this study.
REFERENCES
Please
note: web enhanced references below provide no registration free
access
to documents
1. Calatayud, V. A., Alcaide, G.
G., Zurian, J. C., Benavent, R. A. (2007). Consumption of anabolic
steroids in sport, physical activity and as a drug of abuse: an
analysis of the scientific literature and areas of research. Br J
Sports Med, 42, 103-109 [ PubMed
][ Back2Text ].
2. Peters, C., Schulz, T.,
Michna, H. (2002). Biomedical side effects of doping. Project of the
European union. Verlag sport and Buch Straub- Koln [
URL
][ Back2Text
].
3. Moran A., Guerin, S., Kirby,
K., Maclntyre, T. (2008). The development and validation of a doping
attitudes and behaviours scale. Report to WADA & Irish sports
council [
URL
][ Back2Text ].
4. Mieth, D., Sorsa, M. (1999).
Ethical aspects arising from doping in sports. Opinion of the European
group on ethics in science and new technologies to the European
commission, 14 [ URL
][ Back2Text ].
5. Kindlundh, A.M.S., Hagekull, B., Isacson, D.G.L.,
Nyberg, F. (2001). Adolescent use of anabolic-androgenic steroids and
relations to self-reports of social, personality and health aspects.
Euro j of public health. 11:3, 322-328 [
PubMed
][ Back2Text ].
6. Ozdemir, L., Nur, N.,
Bagcivan, I., Bulut, O., Sumer, H., Tezeren, G. (2005). Doping and
performance enhancing drug use in athletes living in Sivas,
Mid-Anatolia: A brief report. J of sports sciences & medicine. 4,
248-252
[ URL
][ Back2Text ].
7. Laure, P., Binsinger, C.
(2007). Doping prevalence among preadolescent athletes: a 4-year follow
up. Br J Sports Med, 41, 660-663 [ PubMed
][ Back2Text ].
8. Ehrnborg,
C., Rosen, T. (2009). The psychology behind doping in sport. Growth
hormone and IGF Research. 19:4, 285-287 [
PubMed ][ Back2Text ]
9. Petroczi A. (2007).
Attitudes and doping: a structural equation analysis of the
relationship between athletes’ attitudes, sport orientation and doping
behaviour. Biomed central, substance abuse treatment, prevention, and
policy, 2:34 [ PubMed
][ Back2Text ].
10. Wiefferink, C. H., Detmar,
S. B., Caumans, B., Vogels, T., Paulussen, T. G. W. (2008). Social
psychological determinants of the use of performance-enhancing drugs by
gym users. Healtheducation research, 28:1, 70-80
[ PubMed
][ Back2Text ].
11. Newton, M., Duda, J. L.,
Yin, Z. (2000). Examination of the psychometric properties of the
perceived motivational climate in sport questionnaire-2 in a sample of
female athletes. J of Sports Sciences, 18, 275-290
[ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].
12. Anshel, M. H., Eom, H. J.
(2003). Exploring the dimensions of perfectionism in sports. Int J of
Sports Psychology, 34, 255-271
[ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].
13. Vealey, R. S. (1986).
Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation:
Preliminary investigation and instrument development. J of Sports
Psycho, 10, 471-478 [ Back2Text
].
14. Duda, J. L., Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions
of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. J of Edu Psycho, 84,
290-299 [
PubMed ][ Back2Text ].
15. Broadhead, W. E., Gehlback, S. H., DeGruy, F. V.,
Kaplan, B. H. (1988). The Duke-UNC Functional Social Support
Questionnaire Measurement of Social Support in family medicine
Patients. Medical care, 26:7, 709-723 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].
16. Petroczi, A., Aidman, E. V.,
Nepusz, T. (2008). Capturing doping attitudes by self report
declarations and implicit assessment: A methodology study. Biomed
central, substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 3:9 [ PubMed
][ Back2Text ].
17. Radovanovic, D., Jovanovic,
D., Rankovic, G. (1998). Doping in nonprofessional sport. Facta
Universitatis, Physical education, 1:5, 55-60 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].
18. Donovan, R.J., Egger, G.,
Kapernick, V., Mendoza, J. (2002). A conceptual framework for achieving
performance enhancing drug compliance in sport. Sports Medicine. 32:4,
269-284 [ PubMed
][ Back2Text ].
19. Skarberg, K., Engstorm, I.
(2007). Troubled social background of male anabolic androgenic steroid
abusers in treatment. Biomed central, substance abuse treatment,
prevention, and policy, 2:20 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].
20. Hardy, K. J., McNeil, J. J., Capes, A.
G. (1997). Drug doping in senior Australian Rules football: a survey
for frequency. Br J Sports Med, 31, 126-128 [ PubMed
][ Back2Text ].
21. Dvorak, J., Graf-Baumann,
T., D’Hooghe, M., Kirkendall, D., Taennler, H., Saugy, M. (2006).
FIFA’s approach to doping in football. Br J Sports Med, 40 (Suppl
I):i3–i12.
[ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].
22. Backhouse S, McKenna J,
Robinson S, Atkin A. Attitudes, Behaviours, Knowledge and Education –
Drugs in Sport: Past, Present and Future 2007 Available at
www.wada-ama.org
[ URL ][ Back2Text ].
23. Olympiou, A., Jowett, S.,
Duda, J. L. (2008). The psychological interface between the
coach-created motivational climate and the coach-athlete relationship
in team sports. The sport psychologist, 22, 423-438 [ PubMed
][ Back2Text ].
24. Sleasman, M. J. (2009). Beyond perfectionism.
Available at The center for Bioethics and human dignity web site [ URL ][ Back2Text ].
25. Peretti-Watel, P., Guagliardo, V., Verger, P.,
Mignon, P., Pruvost, J., Obadia, Y. (2004): Attitudes toward doping and
recreational use among French elite student athletes. Soc Sport J,
21:1-17 [
PubMed ][ Back2Text ].
26. Tahtamouni, L. H., Mustafa,
N. H., Alfaouri, A. A., Hassan, I. M., Abdalla, M. Y., Yasin, S. R.
(2008). Prevalence and risk factors for anabolic-androgenic steroid
abuse among Jordanian collegiate students and athletes. Eur J Public
Health., 18:6, 661-665 [ PubMed
][ Back2Text ].
27. Chan, K. M., Ping, C.,
Yuan, Y., Wong, Y. Y. (2005). A survey on drug usage among Hong Kong
elite athletes- opinion, understanding and practice. Hong Kong sports
development board. [ Back2Text
].
28. Ama, P. F. M., Betnga, B.,
Ama, V. J. M., Kamga, J. P. (2003). Football and doping: study of
African amateur footballers. Br J Sports Med, 37, 307–310 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].
29. Kayser, B., Mouron, A.,
Miah, A. (2007). Current anti-doping policy: a critical appraisal.
Biomed central, substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 8:2
[ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].
30. Petroczi, A., Aidman, E.V. (2008). Psychological drivers in
doping: The life-cycle model of performance enhancement. Biomed
central, substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 3:7 [ PubMed
][ Back2Text ].
 CLICK
HERE OR PRESS <CTRL><D> TO BOOKMARK THIS ARTICLE |
|
| This
article should be cited in the following way:
Kumar Neeraj, Paul Maman,
Sandhu J.S. Why Players Engage in Drug Abuse Substances? A Survey
Study. The
Doping
Journal
Vol. 8, 1 (2011) Available at: http://dopingjournal.org/content/8/1/
( Please make sure you
included
article web address in your citation! )
|
Copyright©
2011+ by The
Doping Journal (ISSN 1812-948x)
Learn
why Doping Journal serves AdWords
ads by Google, and how one can be of help
ABSTRACT