4.1 Article

Attitudes toward doping among young athletes in Provence

Journal

SCIENCE & SPORTS
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 33-40

Publisher

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scispo.2004.04.003

Keywords

doping; sport; youth; attitudes

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. - This study examined attitudes toward doping and their correlates among elite athletes in South-Eastern France. Method. - Overall, 1,197 young elite athletes aged 16-24 were asked to participate. They were recruited in sporting public centres, ill training centres depending on professional football and basketball clubs, and during courses organised by regional federations for their best athletes. Data were collected with a self-administered anonymous questionnaire. We used a cluster analysis in order to summarize attitudes toward doping in contrasted profiles. Results. - Among the initial sample, 996 young athletes agreed to participate (response rate 83%). We found a consensus among respondents concerning negative aspects of doping (dishonest, unhealthy and hazardous because of sanctions, for 95.2% of them). However, the cluster analysis showed that 52.8% of participants were prone to agree with a variety of statements dealing with sportive or non-sportive benefits of doping. This attitude was linked to motives to do sport, and it was more prevalent among mates, older respondents, those practising an individual sport without contact (such as athletics or cycling), and those registered in a training centre depending on a professional club. Conclusion. - Information and preventive actions targeting young athletes should focus more on anticipated benefits of doping, because this population seems already well aware of deleterious consequences of doping. Such actions should also take into account the variety of such anticipated benefits, which can be sportive as well as non-sportive. (C) 2004 Elsevier SAS. Tous droits reserves.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available