Detroit cancer incidence data was supported by the NCI SEER Program contract N01-PC-35145.
When asked how they view doping within their sport, many non-elite runners immediately begin discussing the activities of elite or professional runners. They talk about performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) using words like “risky” and “unhealthy,” and regard runners who have failed doping tests as “cheats” and morally “bad.” In some ways, discussing elite runners when the topic of doping arises is logical. Elite AICA RibosideMedChemExpress AICA Riboside athletes are subject to constant surveillance through increased testing protocols and programs such as the athlete biological passport (ABP) program, they are forced to comply with doping regulations set out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in order to compete, and the names of elite runners continually show up in newspapers when doping scandals occur. Yet, the effects of these anti-doping efforts do not simply stop at the line between elite and non-elite runners. They also bleed into the everyday practices of the non-elite runner. Anti-doping surveillance Duvoglustat biological activity technologies are directed at the high-risk population (Dean 1998) of elite athletes. Elite runners are regarded as suspicious in terms of doping and PED use because the perceived stakes of winning a competition–prize money, often in large amounts; sponsorship deals resulting from major wins–are high enough that elites may be tempted to use PEDs. Elite surveillance works to discipline runners by monitoring their bodies in order to detect the presence of banned substances or doping methods. Because they can be tested at anytime, elites must conform to anti-doping regulations or face sanctions, including bans from competition (WADA 2009). Non-elite runners, in contrast, generally do not rely on race winnings as a primary source of income. As the stakes are perceived to be much lower, so too are the risks of doping, which do not warrant direct biological surveillance. This paper explores disciplining effects of current anti-doping surveillance systems on the daily behaviors, habits and health consequences of non-elite runners. As this group is not exposed to direct anti-doping testing and enforcement, it is tempting to argue non-elites are unaffected by anti-doping efforts that target the elite level of their sport. However, because non-elite runners are not subject to anti-doping surveillance systems nor are forced toHenningPagecomply with anti-doping regulations, they are implicated within the wider arena of disciplinary power that envelops both elite and non-elite athletes and anti-doping agencies. Non-elite runners report engaging in self-surveillance in their training and supplementing practices, often relying on those they view as experts when making decisions about how to enhance their performances with minimal risk to their health and to ensure conformity to the rules and norms of their sport as far as they understand them. Since their knowledge of banned substances is largely derived from media accounts of elites who are caught doping, many non-elite runners have only a superficial and sometimes incorrect understanding of doping. Many view doping and its associated health risks as a problem only of elite running that remains limited to only a handful of widely publicized PEDs or doping methods. As a result of these misunderstandings non-elite runners are vulnerable to many negative health effects from the misuse of over-the-counter (OTC) medications and nutritional supplements1.Detroit cancer incidence data was supported by the NCI SEER Program contract N01-PC-35145.
When asked how they view doping within their sport, many non-elite runners immediately begin discussing the activities of elite or professional runners. They talk about performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) using words like “risky” and “unhealthy,” and regard runners who have failed doping tests as “cheats” and morally “bad.” In some ways, discussing elite runners when the topic of doping arises is logical. Elite athletes are subject to constant surveillance through increased testing protocols and programs such as the athlete biological passport (ABP) program, they are forced to comply with doping regulations set out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in order to compete, and the names of elite runners continually show up in newspapers when doping scandals occur. Yet, the effects of these anti-doping efforts do not simply stop at the line between elite and non-elite runners. They also bleed into the everyday practices of the non-elite runner. Anti-doping surveillance technologies are directed at the high-risk population (Dean 1998) of elite athletes. Elite runners are regarded as suspicious in terms of doping and PED use because the perceived stakes of winning a competition–prize money, often in large amounts; sponsorship deals resulting from major wins–are high enough that elites may be tempted to use PEDs. Elite surveillance works to discipline runners by monitoring their bodies in order to detect the presence of banned substances or doping methods. Because they can be tested at anytime, elites must conform to anti-doping regulations or face sanctions, including bans from competition (WADA 2009). Non-elite runners, in contrast, generally do not rely on race winnings as a primary source of income. As the stakes are perceived to be much lower, so too are the risks of doping, which do not warrant direct biological surveillance. This paper explores disciplining effects of current anti-doping surveillance systems on the daily behaviors, habits and health consequences of non-elite runners. As this group is not exposed to direct anti-doping testing and enforcement, it is tempting to argue non-elites are unaffected by anti-doping efforts that target the elite level of their sport. However, because non-elite runners are not subject to anti-doping surveillance systems nor are forced toHenningPagecomply with anti-doping regulations, they are implicated within the wider arena of disciplinary power that envelops both elite and non-elite athletes and anti-doping agencies. Non-elite runners report engaging in self-surveillance in their training and supplementing practices, often relying on those they view as experts when making decisions about how to enhance their performances with minimal risk to their health and to ensure conformity to the rules and norms of their sport as far as they understand them. Since their knowledge of banned substances is largely derived from media accounts of elites who are caught doping, many non-elite runners have only a superficial and sometimes incorrect understanding of doping. Many view doping and its associated health risks as a problem only of elite running that remains limited to only a handful of widely publicized PEDs or doping methods. As a result of these misunderstandings non-elite runners are vulnerable to many negative health effects from the misuse of over-the-counter (OTC) medications and nutritional supplements1.