Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Doping: A Sporting History, April Henning and Paul Dimeo, both prolific writers with multiple books published in recent years, team up to create a thorough introduction to doping in sports that not only traces the history of doping but also offers tangible and thoughtful ideas for moving forward. The authors chronicle the start of the push toward drug-free sports and the anti-doping movement, addressing myths and inaccuracies in arguing when and why anti-doping emerged as an issue in sports. Throughout the book, the authors highlight the nuances and complexity of regulating the substances and methods that sport scientists developed to enhance athletic performance. The common narrative that athletes who commit anti-doping rule violations are cheaters or morally bankrupt human beings is challenged throughout.Chapters 1, 2, and 3 cover the history of doping in sports, focusing on when and why sport administrators pushed back against an increasing number of athletes’ use of stimulants and steroids to enhance their performances. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on drug testing, the growth of the anti-doping movement, and the corresponding challenges to athletes’ autonomy that the system created. Chapters 6 and 7, the final two chapters, are athlete-centered and move from description to prescription: suggesting what is needed to make the anti-doping field fairer and more defensible and to reduce the collateral damage the system creates. Here, the authors add fresh ideas to the anti-doping literature by moving beyond critiquing the system to offering interesting and innovative ideas for positive change.Like much of the doping history that came before it, this book emphasizes the role of sport administrators in cycling and athletics, specifically cycling and athletics in Europe, in chronicling the development of the current anti-doping regulations. Little is still known about the origins of anti-doping attitudes in sports beyond cycling and athletics and beyond Europe and North America. Doping historians will not find much new until the final two chapters; however, scholars and students interested in doping from the fields of sport management, sociology, media studies, and so on will find this book provides an excellent introduction to the history of doping and anti-doping in sports. Undergraduate students will find this book a page-turner that captures their attention from the first page. This book would work well as required reading in a seminar on drugs in sports or as a specific unit within a broader social issues in sport course. The book's most useful function may be for lecturers teaching the history of doping. It is an excellent reference to quickly refresh memories of the many scandals and incidents that led to the current anti-doping system and requirements set out in the World Anti-Doping Agency's World Anti-Doping Code.Henning and Dimeo cover a lot of ground in the book's 240 pages, problematizing the system that remains in force today and considering what can and should be done differently. In doing so, they provide insight into why the anti-doping system remains ineffective by highlighting what they call the “central paradox of anti-doping,” noting the systems that WADA developed, and demands all signatories adhere to, “place almost no trust in athletes, subject them to various forms of invasive surveillance and punish even the most minor discretions, but simultaneously assume that sports organization leaders, directors of laboratories and drug-control officers can all be trusted to take their responsibilities seriously and follow the rules” (189). Henning and Dimeo's analysis of “collateral damage” is another strength of the book. They reserve the term for cases where “an athlete receives a ban that is not for deliberate doping or receives a grossly exaggerated ban that is disproportionate to the circumstances of the doping violation” (193). In discussing the collateral damage that the anti-doping system creates and sustains, Henning and Dimeo note, “Athletes pay a high price for the pursuit of the mirage or fantasy of ‘clean sport,’ and it would be a mistake to assume that all would dope given an opportunity. The debate has to move beyond simplistic assertions about ‘cheating,’ ‘integrity’ and ‘health,’ and shift towards recognizing the flaws in the current system” (193). This book is one step in doing so.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».