Safeguarding athletes and anti-doping: applying theories of vulnerability
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
'Safeguarding' in sport has been a fast-growing movement, particularly in the past decade, which currently encompasses a field of study and a policy development strategy. Although it is greatly needed in all sectors of sport, the concept and application of safeguarding to anti-doping has been underexplored and under theorized. In this article, utilizing the method of critical philosophical and ethical analysis, we attempt to provide evidence regarding why the intersection between safeguarding and anti-doping is very important and requires critical analysis; moreover, we suggest that feminist bioethics reflections on vulnerability can offer unique insights into key issues related to safeguarding in sport, such as the autonomy of athletes and the concept of 'protected persons' and, most pertinent to this research, to the concepts of athlete vulnerability and anti-doping in sport. We explore the concept of vulnerability within the context of doping and anti-doping. We examine the etymology of vulnerability, discuss contemporary theories, particularly those based on biomedical ethics and feminist theories, and apply these ideas to context of anti-doping in sport. We also address the concept of safeguarding in sport, focusing on its current definitions and applications and identify gaps in the literature where doping is not yet considered a safeguarding issue. Through discussion, we link the concept of vulnerability with safeguarding by analyzing specific anti-doping cases where athlete vulnerability can, and has, resulted in significant harm to athletes' integrity and wellbeing. These cases are from situations with minors, and they serve as a platform to put forward an integrated approach for policy development that draws on feminist theories of vulnerability, safeguarding, and biomedical ethics principles. In the results presented in the summary and conclusions, we discuss how insights from feminist theories and biomedical ethics can contribute to more effective safeguarding policies, emphasizing the importance of prevention and education rather than just the current kind of safeguarding measures that are predominantly punitive. We conclude by advocating for the urgent implementation of comprehensive safeguarding measures that address the vulnerabilities associated with anti-doping amongst athletes at all levels. This approach should prioritize prevention, fostering a balanced system that emphasizes education and awareness; where education is not just solely related to individual agency and educating athletes, but also about educating all of the anti-doping movement stakeholders to understand the particular role they play in the circumstances that increase vulnerability so that the risks can be mitigated structurally as well. To achieve this end, it is essential to develop educational programs that not only inform athletes about the risks and consequences of doping, but also empowers them with knowledge about their rights and responsibilities within the sporting community and the responsibilities of other stakeholders within the anti-doing movement. These safeguarding programs should be designed not only to promote resilience against external pressures, but, in particular, to reduce vulnerability that is created structurally more broadly speaking in the anti-doping context.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,087 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».