Surveillance and control in sport: a sociologist looks at the WADA whereabouts system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper draws upon the sociology of Norbert Elias to examine some central aspects of the whereabouts system introduced by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) as part of its anti-doping policies. More specifically, the paper aims to: (1) locate the whereabouts system within the context of broader social processes, including changing practices and ideas concerning surveillance and control, personal liberty, privacy and democracy; (2) examine the impact of the introduction of the whereabouts system on the relationship between elite athletes and WADA; and (3) examine some of the difficulties in developing and implementing anti-doping policy. In relation to the latter, it is suggested that the introduction of the whereabouts policy has had a number of unplanned consequences which, from WADA's perspective, will almost certainly be seen as unwelcome: the alienation of large numbers of athletes, whose cooperation is essential if the system is to operate smoothly and efficiently; the deteriorating relationship with other key organizations such as the EU; the emergence of a challenge, led by the European Elite Athletes Association, to the legitimacy of decision-making processes within WADA; and finally, the uneven application of the whereabouts requirements which has led to the creation of what many athletes see as a new form of unfairness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".