Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through an examination of the challenges to the original, fundamental principles of the Olympic Movement during the post-Second World War era, and the eventual abandonment of those principles, this study poses questions concerning the legitimacy of the IOC’s current bannedsubstance list and policies. Using primary and secondary historical evidence, this article establishes the original, fundamental principles upon which Pierre de Coubertin revived the Olympic Games, and then traces the events which, in 1974 — the year the athlete eligibility code was significantly revised in the Olympic Charter — overturned those principles and ushered in the current era of commercialized and professionalized, world class, high performance sport. Significant events in elite sportduring the ‘cold war’ years from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s created a growing emphasis onperformance and performance enhancement such that substance use — steroids in particular — became common in the East and the West. It is argued that while substance prohibition was consistent with de Coubertin’s original principles, the 1974 change to Rule 26 of the Olympic Charter, and the reasons for that change, removed the central principles upon which the list of banned substances could be founded and justified, thereby legitimately opening the banned substance list to question. Inpresenting this history, the article presents a strong case for a thorough, non-partisan review of the IOC’s policy on performance-enhancing substances in world class, high performance sport.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".