Bio-medical wars in Canadian sport: issues in the prevention and detection of anabolic steroid use.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionIn Canadian sport, and sport more generally, a battle is waged offof the field of play between those who make, take, and test for performance-enhancing drugs. This battle can be termed a bio-medical war in sport. In this context, sport becomes a competition of biology, medicine, chemistry, technology, ethics, and the economic incentive to win at all costs. Describing this competition, one junior football player interviewed in this study stated, drug testers will just never be able to keep up to the drug takers. They are always just one step behind. In this paper, this biomedical war in sport is further examined, looking at the ongoing issues that doping control officers face in preventing and detecting the use of steroids in Canadian sport.The interview data used for this study pertains specifically to the sport of football in Canada. It can, however, apply to sport in Canada more generally as the testing procedures for other sports remain the same, as do the issues in prevention and detection. In Canadian football, and Canadian sport more generally, steroid testing is conducted by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES). The CCES abides by provisions set out by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which took over responsibility for developing international standards and prohibitions of performance-enhancing drug use from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1999. The national governing bodies for sport support and enforce the disciplinary decisions of the CCES. The governing bodies also help the athlete who is facing disciplinary sanction for using a banned substance to understand the sanction and to file an appeal to the CCES. The drug testing procedure is carried out at random. A doping control officer from the CCES will arrive at a team practice or game and select a few players at random for the test. Players can also be tested, at random, during anytime during the season or the off-season. A single team can typically have between zero and twenty players tested in a single season.Players and coaches are not given any advance warning that their team will be tested on a specific date. The testing process begins with a doping control officer selecting several players on a team at random, typically during a team practice. After a CCES doping control officer makes his random selections, a team coach or trainer will notify the players who are to be tested. A CCES supervisor greets each player and remains with the player until he has removed any equipment and is ready to take the test. Players are asked to urinate into a cup. Players must pull their shirts above their chest and pants below their knees to ensure that they are not tampering with the urine sample in any way. The CCES supervisor watches the sample collection at all times. After the CCES supervisor has secured the sample, he informs the player about the testing process and asks the player to fill out a consent form. Players are then given a free t-shirt and towel from the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport for their participation. Players who refuse to take the test automatically fail and face disciplinary review by the CCES.If a player tests positive for a banned substance, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport imposes a penalty on the player depending on the severity of the offense and playing level. Players at junior and university playing levels typically receive a one-year suspension for first-time offenses. In professional football, a first time offence is met with an option to undergo drug counseling but includes no suspension. A second offence results in a three-game suspension. A fourth offence results in one year suspension. A fourth offence results in a lifetime ban from the league.Traditional inquiry into steroid use in sport has examined topics such as: correlates of steroid use (Miller et al., 2002), risk perceptions of steroid use (Denham, 2009), effects of steroid use on athletic performance (Husak & Irschick, 2009), long-term health risks (Parssinen, & Seppala, 2002) scientific problems with drug testing results (Saey, 2008), prevalence of steroid use in sport (Berning et al, 2004), and ethical issues related to doping and doping control (Moller, 2010). …
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".