The redundancy of the concept of ‘spirit of sport’ in discussions on the prohibited list of doping substances
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doping is defined by the World Anti-Doping Agency as the occurrence of an anti-doping rule violation. These violations are mainly materialised by the content of the Prohibited List International Standard. A substance or method may be put on the prohibited list if it meets any two of the following three criteria: (1) the potential to enhance sport performance; (2) representing a potential health risk to the athlete; and (3) a determination that it violates the ‘spirit of sport’. The concept of the ‘spirit of sport’ is explained in the fundamental rationale for the World Anti-Doping Code. This means that the decision that doping violates a fundamental principle of sport has already been made. One may not agree with this decision, but apparently there is some ‘spirit of sport’ that is deemed worthy of protection. As such, this concept is present in all anti-doping rules and regulations, and also in all discussions on the Prohibited List. But this concept is subsequently offered as a potential criterion to add substances or methods to the prohibited list as well. It is unsatisfactory to call something both fundamental and optional. It is proposed in this article to eliminate the ‘spirit of sport’ clause as an optional criterion in the determination whether a substance should be prohibited or not. This will focus discussions regarding the contents of the Prohibited List on the potentially performance-enhancing and health risk properties, which will guide doping-related discussions towards the core of what the concept of ‘doping’ should be.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it