Doping Sanctions in Sport: Knowledge and Perception of (Legal) Consequences of Doping—An Explorative Study in Austria
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
Anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs) can lead to sports-related and legal sanctions, thus, being knowledgeable is important. Research into this knowledge and how athletes and their support personnel (ASP) perceive the control mechanisms and the appropriateness of (legal) sanctions is still scarce. This explorative study aimed to examine the knowledge and perception of existing (legal) sanctions in Austria, by distributing a questionnaire to Austrian athletes and ASP covering the topics of knowledge related to legal and sports-related consequences associated with a specific ADRV presented in a case study, their trust and satisfaction with specific agencies (based on the European Social Survey (ESS)) and perceived efficiency and effectiveness of the doping control system. Data were analyzed descriptively. All respondents (N = 59) agreed on a ban from sport to be appropriate. Knowledge about legal consequences and the trust in the judiciary and the sport governing bodies was moderate (6.82 out of 10). Perceived appropriate consequences were on average higher than the likely sanctions to be faced. Future prevention should include trust building measures in the institutions and the control system, improvement in terms of access to law and education for the target group and critical reflection on the existence of social norms. Furthermore, the implementation of risk management aspects should be part of future approaches.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it