An Exploration of Doping in Recreational Welsh Rugby An Ethical Analysis of Policy Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doping is widely misperceived as a problem limited to elite athlete populations. Yet evidence for the occurrence of doping at recreational levels can be found from a variety of sources across a range of sports. Understanding this phenomenon is made problematic because of the difficulties in accessing these athletes. The ambiguity in motivations for doping at this level has led researchers and policy makers to consider whether the problem is more one of public health rather than simply performance-related cheating in sport. This thesis explores the motivations, knowledge, perceived harms, perceptions of anti-doping policy, and the drug use practices of recreational Welsh rugby players, where prevalence is disproportionately high in the UK. Semi structured interviews with recreational Welsh rugby players (n=13) and gym users (n=9) from the South and West Wales region were conducted. Four key themes emerged: (i) the use of doping substances for aesthetic reasons; (ii) a concern for body image that can trigger doping; (iii) a range of problematic risk-taking behaviours; and (iv) lack of concern for anti-doping policy and practice. Given the harms associated with doping, attention was paid to the problem of identifying whether the primary policy response should be driven by health or sport organisations. An alternative policy response within harm reduction is here considered, adapting a contentious framework from the ethics of self-harm. Three broad alternative policy proposals are critically presented in relation to doping in recreational sport: (1) to prevent it; (2) to allow it; and (3) to supervise it. Each model is rejected. Due to the seriousness of the harms associated with doping and the public health threat, it is argued that public health bodies must provide specialist harm reduction for recreational athletes and gym users within Wales, to better protect the health of recreational athletes and the general public.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".