Safeguarding athletes and anti-doping: applying theories of vulnerability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
'Safeguarding' in sport has been a fast-growing movement, particularly in the past decade, which currently encompasses a field of study and a policy development strategy. Although it is greatly needed in all sectors of sport, the concept and application of safeguarding to anti-doping has been underexplored and under theorized. In this article, utilizing the method of critical philosophical and ethical analysis, we attempt to provide evidence regarding why the intersection between safeguarding and anti-doping is very important and requires critical analysis; moreover, we suggest that feminist bioethics reflections on vulnerability can offer unique insights into key issues related to safeguarding in sport, such as the autonomy of athletes and the concept of 'protected persons' and, most pertinent to this research, to the concepts of athlete vulnerability and anti-doping in sport. We explore the concept of vulnerability within the context of doping and anti-doping. We examine the etymology of vulnerability, discuss contemporary theories, particularly those based on biomedical ethics and feminist theories, and apply these ideas to context of anti-doping in sport. We also address the concept of safeguarding in sport, focusing on its current definitions and applications and identify gaps in the literature where doping is not yet considered a safeguarding issue. Through discussion, we link the concept of vulnerability with safeguarding by analyzing specific anti-doping cases where athlete vulnerability can, and has, resulted in significant harm to athletes' integrity and wellbeing. These cases are from situations with minors, and they serve as a platform to put forward an integrated approach for policy development that draws on feminist theories of vulnerability, safeguarding, and biomedical ethics principles. In the results presented in the summary and conclusions, we discuss how insights from feminist theories and biomedical ethics can contribute to more effective safeguarding policies, emphasizing the importance of prevention and education rather than just the current kind of safeguarding measures that are predominantly punitive. We conclude by advocating for the urgent implementation of comprehensive safeguarding measures that address the vulnerabilities associated with anti-doping amongst athletes at all levels. This approach should prioritize prevention, fostering a balanced system that emphasizes education and awareness; where education is not just solely related to individual agency and educating athletes, but also about educating all of the anti-doping movement stakeholders to understand the particular role they play in the circumstances that increase vulnerability so that the risks can be mitigated structurally as well. To achieve this end, it is essential to develop educational programs that not only inform athletes about the risks and consequences of doping, but also empowers them with knowledge about their rights and responsibilities within the sporting community and the responsibilities of other stakeholders within the anti-doing movement. These safeguarding programs should be designed not only to promote resilience against external pressures, but, in particular, to reduce vulnerability that is created structurally more broadly speaking in the anti-doping context.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.087 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".