ABSTRACT
Analytical and non-analytical ADRVs Most of the existing anti-doping rule violations (see Chapter 2) cannot actually be detected via anti-doping control testing (Paoli & Donati, 2013). Nevertheless, the available data show that most of the reported success in the detection of ADRVs is largely a result of control testing. For example, WADA (2015a, 2015b) report that in 2013 there were 1,953 confirmed ADRVs, with only 266 of these (13.6 per cent of the cases) reported as non-analytical ADRVs. Based on such patterns, it has been suggested that it is rare to find an athlete willing to admit to doping in the absence of a positive test (Cooper, 2012) and so control testing is the logical focus of anti-doping detection. However, as shown in Chapter 3, Paoli and Donati (2013) found that in terms of financial investment (convictions per $ expenditure), coordinated investigations were the most productive detection method. It appears then that anti-doping authorities may be neglecting the most potent detection system, fixating instead on a system that produces success with just enough frequency to make it appear to be functional. Once again, appearances seem to matter more than reality. The role of admissions in securing ADRVs is a topic that has hitherto received almost no attention in the anti-doping literature. The current chapter is the first attempt to quantify the number of confessions in anti-doping cases, and to provide examples of the many different types of doping confessions. In this chapter we draw on the extensive body of forensic work on police interviewing techniques and suspect behaviour, linking that work to anti-doping investigations. As this is a literature and mindset that is quite alien to most anti-doping researchers, we begin by considering a rather fundamental question.
