ABSTRACT
First principles While the rationale for anti-doping is largely based on health and ethical premises (the spirit of sport), until very recently WADA’s primary strategy has been to deter doping through the implementation of doping controls (British Medical Association, 2002), which have grown over the years both in number and sophistication. The cornerstone of anti-doping is the premise that if you dope, the authorities will catch you and punish you. It is assumed that if doping athletes perceive that there is a high likelihood of detection, and that there will be severe consequences, then they will be less likely to engage in any such behaviours. Logically, as the perceived likelihood of detection (e.g. more tests, better tests) or severity of consequences (e.g. larger fines, longer bans) increase, the deterrent effect is similarly increased. This approach appears commonsensical and has attracted anecdotal support from athletes. For example, English swimmer Adam Peaty (Riach, 2016) said:
I know testing week-on-week is expensive for governing bodies, but what is more expensive is people coming out as cheats and then people [spectators] not watching. That’s more expensive to the sport. [The coach] Jon Rudd down in Plymouth believes in more testing as well, with Ruta Meilutyte and his athletes like Ben Proud. He’s challenged testers to test every week if not twice a week because that’s the way it should be. Hopefully after the Olympics I’m tested every other week and other athletes are as well, that’s the way it should be.
