No Cover Image

Journal article 19 views

Talking dirty: Anti-doping’s stigmatizing rhetoric and its impact on the unintentional doper

Luke Cox Orcid Logo, Harry Grimes Orcid Logo, Luke Thomas Joseph Cox

Performance Enhancement & Health, Volume: 14, Issue: 2, Start page: 100412

Swansea University Author: Luke Cox Orcid Logo

Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1016/j.peh.2025.100412

Abstract

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is the principal body responsible for leading global efforts to address the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sport. Central to WADA’s strategic approach has been the framing of PED use as a form of cheating, a morally deviant behaviour that undermines...

Full description

Published in: Performance Enhancement & Health
ISSN: 2211-2669
Published: Elsevier BV 2026
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa71534
first_indexed 2026-03-04T12:35:32Z
last_indexed 2026-03-06T04:27:09Z
id cronfa71534
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2026-03-04T12:35:30.8477622</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>71534</id><entry>2026-03-04</entry><title>Talking dirty: Anti-doping&#x2019;s stigmatizing rhetoric and its impact on the unintentional doper</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>9811ac84cad867903c385bf7086dfd2d</sid><ORCID>0000-0001-7625-4603</ORCID><firstname>Luke</firstname><surname>Cox</surname><name>Luke Cox</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2026-03-04</date><deptcode>EAAS</deptcode><abstract>The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is the principal body responsible for leading global efforts to address the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sport. Central to WADA&#x2019;s strategic approach has been the framing of PED use as a form of cheating, a morally deviant behaviour that undermines the integrity of competition. This moralised discourse constructs doping not merely as a regulatory infraction but as an ethical transgression, reinforcing a dichotomy between &#x201C;clean&#x201D; and &#x201C;dirty&#x201D; athletes. As a result, athletes who are found to have violated anti-doping rules are often subject to public condemnation, exclusion, and reputational damage, phenomena that amount to public shaming. Drawing upon Erving Goffman&#x2019;s (1963) seminal sociological work on stigma, this paper critically examines the harmful consequences of this prevailing narrative, particularly for athletes who unintentionally consume banned substances. These individuals, whose infractions may arise from contaminated supplements, mislabelled medications, or inadvertent exposure, are nonetheless subjected to similar treatment as those who engage in deliberate PED use. By failing to account for the complexity and nuance of such cases, the dominant moral framing perpetuates stigma and exacerbates harm. By highlighting these issues, we call for greater awareness and reflection on doping stigma and the language we use to discuss doping.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Performance Enhancement &amp;amp; Health</journal><volume>14</volume><journalNumber>2</journalNumber><paginationStart>100412</paginationStart><paginationEnd/><publisher>Elsevier BV</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint>2211-2669</issnPrint><issnElectronic/><keywords/><publishedDay>1</publishedDay><publishedMonth>5</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2026</publishedYear><publishedDate>2026-05-01</publishedDate><doi>10.1016/j.peh.2025.100412</doi><url>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2025.100412</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Engineering and Applied Sciences School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>EAAS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>SU College/Department paid the OA fee</apcterm><funders/><projectreference/><lastEdited>2026-03-04T12:35:30.8477622</lastEdited><Created>2026-03-04T12:33:54.5360859</Created><path><level id="1"/><level id="2"/></path><authors><author><firstname>Luke</firstname><surname>Cox</surname><orcid>0000-0001-7625-4603</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Harry</firstname><surname>Grimes</surname><orcid>0009-0006-1689-1524</orcid><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Luke Thomas Joseph</firstname><surname>Cox</surname><order>3</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2026-03-04T12:35:30.8477622 v2 71534 2026-03-04 Talking dirty: Anti-doping’s stigmatizing rhetoric and its impact on the unintentional doper 9811ac84cad867903c385bf7086dfd2d 0000-0001-7625-4603 Luke Cox Luke Cox true false 2026-03-04 EAAS The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is the principal body responsible for leading global efforts to address the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sport. Central to WADA’s strategic approach has been the framing of PED use as a form of cheating, a morally deviant behaviour that undermines the integrity of competition. This moralised discourse constructs doping not merely as a regulatory infraction but as an ethical transgression, reinforcing a dichotomy between “clean” and “dirty” athletes. As a result, athletes who are found to have violated anti-doping rules are often subject to public condemnation, exclusion, and reputational damage, phenomena that amount to public shaming. Drawing upon Erving Goffman’s (1963) seminal sociological work on stigma, this paper critically examines the harmful consequences of this prevailing narrative, particularly for athletes who unintentionally consume banned substances. These individuals, whose infractions may arise from contaminated supplements, mislabelled medications, or inadvertent exposure, are nonetheless subjected to similar treatment as those who engage in deliberate PED use. By failing to account for the complexity and nuance of such cases, the dominant moral framing perpetuates stigma and exacerbates harm. By highlighting these issues, we call for greater awareness and reflection on doping stigma and the language we use to discuss doping. Journal Article Performance Enhancement &amp; Health 14 2 100412 Elsevier BV 2211-2669 1 5 2026 2026-05-01 10.1016/j.peh.2025.100412 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2025.100412 COLLEGE NANME Engineering and Applied Sciences School COLLEGE CODE EAAS Swansea University SU College/Department paid the OA fee 2026-03-04T12:35:30.8477622 2026-03-04T12:33:54.5360859 Luke Cox 0000-0001-7625-4603 1 Harry Grimes 0009-0006-1689-1524 2 Luke Thomas Joseph Cox 3
title Talking dirty: Anti-doping’s stigmatizing rhetoric and its impact on the unintentional doper
spellingShingle Talking dirty: Anti-doping’s stigmatizing rhetoric and its impact on the unintentional doper
Luke Cox
title_short Talking dirty: Anti-doping’s stigmatizing rhetoric and its impact on the unintentional doper
title_full Talking dirty: Anti-doping’s stigmatizing rhetoric and its impact on the unintentional doper
title_fullStr Talking dirty: Anti-doping’s stigmatizing rhetoric and its impact on the unintentional doper
title_full_unstemmed Talking dirty: Anti-doping’s stigmatizing rhetoric and its impact on the unintentional doper
title_sort Talking dirty: Anti-doping’s stigmatizing rhetoric and its impact on the unintentional doper
author_id_str_mv 9811ac84cad867903c385bf7086dfd2d
author_id_fullname_str_mv 9811ac84cad867903c385bf7086dfd2d_***_Luke Cox
author Luke Cox
author2 Luke Cox
Harry Grimes
Luke Thomas Joseph Cox
format Journal article
container_title Performance Enhancement &amp; Health
container_volume 14
container_issue 2
container_start_page 100412
publishDate 2026
institution Swansea University
issn 2211-2669
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.peh.2025.100412
publisher Elsevier BV
url https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2025.100412
document_store_str 0
active_str 0
description The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is the principal body responsible for leading global efforts to address the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sport. Central to WADA’s strategic approach has been the framing of PED use as a form of cheating, a morally deviant behaviour that undermines the integrity of competition. This moralised discourse constructs doping not merely as a regulatory infraction but as an ethical transgression, reinforcing a dichotomy between “clean” and “dirty” athletes. As a result, athletes who are found to have violated anti-doping rules are often subject to public condemnation, exclusion, and reputational damage, phenomena that amount to public shaming. Drawing upon Erving Goffman’s (1963) seminal sociological work on stigma, this paper critically examines the harmful consequences of this prevailing narrative, particularly for athletes who unintentionally consume banned substances. These individuals, whose infractions may arise from contaminated supplements, mislabelled medications, or inadvertent exposure, are nonetheless subjected to similar treatment as those who engage in deliberate PED use. By failing to account for the complexity and nuance of such cases, the dominant moral framing perpetuates stigma and exacerbates harm. By highlighting these issues, we call for greater awareness and reflection on doping stigma and the language we use to discuss doping.
published_date 2026-05-01T05:40:39Z
_version_ 1859977152394428416
score 11.099506

Similar Items