Understanding Legal Anti-Doping Literacy in Sport: The Roles of Coaching, Sport Context, and Regulatory Socialization

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

Adequate legal anti-doping knowledge promotes informed decision-making, reduces the risk of uninten- tional rule violations, and supports the integrity and fairness of sport. The aim of this study was to exam- ine (i) whether legal anti-doping knowledge differs between athletes and coaches and (ii) whether such differences are specific to sport type by comparing participants involved in team and individual sports. The participants were 188 athletes and 35 coaches involved into team sports (112 athletes and 18 coach- es) and individual-combat sports (76 athletes and 17 coaches). The variables included legal anti-doping knowledge (LADK; evaluated via previously validated questionnaire tools), age, experience in sport, sport success, and experience in anti-doping testing (as an athlete/coach). Independent t tests revealed better LADK in coaches than in their athletes for the total sample (t test = 4.57, p < 0.001) and in individual/ combat sports (t test = 5.58, p < 0.01). Univariate logistic regression revealed that participants with higher LADK scores were more likely to belong to the coach group than to the athlete group in the total sample (OR = 1.87, 95%CI: 1.42–2.47) and in both subsamples (OR = 1.19, 95%CI: 1.01–1.40; OR = 2.31, 95%CI: 1.55–3.44 for team sports and individual/combat sports, respectively). However, when controlling for co- variates (age, experience in sport, sport success, and experience in antidoping testing), significant associ- ations were detected for the total sample (OR = 1.78; 95%CI: 1.25–2.65) and for combat/individual sports (OR = 2.11; 95%CI: 1.34–3.11). The findings suggest that legal anti-doping literacy is shaped not only by stakeholder role but also by sport-specific socialization and regulatory exposure. From a legal standpoint, these results indicate that being a coach should not automatically be regarded as evidence of adequate regulatory competence.