Study discusses the number of teenagers considering PEDs

Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
One in 12 interviewed in an Australian study conducted for the World Anti-Doping Agency said they intended to use drugs to lift their performance, and many others might use them but were undecided.
The study of 436 elite development athletes aged 12 to 17 found that 34 intended to use performance-enhancing drugs within the next year.

A further 38 athletes were undecided while 364 did not intend to dope.

The study mainly recruited athletes through sports clubs in Queensland during 2011 and included various sports, including rugby league, soccer, AFL, netball and hockey. The study did not find pro-doping attitudes were more prevalent in particular sports.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/sports-drugs-tempt-teens-20131004-2uzvx.html
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
gooner said:
The numbers are interesting and as EnacheV alluded to is that the numbers are actually pretty good.

92% of kids would not consider doping. That's very encouraging.
But as the Professor noted that is because the 8% are often obsessed with winning and believe that others are doping - so that number would increase in elite or professional sport where they are confronted with doping.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
EnacheV said:
Wow, so few?
Few? I would say it was higher than I expected.

this is just a group of athletes based around one australian state (if i read the article correctly) Who do you think gets to move on to bigger and better things?

Dr Mas, I would say that the undecideds might considers doping too. I think you forgot them.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I have read it twice and scanned the article numerous times - I cannot find where it says there is an "increase" in numbers.

Regardless - the numbers are interesting and as EnacheV alluded to is that the numbers are actually pretty good.

92% of kids would not consider doping. That's very encouraging.
But as the Professor noted that is because the 8% are often obsessed with winning and believe that others are doping - so that number would increase in elite or professional sport where they are confronted with doping.
present-day procycling not included, nota bene

 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
the sceptic said:
Few? I would say it was higher than I expected.

this is just a group of athletes based around one australian state (if i read the article correctly) Who do you think gets to move on to bigger and better things?

Dr Mas, I would say that the undecideds might considers doping too. I think you forgot them.
I did, doh- but even including all of them it is still just 16% (or 84% would not dope)- I would not have been surprised if that number was in the 40's. YMMV.

To the blue - the best athletes.
If a teen is on PEDs its probably likely that they are not naturally talented, so taking PEDs might give them an advantage over their peers. But when they move up through different levels their lack of natural talent will be exposed.
 
Apr 14, 2010
1,368
0
0
How often is it a true planned out premeditated thing? I imagine most start using when up against the wall of not getting results. I think the natural tendency would be to think that you could do it on your own until you realize you can't.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
I did, doh- but even including all of them it is still just 16% (or 84% would not dope)- I would not have been surprised if that number was in the 40's. YMMV.

To the blue - the best athletes.
If a teen is on PEDs its probably likely that they are not naturally talented, so taking PEDs might give them an advantage over their peers. But when they move up through different levels their lack of natural talent will be exposed.
I vaguely remember some academic work a few years back that did some polling and backdated testing, found some rather mad variations in such numbers. I vaguely, very vaguely (maybe you could help me find it in case i've got it wrong) that the extent of provable doping in some sports varied by nationality from ~1% to 49%. The 49% has stuck in my head, it was certainly 40-something. There was also significant variance by sport, even within the country totals - suggestion was that doping did vary with culture - be it culture of a country or region generally to doping, and culture within the sport.

There's no question in my mind, for example, that both the main rugby codes in the UK have a big hidden problem. I'd be astonished if the same problem's didn't extend to Oz (and AFL for that matter) and RSA. My own limited experience of rugby in ireland is that a culture of 'beefing up' is pretty prevelant, and centres are expected to look like no. 8's.

In that context, if the numbers are accurate, they aren't actually all that depressing, or as depressing as they could be - seems there's still a large cultural 'taboo' somewhere there. In several sports, that taboo is nowhere to be seen.
 
martinvickers said:
I vaguely remember some academic work a few years back that did some polling and backdated testing, found some rather mad variations in such numbers. I vaguely, very vaguely (maybe you could help me find it in case i've got it wrong) that the extent of provable doping in some sports varied by nationality from ~1% to 49%. The 49% has stuck in my head, it was certainly 40-something. There was also significant variance by sport, even within the country totals - suggestion was that doping did vary with culture - be it culture of a country or region generally to doping, and culture within the sport.

There's no question in my mind, for example, that both the main rugby codes in the UK have a big hidden problem. I'd be astonished if the same problem's didn't extend to Oz (and AFL for that matter) and RSA. My own limited experience of rugby in ireland is that a culture of 'beefing up' is pretty prevelant, and centres are expected to look like no. 8's.

In that context, if the numbers are accurate, they aren't actually all that depressing, or as depressing as they could be - seems there's still a large cultural 'taboo' somewhere there. In several sports, that taboo is nowhere to be seen.
There’s a well-known survey in sports, known as the Goldman Dilemma. For it, a researcher, Bob Goldman, began asking elite athletes in the 1980s whether they would take a drug that guaranteed them a gold medal but would also kill them within five years. More than half of the athletes said yes. When he repeated the survey biannually for the next decade, the results were always the same. About half of the athletes were quite ready to take the bargain.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Offtheback said:
There’s a well-known survey in sports, known as the Goldman Dilemma. For it, a researcher, Bob Goldman, began asking elite athletes in the 1980s whether they would take a drug that guaranteed them a gold medal but would also kill them within five years. More than half of the athletes said yes. When he repeated the survey biannually for the next decade, the results were always the same. About half of the athletes were quite ready to take the bargain.
Dont bother jv and brailssfraud with these facts.
In cycling doping is not what the cool kids do anymore.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Offtheback said:
There’s a well-known survey in sports, known as the Goldman Dilemma. For it, a researcher, Bob Goldman, began asking elite athletes in the 1980s whether they would take a drug that guaranteed them a gold medal but would also kill them within five years. More than half of the athletes said yes. When he repeated the survey biannually for the next decade, the results were always the same. About half of the athletes were quite ready to take the bargain.
When you take the thinking of the athletes and their willingness to do anything to achieve their goals (golds or a contract) and the threat of death is not present as a DS or doc is not going to tell an ahtlete the risk (EPO eg) the % must rise a lot higher. I dont have proof that it would rise a lot higher, but human nature being what it is...
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
Offtheback said:
There’s a well-known survey in sports, known as the Goldman Dilemma. For it, a researcher, Bob Goldman, began asking elite athletes in the 1980s whether they would take a drug that guaranteed them a gold medal but would also kill them within five years. More than half of the athletes said yes. When he repeated the survey biannually for the next decade, the results were always the same. About half of the athletes were quite ready to take the bargain.

I believe the number of people that have said yes to this "survey", or dilemma, has dropped dramatically in recent years.

I know it's wikipedia, but here's a blurb from it.

In 2009, Connor et al. reported that members of the general Australian public surveyed by phone, overwhelmingly rejected Goldman's dilemma. The authors' conclusion at the time was that athletes were very different from the general public in terms of their attitudes to risk and victory.[3] However, a later survey that they ran at an elite-level track and field event in USA showed similarly low levels (around 1%) of acceptance of the proposition of assured victory by illegal drug use followed by death. If the proposed drug were legal but deadly, around 6% would take it, and if it were illegal but harmless, around 12% said they would take it.[2] They explain this difference in terms of changing attitudes in sport, both due to increased understanding of the risks of doping, and the development of a clearer moral stance on doping.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
If a teen is on PEDs its probably likely that they are not naturally talented,
this is akin to the myriad of theories going on in the JTL thread.

the only certainty, is we dont know.
jeanson sevilla armstrong contador, all talented youth, all teenage dopers
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
H2OUUP2 said:
I believe the number of people that have said yes to this "survey", or dilemma, has dropped dramatically in recent years.

I know it's wikipedia, but here's a blurb from it.

In 2009, Connor et al. reported that members of the general Australian public surveyed by phone, overwhelmingly rejected Goldman's dilemma. The authors' conclusion at the time was that athletes were very different from the general public in terms of their attitudes to risk and victory.[3] However, a later survey that they ran at an elite-level track and field event in USA showed similarly low levels (around 1%) of acceptance of the proposition of assured victory by illegal drug use followed by death. If the proposed drug were legal but deadly, around 6% would take it, and if it were illegal but harmless, around 12% said they would take it.[2] They explain this difference in terms of changing attitudes in sport, both due to increased understanding of the risks of doping, and the development of a clearer moral stance on doping.
or the PR is changing the responses.

athletes are now guarded, even in surveys that supposedly protect anonymity.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
sniper said:
Dont bother jv and brailssfraud with these facts.
In cycling doping is not what the cool kids do anymore.
As to the new culture of cycling, “I’ve definitely had my best results on this side of the fence,” Danielson said. Those results include an eighth-place finish in the Tour de France a few years ago, and a G.C. win in this year’s Tour of Utah.

He and others say cycling now has more of a focus on “marginal gains” that improve speed incrementally, like using more aerodynamic equipment.

Also, “people are paying a lot more attention to diet and nutrition,” he said. “That’s where people are getting the edge now.” He pointed out that some teams have chefs who cook with ingredients that act as natural anti-inflammatory agents to help riders recover more quickly.
how about declining improvement at the margin when all gains are exhausted. gluten free etc
 
May 2, 2010
1,692
0
0
Didn't Fairfax also publish a story about teenagers from rich private schools taking 'supplements' earlier this year? Might have a search for it later on, see if I can find it.
 
I think this is a very significant study in the sense that it sets the baseline for people coming into sport. 83% would not dope and 17% would dope at some point or the other with 8% being hard core dopers. The key here is to protect the 83% from going over to the other side, provide enough deterrent to the 9 % who are undecided to bring them to the side of the right and to set up systems to catch the hardcore ones and throw them out of the sport i.e eliminate them. The hardcore ones are the people that spoil the sport by influencing the others to come over to the dark side.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
blackcat said:
this is akin to the myriad of theories going on in the JTL thread.

the only certainty, is we dont know.
jeanson sevilla armstrong contador, all talented youth, all teenage dopers
True.
Some here trying awkwardly to trivialize the attraction of doping, because it jeopardizes the "cycling cleaned up all by itself, doping aint what the coolkids do nomore"-mythology
 
Apr 8, 2010
329
0
0
IndianCyclist said:
I think this is a very significant study in the sense that it sets the baseline for people coming into sport. 83% would not dope and 17% would dope at some point or the other with 8% being hard core dopers. The key here is to protect the 83% from going over to the other side, provide enough deterrent to the 9 % who are undecided to bring them to the side of the right and to set up systems to catch the hardcore ones and throw them out of the sport i.e eliminate them. The hardcore ones are the people that spoil the sport by influencing the others to come over to the dark side.
You are interpreting this as if the numbers refer to 'during their career'. This is 12-17 year olds talking about their intention for within the next year. In that respect, these numbers are frighteningly high. At least to me :-(
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY