[MUSIC] Welcome to the video, why do athletes give in to doping? Why do athletes give into doping has three objectives. First, to understand that doping cannot simply be considered as a case of individual misconduct due to a lack of ethics. Second, that the explanation linked to social change provide a framework that helps to understand substance use, but that they are not sufficient in explaining why people do it. One must be capable of thinking critically about these structural explanations of doping. Third finally, the goal is to recognize that only by combining disciplines and analyzing the phenomenon on different levels, can we begin to understand why athletes give in to doping. So let's talk about this quote unquote lack of ethics. The essential idea when looking to explain doping is a lack of ethics in athletes, causing them to do something morally reprehensible. But it ceases to be an explanation, when one tries to understand what data means whether or not an individual respects an ethical code. In common sense, it is believed that an absence of ethics Is inconsistent with the values of sport. It is perceived as a deviance that corrupts the very values of sport. But the following four observations contradict this view. First, because Hughes and Coakley's research shows that doping is commensurate with a positive deviance. That is a great deal of conformity to athletic values. Often an athlete is simply trying to remain in a team or in a group and to gain recognition for his or her performances. Second, because athlete's entourage adheres to the idea that competition is a major objective, that requires many sacrifices. Consequently, doping can actually be a response, a way of living up to the high expectations of coaches, parents, or leaders. So most often the idea of being a professional athlete is related to the idea that the body must suffer and that bodily risks must be taken to progress. Always going further in one's efforts, suffering, risking injury, are all part of athletic norms, and doping is simply perceived as a continuation of this disposition to take risks. Fourth, in the small world of sports, information about nutrition, supplements or preparation techniques that are borderline illegal is passed around. Often, the use of illicit substances is perceived as just another one of these techniques. There obviously are some very strong contradictions. If from a legal standpoint, the line between what is legal and what is not is extremely clear. These borders can become very blurring for athletes because of their experience with training. An athlete's entourage and sensationalism can make doping a kind of logical continuation of his or her physical preparation. This means that one can not grasp the ethical issue outside of the environment in which athletes ethics is constructed, because it can lead to a shift in the perception of doping. Consequently, it is necessary to observe the social environment that causes athlete perception of what is a morally reprehensible act or not to shift. A doping friendly environment. When attempting to grasp social change, both Barrioli's book Sport and Society as well as Letizia Paoli and Alessandro Donati's book The Sports Doping Market allow us to identify six structural factors that contribute to creating an environment favorable to doping. First, a culture of excellence that only values victory. One might argue that the decline of amateurism and of disinterest has lead to over-emphasizing victory. Second, the medicalisation of society, in which substances designed to improve physical and intellectual performance have become commonplace. Stimulants for exams, biograph for sexual performance, growth hormone to fight against aging, etc. All these things make it increasingly difficult to see why sport should be any different, free of any doping substances because they are pervasive in the rest of society. Third, a rationalisation of the body and of athletic performance production. In their book Drugs in Sport Ian Wattington and Andy Smith showed that many of the techniques likely to enhance athletic performance are taken from sports medicine. The participation of sports physicians in producing better performances rather than treating injuries is a big problem. The fourth factor can be attributed to the politisation of sports, which, during the Cold War for example, cast upon athletes the mission of defending a political, a national, and or an ideological cause. This role led certain states to encourage athletes to use performance enhancing substances. And gave them a legitimacy, inciting them to go even further into use of pharmacological preparation. The fifth factor is an economical one. The commodification of sports and athletes attracted sponsors and considerably increased the flow of funds into sports. With the professionalization of a number of sports in the 1980s, investments and profits were very important and put a lot of pressure on athletes, who in turn to doping. To top it off, the development of the Internet created easier access to these substances. The sixth factor is linked to increased media coverage that has encouraged an economy of celebrity. So symbol-linked status that is associated with an Olympic medal, for example can be very profitable. But none of these arguments that we have raised is sufficient. For example, it is often believed that the money involved in sports provides an all-encompassing explanation for substance use. But what about doping in amateur sports where hardly any money is involved? And what about bodybuilders that use substances without even taking part in competitions? [FOREIGN] an economist clearly stated, there is no possible assimilation between an athlete and because it is impossible to consider an athlete has a strict maximizer of personal interest outside of any social relationships or institutional context. As convincing as I may be, it is different factors merely form favorable conditions. They are hardly sufficient in explaining doping. They do, however, allow us to understand that it is not only an individual misconduct, but that it is also largely due to other factors. In conclusion, we have shown that the two most common approaches to doping, first to say that it is moral misconduct due to a lack of ethics, and second that it is due to social causes. These two approaches both have their weaknesses. This dichotomy between individual misconduct and social explanation must be overcome to truly understand doping. Why you may ask? Because there is great diversity in doping, a single explanation is therefore not possible. Because individual, contextual and social factors are intertwined. It does not make sense to try to think of individuals outside of their context. So psychological and social dimensions are articulated and this is why. In the second module we proposed to look at doping through a multi-disciplinary approach taking in to account the interactions between individuals and the social environment. One of the ways of doing this is to observe athletes in their environment, which we will do, observing body builders and cyclists. And at the same time, we shall approach doping with a psychological lens. This is what we shall see in the next videos. Thank you for watching. [MUSIC]
