• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • Public perception of sport anti-doping policy in Australia

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    71700_1.pdf (739.8Kb)
    Author(s)
    Engelberg, Associate Professor Terry
    Moston, Stephen
    Skinner, James
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Skinner, James
    Engelberg, Associate Professor Terry PT.
    Year published
    2011
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Aims: An implicit rationale for anti-doping legislation is that doping damages the public image of sport and that this, in turn, has serious consequences for the sporting industry. However, there is scant evidence that doping impacts on public opinion, and even less so that it has dire consequences for sports consumerism. This study sought to fill a void in public policy debate by canvassing public opinion on a range of anti-doping policies and practices. Methods: A representative sample of the Australian public (n?=?2520) responded to a telephone survey with questions on performance enhancing and illicit drug use. ...
    View more >
    Aims: An implicit rationale for anti-doping legislation is that doping damages the public image of sport and that this, in turn, has serious consequences for the sporting industry. However, there is scant evidence that doping impacts on public opinion, and even less so that it has dire consequences for sports consumerism. This study sought to fill a void in public policy debate by canvassing public opinion on a range of anti-doping policies and practices. Methods: A representative sample of the Australian public (n?=?2520) responded to a telephone survey with questions on performance enhancing and illicit drug use. Findings: The majority agreed that clubs should be penalized if athletes were found to use drugs and that companies and government should stop sponsoring athletes who have been using drugs. Opinion was split on the issue of whether performance-enhancing drug use should be criminalized (slight majority in favour). Conclusions: These results show that the Australian public support anti-doping measures. As anti-doping initiatives become more widespread, invasive and costly, policy makers will need to ensure that anti-doping legislation maintains strong public support.
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Drugs
    Volume
    19
    Issue
    1
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2011.590556
    Copyright Statement
    © 2012 Informa Healthcare. This is an electronic version of an article published in Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, Vol. 19 (1), 2012, pp.84-87. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy is available online at: http://informahealthcare.com with the open URL of your article.
    Subject
    Sport and Exercise Psychology
    Public Health and Health Services
    Policy and Administration
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/41581
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander