ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2018
Opinion paper: scientific, philosophical and legal consideration of doping in sports.
Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-medical use of exogenous testosterone and anabolic-androgenic substances in young men: health, psychological, and fertility consequences.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Moral Disengagement in Youth Athletes: A Narrative Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2022Review
- Mitigating Bias and Error in Machine Learning to Protect Sports Data.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
- Declining track and field performance trends in recent years in the Austrian best results 1897-2019.Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2021Article
- Establishing an anti-doping internal whistleblower policy in China.Journal of sport and health science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The term doping is generally used to indicate practices based on the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) or the abuse of medical therapies. Mostly analysed by doctors and officials, doping nevertheless also requires a philosophical consideration to avoid being simplistically portrayed as an isolated practice. To do this, we need to pay attention to the contradictions and paradoxes in the modern approach to doping in sport. In this context, doping is not only relevant to the health of an individual involved in the violation of World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) criteria, but it actually represents a double-edged phenomenon containing ethical and legal points of view. Several philosophical items affect the ethics of doping. While, indeed, through a deontological vision it is easy to morally condemn an athlete who takes the decision to turn to doping, the same condemnation becomes difficult when the practice of doping is compared with the strong social demand of winners in every field of life. This point must be considered to prevent doping from becoming accepted as a daily practice to excel at all costs and regarded not only as normal but as a necessity for those participating in sport at both an amateur and professional level. Furthermore, a complete discussion on doping has to consider not only the philosophy of performance-enhancing drug abuse, but also the widespread practice of an inappropriate and excessive intake of certain dietary supplements with the unique and obsessive purpose (similar to doping) of increasing physical or mental performance. Based on the above, the aim of this paper is to provide a critical opinion of the doping problem and its related practices and analyze possible solutions considering issues that go beyond the impact of doping on health and reflect on whether it is right or not that an athlete does all he can to improve his performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29427238What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.