Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39692599›Full record

ArticleHealth (London, England : 1997)2026

The IPEDs assemblage: Tracing the entanglements of biomedicine, technology, enhancement and anti-doping policies in sport and society.

Timothy Piatkowski, Luke Turnock, Nick Gibbs, Cameron Duff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health (London, England : 1997), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Timothy PiatkowskiGriffith University, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6177-0266
Luke TurnockUniversity of Lincoln, England.
Nick GibbsNorthumbria University, England.
Cameron DuffRMIT University, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) recently ended their anti-doping partnership amidst controversy. We treat this decision, and the motivations underpinning it, as a means of exploring the complexities of anti-doping norms and the blurred lines between image and performance enhancing drug (IPED) use in sport and wider society. Drawing ideas from assemblage thinking, we analyse the evolving power dynamics surrounding IPED use, anti-doping policy, and the role of popular athletes in shaping societal perceptions of the use of, and potential harms associated with IPEDs. The study offers a case analysis of recent controversies in the UFC to investigate the entanglements of biomedicine, technology and celebrity culture in what we call the IPED assemblage. The 2023 termination of the USADA-UFC partnership has sparked debates about shifts in anti-doping standards, raising concerns about weaker testing protocols and perceptions of IPED normalisation. The case of Conor McGregor's injury recovery and alleged IPED use underscores the blurred lines between therapeutic and enhancement drug use within the IPED assemblage, challenging conventional distinctions between 'good' and 'bad' drugs in the context of sports management and anti-doping policy making. We highlight the inadequacy of current doping policies in responding to the IPED assemblage and highlight the need to shift public discourse to foster a more critical understanding of therapeutic and enhancement strategies to drive innovation in anti-doping frameworks.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyDoping in SportsPerformance-Enhancing SubstancesSportsAthletesHumansUnited StatesPerformance-Enhancing Substancesassemblagedrug policyhealthimage and performance enhancing drugsUFC

Identifiers

PMID39692599
PMCPMC12741166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.