ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2026
When they don't come around: how athletes and DCOs perceive the legitimacy of a remote sampling system in anti-doping testing.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Remote Sampling Systems (RSS) represent a technological innovation to traditional anti-doping testing, yet successful implementation depends on stakeholder acceptance. To move RSS beyond emergency use, system design must account for user acceptance. Drawing on a contextualized Extended Valence Framework (EVF), this study examines how athletes and Doping Control Officers (DCOs) evaluate RSS legitimacy and how benefit, risk, and trust perceptions shape their attitudes toward RSS introduction. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey with 132 athletes and 107 DCOs compared both groups on transparency, trust, perceived benefits, three risk dimensions (performance, privacy, psychological), perceived legitimacy, and attitude toward RSS. Group-specific PLS-SEM tested the hypothetical structural model, and multi-group analysis (MGA) identified significant between-group differences. Results: DCOs reported higher performance risk. Athletes showed higher legitimacy perceptions and more favorable attitudes. PLS-SEM explained substantial variance in legitimacy (63.8% athletes, 56.6% DCOs) and attitude (74.2% athletes, 56.1% DCOs). Transparency was positively associated with trust, which related positively to perceived benefits and reduced all risk dimensions. Perceived benefits, performance risk, and psychological risk shaped legitimacy, which was strongly associated with attitudes. MGA showed that transparency was more strongly associated with trust among DCOs, while performance risk and legitimacy showed stronger associations among athletes. Discussion: Perceived legitimacy emerges as the central mechanism linking benefit-risk evaluations to attitudes in a mandatory anti-doping technology context. Both groups converge on many RSS evaluations but diverge on performance risk and legitimacy. DCOs prioritize functional robustness; athletes are more receptive but sensitive to fairness. Findings highlight the need to address DCOs' performance concerns and build legitimacy through transparent procedures, user-centered design, and communication that emphasizes fairness and effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.