Sport in Society

Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics

ISSN: 1743-0437 (Print) 1743-0445 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fcss20

The significance of ‘situated learning’ for doping in

an elite sports community: an interview study of
AAS-using powerlifters

David Hoff

To cite this article: David Hoff (2020): The significance of ‘situated learning’ for doping in an
elite sports community: an interview study of AAS-using powerlifters, Sport in Society, DOI:
10.1080/17430437.2020.1779222

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2020.1779222

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 26 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 85

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fcss20
Sport in Society
https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2020.1779222

The significance of ‘situated learning’ for doping in an elite

sports community: an interview study of AAS-using
powerlifters
David Hoff
School of Social Work, Lund University, Sweden

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The article investigates social learning of doping among elite athletes, Doping; qualitative
based on qualitative interviews with 10 former competitive powerlifters, interview study;
which were analyzed with Lave and Wenger’s learning theories. The powerlifting; situated
constitution of the social context – the sports community – and specific learning; elite sports
community of practice
situations were decisive for how the informants acted in relation to
doping. The informants were situated in a powerlifting community
where doping was common. Experienced lifters, central in the commu-
nity, approached and encouraged the peripheral informants, and they
gradually became more involved in the practice by doping activities,
due to expectations, curiosity, in an endeavour for results, to be like the
‘big guy’s’, and to compete on a level playfield. They received help with
supply and administration of doping substances in the interactions with
the experienced lifters. To gain a central role in the community, and for
identity formation, doping was a crucial and defining activity.

Introduction
The reasons for doping have often been found in individual motives, individual psychosocial
factors and individual attitudes (Backhouse et al. 2007; Hoff and Carlsson 2005; Hoff 2008).
Common motives for doping as determined by research are as follows: improving perfor-
mance, winning races, financial gains, losing weight and reducing pain (Backhouse et al.
2007). Studies have suggested that the motives for doping vary between different sports.
Cyclists want to preserve their health, bodybuilders strive to increase their muscular strength
and footballers use doping substances for recreation (Bilard, Ninot, and Hauw 2011). In
studies of psychosocial background factors, several results show that risk-taking individuals
have a greater propensity to use doping substances (e.g. Kindlundh et al. 1999; Papadopoulos
et al. 2006; Wichstrøm 2006; cf. Hoff 2012). Other psychosocial factors studies have iden-
tified as important to doping is a negative body image (‘muscle dysmorphia’) and eating
disorders, in which the use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) is motivated by cosmetic
concerns (Blouin and Goldfield 1995; Brower et al. 1991; Brower, Blow, and Hill 1994;

CONTACT David Hoff david.hoff@soch.lu.se

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 D. HOFF

Kanayama et al. 2006, Pope et al. 1997; Pope, Phillips, and Olivardia 2000; cf. Cohen
et al. 2007).
In this article, the focus shifts from the individual to the social context in trying to
understand the emergence of doping. Existing studies have identified a number of inter-
esting social processes, with importance for the development of doping. In a meta-study
of 63 studies, the authors concluded that most important positive correlates between doping
intentions and behaviour were the use of legal supplements, perceived social norms and
positive attitudes towards doping (Ntoumanis et al. 2014). In a qualitative interview study
of elite athletes who admitted to doping, the authors found that the informants did not
regard their behaviour as cheating because of the extensive use of doping agents in their
sport (Kirby, Moran, and Guerin 2011). The authors reported an ‘implied’ pressure from
teammates who doped as an external factor for becoming involved in doping (Kirby, Moran,
and Guerin 2011). Peers can also pressure the individual cyclist to dope in order to become
an ‘insider’ in an extremely results-oriented environment (Lentillon-Kaestner 2014). Brewer
(2002) reports that doping has been an integral part of professional cycling culture, and
Schneider (2006) has critically discussed the doping culture in cycling, a culture that oper-
ates through peer pressure and secrecy. Furthermore, Petróczi and Aidman (2008) have
included subculture influences for doping behaviour in their life-cycle model on psycho-
logical drivers for doping.
Donovan et al.’s (2002) comprehensive model of factors that influence doping in sport
focuses on the importance of doping attitudes, which, according to the authors, are crucial
for whether or not the athlete chooses to dope. One of the factors could be associated with
the social environment – ‘reference group opinion’, which could be influences of a coach,
competitors, club mates, the team physician, parents and so forth. Studies have investigated
what Donovan et al. (2002) refer to as the ‘reference group opinion’. Özdemir et al. (2005)
reported that athletes in their study were invited by a friend to use illicit substances. The
authors also reported doping use due to pressure from others. The perception that other
athletes are using doping substances appeared to have a major impact on the athletes’ own
use (Özdemir et al. 2005; cf. Petróczi et al. 2008; Uvacsek et al. 2011). Curry and Wagman
(1999) have also reported this attitude among athletes in a study of powerlifters in the USA
(cf. Hoff 2012; Wagman, Curry, and Cook 1995). Henning and Dimeo (2015) highlights
the necessity among US cyclists to use doping preparations in order to compete with the
European teams. Moreover, several studies have investigated the suppliers of doping prepa-
rations, reporting that a friend, coach, pharmacist or physician were the main suppliers
(Laure et al. 2004; Lucidi et al. 2004; Papadopoulos et al. 2006; Peters et al. 2005; Wiefferink
et al. 2008). However, the factors in Donovan et al.’s (2002) model primarily refer to indi-
viduals in the environment – not social processes – who can affect the athlete’s attitudes
and behaviours towards doping in different ways. Hauw and Mohamed (2015) suggest that
doping is an activity that depends on the specific situation, such as how athletes explore
and exploit fields of possible actions, where the social context is important.
In social sports contexts, athletes may use doping substances for reasons of solidarity in
relation to their peers and in order to be accepted in the group. It has been analyzed as an
identity process, in which the athlete leaves the amateur group and joins the professional
elite group (Petróczi and Aidman 2008; cf. Coakley and Pike 2009). In a study of body-
builders, Monaghan (2002) reports how the respondents negotiate their self-identity in
relation to the social norms of the drug subculture. Hutchinson, Moston, and Engelberg
 Sport in Society 3

(2018), in a study of websites containing doping-related discussions, suggest doping to be

a form of ‘group validation’ of the bodybuilding lifestyle. According to a study of four dif-
ferent types of doping in a fitness environment, social influences from peers and role models
constitute the motives for one type (YOLO; Christiansen, Vinther, and Liokaftos 2017).
Among bodybuilders who used doping preparations, the concept of learning (doping) has
been used by Andreasson (2014) as an individual process ‘in the body’ rather than ‘about
the body’. By engrafting knowledge of the body, training and substances in the body, new
knowledge is formed – bodily-knowledge. Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs (2010) have
reported from an interview study of young elite-cyclists that more experienced cyclists
transmitted the culture of doping to younger cyclists. The experienced cyclists educated
the younger cyclist about appropriate substances to use, and how to use them. Ohl et al.
(2015) describes how the perception of performance enhancing drugs influences the social-
ization processes for young cyclists learning their job. In a study of Iranian athletes, Kabiri
et al. (2018) tests Akers (2009) social learning theory concerning criminal and deviant
behaviour. The results show that there was a positive and significant relationship between
components in the theory and doping in the past, present and future.

Situated learning in a social context of doping – the theoretical framework

As shown above, several psychosocial studies indicate that social processes and social norms
in athletes’ sport environments are worthy of closer examination as a way to understand
doping (see e.g. Ntoumanis et al. 2014). However, the individual and psychosocial perspec-
tives on doping have also been criticized. Hauw (2013a) discusses doping as a complex
behaviour, which is not sufficiently explained by psychosocial studies on individual attitudes
and norms, behaviour control, goal rationality and risk minimizing. Unethical actions such
as doping rather exist and develop in the local dynamics of activity units, not in the indi-
vidual (Hauw 2013b). According to Hauw (2013a, 220), doping is more contingent and
embedded in different sport cultures. He shifts the perspective from ‘human nature’, as an
enduring personal and general disposition, to the perspective of ‘the nature of human
activity’. This reflects on the dynamics of acts instead of on the psychosocial constitution
of the individual in understanding doping as a situated activity and asks whether the pre-
vailing specific situation is important for doping or not. From this approach, he wants to
analyze doping in relation to the actors’ everyday activity: the context, and the lived expe-
rience in a social world. In reference to Hughes and Coakley (1991), he suggests that doping
could be one of the strongest elements that unite a specific sports community. Moreover,
he suggests, from a situated learning perspective (see Lave and Wenger 1991), that athletes
who do not take part in the community’s activity are excluded and become outsiders
(Hauw 2013a).
Learning doping from other athletes in the environment, often more experienced athletes,
appears to be an interesting mechanism in the social process towards doping behaviour.
Social learning processes have been shown in previous studies to function as a way to
understand how, through a learning process and situated in a dynamic sport context, doping
is communicated and transmitted from older and more experienced athletes to younger
more inexperienced ones (Kabiri et al. 2018, Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs 2010; cf.
Andreasson 2014; Hauw and Mohamed 2015). In this discussion, learning, social context
and situation are important concepts in the understanding of doping. Following this line
4 D. HOFF

of thought, the theoretical framework of this article is based on Lave and Wenger’s (1991)
and Wenger’s (1998) theories of ‘situated learning’ in ‘communities of practice’. Lave and
Wenger’s (1991) view on situated learning takes its point of departure in a critique of
behavioural and cognitive models of social learning (Abma 2007; Bandura 1962). According
to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning is contextual, situated in a community; it does not
evolve only by adaptation to social norms in the community or imitation of the significant
other. Rather, learning involves active participation in a community and a deliberation of
arising situations in relation to people in the community. Learning is a social process of
active participation situated in communities of practice over time. The communities of
practice include every location at which learning takes place, for instance, school, work,
family and so forth (Lave and Wenger 1991). In this study, the powerlifting environment
is considered a community of practice.
The crucial elements in the individual learning process are, according to Lave and Wenger
(1991), the creation of meaning and identity in the community of practice. Learning is a
multifaceted ongoing social process in a space and over a period. Lave and Wenger (1991,
cf. Wenger 1998) state that learning is not primarily about learning through instructions
from a teacher or master; nor, when talking about the sporting environment, is learning
primarily about taking instructions from a coach or internalizing doping norms from sport-
ing officials. Participation in a community of practice is initially a legitimate peripheral
participation, which means that the individual has an accepted role in the community but
is far down in the hierarchy. Participation can increase in terms of engagement and com-
plexity whereby the participants gradually give the practice meaning and create a new
identity in relation to the community of practice. The individuals become successively
central in the community, and the legitimacy of the individuals’ values and actions increases.
Using Lave and Wenger’s (1991) and Wenger’s (1998) theories of learning, the perspective
on doping can be elaborated from learning as a transmission process (see Lentillon-Kaestner
and Carstairs 2010) to learning as a complex social participation process situated in a com-
munity of practice (cf. Hauw 2013a).

Purpose and research questions

The purpose is to analyze situated learning in relation to doping in an elite sport environ-
ment, specifically in the powerlifting community. The research questions are as follows:
How do powerlifters describe their (a) sporting community, (b) first time doping and (c)
motives for doping in relation to situated learning of doping?

Method
The study has a qualitative methodological approach (cf. Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009)
consisting of interviews with 10 former powerlifters. Information from users or former
users is crucial to understanding doping in sport. One option when investigating doping
in sports is to focus on athletes who have left their athletic careers behind, since it is very
difficult to recruit active elite athletes who use doping substances, due to an obvious expected
fear of disclosure, which would be fatal both professionally and personally for an active elite
athlete. The interviews were semi-structured and followed an interview manual containing
 Sport in Society 5

a number of topics and suggested questions for each topic (cf. Kvale and Brinkmann 2009).
Some topics were chosen to give the informants the greatest chance possible to provide
recollections that might be relevant to the understanding of doping (e.g. first time use).
Other topics were selected from previous research and theories that explained doping (e.g.
Risk behaviour). The interview guide was used as a support in the interviews. The order of
topics and questions was sometimes changed. The questions were on occasion re-formulated
to be able to develop the interviews in interesting directions, where the respondents were
willing to share more information (cf. Kvale and Brinkmann 2009; Robson 2002). The guide
was used to make sure that nothing important was missed in the interviews. A priority in
the interviews was to try to create an honest conversation with the informants about their
doping behaviour by not adopting a judgemental attitude towards their experiences of
doping, and this turned out to be a rewarding approach. The interviews were open-minded
and the informants shared their stories generously, even though some were suspicious at
the beginning of their interview. The interviews lasted between 45 min and 3 h, with most
interviews lasting around 2 h. Eight interviews were recorded, and two interviews were not
recorded at the behest of the informants. For these latter two interviews, notes were taken
instead. All the recordings were transcribed verbatim.
Individuals banned as a result of at least one doping violation from 1990 to 2006 accord-
ing to the rules of the Swedish Sports Confederation were included in the study. The total
number of suspension decisions resulting from doping violations during this period was
398. A total of 35 individuals remained after applying the selection criteria for high level
sport and intentional doping (e.g. not ‘accidental doping’). The first criterion was used in
order to focus on doping with sporting ambitions in a competitive environment and avoid
involving persons who may have been using doping preparations with other motives, for
example, for cosmetic reasons. The second selection criterion, intentional doping, was used
to avoid including athletes who had been banned for doping but who did not admit to it in
the sample. At the time the study was done, currently suspended athletes were excluded to
avoid the potential fear of speaking freely while subject to a doping suspension. These
athletes may also have been in an appeals process, making it inappropriate to involve them.
Thirty-five individuals was considered a large sample for achieving a sufficient number of
informants (see Robson 2002; Trost 1986). Of the 35 individuals, the majority were pow-
erlifters, and all except one of them were men. Only a few other sports, such as cycling and
weightlifting, were represented in the sample. This was, of course, reflected in the 11 infor-
mants who finally agreed to be interviewed, where all but one were powerlifters and all
were men (all Swedish). The one exception was a weightlifter. Because of this, it was decided
to focus on powerlifters and exclude the one weightlifter from the study.
The narratives from the informants were the point of departure in the analysis, and the
choice of theory was made after the empirical material had been collected and thematized,
which underlines the qualitative methodological approach in giving the material importance
(cf. Robson 2002; Rennstam and Wästerfors 2018). The requirement of the chosen theory
was that it would serve as a tool to give meaning to the informants’ narratives. Certainly,
the relationship between theory and empirical material is complex and inwrought and is
almost impossible to clearly separate (cf. Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009).
The analysis process was characterized by an ‘abductive’ approach where data was influ-
encing theory and theory was influencing data in ongoing process, without any conclusive
starting point or end (see Alvesson and Deetz 2000; Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009). The
6 D. HOFF

analysis was thematic in the sense that themes were extracted from the informants’ narra-
tives. The first step – assortment – included a narrow reading of the material, where inter-
esting narratives were recognized in relation to an overreaching and preliminary purpose
of the study about the importance of social processes in the sport environment (see
Rennstam and Wästerfors 2018). Several themes were identified, for instance, social back-
ground, the sporting environment, first time use, motives and the dynamics between expe-
rienced lifters and novices. The themes were related to possible concepts and theories and
to important issues raised in previous research. Some of the themes were chosen due to the
richness of the material, and others for their fruitfulness regarding new understandings of
doping. Some themes, namely sporting environment, first time use and stated motives were
clearly separate themes; the last theme, the relationship between experienced lifters and
novices in the learning process, went like a thread between the other themes. Some of the
themes were removed from the analysis (social background, risk-behaviour, over conformity
to sport ethics) in a process of reducing the comprehensive material (see Rennstam and
Wästerfors 2018). In this process of choosing the most relevant themes, it has been important
to use materials that represent the core of the narratives. Much of the interviews revolved
around ‘the sports community’, ‘first time doping’, ‘stated motives for doping’. Furthermore,
all of these themes concerned in different ways ‘learning processes’. After structuring the
material into themes, and looking back at preliminary concepts and theories (step 1), a
more focused search for a theory was initiated. Lave and Wenger’s (1991) and Wenger’s
(1998) learning theories had several benefits, especially when considering the informants’
narratives and preliminary concepts (learning, social influences, etc.). For instance, they
had interesting discussions on situated learning in a specific community (e.g. powerlifting
community), learning as a process of participation (e.g. in powerlifting), learning as of
process of learning from experienced individuals in the community, and the process of
becoming central in the community by participation in central activities in the community
and so forth. At this stage, the purpose and research questions were finalized, and the
analysis changed into a more overarching theoretical focus, where the themes were analyzed
more systematically within the theoretical framework. The concluding step, the argumen-
tation, shows the arguments for the interpretations of the informants’ narratives from the
perspective of situated learning of doping, in the findings of the article (see Rennstam and
Wästerfors 2018).

Limitations
The focus on male powerlifters could be a methodological problem due to a potential lack
of relevance to other sports and doping among women. On the other hand, doping has to
be studied where it occurs. Powerlifting was at the top in terms of the total number of sus-
pensions in Sweden from 1990 to 2006, and the overwhelming majority of banned athletes
was men. With the qualitative approach used in the study, it may be an advantage to focus
on one sport more intensively than try to cover and analyze a great number of sports.
Moreover, 10 informants is considered to be a sufficient selection in relation to the purpose
of the study (see Alvesson and Deetz 2000; Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009; Trost 1986).
Another possible limitation is that there have been changes in sport with respect to doping
over the last 30 years, thus the informants’ experiences may have less relevance to the under-
standing of the current doping situation. On the other hand, the study highlights enduring
 Sport in Society 7

issues surrounding doping. The focus in the interviews was on doping back in time. There
is a methodological discussion on the value of ‘retrospective questions’, even though retro-
spective questions are not unusual in qualitative research (Bryman 2015). The critique
involves problems of memory, and remembering through a filter, a mind-set appropriated
later in life (Repstad 2007; Trost 1997). There could be a risk that individuals who used
doping preparations 20- to 30-year ago may have forgotten how they felt and acted in relation
to doping at the time. On the other hand, a doping suspension in sport is such a significant
incident in an athlete’s life that they probably have a relatively good recollection. When
interviewees are asked retrospective questions about specific happenings, the memory tends
to be clearer than if they were asked questions about thoughts, values and emotions, espe-
cially if it concerns important or revolutionary events (Repstad 2007; Trost 1997), such as
being caught doping. Evaluations of longitudinal studies have shown that individuals’ mem-
ories about specific historical occurrences are more accurate than one can expect (Ramsøy
1977, 1994). The present study experience was that the respondents had a good recollection
of several important parts of their doping history. Of course, the narratives from present
athletes involved in doping could be more detailed and accurate. However, it is very difficult
to recruit former doping users for interview studies, as mentioned above, and it is even
harder to recruit active athletes who are involved in doping, and probably only a few will
admit to it. Only a few studies have managed to recruit active users for qualitative interviews
(see Ntoumanis et al. 2014). Nevertheless, doping could also be morally sensitive to disclose
in detail especially for current users. There could be a risk that the narrative is influenced
by attempts to excuse or legitimize doping by emphasizing external circumstances. This
could also be a problem in retrospective interviews, but there could be an advantage in
interviewing athletes suspended further back in time due to their distance to sporting careers
and doping. In such cases, the moral sensitivity ought to diminish. Moreover, they have also
had time to reflect on their former doping behaviour, which could be useful for the study
in producing new empirical data (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009; Kvale and Brinkmann 2009).
Even though the retrospective view could be different from a current one, the information
is still valuable in the analysis of doping. There are strengths in both current and retrospec-
tive perspectives on doping, and the different perspectives could add complementary infor-
mation on complex human and social phenomena like doping. The impression from this
study was that the informants approached it with minor differences in perspective, where
some mediated that their former doping activities were sensitive to discuss. Some mediated
a legitimizing perspective, while others expressed a changed perspective of regret and con-
demnation of their doping behaviour. However, everyone mediated a relatively clear picture
of several happenings, for instance, first time use, interactions with important individuals
in the competitive environment, descriptions of the powerlifting environment, narratives
of social interactions and descriptions of the occasion of being caught in a doping control.
Some of the informants could share feelings with regard to revolutionary occasions, such
as first time use, being caught in a control and the aftermath of this.

Ethical considerations
The ethical justification of the study is based in the need for further knowledge about
doping by athletes and how to prevent it. Different types of doping substances like AAS
can have serious health consequences for individuals. The study was not required to
8 D. HOFF

undergo any formal ethical review since a doping conviction in sport is not per se a
criminal offence in Sweden. Furthermore, the records of convicted users are not official
public documents. In any case, it is important to make ethical considerations with regards
to the people involved in this study. The most important measures to be implemented
in this study were to clearly inform the informants, both orally and in writing, about the
purpose of the study, and that their participation was voluntary. It was also essential to
obtain the informants’ consent, treat their personal data as confidential, anonymize the
informants in the text (article/report) and not disclose any personal data to third parties,
such as the authorities or doping control organizations (cf. Vetenskapsrådet 2010 [Swedish
Research Council]). Some of the informants are well known former elite athletes. In
order to protect their identity, the personal information in the next section, The infor-
mants, has not been linked to any informant number on ethical grounds. Furthermore,
and for the same reason, most of the individual background information has been sum-
marized at group level. All the statements have been translated from Swedish into English
by the author.

The informants
All informants were convicted of doping offences by the National Sports Confederation of
Sweden at some point between 1990 and 2006: one in 1990, four in 1991, three in 1992, one
in 1996 and one in 2006. Several informants had a good international track record as pow-
erlifters and had participated on the national team. The top awards included medals at
Nordic and world championships. A couple of the informants had not achieved any results
at the elite level but had nonetheless practised their sport with a level of commitment beyond
recreational sport. All of the informants acknowledged that they had used doping prepa-
rations, and all confirmed using AAS. None of them reported using other doping agents,
with the exception of amphetamines, cannabis and cocaine, which were used as social drugs
in moderate dosages, not for performance enhancement. Several informants stated that
they had used several types of AAS simultaneously.
The informants had usually been raised in stable families; their parents had not divorced
and most of the informants had siblings. Almost all the informants were from working class
homes where the father typically worked in the industrial sector and the mother was a
housewife when the children were small and later worked part time in retail as the children
grew older. The majority of the informants were also workers themselves; some of them
ran or had run their own businesses. One of the informants worked as a clerk and another
as a manager at a production company. Generally, the informants had positive attitude
towards their school background, with good friends and with average to good school results.
Most of them had taken a vocational programme in upper secondary school, while some
had received no upper secondary education. None of the informants had a university degree.
Of the two informants with the highest level of education, one had attended a theoretical
programme at upper secondary school followed by further training and the other had
attended a vocational programme and attended some university courses later in their career.
The informants’ place of residence varied in terms of whether they lived in cities or
towns, both during their childhood and at the time of the interview. Some of them lived
and had lived in rented apartments, while others lived in small houses. Around half of the
informants were living with a partner (married or cohabiting), while the other half were
 Sport in Society 9

single, usually after one or more divorces or separations. All the informants except one had
children.
Almost none of the informants believed that there was something in their social back-
ground that might explain their use of doping, and few reported psychosocial background
factors associated with social problems, in addition to the use of doping. One informant
spoke of a childhood with many problems related to substance-abusing parents, which
eventually led to his own substance abuse. Another informant, who had abused drugs and
alcohol, reported some alcohol-related problems in the home environment. Both of these
informants had divorced parents. A third informant spoke about extensive problems with
bullying that he suffered at primary school. Only one of the informants associated his
problems with substance abuse in the past.
The informants are referred to by number from ‘Informant 1’ to ‘Informant 10’. The
informants’ statements about people and locations have been anonymized. This is indicated
by the letters N.N. (people) and X (locations, years) in quotes. Clarifying comments by the
author have been placed in square brackets.

Findings and discussion

The informants’ sports community
Until 1996, powerlifting was part of the Swedish Weightlifting Federation. In 1996, the
Powerlifting Federation was formed. In 2018, the Federation had approximately 30,000
members practising the sport (Hinic and Lostin 2012; Riksidrottsförbundet [Swedish Sports
Confederation] 2019).
The informants were fairly unanimous on how widespread the use of doping was in the
powerlifting community:
… It was very widespread and there were some clubs that stood out… (Informant 5).

***
… I understood that stuff was being taken… blokes in the club… there was “gorging”…/…/I also
told a guy once: in the top 100 in Sweden, I only knew two guys who didn’t use stuff. The others
were using stuff… (Informant 8).

***

Everyone was using stuff …/…./. I don’t know anyone I have competed with who wasn’t using.
(Informant 1).

Some informants stated that there were active lifters who did not use AAS. However,
this type of statement could be interpreted as supporting the opinion that the use of doping
was widespread, otherwise it would not have been necessary to emphasize that there were
clean lifters. The view among the informants that everyone in the powerlifting environment
was using AAS could alternatively be interpreted as the ‘false consensus effect’, meaning
that individuals perceive their own behaviour and beliefs as more common (normal) than
it really is, and even more so when it comes to controversial behaviour such as doping (see
Petróczi et al. 2008; Uvacsek et al. 2011). Nevertheless, if this is the informants’ compre-
hension of what is going on, it will probably have an effect on their learning. From the
10 D. HOFF

perspective of Lave and Wenger (1991), this environment could be described as a commu-
nity of practice for powerlifters. The informants’ impression of the community is that the
use of AAS is common. There were also informants who reported how different powerlifters
talked about AAS, even on the junior national teams:
… when we joined the junior national team, for example, we were picked up in “X-year” for the
first time, we understood at once what it was about – to become big and strong… So in “X-year”
when I was in “Nation-X”, I, “NN-1”, “NN-2” and “NN-3” would go to… “Nation-X”: “Do you
have any stuff?” “NN-3” said. “What kind of stuff?” I said. “I don’t know, protein powder, or
something?” [irony] “No, you know, steroids!” “But you know, you shouldn’t… You can get busted
by the doping police; you shouldn’t do it.” [irony] “Don’t be daft,” he said… “But just call me if you
need some stuff, I’ve got just about everything…” (Informant 8)

This kind of talk could be interpreted as an element in a learning process. By being

involved and interacting with other individuals in the community, you learn the behaviour
and values that are important to the community (Lave and Wenger 1991).
According to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning is situated and takes place through
interaction between individuals in a community. Interaction with more central and expe-
rienced individuals in the community is desirable for inexperienced and peripheral mem-
bers (Lave and Wenger 1991). In the case of the powerlifting community, the central actors
were senior lifters and the peripheral actors were juniors or new members of the gym or
club. One unusual feature of powerlifting compared with many other sports – something
that emerged during the interviews – was the absence of coaches and trainers. The power-
lifters usually practised by themselves, even at an elite level, although they did receive
support from the Federation when participating on the national team. There appears to
have been a culture in which various people at the gym helped out when needed. Several
informants said that they were discovered and encouraged by senior powerlifters. In some
cases, these older lifters were also mentors and suppliers when it came to doping (cf.
Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs 2010). One of the informants referred to social influences
from more experienced lifters:
It was probably because others used… it was the talking… they were beginning to talk: “You have
the potential to compete; you can be successful in this.” Sure, it was great to hear, it was great to
hear when you’re 20 years’ old… It was like this. Then someone supplied it. Sure, it would be fun
to try. (Informant 7)

Gradually, with the help of older and more experienced lifters, this informant was talked
into using AAS. He also received advice from the more experienced lifters about avoiding
being caught in doping controls:
… they said, again, I was green, the blokes who had routines, they said: “Stop taking them a few
days in advance.” It happened, of course… before, but it was… it was not enough, so to speak.
[Relates to when he was caught in a doping control.] (Informant 7)

This finding highlights the important role of the central individuals in the community
of practice in relation to learning processes (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991). The interaction
between peripheral and central individuals situated in the specific powerlifting community
seems to be an important part of the learning process for the peripheral powerlifter, even
when it comes to doping. The gradual changing of the informant’s behaviour in the com-
munity is something that Lave and Wenger (1991) describe as a process of going from the
 Sport in Society 11

periphery of the community to the centre, which is desirable. This social process in which
doping knowledge is passed on from one generation to the next has also been reported in
previous studies as a form of transmitting the doping culture from older to younger indi-
viduals (Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs 2010). However, with the help of Lave and
Wenger’s (1991) concepts, the conditions for learning as interactive and situated in a com-
munity of practice with a centre and periphery refines the understanding of the doping
learning process.
Several informants reported that many sports leaders and staff at the Powerlifting
Federation were aware of the high prevalence of AAS in the powerlifting community, and
they stated that many of the leaders had been using AAS in their own sporting careers. One
informant also stated that an official at the Federation provided lifters with AAS. Another
informant reported that he bought his AAS preparations from a powerlifting leader out-
side Sweden:
… The last time I got it from abroad, prescribed by a physician to a person who was head of the
country’s powerlifting team, both youth and juniors, women and men. So he sent it to me./…/At
the time I was acquainted with all the world leaders; some were more open than others, but no
one denied the existence of steroids… (Informant 1)

The presence of AAS in the sports community was also reflected in the clubs. One
informant stated the following about the board of his club:
… Many of them who were on the board of our club… they had experienced the happy 80s,
when it was almost legal… So they didn’t really talk about it much. Many of them had used it
themselves. They admitted this with no hesitation. They didn’t really know what it was, back
then. (Informant 6)

Federation and powerlifting club board members should be considered as central indi-
viduals in the community. Interaction with these individuals ought to be of importance in
a learning process involving more peripheral members of the community (cf. Lave and
Wenger 1991; cf. Petróczi et al. 2008; Uvacsek et al. 2011).
Another way of understanding the doping culture in a sport community is to look at
how training mates, club management and coaches react when they discover that a member
of the community has been suspended due to doping. The general picture from the infor-
mants indicates a muted response from the powerlifting community:
… Therefore, nobody raised their eyebrows then, or cared. It was soon over with. I was wel-
comed back afterwards. There was no one who said anything at the club or elsewhere. I was even
accepted onto the national team. They didn’t question me, they didn’t do any doping tests on me
when I joined the team. That’s how it was… it may well be surprising actually. (Informant 5)

***

It was clear that they knew, on the board, what was going on… … They have never thrown
anyone out of the club. Because when it’s been about someone who has been failed a test, he has
always been allowed to participate during the work-out sessions as usual… (Informant 8)

This indicates how central leaders in the sport ignored what was going on in relation to
doping. This is a signal that the informants had obviously become aware of in a process of
understanding the community of practice. In addition, using doping substances and then
being tested, suspended and welcomed back into the community is a way of learning by
participation (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991).
12 D. HOFF

Nevertheless, the same informant (8) also stated that he felt betrayed by the Sports
Federation. As long as he achieved good results and was not caught in a doping control,
staff at the Sports Federation were very supportive. However, when he tested positive for
doping substances, the Federation staff condemned him and distanced themselves
from him:
I’m probably most bitter about the leaders of the Federation, NN 1, NN 2, NN 3 and all the oth-
ers…being so condemned: “guys…” you got praised when things were going well, and then they
pissed on you right away…[when failing a doping test] (Informant 8)

The informant described this as a double standard: it is okay to use AAS as long as you
do not get caught.
How can this process be interpreted from the perspective of Lave and Wenger’s (1991)
learning theory? Conflicts between different norms in the community, as well as different
forms of learning, probably have to be considered in this case. The official standpoint is
consistent with the anti-doping norms in sport. It has to be: these are mandatory rules, and
the informants were well aware of these rules. The anti-doping rules have been learned by
what Lave and Wenger (1991) would call ‘instructions’, which they argue is a poor learning
method. The powerlifters were learning by watching and interacting with other lifters and
also in relation to central individuals in the community. In this particular case, the infor-
mants saw that several lifters were using AAS. More importantly, they learned that central
individuals in the community, such as Federation staff and club board members, ignored
the frequent use of AAS, so long as you did not get caught. This is not just a sign that they
turned a blind eye to doping; it could also be interpreted as an expectation that you should
use AAS. Information provided by the informants revealed that many of the central indi-
viduals themselves used AAS – although it was not banned at the time of use. This consti-
tutes an important piece of the learning process for the powerlifters in the study. When it
reaches the point where central actors like Federation physicians were supplying the drugs,
then the message was quite clear. This rather special social context the informants have
described stresses the importance of understanding learning as situated in relation to the
historical and social context. Doping is a situated activity in a contextual and dynamic
system (Hauw 2013a).

Using – the first time

Almost all of the informants were concerned about their sports community when describing
their ‘first time’. The following statement is a narrative by one of the informants regarding
the process of first having discovered the extensive use of AAS in the community and then
starting to use AAS himself:
…In my “hometown” there was never any talk about doping agents, and so on, but then when
I came to “X-big city”, there was hockey training… The hockey team “team X” practised there,
everyone… The athletes exercised there, because this gym had no sports club affiliation, so the
Sports Confederation could not visit the gym [for testing], it was private [and] independent, so
everyone went training there. And I realized then, there was talk in the locker room, all sports
categories, athletes, lifters, hockey players, everyone who was there was taking “Russian fives”
[5 mg tablets of methandrostenolone]…. Clearly, you raise your eyebrows at first… thinking:
what’s this? But then somehow you gradually was brought in to it and it became an everyday…
 Sport in Society 13

experience. In the end, it was nothing special; everyone did it, more or less. And then if I lifted a
little more they asked, “What are you taking?” I said, “I’m not taking anything”; “Ah, you couldn’t
lift those weights if you weren’t taking something!” And then you start thinking… about trying.
I was at a competition and then it happened. There was a guy…he was some kind of dealer. He
was sitting there selling bottles. So I bought my first bottle,… to try it. And then you asked your
friends… “How do you take this? How does it work?” (Informant 5)

When looking closer at the statement, there are different episodes in a situated learning
process that led to the informant’s ‘first time’ of doping, and these can be analyzed using
Lave and Wenger’s (1991) theory. First, the informant appears to be an apprentice in his
new gym in the big town. As an apprentice, his position was legitimate but peripheral in
the community; he was experiencing and took active part in a sports community in which
doping was frequent, and he was surprised since this was different from his earlier experi-
ences in his hometown, where doping did not occur. Second, the informant gradually came
to regard the extensive use of AAS as normal behaviour. Third, when the informant per-
formed well, he was asked about what AAS preparations he was using, even though he was
clean at the time. When he stated: ‘I’m not using anything’, he stood out as an apprentice,
a rookie and a deviant. Fourth, nobody believed him when he said that he was not using
doping preparations because he was lifting really heavy weights. This clearly indicates that
doping was normal and even desirable, at least if you wanted to leave the peripheral area
of the community and get closer to the central parts. Fifth, a dealer at a gym sold him AAS
products, which he eventually bought. This also showed the informant that doping is normal
and desirable behaviour in the community. Sixth, he asked a friend, probably a more expe-
rienced and central individual in the community, how he should administer his AAS prepa-
rations (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991).
What we see is not really (active) pressure from teammates or other people in the infor-
mants’ sport community, which has been recognized in previous research (Hutchinson,
Moston, and Engelberg 2018; Kirby, Moran, and Guerin 2011; Lentillon-Kaestner 2014;
Petróczi and Aidman 2008; Schneider 2006). In this study, I argue that the process described
by the informant above is more of a learning process than a process of active ‘doping pres-
sure’ by individuals in the community. A learning process is where the different occasions
fit together in a logic and form a meaningful whole where the individual can orientate
himself and act, understand and give meaning to the powerlifting community through
participation in it. The individual responds and acts in relation to what is going on in the
community; he is testing and experimenting to learn where the borders are and what actions
are rewarded or condemned. This way of learning enables an individual to get closer to the
centre of the community (Wenger 1998).
As we can see in the above statement, the informant describes an expectation from the
social environment, which can be formulated as follows: If you achieve good results, then
you are using steroids. We can see the same expectation in the following statement, with a
little bit of added encouragement: You are performing so well without using steroids – what
if you were to actually use…
I competed in the National Bodybuilding Championships1, I became “X:a” [high position]. None
of the competitors believed that I had never taken steroids./…/Then when I got back to “X”
[hometown] where I lived, the others said, “You ended up in such a high position, if you started
taking steroids, you would be the best in the world…” (Informant 1)
14 D. HOFF

On the one hand, people in the community question whether you are clean when you
are performing well. In this way, you might also be influenced into using AAS, since every-
one believes you are on steroids anyway. On the other hand, there is an encouraging influ-
ence: ‘You have reached this level without using AAS – imagine where you’d be if you were
using them.’ Both of these statements could influence athletes to use doping substances.
Such influences could be interpreted as a learning process (see Lave and Wenger 1991).
Other individuals in the community were placing expectations on the informants, although
they were also expressing opportunities for development and success in competitions, with
the help of AAS. Using AAS would probably be a way to go from peripheral position in the
community to a more central one since better results will support such movement, and this
is of course attractive (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991).
There were also some other narratives in relation to the ‘first time’. One informant
described how drug and alcohol abuse was a gateway to doping. Another narrative that
emerged was concerned several informants who were influenced by the big guys at the gym
– they wanted to look like them. Here, we can understand the big guys as being central
individuals in the community (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991). They become central, and role
models for the novices who are peripheral in the community.

Stated motives for doping

The usual motives were improving athletic performance, a desire to win, catching up with
exercise when behind, and achieving results faster, for which doping becomes a shortcut.
These could be seen as examples of behaviour and objectives that were highly valued in the
powerlifting community (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991). Here is one example:
…the reason I took [AAS] – I could be part of the best in the world and there would be no side
effects; that was why I started. (Informant 1)

This striving to be the best could also be interpreted as an ‘act’ in order to get closer to
the central part of the community (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991).
Curiosity about what the AAS preparations could do also motivated a number of infor-
mants to start using:
Yes…finally there was a bit of curiosity. I saw others improve their results [i.e. lifting heavier
weights]. I thought, shit, can they really improve that much using those pills? (Informant 6)

…and there was a bit of curiosity… how does it work? So many of them said it was so brilliant.
(Informant 4)
The curiosity and exploration of doping could be interpreted as part of a learning process,
a quest for understanding of a new community by participation (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991).
Some non-sporting motives were also revealed, such as ‘seeking’ (acknowledgement)
and liberation (‘youth revolt’).
So far I had been mummy’s little boy, and I still am. Maybe it was a kind of cry… I wanted to get
out and show off, basically. (Informant 7)

The narratives of ‘seeking’ and ‘revolt’ can be associated with identity formation.
Participating in a new community and giving meaning to the community also influences
 Sport in Society 15

the identity of individuals, as does the possibility of changing the identity (cf. Wenger 1998).
This process is not only associated with the community of practice but it will also affect the
individual in other social contexts (Wenger 1998). Through learning, the informant is
becoming a powerlifter. The use of AAS virtually becomes a ritual to becoming a central
individual in the powerlifting community (see Coakley and Pike 2009; Hughes and Coakley
1991). Two of the informants reported cosmetic reasons for becoming big and muscular,
which could be interpreted as a form of (bodily) change of identity.
The most common motive for doping was everyone else is using, and then, by implication,
you must also use, to be competitive and to be able to compete on equal terms:
… I grasped this quite quickly, that if I want to play along, I will have to use what all the others
are using. (Informant 8)

Similar findings have been reported in previous studies (Curry and Wagman 1999;
Henning and Dimeo 2015; Özdemir et al. 2005). This could perhaps be related to ‘the false
consensus effect’ (see Petróczi et al. 2008; Uvacsek et al. 2011). Nevertheless, if the informant
has this view of the community, that everyone else is using, it could be interpreted as a social
influence in a learning process of the powerlifting community. The new peripheral partic-
ipants in the community perceive that many other powerlifters are using AAS, particularly
the most central, experienced and successful powerlifters (cf. Lave and Wenger 1991).

Conclusion
In previous research, doping has usually been analyzed as individual or psychosocial pro-
cesses, though sometimes in connection to social norms (e.g. Backhouse et al. 2007;
Donovan et al. 2002; Kindlundh et al 1999; Ntoumanis et al. 2014; Ohl et al. 2015;
Papadopoulos et al. 2006; Wichstrøm 2006). However, doping behaviour is socially complex
as shown in this study, where the focus has been on situated learning in a community of
powerlifters.
In the empirical findings, the informants described how their doping behaviours emerged
in relation to what could be interpreted as a ‘doping culture’ in their sports community.
This is characterized by several social occurrences, expectations, situations, actions and
norms in the informants’ sporting environment. Applying Lave and Wenger’s (1991) and
Wenger’s (1998) theories of learning as a situated and social process adds a new valuable
perspective on doping and new understandings of doping as a learning process – all situated
in a specific social and historical context. The informants learned that others in the com-
munity were using doping substances; they learned that officials were aware of the extensive
use of doping and that several of them had used doping preparations in their own careers.
They learned from senior lifters about AAS – how to use the preparations. They learned
that fellow athletes in the community expected them to use AAS if they were performing
well, that other athletes using AAS improved their performance significantly, that they were
questioned if they denied using AAS, and that competitors were involved in doping. They
also learned where to buy AAS in the powerlifting community, how to administer AAS,
how to avoid being caught in a doping control and that suspended powerlifters were wel-
comed back to the community after a ban.
16 D. HOFF

Learning can be achieved through instructions and teaching from coaches in commu-
nities, like in the powerlifting community, as well as through the rules of powerlifting.
According to the rules, doping is illegal. However, Lave and Wenger (1991) state that learn-
ing through instructions is very limited, at least if the instructions are not applied in practice
by central individuals in the community. The authors suggests that learning takes place
between members of communities of practice. Lave and Wenger (1991) criticize the view
of learning as an individual process of observation and imitation. Instead, learning is about
participation and engagement in a practice. Moreover, as noted in the empirical findings,
all of the informants in the study were, of course, aware of the anti-doping rules, but they
learned their behaviour in practice and in specific situations at the gym through a process
of participation in the community. Here, the anti-doping rules and training coaches were
peripheral elements of the community, and teammates, other athletes and senior lifters
were the most influential and central actors in relation to doping. The communication of
doping knowledge between older and younger athletes, and the transmission of doping
cultures between athletes, have been reported in previous research, although with no con-
nection to situated learning theories (see e.g. Lentillon-Kaestner and Carstairs 2010).
According to Lave and Wenger (1991), learning starts as a legitimate peripheral partic-
ipation in a community of practice. The informants in this study, when describing their
‘sports community’ and ‘first time’, they were inexperienced and their participation were
peripheral in the sports community at the start of their careers. The informants had a
peripheral position in the community, but they had a legitimate position – a ‘right’ to exercise
and compete in powerlifting. In the community, they tried to create meaning for what was
going on, from an apprentice perspective. The informants tried to understand the commu-
nity and practice through observation, participation and interaction. The processes of
understanding and creating meaning include, for example, how to work out, how to treat
other powerlifters, strategies for competitions, strategies for using AAS in order to exercise
more efficiently. In addition, the practice and interaction with senior and more central
individuals in the community were of great significance to the learning process (cf. Lentillon-
Kaestner and Carstairs 2010). This was something that became obvious in the empirical
findings, in which informants stated that the older more experienced lifters were their
mentors in relation to exercise as well as doping. In an endeavour for getting closer to the
central parts of the powerlifting community, doping become a crucial and defining activity
for the informants; in itself as elite-ritual, and as means to results and wins in powerlifting
competitions (cf. Hughes and Coakley 1991).
Wenger (1998) says that a learning process is also an identity process. Learning changes
and creates your identity (cf. Hutchinson, Moston, and Engelberg 2018; Monaghan 2002;
Petróczi and Aidman 2008). In the empirical material, informants talked about searching,
becoming someone, being that big, strong man they admired at the gym and, of course,
being a winner and best in the world in their sport. The learning process creates personal
stories of becoming a person in the community of practice – and doping was a tool and a
practice that formed part of a (new) identity as a powerlifter and person. Using doping
substances, doing it, creates new experiences, which is both a mental and a physical learning;
identity processes in the body and by the body (cf. Andreasson 2014).
The findings in the study can be compared with studies that focus on influences from
the social sport environment on the use of doping preparations: pressure from teammates
(Kirby, Moran, and Guerin 2011; Schneider 2006); wanting to ‘get inside’, to be an ‘insider’
 Sport in Society 17

(Lentillon-Kaestner 2014); to be accepted in the group; to comply with social norms

(Ntoumanis et al. 2014); to get involved in doping activities as a part in an identity process;
striving to join a professional elite group; and to be an elite powerlifter (Hutchinson, Moston,
and Engelberg 2018; Petróczi and Aidman 2008; cf. Coakley and Pike 2009; Hughes and
Coakley 1991). The findings in the above-mentioned studies are important in relation to
learning processes. However, learning is not only a communicative process of adaptation
but learning also is a multifaceted process and includes participation and actions, and
learning is situated in a specific context (Lave and Wenger 1991). In his discussion of the
shortcomings of a psychosocial understanding of doping – with focus on the individual –
Hauw (2013a, 220) states that doping studies need to focus on, as he expresses it, the ‘nature
of human activity’, instead of on ‘human nature’. Hauw (2013b) also states that unethical
behaviour such as doping must be analyzed as a development of human activities rather
individual life courses. In the powerlifting community of practice, the human activities are
about individuals who create meaning and identities in situations, and it is about actions
in relation to expectations, and it is about interaction with other members in the practice –
where doping is an essential activity.

Note
1. The informant had competed in bodybuilding for a brief period, but his main sport was pow-
erlifting.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
David Hoff http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2429-4475

References
Abma, T. A. 2007. “Situated Learning in Communities of Practice: Evaluation of Coercion in
Psychiatry as a Case.” Evaluation 13 (1): 32–47. doi:10.1177/1356389007073680.
Akers, R. L. 2009. Social Learning and Social Structure. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Alvesson, M., and S. Deetz. 2000. Doing Critical Management Research. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M., and K. Sköldberg. 2009. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research.
London: Sage.
Andreasson, J. 2014. “Shut up and Squat!’: Learning Body Knowledge within the Gym.” Ethnography
and Education 9 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1080/17457823.2013.828473.
Backhouse, S., J. McKenna, S. Robinson, and A. Atkin. 2007. International Literature Review:
Attitudes, Behaviours, Knowledge and Education – Drugs in Sport: Past, Present and Future. Leeds:
Carnegie Research Institute.
Bandura, A. 1962. “Social Learning through Imitation.” In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation,
edited by M. R. Jones, 211–269. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Bilard, J., G. Ninot, and D. Hauw. 2011. “Motives for Illicit Use of Doping Substances among Athletes
Calling a National Antidoping Phone-Help Service: An Exploratory Study.” Substance Use &
Misuse 46 (4): 359–367. doi:10.3109/10826084.2010.502553.
18 D. HOFF

Blouin, A. G., and G. S. Goldfield. 1995. “Body Image and Steroid Use in Male Bodybuilders.”
International Journal of Eating Disorders 18 (2): 159–165. doi:10.1002/1098-
108X(199509)18:2<159::AID-EAT2260180208>3.0.CO;2-3.
Brewer, B. D. 2002. “Commercialization in Professional Cycling 1950–2001: Institutional
Transformations and the Rationalization of ‘Doping.” Sociology of Sport Journal 19 (3): 276–301.
doi:10.1123/ssj.19.3.276.
Brower, K. J., F. C. Blow, and E. M. Hill. 1994. “Risk Factors for Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Use in
Men.” Journal of Psychiatric Research 28 (4): 369–380. doi:10.1016/0022-3956(94)90019-1.
Brower, K. J., F. C. Blow, J. P. Young, and E. M. Hill. 1991. “Symptoms and Correlates of Anabolic-
Androgenic Steroid Dependence.” British Journal of Addiction 86 (6): 759–768.
doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb03101.x.
Bryman, A. 2015. Social Research Methods. Oxford: OUP.
Christiansen, A. V., A. S. Vinther, and D. Liokaftos. 2017. “Outline of a Typology of Men’s Use of
Anabolic Androgenic Steroids in Fitness and Strength Training Environments.” Drugs Education
Prevention and Policy 24 (3): 295–305. doi:10.1080/09687637.2016.1231173.
Coakley, J., and E. Pike. 2009. Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies. London: McGraw-Hill.
Cohen, J., R. Collins, J. Darkes, and D. Gwartney. 2007. “A League of Their Own: Demographics,
Motivations and Patterns of Use of 1,955 Male Adult Non-Medical Anabolic Steroid Users in the
United States.” Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 4: 12. doi:10.1186/1550-
2783-4-12.
Curry, L. A., and D. F. Wagman. 1999. “Qualitative Description of the Prevalence and Use of
Anabolic Androgenic Steroids by United States Powerlifters.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 88 (1):
224–233. doi:10.2466/pms.1999.88.1.224.
Donovan, R. J., G. Egger, V. Kapernick, and J. Mendoza. 2002. “A Conceptual Framework for
Achieving Performance Enhancing Drug Compliance in Sport.” Sports Medicine 32: 269–284.
doi:10.2165/00007256-200232040-00005.
Hauw, D. 2013a. “Toward a Situated and Dynamic Understanding of Doping Behaviors.” In Athletic
Enhancement, Human Nature and Ethics: Threats and Opportunities of Doping Technologies,
edited byJ. Tolleneer, S. Sterckx and P. Bonte (14–25). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hauw, D. 2013b. “How Unethical Actions Can Be Learned: The Analysis of the Sporting Life Courses
of Doping Athletes.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 32 (1): 14–25. doi:10.1080/02601
370.2012.734493.
Hauw, D., and S. Mohamed. 2015. “Patterns in Situated Activity of Substance Use in the Careers of
Elite Doping Athletes.” Psychology of Sport and Exercise 16: 156–163. doi:10.1016/
j.psychsport.2013.09.005.
Henning, A. D., and P. Dimeo. 2015. “Questions of Fairness and anti-Doping in US Cycling: The
Contrasting Experiences of Professionals and Amateurs.” Drugs (Abingdon, England) 22 (5): 400–
409. doi:10.3109/09687637.2015.1029872.
Hinic, H., and H. Lostin. 2012. Idrottslyftets Externa Utvärdering: Svenska Tyngdlyftningsförbundet
Och Svenska Styrkelyftförbundet. [External Evaluation by the Swedish Weightlifting Federation and
the Swedish Powerlifting Federation.] Stockholm: Riksidrottsförbundet.
Hoff, D. 2008. Doping- och Antidopingforskning: En Inventering av Samhälls- och Beteendevetenskaplig
Forskning och Publikationer 2004–2007. [Doping and anti-doping research: An inventory of re-
search and publications in social and behavioural sciences.] Rapport 2008:1, Stockholm:
Riksidrottsförbundet.
Hoff, D. 2012. “Doping, Risk and Abuse: An Interview Study of Elite Athletes with a History of
Steroid Use.” Performance Enhancement & Health 1 (2): 61–65. doi:10.1016/j.peh.2012.09.001.
Hoff, D., and B. Carlsson. 2005. Doping- och Antidopingforskning: En Rättssociologisk Inventering av
Samhälls- och Beteendevetenskaplig Forskning och Publikationer. [Doping and anti-doping
research: A sociology of law inventory of research and publications in social and behavioural
sciences.] Rapport 2005:1, Stockholm: Riksidrottsförbundet.
Hughes, R., and J. Coakley. 1991. “Positive Deviance among Athletes: The Implications of over
Conformity to the Sport Ethic.” Sociology of Sport Journal 8 (4): 307–325. doi:10.1123/ssj.8.4.307.
 Sport in Society 19

Hutchinson, B., S. Moston, and T. Engelberg. 2018. “Social Validation: A Motivational Theory of
Doping in an Online Bodybuilding Community.” Sport in Society 21 (2): 260–282. doi:10.1080/
17430437.2015.1096245.
Kabiri, S., J. K. Cochran, B. J. Stewart, M. Sharepour, M. M. Rahmati, and S. M. Shadmanfaat. 2018.
“Doping among Professional Athletes in Iran: A Test of Akers's Social Learning Theory.”
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62 (5): 1384–1410.
doi:10.1177/0306624X16680043.
Kanayama, G., S. Barry, J. I. Hudson, and H. G. Pope. 2006. “Body Image and Attitudes toward Male
Roles in Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Users.” The American Journal of Psychiatry 163 (4): 697–
703. doi:10.1176/ajp.2006.163.4.697.
Kindlundh, A. M., D. G. Isacson, L. Berglund, and F. Nyberg. 1999. “Factors Associated with
Adolescent Use of Doping Agents: Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids.” Addiction (Abingdon,
England) 94 (4): 543–553. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.1999.9445439.x.
Kirby, K., A. Moran, and S. Guerin. 2011. “A Qualitative Analysis of the Experiences of Elite Athletes
Who Have Admitted to Doping for Performance Enhancement.” International Journal of Sport
Policy and Politics 3 (2): 205–224. doi:10.1080/19406940.2011.577081.
Kvale, S., and S. Brinkmann. 2009. InterViews. Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Laure, P., T. Lecerf, A. Friser, and C. Binsinger. 2004. “Drugs, Recreational Drug Use and Attitudes
towards Doping of High School Athletes.” International Journal of Sports Medicine 25 (2): 133–
138. doi:10.1055/s-2004-819946.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lentillon-Kaestner, V. 2014. “Doping Use and Deviance in Swiss National and International Elite
Cycling.” Performance Enhancement & Health 3 (3–4): 167–174. doi:10.1016/j.peh.2015.09.004.
Lentillon-Kaestner, V., and C. Carstairs. 2010. “Doping Use among Young Elite Cyclists: A
Qualitative Psychosociological Approach.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
20 (2): 336–345. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00885.x.
Lucidi, F., C. Grano, L. Leone, C. Lombardo, and C. Pesce. 2004. “Determinants of the Intention to
Use Doping Substances: An Empirical Contribution in a Sample of Italian Adolescents.”
International Journal of Sport Psychology 35 (2): 133–148.
Monaghan, L. F. 2002. “Vocabularies of Motive for Illicit Steroid Use among Bodybuilders.” Social
Science & Medicine (1982) 55 (5): 695–708. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00195-2.
Ntoumanis, N., J. Y. Y. Ng, V. Barkoukis, and S. Backhouse. 2014. “Personal and Psychosocial
Predictors of Doping Use in Physical Activity Settings: A Meta-Analysis.” Sports Medicine
(Auckland, N.Z.) 44 (11): 1603–1624. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0240-4.
Ohl, F., B. Fincoeur, V. Lentillon-Kaestner, J. Defrance, and C. Brissonneau. 2015. “The Socialization
of Young Cyclists and the Culture of Doping.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 50
(7): 865–882. doi:10.1177/1012690213495534.
Özdemir, L., N. Nur, I. Bagcivan, O. Bulut, H. Sümer, and G. Tezeren. 2005. “Doping and Performance
Enhancing Drug Use in Athletes Living in Sivas, Mid-Anatolia: A Brief Report.” Journal of Sports
Science and Medicine 4 (3): 248–252.
Papadopoulos, F. C., I. Skalkidis, J. Parkkari, and E. Petridou; “Sports Injuries” European Union
Group. 2006. “Doping Use among Tertiary Education Students in Six Developed Countries.”
European Journal of Epidemiology 21 (4): 307–313. doi:10.1007/s10654-006-0018-6.
Peters, R. J., L. F. Adams, J. B. Barnes, L. A. Hines, D. E. Jones, K. M. A. Krebs, and S. H. Kelder. 2005.
“Beliefs and Social Norms about Ephedra Onset and Perceived Addiction among College Male
and Female Athletes.” Substance Use & Misuse 40 (1): 125–135. doi:10.1081/ja-200030517.
Petróczi, A., and E. Aidman. 2008. “Psychological Drivers in Doping: The Life-Cycle Model of
Performance Enhancement.” Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 3: 7.
doi:10.1186/1747-597X-3-7.
Petróczi, A., J. Mazanov, T. Nepusz, S. H. Backhouse, and D. P. Naughton. 2008. “Comfort in Big
Numbers: Does Over-Estimation of Doping Prevalence in Others Indicate Self-Involvement?”
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 3: 19. doi:10.1186/1745-6673-3-19.
20 D. HOFF

Pope, H. G., A. J. Gruber, P. Choi, R. Olivardia, and K. A. Phillips. 1997. “Muscle Dysmorphia: An
Underrecognized Form of Body Dysmorphic Disorder.” Psychosomatics 38 (6): 548–557.
doi:10.1016/S0033-3182(97)71400-2.
Pope, H. G., K. A. Phillips, and R. Olivardia. 2000. The Adonis Complex: The Secret Crisis of Male
Body Obsession. New York: Free Press.
Ramsøy, N. R. 1977. Sosial mobilitet i Norge. Oslo: Tiden.
Ramsøy, N. R. 1994. “Non-Marital Cohabitation and Change in Norms: The Case of Norway.” Acta
Sociologica 37 (1): 23–37. doi:10.1177/000169939403700102.
Rennstam, J., and D. Wästerfors. 2018. Analyze! Crafting Your Data in Qualitative Research. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Repstad, P. 2007. Närhet Och Distans. [Closeness and distance.] Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Riksidrottsförbundet [Swedish Sports Confederation]. 2019. Idrottsrörelsen i Siffror. [Statistics,
sports in Sweden]. Stockholm: Riksidrottsförbundet.
Robson, C. 2002. Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schneider, A. J. 2006. “Cultural Nuances: Doping, Cycling and the Tour de France.” Sport in Society
9 (2): 212–226. doi:10.1080/17430430500491272.
Trost, J. 1986. “Statistically Nonrepresentative Stratified Sampling: A Sampling Technique for
Qualitative Studies.” Qualitative Sociology 9 (1): 54–57. doi:10.1007/BF00988249.
Trost, J. 1997. Kvalitativa Intervjuer. [Qualitative interviews.] Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Uvacsek, M., T. Nepusz, D. P. Naughton, J. Mazanov, M. Z. Ránky, and A. Petróczi. 2011. “Self-
Admitted Behavior and Perceived Use of Performance-Enhancing vs Psychoactive Drugs among
Competitive Athletes.” Scand.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 21 (2): 224–
234. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01041.x.
Vetenskapsrådet. 2010. [Swedish Research Council] Forskningsetiska principer inom humanis-
tisk-samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. [Ethical principles of humanistic and social science].
Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. http://www.codex.vr.se/texts/HSFR.pdf
Wagman, D., L. Curry, and D. Cook. 1995. “An Investigation into Anabolic Androgenic Steroid Use
by Elite US Powerlifters.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 9 (3): 149–154.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wichstrøm, L. 2006. “Predictors of Future Anabolic Androgenic Steroid Use.” Medicine and Science
in Sports and Exercise 38 (9): 1578–1583.
Wiefferink, C. H., S. B. Detmar, B. Coumans, T. Vogels, and T. G. W. Paulussen. 2008. “Social
Psychological Determinants of the Use of Performance-Enhancing Drugs by Gym Users.” Health
Education Research 23 (1): 70–80. doi:10.1093/her/cym004.