https://books.google.com.my/books?id=WhiTFhRQbTwC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=sintaksis+bahasa+melayu+BM+3103&source=bl&ots=BnQfO-2C5U&sig=2AMOSZy1oMYYxdJaF3Ss33Ri1A0&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://dopingjournal.org/content/8/1/dopingj082010-01.html

HOME

ABOUT

FEEDBACK

RECENT CONTENT

SUBJECT COLLECTIONS

PUBLISH WITH US

ARCHIVE IN DJ

HELP MENU

Doping Journal 8, 1 (2011) find out how to cite this article

original research:

Why Players Engage in Drug Abuse Substances? A Survey Study

Kumar Neeraj1, Paul Maman2, Sandhu J. S.3 

1Lecturer, Dept of Physiotherapy, Saaii College of Medical Science and Technology, Kanpur, U.P., India2Lecturer, Faculty of sports Medicine and Physiotherapy, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab,

India3Professor, Faculty of Sports Medicine & Physiotherapy, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab,

India

Corresponding author: Maman Paul, B.P.T, M.S.P.T, Lecturer, Faculty of Sports Medicine and

Physiotherapy, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India, Tel: +91-9815459353

Email: physioner [at] gmail.com

Submitted: 16 August 2010 | Accepted: 21 February, 2011 | Published: 15 May, 2011

Copyright © 2011 by Neeraj and colleagues, licensee The Doping Journal

Article view and respond options:

DOAJ

GOOGLE SCHOLAR

EMAIL2COLLEAGUE

FULL TEXT

ACROBAT .PDF

XML (NIH DTD 2.0)

ACCEPTED .DOC

E-LETTERS

SUBMIT E-LETTER

RELATEDPUBMED

ARTICLE NAVIGATION MENU

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

METHODS

RESULTS

TABLE 1 & FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2 & FIGURE 3TABLE 2 & TABLE 3TABLE 4 & TABLE 5

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENT & REFERENCES

ABSTRACT

Purpose of this study was to find out the psychological and social support factor which may possibly lead

the players towards using drug abuse substances. 303 players were surveyed with a battery of

questionnaires consisting questions about performance enhancement attitude, motivation, perfectionism,

self confidence, task, ego and social support. 83 players accepted that they have taken banned

substances, significant differences were found in their performance enhancement attitude (p<0.001), self

confidence (p<0.05) and social support (p<0.001). Result of this study suggested that psychological and

social support factors play an important role in players’ propensity to engage in drug abuse substances.

This will be the duty of coaches, sports physiotherapist, sports psychologists and sports officials to guide

athletes towards a positive approach to encounter the pressure of any competition.

Keywords: Drug abuse, psychology, performance enhancement, social support

INTRODUCTION

Drug abuse is one of the biggest problems in sports. It can also be referred to as substance abuse or

doping. Drug abuse involves the repeated and excessive use of chemical substances to achieve a certain

effect. It is an unacceptable part of sports and it is illegal because of their adverse effects and

performance enhancing actions, moreover, several prohibited drugs may have very high potential for

addiction and abuse. These drugs help in increasing muscle mass, strength, and resistance to fatigue, but

the utmost advantage of these drugs is their effect on the central nervous system, which makes athletes

more aggressive in training and in competition [1].

Doping is a divisive and socially undesirable behaviour and it is an enormously secretive behaviour.

Athletes usually do not accept that they are using dope. In the 1998, Tour de France, many of the riders

were engage in doping but they refused to accept it. When they got caught in doping test they reacted

strangely about its presence in their body and shrugged it off by saying, I wonder how this substance get

into my body or I had never taken these drugs [2].

Athletes' use of illicit substances to excel in performance is a form of cheating behaviour and this could be

dangerous for their health and career. The problem of drug use is very common in competitive sports [3].

In spite of the complexity of doping, two major problems arise: health problem and unfair performance

enhancement. Both these issues sometimes seen in conflict with the right of autonomy which implies that

the athletes can use their body freely [4, 5, 6], but for the sake of sports, another major issue need to be

addressed while dealing with doping is ‘spirit of sport’. The prevalence of doping is higher among sports

competitors and increases with age and level of competition [7, 8]. There are numerous psychological

factors that contribute to a player’s propensity to engage in drug abuse substances, like performance

enhancement, perfection, confidence, motivation, task, ego, emotional status and low social support.

Unfortunately, much of the research on doping behaviour has so far concentrated on individual

differences in attitudes towards drug use and towards drug testing programs. But it is not well understood,

what are the underlying psychological factors for the use of performance enhancing substances in sports.

There is empirical lack of studies stating the role of psychosocial variables in the use of doping in sports,

like, some studies analyzed the performance enhancement attitude with doping belief and sports

orientation [9], while few researchers studied the social support determinants of the performance

enhancing drugs by gym user [10]. Hence, understanding player’s attitudes and behavioural intentions

towards performance enhancement is critical for anti-doping intervention strategies. The current research

work was particularly interested in identifying psychological & social variables that might have a link to

performance enhancing drug use. Additionally, the present research work will provide useful information

for the design of the doping attitudes, which hopefully will serve both a practical and an academic

application in the fight against doping in sports. A deeper understanding of decision making processes

and player’s disposition towards performance enhancement may point sport managers, officials, policy

makers, coaches, sports physiotherapists and even athletes towards a better-targeted approach and may

even point the anti-doping effort towards radically different directions.

METHODOLOGY

A survey study with total of 303 subjects both male and female athletes, aged between 18-35 years,

associated with 17 different team or individual sports participated. Athletes of university or higher level

were included, whereas athletes taking psychotherapy and handicapped athletes were excluded. Athletes

were selected from the various sports centres of Punjab (India). The study was approved by the

Institutional Ethics Committee of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, India.

MEASURES

The test consists of the following battery of questionnaires / documents

1. Consent form:

The form allows the participant to state agreement to participate in the study anonymously. The subjects

were informed about the confidential nature of the study. The participation was voluntary with no

compensation or credit to athletes.

2. Demographic questionnaire:

Information on this questionnaire includes personal details, questions relating to sporting experience and

doping-specific questions regarding knowledge and use.

3. Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale (PEA) [9]:

The PEA scale is a 17- item, six-point Likert-type attitude scale. A high score on this scale will denote

positive or permissive attitudes to doping. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale is 0.85. The score

can range from 17 to 102.

4. Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire (PMCSQ-2) [11]:

The PMCSQ is a 33-item, 5-point Likert-type motivational scale. It contains two subscales (perceived task

involving climates and perceived ego involving climates). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale is

0.87. The score can range from 33 to 165.

5. Perfectionism in Sport Scale (PSS) [12]:

The PSS is a 24-item, 5-point Likert-type scale to measure attitude and expectations of competitive sport

participation. It contains three subscales (coach’s criticism, concern over mistakes, and personal

standard). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale is 0.80. The score can range from 24 to 120.

6. Trait Sport Confidence Inventory (TSCI) [13]:

The TSCI consists of 13-items in which the participants rate their confidence on a 9-point Likert-type

scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale is 0.93. The score can range from 13 to 117.

7. Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ) [14]:

The TEOSQ comprises 13-items, 5-point Likert-type task and ego scale. It contains two subscales (task

orientation, and ego orientation). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale is 0.82. The score can range

from 13 to 65.

8. Duke-UNC functional social support questionnaire (FSSQ) [15]:

It consists of 10-items social support scale to be measured on a 5-points Likert-type scale. Cronbach’s

alpha coefficient for this scale is 0.81. The score can range from 10 to 50.

PROTOCOL

The athletes who volunteered to participate in the study were asked to present on a prescribed date. Only

20 athletes were asked to report at a particular date and time. All participants were assured about the

confidential nature of the study and the results will remain anonymous. The participants first filled up the

consent form and hand it over to the researcher. After filling the consent form, the participants were asked

to complete all questionnaires and give their responses on the response sheet. The participants were

then instructed to fold the response sheet, put it in the given envelope & drop it into the prescribed drop

box without making any mark on it

  STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Mean, standard deviation, standard error and percentile were used to prepare summary statistics. Karl

Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) and Student's t test were used to determine the association between

various questionnaires. The statistical analysis was done on SPSS v 16.00

 

RESULTS

A total of 303 athletes with 277 (91%) males and 26 (9%) females participated in the study. The average

age of the athletes was 24.08 (±4.4) years with 24.46 (±4.3) years of males and 20.12 (±3.1) years of

females. Average experience of total athletes was 8.81 (±5.5) yrs. The study comprised of athletes of 17

different sports with following distribution: Archery - 22, Athletics - 48, Badminton - 5, Basket Ball - 41,

Boxing - 11, Cricket - 10, Soccer - 40, Gymnastic - 8, Hand Ball - 15, Hockey - 23, Judo -13, Swimming -

11, Table Tennis - 1, Taekwondo - 3, Volley Ball - 12, Water Polo - 21, and Wrestling - 19.

The level of participation of subjects ranged from university level to international level with, International -

40, National - 181, State - 52, District - 2, and University- 28.

Total 83 (27%) athletes accepted that they have taken banned substances in which males and females

were 74 (26.71%) and 9 (34.62%) respectively. The average age of athletes who have taken banned

substances and who have not taken banned substances are 23.51 (±4.7) years and 24.3 (±3.3)

respectively, as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Table 1 shows the No. of athletes with mean age and experience in different categories

Category No. of

Athletes

Mean

Age

SD Mean

Experience

SD

Male 277 24.46 4.3 9.24 5.5

Female 26 20.12 3.1 32.65 3.9

Athletes who have taken

Banned substances

83 23.51 3.3 8.56 4.6

Athletes who have NOT taken

Banned substances

220 24.3 4.7 8.9 5.8

Male who have taken Banned

substances

74 23.75 3.1 8.91 4.4

Female who have taken

Banned substances

9 21.44 4.2 5.77 5.3

Male who have NOT taken

Banned substances

203 24.71 4.7 9.36 5.8

Female who have NOT taken

Banned substances

17 19.41 2.1 3.41 2.9

Note: you may need to resize your browser window for better view of Table

The levels of participation of athletes who have taken banned substances are as: International - 15,

National - 43, State - 17, District - 1, and University - 7, as shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Distribution of level of participation of athletes who have taken banned substances

Note: you may need to resize your browser window for better view of Figure 1

Total 125 (41%) athletes with 114 (41.2%) males and 11 (42.31%) females accepted that they had

received information about banned substances in their sport with 178(59%) did not receive information;

distribution is shown in Figure 2

FIGURE 2

Distribution of athletes on the basis of receiving information about banned substances

Note: you may need to resize your browser window for better view of Figure 2

Total 118 (39%) athletes with 102 (36.82%) male and 16 (61.54%) female accepted that they personally

know athletes who are taking banned substances whilst 185(61%) do not know any athlete taking banned

substances; its distribution is shown in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3

Distribution on the basis of personally knowing any athlete who is taking banned substances

Note: you may need to resize your browser window for better view of Figures

The mean scores of each questionnaire in different categories are given in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Scores (Mean±SD) of each questionnaire in different categories

Category PEA PMCSQ PSS TSCI TEOSQ FSSQ

Male 55.18

(±16.2)

132.81

(±25.5)

91.16

(±11.80)

91.03

(±13.8)

51.06

(±7.3)

32.73

(±8.6)

Female 50.81

(±15.9)

140.23

(±13.1)

92.31

(±10.3)

88.19

(±28.2)

51.04

(±8.1)

32.65

(±6.9)

Male who have

taken Banned

substances

69.65

(±17.6)

136.39

(±18.5)

93.05

(±13.5)

89.25

(±15.2)

52.87

(±7.7)

27.03

(±9.2)

Female who have

taken Banned

substances

64.44

(±8.5)

138.44

(±17.3)

92.11

(±12.6)

69.44

(±36.9)

46.66

(±10.6)

32.66

(±6.7)

Male who have NOT

taken Banned

substances

49.92

(±11.9)

131.51

(±15.3)

90.47

(±11.1)

91.67

(±13.3)

50.41

(±6.9)

34.81

(±7.4)

Female who have

NOT taken Banned

substances

43.58

(±14.3)

141.17

(±10.7)

92.41

(±9.2)

98.12

(±15.9)

53.35

(±5.4)

32.65

(±7.3)

Athletes who

received information

about Banned

substances

51.76

(±17.4)

128.73

(±32.1)

87.48

(±10.5)

89.32

(±17.1)

50.78

(±7.5)

33.67

(±8.4)

Athletes who did

NOT receive

information about 

Banned substances

56.95

(±14.9)

136.76

(±17.1)

93.92

(±12.2)

91.82

(±14.5)

51.26

(±6.9)

32.05

(±7.7)

Participants

personally know

Athelets taking

Banned substances

58.26

(±17.7)

136.92

(±32.9)

93.41

(±10.7)

90.98

(±17.3)

51.85

(±7.4)

29.42

(±8.5)

Participants

personally DO NOT

know Athelets taking

Banned substances

52.61

(±14.7)

131.24

(±17.0)

89.89

(±12.1)

90.66

(±14.4)

50.56

(±7.2)

34.83

(±7.7)

Note: you may need to resize your browser window for better view of Tables

Descriptive statistics were calculated in the athletes who have taken banned substances. Descriptive

statistics on measurement level variables are provided in Table 3. All the measures viz. Performance

Enhancement Attitude (PEA), Perceived Task Involving Climate (PTIC), Perceived Ego Involving Climate

(PEIC), Coach’s Criticism (CC), Concern over Mistakes (CM), Personal Standard (PS), Task Orientation

(TO), Ego Orientation (EO), Trait Sport Confidence Inventory (TSCI) and Functional social Support

(FSSQ) were negatively skewed

TABLE 3

Measurement level descriptive statistics

Variables Min. Max. Mean SE SD Variance Skewnes Kurtosis

Performance

Enhancement

Attitude Scale

34 92 69.08 1.86 16.92 286.15 -.454 -1.146

Perceived Task

Involved

Climate

44 85 72.49 1.17 10.68 114.20 -.770 -.379

Perceived Ego

Involved

Climate

39 82 64.12 1.15 10.49 110.21 -.219 -.989

Coach's

Criticism

14 30 23.08 .36 3.31 10.93 -.310 -.291

Concern over

Mistakes

15 35 27.02 .55 5.04 25.41 -.346 -1.035

Personal

Standards

28 55 42.83 .74 6.78 46.02 -.363 -.664

Task

Orientation

14 35 28.92 .48 4.43 19.66 -1.052 1.075

Ego Orientation 12 36 23.53 .51 4.65 21.62 -.413 -.174

Trait Sport

Confidence

36 115 87.11 2.13 19.42 377.19 -1.302 1.187

Inventory

Functional

Social Support

Questionnaire

9 47 27.64 .99 9.07 82.38 -.153 -.747

Note: you may need to resize your browser window for better view of Tables

Student’s ‘t’ test were applied in the score of questionnaires between one group of athletes who have

taken banned substances and athletes who have not taken banned substances, the statistically significant

differences were found in performance enhancement attitude scale (p<0.001), trait sport confidence

inventory scale (p<0.05), and functional social support questionnaire (p<0.001), as shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4

Differences in the questionnaires between athletes who have taken banned substances and

athletes who have not taken banned substances

Questionnaires Athletes who have

taken Banned

Substances

(Mean±SD)

Athletes who have

not taken Banned

Substances

(Mean±SD)

t-Value

PEA-Scale 69.08±16.9 49.43±12.2 9.68***

PMCSQ 136.61±18.3 132.25±15.2 1.935NS

PSS 92.95±13.3 90.62±10.9 1.422NS

TSCI 87.11±19.4 92.17±13.6 2.184*

TEOSQ 52.2±8.2 50.64±6.9 1.549NS

FSSQ 27.64±9.1 34.64±7.4 6.289***

*** - Significant p<0.001

* - Significant p<0.05

NS - Non Significant

Pearson correlation were applied between PEA Scale and various psychological variables viz. Perceived

Task Involving Climate (PTIC), Perceived Ego Involving Climate (PEIC), Coach’s Criticism (CC), Concern

over Mistakes (CM), Personal Standard (PS), Task Orientation (TO), Ego Orientation (EO), Trait Sport

Confidence Inventory (TSCI) and Functional Social Support (FSSQ) in the group of athletes who have

taken banned substances, as shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5

Correlation between PEA scores & other psychological variables

Scale PEA Scale r2

Perceived Task Involving Climate 0.07 0.53%

Perceived Ego Involving Climate 0.46** 21.71%

Coach’s Criticism 0.48** 23.14%

Concern over Mistakes 0.72** 51.98%

Personal Standard 0.43** 18.41%

Task Orientation 0.24* 5.63%

Ego orientation 0.43** 18.32%

Trait Sport Confidence Inventory 0.16 2.565%

Functional Social Support Questionnaire -0.008 0.006%

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study was to explore the role of psychological and social support factors which

could influence the use of drug abuse substances in sports. Statistically significant differences were seen

in PEA-Scale (p<0.001), TSCI (p<0.05) and D-UNC FSSQ (p<0.001) questionnaires between the athletes

who have taken banned substances and the athletes who have not taken banned substances.

Athletes who accepted that they have taken banned substances had much higher score (mean) on PEA-

Scale (69.08) as compared to the athletes who have not taken banned substances (49.43), which

demonstrates that they really wanted to enhance their performance, no matter how. This finding is

consistent with previous research which suggests that athletes’ win orientation have an effect on doping

attitude [9]. It could also be emphasised here that economic status might have inkling towards the winning

attitude in athletes as stated by economic theory of doping which mainly assume that athletes act

according to economic rationality. Most of the athletes are likely to see doping as their best option and the

only feasible strategy to ensure winning [16].

The athletes who indulged in drug abuse substances were less confident (87.11) in their sporting ability

than the athletes who did not indulge in such abuse of banned substances (92.17). These findings

indicate a direct influence of self confidence over athletes’ attitude to use doping, which is parallel to the

findings of Radovanovic et al. (1998) and Donovan et al. (2002) [17, 18].

Further, it is also imperative to mention here that in a study conducted by Skarberg et al. (2007) [19], it

was found that the anabolic androgenic steroid users were having deprived relationship with their parents

and half of them had gone through physical or mental abuse, moreover their childhood was also disturbed

and they were socially dissatisfied. The results of the present study also exhibit a similar trend with

athletes with low social support (27.64) inclined towards drug abuse than the athletes with high social

support (34.64).

Another important factor which has emerged from the findings of the present study in curbing the drug

menace in sports is the dissemination of information among the athletes about the harmful effects of drug

abuse. The results of the present study also suggests that only 125 (41%) athletes received information

about banned substances in their sport, whereas out of 83 athletes from the total of 303 who accepted to

have taken banned substances, only 28 (33.73%) athletes received information about these substances

and rest 55 (66.27%) athletes received no information indicating lack of knowledge about banned

substances which probably lead athletes toward engaging in these substances. Education about banned

substances in sports is of utmost important as stated by Hardy et al. (1997) [20] that in the Australian

Football League doping is not a problem, most likely because an education program is being run by the

football authority, similarly Ozdemir et al. (2005) [6] also emphasized on education program of doping in

sports. In addition, another study by Dvorak et al. (2006) [21] stated that FIFA’s anti-doping strategy relies

on education and prevention.

In the present survey, it was found that 118 (39%) athletes accepted that they personally know athletes

who are taking banned substances. In total of 83 athletes who have taken banned substances, 54

(65.06%) personally know athletes who were taking banned substances; it suggests influence of peer

pressure in athletes attitude towards engaging in these substances, these results of present study are

supported by the findings of Backhouse et al. (2007) [22], who stated that the appropriate reason for

using performance enhancement drugs were own personal interest, personally knowing of athletes who

are using and non-conformity of peer group, and by study of Wieffernik et al. (2008) [10], who stated that

the psychosocial factors which are more susceptible for the use of performance enhancement drugs are

individual norms, to get better performance and noticeable use of others.

The results of the present study reveals statistically significant correlation of PEA Scale with perceived

ego involving climate (0.46), and coach's criticism (0.48). These findings suggest that an athlete who

perceives high ego involving climate may be at risk for doping. Also, it seems that the criticism made by

coach on athletes’ performance creates a negative influence on their perception and could lead them

towards doping. Athletes believe that the coach creates an ego involving atmosphere in their team and

this ego climate which is created by coach has a significant role in athletes’ behaviour [23]. The results of

present study also show significant correlations of PEA Scale with concern over mistakes (0.72) and

personal standards (0.43). The behaviour of athletes to show concern over their mistakes and to gauge

high personal standards also play a decisive role in drug abuse as shown by the findings of the present

study, which is in agreement with Sleasman (2009) [24] who stated that for improving perfection one can

move towards the shortcut through artificial stimulants and muscle building hormones. The study by

Petroczi et al. (2008) [16] also suggested that the anticipation of perfection for progress and improvement

or aspiration to win has an influence on the athletes’ behaviour.  

Results of the present study show significant correlation of PEA Scale with task orientation (0.24) and ego

orientation (0.43). A high task and ego orientation in sports also has a significant role in attitude toward

doping by athletes, as suggested by Petroczi et al. (2007) [9] who stated that task and ego orientation had

a rational association with doping behaviour. A small negative (but non significant) correlation between

PEA Scale and FSSQ (0.008) was seen in the results of present study which indicates athletes’

willingness to enhance performance having low social support with the help of drug abuse substances.

The result of the present study also showed that even the university level players (25%) engaged in drug

abuse substances, indicating prevalence of doping at this level also; which is a matter of grave concern.

The beginner level competition should be fair and players should know the importance of fair play. These

results of the present study are consistent with the finding of previous studies, who found that the drug

abuse substances are being used by high school athletes in France [7, 25]. In another study, Tahtamouni

et al. (2008) [26] found that more than half of the collegiate students of Jordan are using AAS, and they

gave emphasis to educate and warn adolescents and mentors about the side effects of AAS abuse.

Therefore, the anti-doping strategies are required to prevent the use of these substances by players

rather than disqualifying them from competition. A proper assessment of player is necessary, including,

medical history, social history and psychological history. An education program for players is essential, as

Chan et al. (2005) [27] investigated the opinion, understanding and practice of doping in the local sporting

community of Hong Kong and found that the local athletes have no clear picture about dope substances.

To prevent local athletes from using these substances, a tailored made education program about doping

control is necessary, whereas, Ama et al. (2003) [28] investigated the use and awareness of lawful and

unlawful substances by amateur footballers in Cameroon and concluded that prevention of doping

through awareness is much essential and the study on prevalence of doping among footballers is urgently

needed. In another study, Kayser et al. (2007) [29] reviewed the recent development of increasingly

severe anti-doping control measures and found them based on questionable ethical grounds and

suggested that the main aim of the current anti-doping strategy is to prevent doping in elite sports by the

means of all-out repression, and making it a public discourse. They also suggested that doping prevention

is an unachievable task in sports; therefore, a more realistic approach should aim at control and safe use

of these drugs which may be practicable choice to deal with doping. The current antidoping policy has

received much criticism for its elite focus, sanction-based approach and associated costs [30], apart from

these current anti-doping strategies, a need exist to find the deep rooted causes of doping and the results

of the present study will help to focus and analyse the basic causes of doping. As such, unless we do not

know the basic causes of attitudes towards doping it is very hard to obtain a dope free environment.

CONCLUSION

The present study reveals that several psychological and social support factors may contribute to the

athletes’ propensity to engage in drug abuse substances. These factors include, willingness to enhance

performance, high perception of ego involving climate, criticism by coach, much concern of athletes on

their own mistakes, athletes’ personal standard, lack of self confidence, low social support, as well as

high task and ego orientations. Many athletes through self reported measures revealed that they can

improve their performance by engaging in drug abuse in relatively short span of time instead of adapting

to advanced techniques. General psychology of the athletes is that in their sports only performance

matters, no matter how they achieve it. Some athletes are of view that the banned substances should be

legalized in the competition. Inadequate knowledge of dope substances and their adverse effect could

also contribute to the use of these substances by athletes.

Since less than 50% of athletes accepted that they received information about banned substances in their

sport, hence sports officials are required to distribute information booklet to each and every player

informing them about the banned substances, because adequate knowledge about these drugs and their

adverse effects might help them to avoid using these substances. Psychological factors are very

important in player’s decision towards using banned substances, so proper counselling of athletes by

sports psychologist is much required. During counselling, social support factors should also be

considered. There is no short cut for performance enhancement, but if athletes take this course of doping

they may end up with jeopardizing their health. So to save athletes from ruining their health and future of

sports by using these substances they should be encouraged to learn new skills and techniques to

enhance performance. This will be the duty of coaches, sports physiotherapist, sports psychologists and

sports officials to guide athletes towards a positive approach to encounter the pressure of any

competition. Emphasis should be given on sports participation and coaches should praise athletes for

their effort whether they win or lose, never criticize them for their mistake but try to motivate them to learn

from their mistakes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank all our participants to support us in completing this study.

REFERENCES Please note: web enhanced references below provide no registration free access to documents

1. Calatayud, V. A., Alcaide, G. G., Zurian, J. C., Benavent, R. A. (2007). Consumption of anabolic

steroids in sport, physical activity and as a drug of abuse: an analysis of the scientific literature and areas

of research. Br J Sports Med, 42, 103-109 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

2. Peters, C., Schulz, T., Michna, H. (2002). Biomedical side effects of doping. Project of the European

union. Verlag sport and Buch Straub- Koln [ URL ][ Back2Text ].

3. Moran A., Guerin, S., Kirby, K., Maclntyre, T. (2008). The development and validation of a doping

attitudes and behaviours scale. Report to WADA & Irish sports council [ URL ][ Back2Text ].

4. Mieth, D., Sorsa, M. (1999). Ethical aspects arising from doping in sports. Opinion of the European

group on ethics in science and new technologies to the European commission, 14 [ URL ][ Back2Text ].

5. Kindlundh, A.M.S., Hagekull, B., Isacson, D.G.L., Nyberg, F. (2001). Adolescent use of anabolic-

androgenic steroids and relations to self-reports of social, personality and health aspects. Euro j of public

health. 11:3, 322-328 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

6. Ozdemir, L., Nur, N., Bagcivan, I., Bulut, O., Sumer, H., Tezeren, G. (2005). Doping and performance

enhancing drug use in athletes living in Sivas, Mid-Anatolia: A brief report. J of sports sciences &

medicine. 4, 248-252 [ URL ][ Back2Text ].

7. Laure, P., Binsinger, C. (2007). Doping prevalence among preadolescent athletes: a 4-year follow up.

Br J Sports Med, 41, 660-663 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

8.  Ehrnborg, C., Rosen, T. (2009). The psychology behind doping in sport. Growth hormone and IGF

Research. 19:4, 285-287 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ]

9. Petroczi A. (2007). Attitudes and doping: a structural equation analysis of the relationship between

athletes’ attitudes, sport orientation and doping behaviour. Biomed central, substance abuse treatment,

prevention, and policy, 2:34 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

10. Wiefferink, C. H., Detmar, S. B., Caumans, B., Vogels, T., Paulussen, T. G. W. (2008). Social

psychological determinants of the use of performance-enhancing drugs by gym users. Healtheducation

research, 28:1, 70-80 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

11. Newton, M., Duda, J. L., Yin, Z. (2000). Examination of the psychometric properties of the perceived

motivational climate in sport questionnaire-2 in a sample of female athletes. J of Sports Sciences, 18,

275-290 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

12. Anshel, M. H., Eom, H. J. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of perfectionism in sports. Int J of Sports

Psychology, 34, 255-271 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

13. Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary

investigation and instrument development. J of Sports Psycho, 10, 471-478 [ Back2Text ].

14. Duda, J. L., Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. J

of Edu Psycho, 84, 290-299 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

15. Broadhead, W. E., Gehlback, S. H., DeGruy, F. V., Kaplan, B. H. (1988). The Duke-UNC Functional

Social Support Questionnaire Measurement of Social Support in family medicine Patients. Medical care,

26:7, 709-723 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

16. Petroczi, A., Aidman, E. V., Nepusz, T. (2008). Capturing doping attitudes by self report declarations

and implicit assessment: A methodology study. Biomed central, substance abuse treatment, prevention,

and policy, 3:9 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

17. Radovanovic, D., Jovanovic, D., Rankovic, G. (1998). Doping in nonprofessional sport. Facta

Universitatis, Physical education, 1:5, 55-60 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

18. Donovan, R.J., Egger, G., Kapernick, V., Mendoza, J. (2002). A conceptual framework for achieving

performance enhancing drug compliance in sport. Sports Medicine. 32:4, 269-284 [ PubMed ][

Back2Text ].

19. Skarberg, K., Engstorm, I. (2007). Troubled social background of male anabolic androgenic steroid

abusers in treatment. Biomed central, substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 2:20 [

PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

20. Hardy, K. J., McNeil, J. J., Capes, A. G. (1997). Drug doping in senior Australian Rules football: a

survey for frequency. Br J Sports Med, 31, 126-128 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

21. Dvorak, J., Graf-Baumann, T., D’Hooghe, M., Kirkendall, D., Taennler, H., Saugy, M. (2006). FIFA’s

approach to doping in football. Br J Sports Med, 40 (Suppl I):i3–i12. [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

22. Backhouse S, McKenna J, Robinson S, Atkin A. Attitudes, Behaviours, Knowledge and Education –

Drugs in Sport: Past, Present and Future 2007 Available at www.wada-ama.org [ URL ][ Back2Text ].

23. Olympiou, A., Jowett, S., Duda, J. L. (2008). The psychological interface between the coach-created

motivational climate and the coach-athlete relationship in team sports. The sport psychologist, 22, 423-

438 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

24. Sleasman, M. J. (2009). Beyond perfectionism. Available at The center for Bioethics and human

dignity web site [ URL ][ Back2Text ].

25. Peretti-Watel, P., Guagliardo, V., Verger, P., Mignon, P., Pruvost, J., Obadia, Y. (2004): Attitudes

toward doping and recreational use among French elite student athletes. Soc Sport J, 21:1-17 [ PubMed ]

[ Back2Text ].

26. Tahtamouni, L. H., Mustafa, N. H., Alfaouri, A. A., Hassan, I. M., Abdalla, M. Y., Yasin, S. R. (2008).

Prevalence and risk factors for anabolic-androgenic steroid abuse among Jordanian collegiate students

and athletes. Eur J Public Health., 18:6, 661-665 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

27. Chan, K. M., Ping, C., Yuan, Y., Wong, Y. Y. (2005). A survey on drug usage among Hong Kong elite

athletes- opinion, understanding and practice. Hong Kong sports development board. [ Back2Text ].

28. Ama, P. F. M., Betnga, B., Ama, V. J. M., Kamga, J. P. (2003). Football and doping: study of African

amateur footballers. Br J Sports Med, 37, 307–310 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

29. Kayser, B., Mouron, A., Miah, A. (2007). Current anti-doping policy: a critical appraisal. Biomed

central, substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 8:2 [ PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

30. Petroczi, A., Aidman, E.V. (2008). Psychological drivers in doping: The life-cycle model of

performance enhancement. Biomed central, substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 3:7 [

PubMed ][ Back2Text ].

Copyright© 2011+ by The Doping Journal (ISSN 1812-948x)  

This article should be cited in the following way:

Kumar Neeraj, Paul Maman, Sandhu J.S. Why Players Engage in Drug Abuse Substances? A Survey Study. The Doping Journal  Vol.  8, 1

(2011) Available at: http://dopingjournal.org/content/8/1/ ( Please make sure you included article web address in your citation! )