Colangelo Jill, Smith Alexander, Hachen Stefanie, Liebrenz Michael
Department of Forensic Psychiatry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Front Sports Act Living. 2024 May 22;6:1406638. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1406638. eCollection 2024.
With ultramarathon attracting burgeoning interest, evidence has emerged about doping behaviors. However, currently, research into the anti-doping policy landscape and the adoption of testing and athlete surveillance is limited, including the applicability of rubric from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs). Consequently, it remains unclear if anti-doping provisions have been developed and enforced in ultramarathon, which is a timely consideration given growth in the sport.
This study gathered perspectives on anti-doping and testing procedures from ultramarathon race organizers (UMROs). To that end, a sample of = 35 prominent competitions was compiled using web materials and community engagement, encompassing elite and amateur entrants, diverse course designs, and prize money opportunities. Data-gathering was conducted across two phases between November and December 2023, with an initial review of UMRO web resources. Subsequently, UMROs were contacted via email to validate or ascertain their anti-doping and testing policies. Insights from UMRO respondents were reviewed and coded. UMROs who did not reply were excluded from the analysis.
Based on this methodology, the positions of = 17 UMROs were captured, covering 159 ultramarathon races and approximately 96,500 annual participants. Of these, = 8 UMROs did not have a self-developed policy and their rubric was pursuant to external authorities like WADA and NADOs. = 4 had created a specific proprietary policy, which often incorporated WADO or NADO materials. The remaining = 5 UMROs reported no anti-doping controls were in place at the time of the study. There was also notable heterogeneity in testing and surveillance, ranging from rigorous procedures to an absence of protocols. Interestingly, none of the included UMROs explicitly reported that they had enacted anti-doping measures against athletes.
Various determinants could inform these regulatory inconsistencies across UMROs, such as financial constraints, infrastructural and logistical barriers, cultural factors, and the lack of a unifying international federation in ultramarathon. Given the disparate approaches identified in our results, greater cooperation and education may be necessary to enhance understanding about the implications of doping and advance cohesive frameworks. This should involve collaborations with WADA and NADOs to promote best-practices and evidence-based exchanges within the community.
随着超级马拉松运动吸引了越来越多的关注，有关兴奋剂使用行为的证据也逐渐浮现。然而，目前对于反兴奋剂政策格局以及检测和运动员监督措施的采用情况的研究有限，包括世界反兴奋剂机构（WADA）和各国反兴奋剂组织（NADOs）的相关准则的适用性。因此，尚不清楚超级马拉松运动中是否已经制定并执行了反兴奋剂规定，鉴于该运动的发展，这是一个亟待考虑的问题。
本研究收集了超级马拉松赛事组织者（UMROs）对反兴奋剂和检测程序的看法。为此，通过网络材料和社区参与，编制了一份包含35项著名赛事的样本，涵盖精英和业余参赛者、多样的赛道设计以及奖金设置。数据收集在2023年11月至12月分两个阶段进行，首先对UMRO的网络资源进行初步审查。随后，通过电子邮件联系UMRO，以核实或确定其反兴奋剂和检测政策。对UMRO受访者的见解进行了审查和编码。未回复的UMRO被排除在分析之外。
基于这种方法，获取了17个UMRO的立场信息，涵盖159场超级马拉松比赛和每年约96,500名参与者。其中，8个UMRO没有自行制定的政策，其准则依据WADA和NADOs等外部机构。4个UMRO制定了特定的专有政策，通常纳入了WADO或NADO的材料。其余5个UMRO报告称在研究时没有实施反兴奋剂控制措施。在检测和监督方面也存在显著差异，从严格的程序到没有相关协议。有趣的是，纳入研究的UMRO中没有一个明确报告他们对运动员实施了反兴奋剂措施。
各种因素可能导致UMRO之间存在这些监管不一致的情况，例如财务限制、基础设施和后勤障碍、文化因素以及超级马拉松运动中缺乏统一的国际联合会。鉴于我们的研究结果中发现的不同方法，可能需要加强合作与教育，以增进对兴奋剂影响的理解并推进统一的框架。这应该包括与WADA和NADOs合作，以促进社区内的最佳实践和基于证据的交流。
