This article was downloaded by: [130.108.121.217]On: 03 October 2014, At: 06:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports SciencesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

The public perception of doping in sport inSwitzerland, 1995 – 2004Hanspeter Stamm a , Markus Lamprecht a , Matthias Kamber b , Bernard Marti b & NadjaMahler ba L&S Sozialforschung und Beratung AG , Zurichb Federal Office for Sport , Magglingen, SwitzerlandPublished online: 21 May 2008.

To cite this article: Hanspeter Stamm , Markus Lamprecht , Matthias Kamber , Bernard Marti & Nadja Mahler (2008)The public perception of doping in sport in Switzerland, 1995 – 2004, Journal of Sports Sciences, 26:3, 235-242, DOI:10.1080/02640410701552914

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410701552914

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The public perception of doping in sport in Switzerland, 1995 – 2004

HANSPETER STAMM1, MARKUS LAMPRECHT1, MATTHIAS KAMBER2,

BERNARD MARTI2, & NADJA MAHLER2

1L&S Sozialforschung und Beratung AG, Zurich and 2Federal Office for Sport, Magglingen, Switzerland

(Accepted 4 July 2007)

AbstractThe article reports findings on the perception of doping and anti-doping policies from four representative population surveyscarried out in 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004, as well as from a 2005 – 2006 survey of top-level athletes in Switzerland. Theresults show a growing public awareness for doping issues and increasing support for a comprehensive anti-doping strategy inSwitzerland. The vast majority of the Swiss population and top-level athletes are strongly against doping and support astrategy that combines strict prohibition and sanctioning with informational and educational efforts. The perception of thedoping issue and the strategic preferences in fighting doping stated by the public are largely in line with the current anti-doping strategy followed by the Swiss authorities. The results thus suggest a successful use of information resources by theauthorities to create public awareness and to communicate its strategy.

Keywords: Doping, public perception, anti-doping strategy, Switzerland

Introduction

Doping in sport has received much attention. In

Switzerland, there have been several doping cases in

the last few years among top-level athletes or sport

teams that have influenced the discussion on doping

in sport. Understanding public awareness of doping

and the perception of doping within the population

in general and among athletes in particular is

therefore crucial for an effective anti-doping strategy.

An effective fight against doping is dependent

upon a number of factors, including the availability

of expertise, laboratories, organizational and finan-

cial resources, the will by the appropriate authorities

to fight doping effectively, as well as public support

for anti-doping measures (see Houlihan, 2003). This

latter factor is often treated as a given because

‘‘nobody in his right mind would support doping’’.

However, public support for the fight against and

the prevention of doping can be hampered by at least

two factors. On the one hand, due to a lack of

information there might be a lack of public awareness

of the problem. Thus, as long as the public views

doping as a minor problem only affecting a limited

number of sports and athletes, they might not be

inclined to support a comprehensive anti-doping

strategy. On the other hand, there is also the

possibility for a conflict of values, where winning in

international competitions or setting new records is

viewed as more important than, for example, fair

play, equal opportunities or the health of athletes. In

a similar way, public support for the fight against

doping may also be weak if the problem is not

perceived as a structural but rather as an individual

one that lies within the realm of athletes’ individual

decision making, responsibility, and ‘‘morality’’ (see

also Bette & Schimank, 1995).

In both cases – the lack of public awareness and

the more or less explicit acceptance of doping – the

public may not be willing to finance efforts to fight

doping and it may even accuse persons and

organizations fighting against doping of working

against sport and national interests. Such reactions

may severely hamper the development and success of

an effective anti-doping strategy. The same applies

for athletes – as long as they accept doping as a

‘‘normal’’ side-effect of sports, they may be prone to

engage in doping practices themselves while at the

same time not cooperating with the authorities.

Thus, creating public awareness by informing the

public and athletes on the problems attached to

doping is an important cornerstone of an effective

anti-doping policy (see Gamper, 2000; Kamber,

2000).

Correspondence: H. Stamm, L&S Sozialforschung und Beratung AG, Forchstrasse 212, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: hp.stamm@lssfb.ch

Journal of Sports Sciences, February 1st 2008; 26(3): 235 – 242

ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online � 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02640410701552914

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 0

6:25

03

Oct

ober

201

4

In Switzerland, the public discussion of doping

was launched in the late 1980s and early 1990s

following a series of well-published cases of doping

among national and international athletes (Council

of Europe, 2004; Kamber, 2000). Of course, the

media have played a major role in creating public

awareness of the problem by taking up the issue

repeatedly. They have, however, been supported by

the public (namely the Federal Office for Sport) and

private sector authorities (namely the Swiss Olympic

Association), who have increasingly adopted a policy

of open and full information and have provided the

media with pertinent data and analyses. An impor-

tant step in the process of creating public awareness

was the development of a joint anti-doping strategy

by the Federal Office for Sport and the Swiss

Olympic Association that is also enforced at the level

of individual sport federations and supported by a

variety of information materials, all of which are

publicly available [brochures, DVDs, the website

www.dopinginfo.ch, and the joint annual report on

anti-doping by the Federal Office for Sport and the

Swiss Olympic Association (2005)]. In addition,

several campaigns aimed at increasing public aware-

ness have been or are about to be launched. Recent

examples include the campaign ‘‘Sport without

Doping’’ in which a number of well-known Swiss

athletes publicly committed to refrain from doping

and underwent a programme of systematic and

regular testing for doping substances, as well as the

‘‘cool and clean’’ campaign that is aimed at young

athletes and integrates a number of measures for

‘‘clean sports’’ (no doping, fair-play, no smoking, no

drugs, no alcohol).

Trying to increase public awareness and to

stimulate the public discussion of doping issues is

one thing. Whether the public becomes aware and

supports the anti-doping strategy is another issue,

however. As a result, this article looks at changes in

the perception of doping and the Swiss anti-doping

strategy over the past ten years at the level of the

general public as well as top-level athletes. The study

is based on repeated surveys of the general popula-

tion’s perception of doping issues carried out

between 1995 and 2004. In addition, athletes’

assessments are available from a study carried out

in 2005 (see below). The results to be discussed

show that public awareness and critical assessments

of doping have increased consistently since the mid-

1990s and are currently at a level that suggests

almost full support for the anti-doping strategy

adopted by the authorities.

Data and methods

For the following analyses, two different kinds of

surveys were used:

1. Representative telephone surveys covering dop-

ing and ethics in sports were carried out in 1995,

1998, 2001, and 2004. The questionnaires included

eight (1995), twenty-five (1998), twelve (2001), and

nineteen (2004) items regarding doping. Even

though the core questions in the telephone surveys

remained the same throughout the observation

period, changes in some of the answer categories

led to the exclusion of some of the items for the

comparison in the following section (question word-

ings are attached to Figures 1 and 2 and Tables I

and II below). The questions were pre-tested for

each run on a smaller number of respondents and

the surveys were always carried out in late summer

and fall during phases without any particular media

attention to doping issues.

In all but one instance (1995), the questions about

doping and ethics were integrated into broader surveys

about the respondents’ physical activity behaviour.

The sample covered persons aged 18 – 74 years

selected by a stratified random sampling procedure

and included 1201 (1995), 800 (1998), 1535 (2001),

and 2114 (2004) respondents respectively. The 2004

survey also included an additional sample of young

persons aged 15 – 20 years that was weighted down to

reflect effective population weights for the present

study. In addition, further weighting factors were used

to correct for the disproportionate sampling procedure

used at the level of language regions.

The data from the four surveys can be used to

assess the level and changes in perception for the

period 1995 through 2004. As the data set of 1995

only contained a reduced number of questions and

was not available for re-analysis, most of the com-

parisons can only be demonstrated for the period

1998 through 2004. In the few instances where data

from 1995 have been used, they have been taken

from Nocelli, Le Gauffey, and Francois (1996) and

Nocelli, Kamber, Francois, Gmel and Marti (1998).

2. In addition, self-completion questionnaires were

sent to top-level Swiss athletes in 1995, 2000, 2003,

and late 2005/early 2006. These surveys were mainly

concerned with athletes’ assessment of information

materials sent to them and only integrated questions

on their general perception of doping in the latest

survey of 2005 – 2006. In this survey covering 369

athletes, however, the questions from the 2004 popu-

lation study were used, thus allowing a comparison of

athletes and the general population to be made.

In the following section, the data from the

population surveys will first be analysed with respect

to changes in public perception over time (where

possible, gamma coefficients measuring the correla-

tion between ordinal variables have been calculated).

In addition, this section also includes a comparison of

236 H. Stamm et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 0

6:25

03

Oct

ober

201

4

the perceptions of athletes and members of the

general population on selected issues for the latest

surveys. The remainder of the section then focuses on

differences in perception between different social

groups within the population.

Results: Public perception of doping,

1995 – 2004

As Figure 1 shows, public awareness of the doping

problem grew between 1995 and 2004. In 1995, less

than half of the population (47%) agreed with the

statement ‘‘doping is a very serious problem in top

level sports’’, and a further 38% saw doping as a

‘‘rather serious problem’’. However, 13% of all

respondents did not believe that doping was a major

problem. In 2004, this picture had changed drama-

tically: Two-thirds of all respondents subscribed to

the notion that doping is a very serious problem,

another 30% supported the view that it is a rather

serious problem, and the proportion of respondents

who only perceived a small (4%) or no problem at all

(1%) was negligible.

Figure 2 shows that there was also a major shift in

attitudes regarding anti-doping strategies over time.

As late as 1998, 40% of respondents believed that

doping should be liberalized completely (6%) or

under medical supervision (35%). Since then, hardly

anyone still advocates full liberalization (2%), and

the ‘‘moderate liberalization scenario’’ that places

responsibility with medical doctors only registers the

support of 12% of respondents. The remaining 86%

are for the strict prohibition of doping. As the right-

hand column in Figure 2 shows, top-level athletes

take an even more pronounced stance against

doping, with 95% supporting prohibition and just

1% full liberalization.

Why are the Swiss people in general and athletes in

particular so strongly against doping? Part of the

explanation is shown in Table I, which reports the

percentages of respondents who agreed with several

statements on doping. As is evident from Table I,

doping is strongly associated with a number of

negative conceptions. Beginning at an already high

level in 1998, in 2004 almost 100% of respondents

viewed doping as ‘‘damaging to sport’s image’’

(97.8%), as ‘‘producing bad role models’’ (96.1%),

Figure 1. Seriousness of doping problems in top-level sports.

Question wording: ‘‘What would you say? Is doping in top level

sports a very serious, a rather serious, a small or no problem at

all?’’ Note: In all figures and tables, ‘‘missing values’’ have been

eliminated. Number of cases: n¼1162 in 1995; n¼ 788 in 1998;

n¼1492 in 1991; n¼2104 in 2004. Significance of cell

differences, population 1998 – 2004 (w2): P5 0.01; gamma-value

for differences: 0.12 (P50.01).

Figure 2. Preference for different strategies towards doping practices. Question wording: ‘‘How should the doping problem be tackled in the

future? Which of the following three statements is most in line with your own opinion: (a) Doping should be freely available (liberalization)?

(b) Doping should be allowed under medical supervision? (c) Doping should be strongly forbidden?’’ Number of cases: population: n¼ 785 in

1995; n¼1486 in 1998; n¼2076 in 2004; athletes: n¼338 in 2005. Significance of cell differences, 1998 – 2004 (w2): P50.01; gamma-

value for differences: 0.40 (P5 0.01).

Perception of doping in sport in Switzerland 237

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 0

6:25

03

Oct

ober

201

4

and as ‘‘contradicting the principle of fair play’’

(95.2%). According to the last column in Table I,

similar proportions of top-level athletes also sub-

scribe to these views.

There are, however, some marked differences

between the general population and athletes with

respect to several other statements. In 2004, about

three-quarters (75.2%) of the population supported

the somewhat ‘‘resigned’’ or ‘‘realistic’’ view that

doping is a normal part of modern meritocratic

society, whereas only about half (49.7%) of athletes

shared this view. Similarly, a small but substantially

higher proportion of the population agreed with the

following statements: ‘‘doping means equal oppor-

tunities’’ (23.7%) and ‘‘doping belongs to sport as

does training’’ (13.9%). These two statements were

almost completely rejected by the athletes (4.4% and

9.4% respectively). Thus, we once again find a very

critical general assessment of doping, which, how-

ever, leaves some room for ‘‘realistic’’ views in the

general population. Top-level athletes, on the other

hand, are generally even more critical of doping and

do not subscribe to such ‘‘realistic’’ views.

In accordance with the findings reported in

Figures 1 and 2 and Table I, the vast majority of

respondents support a combined repressive and

informational approach in the fight against doping:

As is clear from Table II, in 1998, 2001, and 2004

nearly all respondents agreed to an increase in the

number of controls but also supported informational

and educational measures. With respect to punish-

ment, athletes’ support personnel (e.g. medical staff,

coaches) were to be the primary target in the eyes of

the public: in all three surveys, about 90% of all

respondents agreed with this issue. Currently, about

three-quarters of respondents also support the

punishment of athletes and the introduction of

formal anti-doping legislation. It is important to note

that the preference for a combined strategy that is

evident from Table II is also supported by athletes

whose results are not reported here because the

questions posed to them differed substantially from

the questions used in the population survey.

The focus on athletes’ entourages when it comes

to punishment is less evident in Table III, which

shows the proportion of respondents who named

different groups and organizations as ‘‘having to take

more responsibility in the fight against doping’’.

The numbers reported in the table are compara-

tively small because an open-question format was

Table I. Perception of doping.

1998 2001 2004

Gamma-value and

significance* Athletes 2005 – 06

‘‘Doping damages sport’s image’’ 92.8 96.0 97.8 0.38 95.0

‘‘Doping produces bad role models’’ 90.6 95.0 96.1 0.28 95.9

‘‘Doping contradicts the principle of fair play’’ 90.9 93.7 95.2 0.21 95.4

‘‘Doping is a part of our meritocratic society’’ 81.3 72.4 75.2 N.S. 49.7

‘‘Doping stands for equal opportunities’’ 49.1 33.6 23.7 70.34 4.4

‘‘Doping belongs to sport as does training’’ 22.3 12.7 13.9 70.14 9.4

Number of cases 757 – 791 1425 – 1508 2054 – 2106 360 – 367

Question wording for the general survey: ‘‘The public holds different opinions regarding doping. How do you rate the following statements?’’

Answer categories to the items included in Table I were ‘‘agree’’ and ‘‘disagree’’. The athletes’ self-completion questionnaire included four

answer categories, namely ‘‘agree completely’’, ‘‘rather agree’’, ‘‘rather disagree’’, and ‘‘disagree completely’’. For Table I, the answers

‘‘agree completely’’ and ‘‘rather agree’’ were combined.

*Significance: P50.01; N.S.: gamma not significant; cell differences significant with P50.01.

Table II. Assessment of different anti-doping strategies, 1998 – 2004.

1998 2001 2004 Gamma-value and significance**

‘‘Increasing the number of controls’’ 97.5 97.0 92.2 70.45

‘‘Tougher punishment of athletes’’ 58.3 75.0 72.0 0.13

‘‘Punishment of athletes’ support personnel’’ 88.9 90.3 88.7 N.S.

‘‘Implementing an anti-doping legislation’’ 76.2 84.5 76.2 70.09{

Information and education* 94.3 95.9 96.4 0.14{

Number of cases 723 – 737 1398 – 1456 2032 – 2108

Question wording: ‘‘There are different ways to fight against doping. I will read some strategies to you. Please tell me in every case whether you

find the strategy mentioned important or not important’’. Answer categories included ‘‘yes, important’’ and ‘‘no, not important’’.

*In 1998 and 2001, the item was worded: ‘‘doping information and prevention campaigns for young people’’. In 2004, it was worded:

‘‘information and prevention in schools, clubs and fitness centres’’.

**Significance level: P50.01; {P5 0.05; N.S.: not significant.

238 H. Stamm et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 0

6:25

03

Oct

ober

201

4

used – that is, respondents were not given a list of

persons and organizations but had to cite their own,

which were subsequently coded into the appropriate

categories.

In the two most recent surveys, athletes were

viewed as having to take most (additional) respon-

sibility. In fact, the proportion of respondents

mentioning athletes has increased substantially from

35% in 1998 to 48% in 2004. With respect to the

responsibility of athletes’ entourages, the results are

not entirely clear: coaches (up from 31% in 1998 to

41% in 2004) and ‘‘other persons’’ (up from 8% in

1998 to 11% in 2004) are more frequently men-

tioned, whereas medical doctors (down from 25% in

1998 to 19% in 2004) are cited less frequently.

However, if the responses are combined we find a

slight increase from 47% of respondents who

mention at least one of the three groups in 1998 to

49% in 2004 – a proportion that is almost identical to

the proportion that mentions athletes, thus indicat-

ing a similar burden of responsibility on both groups.

Another important finding in Table III is the

substantial ‘‘downward shift’’ in responsibility of

sport federations (down from 41% in 1998 to 32% in

2004). This may reflect the fact that some of the

responsibility was effectively taken from individual

sport federations between 1998 and 2004 and

transferred to the Swiss Olympic Association and

the Federal Office for Sport (1998¼ 2%; 2004¼ 7%)

under the reformed anti-doping system of

Switzerland.

Three other findings in Table III are noteworthy:

. Persons and organizations not directly involved

in doping, such as sponsors, spectators, and the

media, are hardly ever mentioned.

. Even though formal anti-doping legislation and

repressive measures are strongly supported by

the public (see Table II), public authorities such

as the Federal Office for Sport, legislators in

general, and the police and customs authorities

play only a very minor role in the assignation of

(additional) responsibility. We are thus con-

fronted with a somewhat contradictory finding

that may, to some extent, reflect the Swiss

public’s well-known reluctance to support

‘‘state solutions’’ if ‘‘private-sector solutions’’

(e.g. sanctioning by sport federations) are

available, even though it may well result in

general legislative guidelines.

. Finally, the ranking of responsibilities by the

public and by the athletes (see the last two

columns of Table III) are very similar.

Athletes place the greatest burden on them-

selves, closely followed by medical personnel

and coaches. Sport-specific organizations such

as the federations and the Federal Office for

Sport follow further down the list, whereas

sponsors, media, audience, and police and

customs authorities are at the bottom end of

the ranking.

The results presented thus far show some differ-

ences between the attitudes of top-level athletes and

members of the general public. These differences are

converging, however. What differences remain can

be explained by the athletes’ direct involvement in

the fight against doping and the privileged informa-

tion they receive from the authorities.

It is important to note that there are also a number

of differences within the general population – that is,

attitudes towards doping issues vary between

Table III. Persons and organizations needing to take greater responsibility in the fight against doping.a

Population

1998 (%)

Population

2001 (%)

Population

2004 (%)

Gamma-value

and significance*

Population

2004 (Rank)

Athletes

2005 – 06 (Rank)

Athletes 35.4 44.6 48.5 0.15 1 1

Coaches 31.2 30.7 40.7 0.17 2 3

Sport federations 40.8 32.8 31.7 70.10 3 4

Medical doctors 25.1 22.2 19.2 70.11 4 2

Other persons surrounding the athletes 8.1 6.2 10.8 0.18 5 6

Federal Office for Sport 2.0 8.4 6.8 0.15 6 5

Legislators 6.2 5.2 3.9 70.16 8 7

Sponsors 12.7 5.7 4.4 70.34 7 8

Spectators 4.5 2.8 1.6 70.34 9 11

Media 6.1 3.4 1.4 70.45 10 9

Police and customs authorities 0.9 1.1 0.5 70.34 11 10

Number of cases 740 1425 1971 1971 369

aThe questions in the population and athlete surveys were not posed identically. In the population survey an open format was used asking

respondents ‘‘to name persons or organizations who should take more responsibility in the fight against doping’’. Athletes, on the other hand,

were given a list of persons and organizations and asked to rank them according to the responsibility they were to take in the fight against

doping.

*Significance, population 1998 – 2004: P50.01.

Perception of doping in sport in Switzerland 239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 0

6:25

03

Oct

ober

201

4

different social groups. Several analyses taking into

account respondents’ age, sex, education, national

origin, and region of residence (language region)

have indicated a number of differences, which are,

however, changing and declining over time due to

the general convergence observed above.

An example of this is given in Figure 3, which

shows age differences with respect to the preference

for different (anti-)doping strategies. In 1998, the

youngest (18 – 29 years) group under consideration

was the ‘‘most liberal’’. Three years later, in 2001,

this picture had changed – all age groups had

considerably higher proportions advocating strict

prohibition, but the oldest group (60 – 74 years) was

considerably more permissive than the other groups.

In 2004, finally, it was the youngest and oldest groups

who exhibited the largest proportions supporting

(partial) liberalization. Yet, the differences between

the groups had all but vanished due to the trend

towards a convergence in general assessments.

Similar results can be observed with respect to

differences in sex, educational background, and

national or regional origin. In fact, it is important

to note that social differences no longer play a

substantial role because most members of the

population now hold similar views regardless of their

social background.

An interesting case of group differences is shown

in Figure 4, which shows the relationship between

sports activity and one’s general preference for the

handling of the doping problem. For the three

surveys of 1998, 2001, and 2004, three types of

sports activity were compared: people doing no

sports at all (‘‘inactive’’), people doing some sports

(‘‘partially active’’, i.e. 3 days or less per week), and

regularly active persons (sports on more than 3 days

per week). In all three groups the support for the

strict prohibition strategy increased substantially

between 1998 and 2004. However, people playing

sports on a regular basis show the most important

changes. Up to 2001, this group exhibited the largest

proportion of persons supporting the partial or total

liberalization of doping, but by 2004 the picture had

changed dramatically – they now supported total

prohibition even more than partially active or

inactive persons.

Thus, there are two important findings that

emerge from Figure 4. First, the preference for

prohibition has increased continuously over time but

only recently has there been a high degree of con-

vergence between different groups of the population.

Second, the most important effect can be found in

the group of regularly active persons who were

comparatively ‘‘liberal’’ until 2001 but have had a

considerable ‘‘change of heart’’ to become the most

passionate supporters of a prohibitive strategy. Thus,

their initially liberal approach has been replaced by a

repressive approach also favoured by the authorities

and top-level athletes.

Discussion and conclusion

The results presented here suggest that public aware-

ness on doping issues has increased substantially

Figure 3. Preference for different strategies towards doping practices and age, 1998 – 2004. For question wording, see legend to Figure 2.

Number of cases: n¼784 in 1998, n¼1487 in 2001; n¼ 2076 in 2004: 2076. Differences between age groups not significant in 1998;

significant (P50.01) in 2001 and 2004.

240 H. Stamm et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 0

6:25

03

Oct

ober

201

4

in Switzerland between 1995 and 2004. Currently,

there appears to be a strong consensus for a strategy

that combines strict prohibition (controls and sanc-

tions) with informational and educational efforts.

This consensus has not only led to diminishing social

differences in the perception of the doping problem,

it is also largely in line with the current anti-doping

efforts adopted by the public and private sector

authorities, namely the Federal Office of Sports and

the Swiss Olympic Association. Thus, our results

indicate convergence of public attitudes as well as

convergence of public and official interpretations of

the doping problem.

Even though it is not possible to assess the impact of

the authorities’ and media’s informational efforts of

the past on the public’s attitudes, the convergence in

public opinion towards perceptions that reflect

‘‘official’’ strategies suggests that such efforts – some

of which have been mentioned in the introductory

section – have been successful over the past few years.

Currently, the public as well as athletes strongly

support the Swiss authorities’ well-publicized ap-

proach that is based on a ‘‘three pillar strategy’’

focusing on controls and sanctions, education and

information, as well as research (see Federal Office for

Sport and Swiss Olympic Association, 2005; Kamber,

2000). More liberal attitudes sometimes advocated by

the media in the late 1990s and early 2000s have

largely been usurped by this new consensus (see

Gamper, 2000). Indeed, in the 2004 survey 94.9% of

all respondents (88.2% in 1998 and 91.9% in 2001)

claimed to support a strict anti-doping policy even if

‘‘it entailed the risk that Swiss athletes’ performance

decreased’’. Thus, it appears that the official informa-

tion strategy along with the increasing number of

critical media reports on doping issues have had an

impact on the public’s perception. In addition, other

developments in society such as, for example, chan-

ging attitudes towards drug abuse or the current

discussion of conventional, pharmaceutical drug-

based medical treatments versus ‘‘alternative medi-

cine’’ may also have played a role in this trend towards

a preference for ‘‘clean sports’’.

Despite the increased proportion of the population

that supports the current anti-doping strategy, the

continuous monitoring of the public’s perception is

an important part of a comprehensive anti-doping

strategy because it may inform the authorities of

shifts in public perception that have to be addressed

in the future.

References

Bette, K.-H., & Schimank, U. (1995). Doping im Hochleistungss-

port. Frankfurt-am-Main: Suhrkamp.

Council of Europe (2004). Anti-Doping Convention: Project on

compliance with commitments. Respect by Switzerland of the Anti-

Doping Convention. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Federal Office for Sport and Swiss Olympic Association (2005).

Anti-Doping Switherland. Annual Report 2005. Macolin: Federal

Office for Sport.

Gamper, M. (2000). Reden ist wichtiger als Handeln. Eine

machtanalytische Betrachtung des Dopingdiskurses. In

M. Gamper, J. Muhlethaler, & F. Reidhaar (Eds.), Doping.

Spitzensport als gesellschaftliches Problem (pp. 45 – 68). Zurich:

NZZ.

Houlihan, B. (2003). Dying to win: Doping in sport and the

development of anti-doping policy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Figure 4. Preference for different strategies towards doping practices and level of sports activity, 1998 – 2004. For question wording, see legend

to Figure 2. Number of cases: n¼ 781 in 1998; n¼1451 in 2001; n¼ 2071 in 2004. Differences between levels of sports activity are not

significant; however, differences for the three groups between the three years are in all but one case (no significant difference for inactive

persons between 2001 und 2004) highly significant (P50.01).

Perception of doping in sport in Switzerland 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 0

6:25

03

Oct

ober

201

4

Kamber, M. (2000). Eine historische Betrachtung der Dopingbe-

kampfung in der Schweiz. In M. Gamper, J. Muhlethaler, &

F. Reidhaar (Eds.), Doping. Spitzensport als gesellschaftliches

Problem (pp. 171 – 187). Zurich: NZZ.

Nocelli, L., Le Gauffey, Y., & Francois, Y. (1996). La perception de

dopage dans le sport suisse. Sondage d’opinion aupres de la

population suisse. Lausanne: Schweizerische Fachstelle fur

Alkohol- und andere Drogenprobleme (SFA).

Nocelli, L., Kamber, M., Francois, Y., Gmel, G., & Marti, B.

(1998). Discordant public perception of doping in elite versus

recreational sport in Switzerland. Clinical Journal of Sport

Medicine, 8, 195 – 200.

242 H. Stamm et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

130.

108.

121.

217]

at 0

6:25

03

Oct

ober

201

4