Ed, as most non-elite runners assume these products are well regulated for safety and therefore can be used without much concern for negative shortor long-term health effects. Further gaps between what runners know and think they know about doping and supplements shape their attitudes to doping regulations and who uses or is affected by Acadesine side effects banned substances.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptConclusionOne of the main goals of WADA and its affiliates’ is to Carbonyl cyanide 4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenylhydrazone cost protect the health of athletes through extensive anti-doping surveillance systems. These agencies have the power to develop and enforce rules, codes, and lists to determine the bounds of acceptability of various substances within sport and produce “the truth” about the merits or harms of both these substances and the individual athlete. “Clean” athletes who do not use any banned substances are proved to be such by passing biological tests. These athletes represent an idealized norm for contemporary sport, while athletes found to use a banned substance are constructed asSurveill Soc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 04.HenningPagepathological. However, these processes of biological testing only apply to elite athletes, with various substances grouped into healthy/unhealthy, fair/unfair, allowed/prohibited categories. The anti-doping gaze works to divide athletes into the discursively constructed categories of good and bad based on the detection of banned substances. The good athlete is normalized while the bad are pathologized. This form of social sorting disciplines runners as a group (Foucault 1990). Rather than focusing on the individual, experts including fellow runners, the running media, and bodies such as WADA dispense advice on how to be a better runner, a healthier individual and a good citizen (Rose 1999). These pronouncements are disseminated to non-elite runners through various channels that reinforce prevailing antidoping discourses. Neoliberal citizenship requires the constant monitoring of one’s lifestyle choices to maximize health potential and minimize risk. In accordance with Rose (1999), non-elite runners routinely engage in self-surveillance, monitoring accrued mileage, effort, recovery, fueling needs, and cross training to determine how their bodies and performances respond to their training decisions. Self-surveillance extends to decisions regarding which substances and products to use and which to avoid. Though exempt from anti-doping tests, as stakeholders in their sport non-elite runners internalize the anti-doping gaze and undertake self-surveillance to monitor conformity with the clean ideal. Responsiblized health demands of neoliberal citizenship mean that non-elite runners follow the advice of those they perceive as experts for how to be a “good” and “healthy” citizen. However, the existence of multiple experts whose advice can conflict with, and at times contradict, one another may alter the self-surveilling gaze to influence the decisions of any individual runner. Beyond understanding doping as bad, risky for health, and to be avoided, non-elite runners have very limited knowledge of the range of substances that are banned and the potential harms non-banned substances may present. The interviewees’ knowledge of all but the most commonly reported doping agents and methods was inadequate to determine whether they were within the rules of the sport. More troubling was the interviewees’ assumptions that com.Ed, as most non-elite runners assume these products are well regulated for safety and therefore can be used without much concern for negative shortor long-term health effects. Further gaps between what runners know and think they know about doping and supplements shape their attitudes to doping regulations and who uses or is affected by banned substances.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptConclusionOne of the main goals of WADA and its affiliates’ is to protect the health of athletes through extensive anti-doping surveillance systems. These agencies have the power to develop and enforce rules, codes, and lists to determine the bounds of acceptability of various substances within sport and produce “the truth” about the merits or harms of both these substances and the individual athlete. “Clean” athletes who do not use any banned substances are proved to be such by passing biological tests. These athletes represent an idealized norm for contemporary sport, while athletes found to use a banned substance are constructed asSurveill Soc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 04.HenningPagepathological. However, these processes of biological testing only apply to elite athletes, with various substances grouped into healthy/unhealthy, fair/unfair, allowed/prohibited categories. The anti-doping gaze works to divide athletes into the discursively constructed categories of good and bad based on the detection of banned substances. The good athlete is normalized while the bad are pathologized. This form of social sorting disciplines runners as a group (Foucault 1990). Rather than focusing on the individual, experts including fellow runners, the running media, and bodies such as WADA dispense advice on how to be a better runner, a healthier individual and a good citizen (Rose 1999). These pronouncements are disseminated to non-elite runners through various channels that reinforce prevailing antidoping discourses. Neoliberal citizenship requires the constant monitoring of one’s lifestyle choices to maximize health potential and minimize risk. In accordance with Rose (1999), non-elite runners routinely engage in self-surveillance, monitoring accrued mileage, effort, recovery, fueling needs, and cross training to determine how their bodies and performances respond to their training decisions. Self-surveillance extends to decisions regarding which substances and products to use and which to avoid. Though exempt from anti-doping tests, as stakeholders in their sport non-elite runners internalize the anti-doping gaze and undertake self-surveillance to monitor conformity with the clean ideal. Responsiblized health demands of neoliberal citizenship mean that non-elite runners follow the advice of those they perceive as experts for how to be a “good” and “healthy” citizen. However, the existence of multiple experts whose advice can conflict with, and at times contradict, one another may alter the self-surveilling gaze to influence the decisions of any individual runner. Beyond understanding doping as bad, risky for health, and to be avoided, non-elite runners have very limited knowledge of the range of substances that are banned and the potential harms non-banned substances may present. The interviewees’ knowledge of all but the most commonly reported doping agents and methods was inadequate to determine whether they were within the rules of the sport. More troubling was the interviewees’ assumptions that com.
