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

html

Doping Journal 8, 1 (2011)

original research:

Why Players Engage in Drug Abuse Substances?

A Survey Study
Kumar Neeraj1, Paul Maman2, Sandhu J. S.3
1

Lecturer, Dept of Physiotherapy, Saaii College of Medical Science and Technology, Kanpur, U.P., India

Lecturer, Faculty of sports Medicine and Physiotherapy, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab,

India
3

Professor, 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:

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 NAVIGATION MENU

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
TABLE 1 & FIGURE 1

ABSTRACT

FIGURE 2 & FIGURE 3

TABLE 2 & TABLE 3
TABLE 4 & TABLE 5
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & REFERENCES

+91-9815459353

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
players 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 players
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 players 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. Cronbachs 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). Cronbachs 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 (coachs criticism, concern over
mistakes, and personal standard). Cronbachs 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 Likerttype scale. Cronbachs 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). Cronbachs 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.
Cronbachs 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

No. of

Mean

Athletes

Age

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

83

23.51

3.3

8.56

4.6

220

24.3

4.7

8.9

5.8

74

23.75

3.1

8.91

4.4

21.44

4.2

5.77

5.3

203

24.71

4.7

9.36

5.8

17

19.41

2.1

3.41

2.9

Category

SD

Mean
Experience

SD

substances
Athletes who have NOT taken
Banned substances
Male who have taken Banned
substances
Female who have taken Banned
substances
Male who have NOT taken Banned
substances
Female who have NOT taken Banned
substances

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 (MeanSD) of each questionnaire in different categories

Category

PEA

PMCSQ

PSS

TSCI

TEOSQ

FSSQ

55.18

132.81

91.16

91.03

51.06

32.73

(16.2)

(25.5)

(11.80)

(13.8)

(7.3)

(8.6)

50.81

140.23

92.31

88.19

51.04

32.65

(15.9)

(13.1)

(10.3)

(28.2)

(8.1)

(6.9)

Male who have taken

69.65

136.39

93.05

89.25

52.87

27.03

Banned substances

(17.6)

(18.5)

(13.5)

(15.2)

(7.7)

(9.2)

64.44

138.44

92.11

69.44

46.66

32.66

(8.5)

(17.3)

(12.6)

(36.9)

(10.6)

(6.7)

49.92

131.51

90.47

91.67

50.41

34.81

(11.9)

(15.3)

(11.1)

(13.3)

(6.9)

(7.4)

43.58

141.17

92.41

98.12

53.35

32.65

(14.3)

(10.7)

(9.2)

(15.9)

(5.4)

(7.3)

Male

Female

Female who have

taken Banned
substances
Male who have NOT
taken Banned
substances
Female who have NOT
taken Banned
substances

Athletes who received

51.76

128.73

87.48

89.32

50.78

33.67

(17.4)

(32.1)

(10.5)

(17.1)

(7.5)

(8.4)

receive information

56.95

136.76

93.92

91.82

51.26

32.05

about Banned

(14.9)

(17.1)

(12.2)

(14.5)

(6.9)

(7.7)

58.26

136.92

93.41

90.98

51.85

29.42

(17.7)

(32.9)

(10.7)

(17.3)

(7.4)

(8.5)

DO NOT know Athelets

52.61

131.24

89.89

90.66

50.56

34.83

taking Banned

(14.7)

(17.0)

(12.1)

(14.4)

(7.2)

(7.7)

information about
Banned substances
Athletes who did NOT

substances
Participants personally
know Athelets taking
Banned substances
Participants personally

substances

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), Coachs 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

34

92

69.08 1.86 16.92

286.15

-.454

-1.146

44

85

72.49 1.17 10.68

114.20

-.770

-.379

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

36

115 87.11 2.13 19.42

377.19

-1.302

1.187

47

82.38

-.153

-.747

Scale
Perceived Task
Involved Climate
Perceived Ego Involved
Climate

Trait Sport Confidence

Inventory
Functional Social
Support Questionnaire

27.64 .99

9.07

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

Students 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

Athletes who have

Athletes who have

taken Banned

not taken Banned

Substances

Substances

(MeanSD)

(MeanSD)

PEA-Scale

69.0816.9

49.4312.2

9.68***

PMCSQ

136.6118.3

132.2515.2

1.935NS

PSS

92.9513.3

90.6210.9

1.422NS

TSCI

87.1119.4

92.1713.6

2.184*

TEOSQ

52.28.2

50.646.9

1.549NS

FSSQ

27.649.1

34.647.4

6.289***

Questionnaires

t-Value

*** - 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), Coachs
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%

Coachs 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 FIFAs 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 players 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
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 anabolicandrogenic 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., DHooghe, M., Kirkendall, D., Taennler, H., Saugy, M. (2006). FIFAs
approach to doping in football. Br J Sports Med, 40 (Suppl I):i3i12. [ 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, 423438 [ 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, 307310 [ 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 ].
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! )