From fighting the bad to protecting the good : Legitimation strategies in WADA’s athlete guides

(1)

This is the published version of a paper published in Performance Enhancement & Health.

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

Qvarfordt, A., Hoff, D., Bäckström, Å., Ahmadi, N. (2019)

From fighting the bad to protecting the good: Legitimation strategies in WADA’s athlete

guides

Performance Enhancement & Health, 7(1-2): 100147

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2019.100147

Access to the published version may require subscription.

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

©2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC

BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Permanent link to this version:

(2)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Performance

Enhancement

&

Health

j o u r n al ho me p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / p e h

From

ﬁghting

the

bad

to

protecting

the

good:

Legitimation

strategies

in

WADA’s

athlete

guides

Anna

Qvarfordt

a,b,∗

_,

_David

_Hoff

c

_,

_Åsa

_Bäckström

b

_,

_Nader

_Ahmadi

a a_Faculty_of_Health_and_Occupational_Studies,_University_of_Gävle,_Gävle,_Sweden

b_The_Swedish_School_of_Sport_and_Health_Sciences,_Stockholm,_Sweden c_School_of_Social_Work,_Lund_University,_Lund,_Sweden

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received28May2019 Receivedinrevisedform 11September2019 Accepted26September2019 Availableonlinexxx Keywords: Dopinginsports Anti-doping Legitimacy Legitimationstrategies

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Theglobalanti-dopingeffortinsportisbaseduponperceptionsofthesystemasdesirable,properand appropriateandthusconsideredlegitimate.Thelegitimacyoftheanti-dopingsystemhasearlierbeen studiedbottom-up,basedontheviewsofathletes.Inordertogaingreaterunderstandingoflegitimation processes,itisalsoimportanttostudylegitimationstrategiestop-down,usedbydecision-makingand governingbodies.TheaimofthisstudywastouseFairclough’scriticaldiscourseanalyticalapproach toanalysethesocialconstructionoflegitimacyintheWorldAnti-DopingAgency’sthreeeditionsofa guidetoanti-dopingrulesaimedatathletes.TheanalysiswasperformedbasedonvanLeeuwen’sfour speciﬁclegitimationstrategies:authorization,rationalization,moralevaluationandmythopoesis.Our analysisshowsthatthelegitimationoftheanti-dopingdiscourseasconstructedintheathleteguides thathasaccompaniedanti-dopingregulationsformorethanadecadeischaracterizedbycontinuityas regardsanauthoritarianattitude,butalsobychangetowardsamorerationalandathlete-centredstance. Ashiftcanbeseenintheconstructionoflegitimacyintheanti-dopingdiscoursefrom“ﬁghtingthebad” to“protectingthegood”.Wediscussthemoralevaluationstrategyasawaytoconstructlegitimacyfor anti-dopingeffortsandsportingeneraltowardsawiderpublic.Inthelightoftheresultsofthisstudy, weconcludethatpolicymakinginrelationtodopingissuesshouldtakeintoaccountthedimensionof thediscursivetop-downlegitimation,whichcouldaffecthowthepolicyisreceivedatthelevelofthe athletesandprovideconditionsforasustainableanti-dopingsystem.

1. Introduction

Languageisusedtoconstructlegitimacy,althoughthisisoften not a conscious process (Van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999). The languageinpolicydocumentsthat regulatesdrugusein sports – anti-doping policy– constructlegitimacy for theanti-doping discourseas anexplanationfor whythis particularsocial prac-ticeexistand taketheformitdoes. Earlierstudiesindicatethe importance of legitimacy for anti-doping policy from the ath-letes’pointofview,i.e.fromabottom-upperspective(Donovan, Egger,Kapernick,&Mendoza,2002;Efverström,Ahmadi,Hoff,& Bäckström,2016;Efverström,Bäckström,Ahmadi,&Hoff,2016; Gleaves &Christiansen,2019; Jalleh,Donovan, &Jobling,2014; Macedo,Englar-Carlson, Lehrbach, &Gleaves,2017).Legitimacy

∗ Correspondingauthorat:FacultyofHealthandOccupationalStudies,University ofGävle,80176Gävle,Sweden.

E-mailaddress:anna.qvarfordt@hig.se(A.Qvarfordt).

perspectivesonanti-dopingarealsoevidentinrecentstudieson theorganizationallevelofthesystem.Forinstance,Read,Skinner, Lock,andHoulihan(2019)haveusedmulti-levellegitimacy the-orytoanalysethelegitimacyforanti-dopingpolicyinthewake ofthe2014RussianWinterOlympicGamesdopingscandaland concludedthatthecurrentsituation“presentsaperiloussituation forWADA’slegitimacy”(p.241).Ineveryrule-governedsystem, legitimacyplaysanimportantroleforthefunctionalityofthe sys-tem.Theauthorities of anenterprisewithoutlegitimacywould dependonmassiveresourcesforsurveillanceandpunishment sys-tems(Beetham,2013).Moreover,legitimacymattersforethicaland democraticreasons,asthecreationofalegitimatesysteminvolves treating peoplein awaywhich isconsidereddesirable, reason-ableandappropriate(cf.Suchman,1995).Thestudyoflegitimacy withinasystemneedtobeapproachedfromvariousperspectives andlittleisknownaboutthetop-downconstructionoflegitimacy fromanti-dopingauthoritiesseekingapprovalfromtheathletes. Inordertounderstandtheabovementionedproblemsregarding legitimacywithintheanti-dopingsystem,oneaspectnotyet stud-https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2019.100147

(3)

2 A.Qvarfordt,D.Hoff,Å.Bäckströmetal./PerformanceEnhancement&Healthxxx(xxxx)xxx

iedis thegroundson which top-downclaimsfor legitimacy is constructed.Inthis article,we willanalysediscoursesthat jus-tifyanti-dopingpolicyanddiscussitspossibleimplications.We willprovidea detailedunderstandingofhowlegitimacyis con-structedintextswhereauthoritiesexplainandjustifyregulations directlytotheathletes,whoarethemaintargetforthemeasures takenintheeffortsagainstdopinginsports.Discourseanalysesof anti-dopingeffortsbasedonpolicydocumentshaveshownthatthe earlywork,before2003,canbeviewedasbelongingtoa“warfare genre”inwhichtheevilofdopingwastobefought, andwhere textsusedtermssuchas“combatingdoping”anddescribing anti-dopingeffortsasan“openwar”(Wagner&Pedersen,2014).More recently,theWorldAnti-DopingCode(WADC),whichgovernsthe globalanti-dopingefforttoday,hasbeenfoundtobeconstructed ofauthoritarianandnormativediscoursesthatinhibitideasabout whatsportcanandshouldbe,andhasbeensaidtohelp main-taintheWorldAnti-dopingAgency’s(WADA)positionofpowerin internationalsport(Jedlicka,2014).Anti-dopingeffortshavealso beendescribedasa“moralcrusade”basedonstrongnormativeand ideologicalgrounds(see,e.g.,Critcher,2014;Henne,2015;Hunt, Dimeo,&Jedlicka,2012;McDermott,2016).

Thecurrentarticleisnotanextensivereviewof anti-doping regulationsand we do not studythe WADCitself. Instead,our focusisontheAthleteGuides,whichcouldbedescribedas con-centratedandelaboratedversionsoftheWADCaimeddirectlyto thegovernedathletes.Thisguide,whichaccompanieseveryedition oftheWADC,wasﬁrstpublishedin2004(WADA,2004)andhas sincebeenpublishedinnewversionsin(2009a)(WADA,2009b) and(2015a)(WADA,2015b).TheGuidesareparticularly impor-tanttostudybecausetheysynthesizebothcontentandmannerin whichlegitimatinganti-dopingisdonediscursively.Eventhough theGuidesoriginatesfromtheWADC,theycouldbepresumedas presentingthecoremessagesdirectedfromWADAtoathletes.Our purposeistoanalysethediscursiveconstructionoflegitimacyin thethreeeditions,orversions,ofWADA’santi-dopingguidefor athletes.Thisanalysiscontributeswithnewempiricalﬁndingson thediscursivepracticesusedbyWADAtolegitimatetheextensive anti-dopingeffortsandtheexistenceofaglobalauthoritytocater forthiswork.

1.1. Adiscursiveperspectiveonlegitimation

This study proceeds from a discourse analysis perspective, whereweanalysetext,andimages,asapartofsocialprocesses (seeFairclough,2003)inordertodiscusslanguageinrelationto contextand powerrelationsin ouranalysisof theconstruction oflegitimacy.AccordingtoFairclough(1992)three-dimensional conceptofdiscourse,adiscourseisbuiltupoftext,thediscursive practiceinwhichthetextsareproducedandconsumed,andthe surroundingsocialpractice.Theanti-dopingdiscoursecan there-forebesaidtobesociallyconstructedbytextsincludingWADA texts,thesportcontextinwhichthesetextsareproducedandused, andtheentiresurroundingsocial practiceofsport.Language is notseparatefromothersocialinteraction;itisdialecticallylinked. Therefore,socialanalysesmustalwaystakethelanguageinto con-sideration(Fairclough,2003).

Fromadiscursiveperspective,wecanassumethatbeliefsabout legitimacyareconstructedinrelationtospecificdiscourses(Vaara &Tienari,2008).Theavailablediscourseslimittheopportunitiesof thespecificactorsinthecreationofmeaning.Inasportcontext,this impliesthatathletes,aswellasthoseindecision-makingpositions inasportcontext,arelimitedbythediscourseinhowthey under-standandcreatemeaninginspecificsituations.Legitimationcanbe understoodasthecreationofasenseofpositive,advantageous, eth-ical,comprehensible,necessaryandotherwiseacceptableactions inaspecificsetting(Rojo&VanDijk,1997;VanLeeuwen&Wodak,

1999).Fromthispointofdeparture,legitimationisconstructedin discoursesasexplanationsforwhysocialpracticesexistandwhy theyareastheyare(VanLeeuwen,2007).Legitimationalwayshas atop-downandabottom-updirection;thatis,legitimationoccurs bothviathedominantandthedominated.Thedominantgroup trytogetacceptanceandapproval fromthedominated,andby thatlegitimatethemselves.Thedominatedgroupconferlegitimacy tothedominantby“moreorlessactiveagreement,acceptance, complianceoratleasttacit consent”(Rojo&Van Dijk,1997,p. 528).Studyinglegitimationfromadiscourseanalysisperspective involvesregardinglegitimacyasa“discursivelycreatedsenseof acceptancein speciﬁcdiscoursesorordersofdiscourse”(Vaara, Tienari,&Laurila,2006,p.793).Thediscourseiscentral,butthus interactswithothersocialpracticesandmaterialconditions.

Ourdiscourseanalyticalresearchdesignisinspiredbycritical discourseanalysis(CDA)basedonFairclough’sperspective(1992, Fairclough,1989;2003;2010;Fairclough&Wodak,1997).Apoint ofdepartureindevelopingCDAwasaquestforcombininglinguistic andsocialanalysis(Fairclough,1992)andoneofthemethodology’s characteristicsistheanalysisoftherelationshipbetweendiscourse, powerand society (Egan Sjölander,2011).In Fairclough(2010) words,a mainfocusinCDAis“ondialecticalrelations between discourseandpower,andtheireffects onotherrelationswithin thesocialprocessandtheirelements”(p.8).Theword“critical” intheterm“CDA”referstotheaspectofacritiqueofthepresent socialorderandataken-for-grantednesstoopenupfornewways ofthinkingandacting,aswellasananalysisofwhatasocialpractice (society,organization)claimstobeandwhatitreallyis(Fairclough, 2010).Forthepurposeofanalysinglegitimationintheanti-doping discourseexpressedinthethreeeditionsofWADA’santi-doping guideforathletes,weturntoVanLeeuwen(1996).Hehas iden-tiﬁed fourdiscursive strategies for legitimating social practices (seealsoFairclough,2003;VanLeeuwen,2007;VanLeeuwen& Wodak,1999),namely,authorization,rationalization,moral eval-uation,andmythopoesis,whicharedescribedbelow.

1.1.1. Authorization

Thisstrategyinvolvesconstructionoflegitimacybyreferenceto anauthoritythathaspowerthroughtradition,lawandcustom,and personsinwhominstitutionalauthorityisvested(VanLeeuwen& Wodak,1999).Theauthoritymayalsobeimpersonal,asinrules, laws,theBible,etc.Onecan,forexample,referencetheregulations (asanautonomousinstitution)withouthavingtojustifyoranchor theminsomeoverarchingmoralorder.Oneformof authoritar-ianlegitimationstrategyistorefertosomethingthat“everyone does”orsaythat“everyonesaysso”,astrategyknownasconformity authorization.Conformityauthorizationmayalsoinvolve referenc-ingthatwhichisnormalandstandardpractice(VanLeeuwen& Wodak,1999).

1.1.2. Rationalization

Rationalizationlegitimationisconstructedthroughreference totheutility/functionalityofspeciﬁcactionsbasedonknowledge claimsthatareacceptedinaspeciﬁccontext(Fairclough,2003). Oneformofrationalizationisinstrumentalrationalization,which referstothe“functionality”andeffectivenessofasocialpractice. Anotherformis theoreticalrationalization, where somethingis legitimatedina“truth”about“thewaythingsare”,e.g.byreferring tospecialistswhohave“facts”/knowledgeandwhosearguments areinvoked(VanLeeuwen,2007;VanLeeuwen&Wodak,1999).

1.1.3. Moralevaluation

Inthisstrategy,legitimationisconstructedbyreferringto spe-ciﬁcvaluesystemsandmoralprinciples(VanLeeuwen,2007).

(4)

1.1.4. Mythopoesis

Storytellingornarrativestructurescanalsoconstitutea discur-sivelegitimationstrategy,accordingtoVanLeeuwen(2007).How anissuerelatestothepastandthefuturecanbeshownthrough mythopoesis,forexample(Vaara&Tienari,2008).Storytellingcan provideasenseandcreationofmeaningfor,e.g.,thepast,present andfutureofanorganization.

Inordertocarryoutasystematic analysisofhowdiscursive strategiesareformedintheguidestoconstructlegitimacy,weuse theframeworkdescribedabove.Throughouttheanalysisweput thetextsinrelationtothediscursivepracticewheretheyare pro-ducedandconsumed.Inconclusion,wedrawfromouranalysisto discussimplicationsfortheoverarchingsocialpracticeofelite-level sportinsociety.

2. Materialandmethod

TheempiricalmaterialinfocusfortheanalysisaretheAthlete Guide(WADA,2004),TheGuide(WADA,2009b)andAthlete Refer-enceGuidetothe2015WorldAnti-DopingCode(WADA,2015b).They containaselectionoftheprovisionsoftheWADCthatareaimed directlyatathletes,includingpartsoftheterminologyand phras-ingfromtheunderlyingdocument.Asabasis fortheanalytical process,thethreeversionsoftheathlete’sguidewereread repeat-edlyinrelationtotheaimofthestudytogainanoverallpictureof thecontentandstructureofthetexts.Bryman(2012)description ofanalysiswithintheCDAtraditionwasfollowedinthe contin-uedprocedure.Thefirststepconsistedofthetextdimensionofthe analysis,whichinvolvedastructuringofthecontent,formanduse oflanguageintherespectivetexts.Thisstepwasbasedon matri-cesdevelopedforthecontent(whatisdescribed)andform(how itisdescribed:pictures,language,specifictermsandwordchoice) ofthethreeguides.Thesecondstepoftheprocesswasthe dis-cursivepracticedimension,inwhichtheformsofcommunicating opinionsandbeliefswereanalysed(cf.Bryman,2012).Inthisstep, focuswasdirectedatthediscursiveinteractionthroughanalysis ofcontent,layout,descriptions,wordchoiceandpicturesin rela-tiontotheanalyticalmodelusingthefourlegitimationstrategies. Athirdmatrixwasdevelopedinconnectionwiththe identifica-tionoflegitimationstrategies,inwhichcomparisonovertimewas explored.Intheiterativeprocess ofrepeatedclosereading and analysis,therewasalsoconsistentfocusoncriticallyreviewingthe modelbyseekingtoidentifylegitimationstrategiesotherthanor inadditiontothoseinthemodel.Inourtextmaterial,weidentified buildingblocksthatcouldbeattributedtothreeofVanLeeuwen (1996)fourstrategies.Wehavechosentocallthesebuildingblocks “elements”.InFig.1,weillustrateouranalyticalwork.Likeinall qualitative researchprocesses, a visualizationof the analysisis tidierthantheactualprocessperse,notleastintermsofdirection. Giventhisreservation,thefigureprovidesanoverviewofhowour thinkingwasstructured.Thestrategiesontheleft,comesfromVan Leeuwen(1996).Thesecondcolumndescribesthemainfeatures constructinglegitimacy(cf.,Fairclough,2003;VanLeeuwen,1996; VanLeeuwen&Wodak,1999).Thethirdcolumnconsistsofthe ana-lyticalelementsinourempiricalmaterial,whichwehavefoundto berelevantforeachstrategy.Thefourthcolumnshowsexamples fromtheempiricalmaterial,whichconstitutestheelementinthe thirdcolumn.

Tosumup,thediscourseanalysismethodologywehaveapplied meansthatthethreeguides,withfocusoncomparisonsbetween themandthediscursivepracticeinwhichthetextswereproduced andconsumed,wereanalysedtogetherinordertobefurther dis-cussedinrelationtotheoverarchingsocialpracticeofelite-level sportinsociety.Thisapproachallowedthetextstobecomeinfused withmeaningwithinaparticularcontext(cf.Fairclough,2003).

3. Analysisanddiscussion

Wehaveidentiﬁedanumberofelementsinthedifferent ver-sions oftheathlete’sguides,which formthethree strategiesof authorization,rationalizationandmoralevaluation.Interestingly, wefoundthatmythopoesis,thefourthlegitimationstrategyinour analyticalframework,isfunctionalwithintheframeworkofthe otherthreestrategies.Inthefollowing,wewillanalyseanddiscuss thesestrategies.

3.1. Authorization-thecontinuouspowerfulauthority

Elementsofauthoritativelegitimationoftheanti-doping sys-temhavebeenidentiﬁedthroughallthreeversionsoftheathlete’s guide.Thelegitimationstrategyauthorizationcanbetermedthe dominantwayoflinguistically justifyanti-dopingactivities.We foundfour elementsthat construct thediscursivestrategy: the intangibleauthority;theimperativeauthority;normalization;andthe storyofauthority.

3.1.1. Theintangibleauthority

Thefirstelementthatconstructtheauthorizationstrategyrefers toa powerfulsupervisory authoritywhich is vestedwith insti-tutionalpower,and whichis “intangible”and “unassailable”.In thetextmaterial,theauthorityis eitherananti-doping organi-zation,WADAforemost, oradocument,suchastheWADC.The mostprominentauthorityinthefirstathlete’sguidefrom2004 (WADA,2004)isWADAwhiletheWADClateritselfassumesthe roleofcentralauthority.Adistantwritingstyleiscontinuousinthe guides,describingtheauthorityinthirdperson,andthefactthat noindividualauthorcanbeidentifiedasresponsibleforthetext givessignalsofanintangibleandthusunassailableorganization. Theathletesaredirectlyaddressedasindividualswithwordingto implythatnooneissafeanywhere:“Youcanbeselectedfor dop-ingcontrolatanytimeandanyplace”(WADA,2004,p.14;2009b, p.20;2015b,p.22).Thistypeofphrasingcangivethereaderthe feelingthattheauthoritycanbeanywhereandthattheathletesare constantlyunderawatchfuleye.Toreferinthiswaytosomething intangible,andyetinstitutionalized,becomesawaytoauthorize anddiscursivelyconstructlegitimacyforthesystem.

3.1.2. Theimperativeauthority

Theimperativeauthority,constructlegitimacyforthesystem inanauthoritarianwaythroughcontrolandtheexerciseofpower, isrelatedtotheintangibleauthority.Theoverallarrangementand formofthe2004and2008versionsoftheguideareformal,withan authoritativetone,andgivetheimpressionofalegaltext.Thiswas changedinthe2015versionoftheathlete’sguide,however,which seemsmoreorientedtowardstheathletes’perspectivewithcasual language.Theimagesinthethreeguidesalsoproduce authoritar-iansignals,especiallyinthe2004and2009versions.Therearea numberofadmonishing“signs”inthe2004guidethatare reminis-centoftrafﬁcsignseitherrequiringanactionorprohibitingone. The2009versionshowsapicturetodescribeallpartiesinvolved undertheheading“Who’sWhoinAnti-Doping”(seeFig.2).

Theorganizationisdepictedasahierarchyandcanbelikened toahouse,whereWADAisthesuperstructureandtheathletesand theirentouragesareatthebottom.Thereisalsoaseparatepicture depictingtheCourtofArbitrationforSport(CAS)buildingwhich lookslikeacourthouse,andcanberegardedasrepresentingthe specialistlegalexpertiseoftheorganization.Themedical exper-tiseintheformofdopinglabsisalsomentioned,andasasymbol alab ﬂaskis used.Theseoutside expertinstitutionsindicatean imperativeauthoritybutmayalsobeinterpretedasanelement oftheoreticalrationalization(VanLeeuwen,2007;VanLeeuwen

(5)

Fig.1. Descriptionoftheanalyticalprocess,producingthelegitimationstrategies.

Fig.2.DescriptionoftheglobalAnti-DopingorganizationinTheGuide(WADA, 2009b,p.9).

&Wodak,1999)throughreferencetospecialistsinpossessionof expertknowledgethatisdifﬁculttochallenge.

“TheCode”,whichreferstotheglobalregulatoryframework theWADC,isacentralconceptintheathlete’sguide.Thisterm, usingasingularnounwithadeﬁnitearticle,showsthatthereis

nootherwaytorelatetotheanti-dopingﬁeldandthatthisisan “all-powerful”document.Likewise,thelistofsubstancesand meth-odsprohibitedbyWADAiscalled“TheList”,whichalsoindicates all-encompassingauthority. In the2009 version, thedocument alsocallsitself“TheGuide”(WADA,2009b).Thereaderismeant tounderstandthatthesearetheonlyCode,theonlyListandthe onlyGuidethatmatter,whichreinforcestheimageofimperative authority.

Specificwordchoicesandexpressionsintheguidesalso con-tributetotheimperativeauthorityelement.The2004and2009 versionsoftheguidetalkabout“thefightagainstdoping”in sev-eralplaces,whichsayssomethingabouttheviewonanti-doping efforts.Thephrase“thefight”mayleadpeopletothinkaboutafight betweendifferentpartieswithdiametricallyopposingviewpoints. Thismaybeseenasanexpressionofthelanguageofpowerand cre-ateanantagonisticrelationshipbetweenthedopedorpotentially dopedathleteandtheimperativeauthority.Notably,this expres-siondoesnot appearin the2015version(WADA,2015b), even thoughthephraseisusedintheunderlyingWADC2015(WADA, 2015a).Anotherexampleofhowthiselementisconstructedisthe ruleonmandatorypublicdisclosureofdopingviolations,described inthe2015versionoftheguide:“Ifyouarefoundtohave commit-tedananti-dopingruleviolation,thatfactwillbemadepublic.The ideaisthatthisservesasanimportantdeterrenttodoping”(WADA, 2015b,p.19).Thiscanbeinterpretedtomeanthatpotentialfeelings ofshameandguiltwillhaveanormativeeffectonthebehaviourof athletes.Thepictureofhowtheauthorityisabletopubliclyexpose andhangrulebreakersouttodryaddstotheelementofthe imper-ativeauthority.Althoughthisrulewasfoundinearlierversionsof theWADC,theaimoftheruleismoreexplicitlywritteninthelater versionoftheathlete’sguide.Thewordingsignalspowerand con-trolandapotentialthreatiftheathleteshouldmakethe“wrong” decision.Asawhole,itcanbesaidthattheimperativeauthority ele-mentisclearlyapparentinallthreeversionsoftheathlete’sguide, andparticularlysointhe2004and2009versions.Terminologyand wordchoicereferencingthecontrollingandpowerfulrolevestedin theauthoritybecomeawaytodiscursivelylegitimateanti-doping efforts.

(6)

3.1.3. Normalization

Anotherelement thatbuildsuptheauthorizationstrategy is normalizationofanti-dopingprocedures,especiallythosefor col-lectionofurine samplesthat,inothersocial settings,wouldbe consideredabnormal.Standardized proceduresforurinesample collectionaredescribedstepbystepandindetailinallthree ver-sions oftheguide,indicating thatthis isnormal and makingit difﬁculttochallengetheprocedureandtheauthority.Thiscanbe interpretedasawaytonormalize,throughlanguage,aprocedure thatmany,perhapsmost,peoplewouldconsiderembarrassingand possiblyaninvasionofprivacy.Forexample,the2004and2015 versionsoftheguidedescribehowathletesshouldundresssothat theDopingControlOfﬁcerwillbeabletoobservetheprovisionof aurinesample.The2004versionstatesthattheathleteisobliged to“...[r]emoveallclothingbetweenthewaistandmid-thighto giveanunrestrictedviewofsampleprovision”(WADA,2004,p. 17).Eventhoughthedescriptionhasaninformativeaim,the refer-encingofthesestandardizedproceduresindetailcanberegarded asakindofconformityauthorization.Theimplicationisthatthe procedureissomethingnormalthateveryoneinthesportingworld does,thusconstructinglegitimacyforanapproachthatwouldseem untenableinmanyothercontexts.

3.1.4. Thestoryofauthority

Astorywithfeaturesofthelegitimationstrategyof mythopoe-sisrunsthroughthethreeversionsoftheathlete’sguide,which contributestotheconstructionoflegitimacythrough authoriza-tion.The2004guideemphasizesthattheWADCwasunanimously approvedbysportsorganizationsandgovernments.Arelatively longnarrativeparagraphisdevotedtotheformationofWADAand howitresultedin,fortheﬁrsttime,rulesandregulationsbeingthe sameinallcountries.ThefocusisonbothWADAandtheWADCas authorities.Thestoryofauthorityisalsotoldinthe2009version, wheregravitasisgiventoboththeorganizationandtherulesby statingthatWADAissupportedby“allsports”,“allcountries”and “governmentsoftheworld”(WADA,2009b,p.3)andthatdecisions madeconcerninganti-dopingworkhavebeenunanimous.Another exampleillustratingglobalsupportand,hence,authorizationofthe systemistheworldmapthatisprominentlyshownonthecover ofthe2015versionoftheathlete’sguide(seeFig.3)andthereafter abitmorediscreetlyoneachspread.Themapclariﬁesthestoryof theglobalauthoritythatunites“allthecountriesoftheworld”.

Aspreviouslymentioned,itisinterestingtonotethatWADA, theorganizationbehindtheWADC,isnotdescribedatallin2015. Thisstoryofthedevelopmentoftheauthority,WADAintheﬁrst stagewiththefocuslatershiftingtotheglobal“code”,describes atemporalandspatialperspectivethatmaycontributetoasense andcreationofmeaninginrelationtothesystem.

Hence,thelegitimationstrategyofauthorizationisconstructed byelementsincludingtheintangibleauthority andthe impera-tiveauthority.Thecentralauthorityhasbeengraduallychanged fromWADA,theorganization,totheWADC, thedocument;the latest(2015b)versionoftheguidedoesnotmentionWADAatall, whiletheWADChasassumeditsroleasthedominantauthority. Thenormalizationofpotentiallyproblematicproceduresanda nar-rativizationofauthority alsocontributetolegitimationthrough authorization.Althoughauthorizationseemstobethe predomi-nantlegitimationstrategyintheguides,wecandiscernatendency overtimetotoneitdown.Adiscourseofauthorityinanti-doping efforts, as formulated in theWADC, haspreviously been iden-tiﬁed by Jedlicka (2014), who found that this discourse, along witha normative discourse of sport,consolidates and expands WADA’sorganizationalpower.AccordingtoVanLeeuwen(2007), anauthoritarianformoflegitimationisoftenconnectedtothe argu-mentthatsomethingshouldbedoneinaparticularway,because theauthorityhassodecided.Theanswertotheimpliedquestion

“Whyisitso?/Whyshouldwedoitthisway?”becomes“Because Isay so”,fromsomeone inwhominstitutionalized authority is vested.

Thisbegsthequestion:whoisthisauthorityintheanti-doping context?WADAwasanobviousauthorityinthefirstguide(2004), whiletheemphasiswassubsequentlyshiftedtotheWADCasthe most prominent authority. It seemsthat it would be easier to criticizeanorganizationthantochallengeadocumentthat“the countriesandgovernmentsoftheworld”haveagreedon.Thisshift withintheauthorizationstrategycouldentailgreaterlegitimacyfor theanti-dopingdiscourse.VanLeeuwenandWodak(1999)argue that legitimation through laws and regulations as autonomous institutionsrequiresnoanchoringinanoverarchingmoralorder. It would therefore suffice tosay, “Because it hasbeendecided thus”tojustifyanti-dopingrules.However,thisauthoritarian jus-tificationmayalsobeseenasaninstrumentalwaytoconstruct legitimacyforthework,wherealanguageofpowerand underly-ingthreatsofpunishmentbecomeameanstocontrolbehaviour.A systembasedoninstrumentallegitimationindicatesan adversar-ialpositionbetweenthegovernorsandthegovernedandrequires vastresourcestomaintaintherulesthroughcontrolsand sanc-tions(cf.Macedoetal.,2017;Tyler,2006).TheCDAapproachwe applyleadsustolookatthepresentsocialorderand taken-for-grantedness(Fairclough,2010)andaskwhetherthere areother pathstoapproachtheathletes,thatmightleadtoalternativeways to answerthe questions “Why is it so?” and “Why shouldwe doitthisway?”Forinstance,couldproceedingfromthe percep-tionsoffairnessandresponsibilityamongthegovernedathletes givemore relevant, rationaland ethicallygrounded answers to thesequestions?Thisisrelevant,notleastconsideringthat ath-letesincreasingly havebeenfoundtoraiseseriousconcerns on howtheanti-dopingsystemisimplemented(see,e.g.Gleaves& Christiansen,2019),andthatthelegitimacyforanti-dopingpolicy hasbeenfoundnottorestonasolidfoundation(Readetal.,2019). Conceptssuchas“thefightagainstdoping”and“deterrence” areformulationsinthetextmaterialthatalsounderpinthe legit-imationstrategyofauthorization.Depictinganti-dopingeffortsas afightonabattlefieldwheredeterrentmethodsarenecessarycan makeiteasiertojustifypowerfulweaponsinthisfight.Thiscan beawaytodiscursivelyconstructlegitimacyformethodsthatare, fortheathletes,relativelyintrusive.WagnerandPedersen(2014) havedeterminedthatearlyanti-dopingeffortswerelargely formu-latedwithina“warfaregenre”.Thismetaphoricalwayofdescribing effortsagainstdopingcanthereforebesaidtohavelingeredonin thediscoursetosomeextent,althoughthisseemstobechanging, as“thefightagainstdoping”,forexample,isnotaconceptfoundin thelatestdocumentaddressedtotheathletes.

3.2. Rationalization-thechangetowardsrationality

Alongwiththecontinuousanddominantauthoritative legitima-tiondiscourse,theanti-dopingworkisfurtherlegitimatedthrough languageofrationalizationbyreferencingthepracticaland func-tionalaspectsofrunningactivitiesinaparticularway.Wehavein ouranalysismainlybeenabletodiscernastrategyofinstrumental rationalization,whichisbuiltupofthreeelements:seriouswork; athlete-centredwork;andanorganizationopentochange.The lat-tertwoareconnectedandarethereforeanalysedunderthesame headingbelow.

3.2.1. Seriouswork

Allthreeversionsoftheathlete’sguidedescribehowWADA and/ortheWADCarethebasisforabroadeffortagainstdoping thatincludeseducation,advocacy,researchandleadership(WADA, 2004).Itismadeclearthatthisisaseriousandglobaleffortwhich is of suchimportancethat governments all over theworldare

(7)

Fig.3.PicturefromtheﬁrstpageoftheAthleteReferenceGuidetothe2015WorldAnti-DopingCode(WADA,2015b).

allocatinglargesumsofmoneytoit.Rational,carefullydesigned processesandproceduresaredescribedindetailinthethree doc-uments.Descriptionsofthedopingcontrolprocessandthe“chain ofcustody” withstorage, transport and analysisof testresults, forexample,arecharacterizedbylinguisticexpressions indicat-inghighdegreeofgravityandfunctionality.Thereferencingtothe functional,reassuringandrationalaspectsoftheworkcontributes totheconstructionoflegitimacyfortheglobalanti-dopingsystem. 3.2.2. Athlete-centredworkandanorganizationopentochange

Compared withthe earlier editions the 2015edition of the athlete’sguidedescribestheanti-doping effortasmore athlete-centred,modulatedandbalanced.Thedesignandgeneraltoneof thisguideareinformalandaimedmoreattheindividual,wherethe pointofdepartureisoftenthequestionsthatathletesarelikelyto ask.ThisinformaltoneisseenintheexampleinFig.4fromtheﬁrst heading,“Therightstuff”,andthequestionhighlightedingreen, “What,exactly,istheWorldAnti-DopingCode?”

Anotherchangeinthe2015editionisthefocusondoping pre-vention.No preventivepurposewasmentionedin theﬁrst two versionsoftheguide,whilethe2015documentstates thatthe mainaimoftheanti-dopingsystemisto“preventtheintentionalor unintentionaluseofprohibitedsubstancesormethods,orthe com-missionofanyotheranti-dopingruleviolation”(WADA,2015b, p. 3). The workis presented as modulated and balanced;it is emphasizedthatthereisnoresorttocoercivemethods,andthat thesystemisinsteadrationalandthereforelegitimate.The Anti-DopingAdministration&ManagementSystem(ADAMS)database isdescribedashavingbeendevelopedto“makeyourlifeeasier” (WADA,2015b,p.15).Onceagain,theanti-dopingcontrolsystem isdescribedasbalancedandrational,withreferencemadetothe functionalityofthemeasures,whileshowingthatthingsarenot takentoextremes. Thattherules arefairand functionalisalso inferredinthe“HearingsandAppeals”section,whichstatesthat allathletesareentitledtoafairhearingbeforeanimpartialpanel (asalsoexplainedinthe2004and2009editions)andareentitledto havetheircasesheardinatimelyfashion.Thisfocuson susceptibil-itytotheathletes’situationssignals,objectivityandpurposefulness throughlanguagethatcanbuildupasenseofrationalitythat dis-cursivelylegitimatesthesystem.

Anewelementalsoappearsinthe2015version,namely,theaim tochangeand“clean”athletes,whichcontributestotherational

legitimationoftheanti-dopingeffort,althoughitalsohasfeatures ofauthorizationstrategiesoflegitimation,aspreviouslydescribed. Towardstheendofthisversionoftheguide,theathletesofthe worldaredescribedinavisionaryway:

The2015versionoftheCodebringsnewchanges.Italsobrings anewchancefortheathletesoftheworld–andtheoverwhelming majorityofathletesdo,infact,choosetocompeteclean–tolead thewayinpromotingensuringcleanathletes.(WADA,2015b,p. 20).

Thedescriptionsofchangeandofacleanathleteisnotfound inthepreviouseditions,whichmaybeinterpretedasasignalof awarenessoftheneedforchangeandtofocusontheathletes.This canalsoberegardedasastorywithanelementofmythopoesisthat contributestotheconstructionoflegitimacy,inthiscasewithinthe frameworkoftherationalizationstrategy.

Rationalizationseemsthereforetobea legitimationstrategy thatisgaininggroundintheanti-dopingdiscourse.Inthe2015 athlete’sguideinparticular,thereareseveralfeatures that con-tributetotheelementsofseriouswork,athlete-centredworkand anorganizationopentochange,whichmayindicateachangeinthe discourseforlegitimatingtheanti-dopingsystem(WADA,2015b). Therationallegitimationstrategyconstitutesaturnawayfromthe earlierfocusonprohibition,suspicionandﬁghting,andtowards protectingthecleanathlete,ina seeminglycarefullyconsidered way.ThisisinlinewithMazanovandMcDermott(2009)discussion, whichhighlightsashiftinanti-dopingpolicyfromdetection-based deterrencetoa more prevention-based approach.In somewhat simpliﬁedterms,onecouldsaythattheemphasiswaspreviously on“scaring/threateningthecheaters”whileitisnowon“looking outforthegoodandclean”athletes.Fromthisemergesapictureof abenevolentorganizationthatishelpingandprotectingathletes throughmeasuresincludingpreventiveefforts.

Legitimationforthesystemisconstructedbyshowinghow anti-dopingeffortsarebeingmadeinabalancedandrationalway.This couldbeareactiontopastcriticismoftheeffectofanti-doping effortsonathletes’lives,bothfromtheathletesinthediscursive practice(thesportcontext)wheretheregulatorydocumentsare “consumed”(cf.Fairclough,1992)and fromscholarsinthe sur-roundingsocialscientiﬁc practice(see,e.g.,Efverström,Ahmadi etal.,2016;Møller,2011;Overbye&Wagner,2013b;Waddington, 2010).Aselite-levelathleteshavebecomesubjecttoincreasingly intrusivemeasures,suchasmandatorywhereaboutsreportingand

(8)

Fig.4. SamplepagefromtheAthlete’sReferenceGuidetothe2015WorldAnti-DopingCode(WADA,2015b,p.3).

the“bloodpassport”,thishasbeendiscussedandsometimes criti-cizedbyboththemediaandtheathletesthemselves(e.g.Bourdon, Schoch,Broers,&Kayser,2014;Efverström,Ahmadietal.,2016). Tostateintheathlete’sguidethatonlya fewathletesare sub-jecttowhereaboutsreporting,forexample,indicatesarealization thatthiscanbeperceivedasanintrusivemeasureandonethat WADAdoesnotwanttouseindiscriminately,but,rather,witha certainmeasureofrestraint.Anotherexampleisthatthe preven-tivepurposeoftheanti-dopingeffortisbroughttotheforeinthe latestguide,wherethisrationalpro-activeapproachcontributes tothediscursiveconstructionoflegitimacy.Oneinterpretationof thischangeisthatwhilethemeasuresforathletesincreasein num-berandintrusivenessitbecomesallthemoreimportanttojustify themeans.Thischangedfocusonthefunctional,balancedworkin theanti-dopingdiscourse,canalsobeseenasareactionto dis-cussionsand criticisminthesurroundingsocial practiceofwar metaphorsandananti-dopingeffortwhereallavailablemeansare usedintheﬁghtfor“good”against“evil”(e.g.Dimeo,2010;Henne, 2015;McDermott,2016;Wagner&Pedersen,2014).Basedonthe resultsofourstudy,thediscourseofcontrolcanbesaidtohave beenchangedfromafocusondiscipliningthecollectivetoamore rationaland athlete-centredapproach.Thechange,withgreater focusontheindividual,whoisalsoprotectedbytheregulations,is interestingwithregardtolegitimationstrategiesandcanbeseenas paralleltoshiftsinthesurroundingsocialpracticeoflargersociety (cf.Fairclough,1992).Althoughtheprocessofmodernizationwith afocusontheindividual(Bauman,2001;Giddens,1991)started longbeforethecreationofthedocumentsstudiedhere,intensiﬁed individualizationisconsideredtobeoneofthemainfeaturesof today’ssociety(Ahmadi&Svedsäter,2016).Policymakingin

rela-tiontoanti-dopingis,ofcourse,notimmunetosocialchangesin general,andadjustmentsshouldoccurgraduallyintheanti-doping discourseaswell.

3.3. Moralevaluation-theathletesasmoralagents

Inadditiontothetwoauthoritativeandrationallegitimation strategy,ouranalysisshowsthatthereareelementsinallthree versionsoftheathlete’sguidethatconstructthelegitimation strat-egyofmoralevaluation.Thisstrategylegitimatestheanti-doping effortbyreferencingspeciﬁcvaluesystemsandbyemphasison certainmoralpositionsthatathletesareexpectedtotake.The ele-mentshavebeencategorizedas:thespiritofsport;youshouldnot beignorant;andyoushouldtell.

3.3.1. Thespiritofsport

Theconceptof“thespiritofsport”isadistinctelementinthe 2004and2015guides.Indescribingthepurposeoftheanti-doping effortinthe2004versionoftheguide,itissaid,inrelatively nor-mativewording,that“[t]hespiritofsportisthecelebrationofthe humanspirit,thebodyand themind.Dopingis contrarytothe spiritofsport,erodespublicconfidenceandjeopardizesthehealth andwell-beingofathletes”(WADA,2004,p.3).Theconceptisalso broughttotheforein2015,asanimportantjustificationforthe anti-dopingeffort:“TheCode,initsfirstfewpages,speaksofthe intrinsicvalueofthe‘spiritofsport.’Thatspiritiswhatdrives for-wardtheprimarygoalofanyanti-dopingprogram:prevention.” (WADA,2015b,p.3).Sportisthusassumedtohaveaspecificvalue systemwithmoralprinciplesthatarejeopardizedwhenathletes useprohibitedsubstancesandmethods,whichjustifiesthe

(9)

anti-8 A.Qvarfordt,D.Hoff,Å.Bäckströmetal./PerformanceEnhancement&Healthxxx(xxxx)xxx

dopingeffort.Itisalsomentioned,inthe2004versionoftheguide, thatWADAwasformed“withavisionforaworldthatvaluesand encouragesadoping-freeculture”(WADA,2004,p.4).Thelanguage stronglyexpressesthatthesenormsapplythroughouttheworld anditisemphasizedinthetextthatWADAwasformedonthe initiativeofcountriesandgovernmentsworldwide,further rein-forcingtheimageofawholeworldthatsharesmoralprinciples andshouldhencevaluetheworkoftheorganization.Throughits narrativenature,theelementofthespiritofsportcanalsobeseen asafeatureofaconstructionoflegitimacythroughmythopoesis. 3.3.2. Youshouldnotbeignorant

Thethreeathlete’sguidesstateinanadmonitorywaythat ath-letesare personally responsible for acquiringknowledge about doping and anti-doping issues. The 2009version, for example, explainsthattheathleteisresponsibleforﬁndingoutandknowing whatsubstancesandmethodsareprohibited,addingthat: “Igno-ranceisneveranexcuse.”(WADA,2009b,p.8).Inallversionsofthe guide,“thedopedathlete”isdepictedasignorantandnegligent.By language,thisconstructsnormativevaluesaroundathletes,which discursivelycanlegitimateharshmeasuresagainstthosewhodo notassumetheresponsibilitymadeincumbentuponthem. 3.3.3. Youshouldtell

The2004and2015versionoftheguidecontaindescriptionsof theparticularresponsibilityofathletestoturninotherswhoare violatinganti-dopingrules.Attheendofthe2004version,thereis thefollowingmessagefromWADA:“Wewouldalsoencourageyou tocontactuswithanyinformationorleadsonthoseyoufeelmay becheatingwithinyoursportorproceduresthatarebeingusedto manipulatethesystem.”(WADA,2004,p.28).Thiscanberegarded asanormativeadmonitiontoathletestotaketheethically“right position”onanti-dopingandturninopponentsorco-competitors whodonot.Likewise,the“ConsequencesofAnti-DopingRule Vio-lations”sectionofthe2015versiondescribeshowathletesfound guiltyofdopingcanhavetheirpunishmentreducedifthey con-fessandprovidesubstantialassistanceinconvictingothers.This canbeinterpretedtomeanthat theathletesdemonstratesome formofmoralprinciples,throughacknowledgingtheirmistakes andturninginothers,doingtherightthing,andbeingrewarded witha lesserpunishment.Todiscursivelyconstructthemorally acceptableactioninthiswayprovidesscopeforandlegitimationof sanctionsagainstthosewhodonotholdtherightmoralprinciples. The anti-doping discourse is thus constructed as legitimate throughmoralevaluationin arelativelysimilarwayinthefirst andthemostrecentversionoftheguide,butthereisnomention inthe2009editionof“thespiritofsport”orofathletessharing informationwithanti-dopingauthoritiesorturninginothers.For thisreason,itbecomesdifficulttoseeanyenduringpatterninthe analysisofdevelopmentovertime.Wecansay,however,thatthe strategyseemstoberelevanttotheconstructionoflegitimacyfor theanti-dopingworkinsporttowardsawiderpublicthroughits “morallyinstructive”language.Thereferencingofspecificvalue systemsandmoralprinciplesmaybeinterpretedasawayof cre-atinglegitimacyinthesocialsurrounding(cf.Fairclough,1992)for themeasures(theanti-dopingwork)thatareintendedtoprotect thespecialfunctionofsportinsociety(Dimeo,2010;Hoff,2004; Stewart&Smith,2010).Theuseoftheconceptofthe“spirit of sport”impliesthatsporthasavaluesystemthatembracesmore thanmerelyathletic performance.Theelementsof“youshould notbeignorant”and“youshouldtell”alsohavebearingonthe overarchingsocialpracticeofelite-levelsportinsociety,wherethe athletebecomesamoralagent.Sportismeanttomouldthe ath-letesintoindividualswhodothe“rightthing”basedonmoraland ethicalprinciples.Thiscanbeputinrelationtothestatusofsport insocietyandthelegitimacyofsportintheeyesofthepublic,as

sportisseenascontributingtosocietybyfosteringgoodcitizens (cf.Dimeo,2010;Henne,2015).Ifthelegitimacyoftheanti-doping effortwerenotmaintained,itwouldinalllikelihoodresultingreat changesasregardssportinsocietyasweknowittoday.However, whenitisshownthatpeopleintheanti-dopingeffortactmorally andethically,thiscancontributetoacceptanceoftheanti-doping effortandtothelegitimacyoftheoverarchingsocial practiceof elite-levelsportinsociety.

4. Conclusion

Ourpurposewiththisstudywastotakeadiscourse analyti-calapproachtostudylegitimationstrategiesusedinWADA’sthree editionsoftheathlete’sguidetotheanti-dopingsystem.Thisalso gaveustheopportunitytoanalysecontinuityandchangein rela-tiontothelegitimationstrategiesovertime.Theconstructionof legitimacyintheanti-dopingdiscourse,asexpressedinthevarious editionsoftheathlete’sguidethathaveaccompaniedanti-doping regulationsformorethanadecade,ischaracterizedby continu-ityasregardsanauthoritarianattitude,combinedwithachange towardsamorerationalandathlete-centredstance.The legitima-tionoftheanti-dopingdiscourseincludesaswellreferencingto specificvaluesystemsbytheemphasisofathletesasmoralagents. Ineverysocialorder,legitimacyisconstructedinrelationtothe availablediscourses (Vaara &Tienari,2008)and thediscourses haveinfluenceovertheopportunitiesforspecificactorstocreate meaning.Inthisstudy,weexploredhowtheanti-dopingeffortis constructedaslegitimatethroughlanguageintextsaddressedto, andconsumedby,eliteathletes.Here,thespecificactorscreating meaningarethosewhoaffectthetextsintheelite-levelsport set-tingthatconstitutesthediscursivepractice(cf.Fairclough,2003). ThecreationandeditingoftheWADC,theunderlyingdocumentfor thetextsanalysedhere,areprocessesinvolvinginstitutionssuch asWADA,interestsofstakeholdersandtheideasoftheactors(cf. Fairclough,1992;Shearer,Abelson,Lavis,Kouyate,&Walt,2016).It isreasonabletobelievethattheseinstitutions,interestsandideas constitutepartoftheanti-dopingdiscoursewithshared percep-tionsofhowanti-dopingistalkedaboutandunderstood.Thosewho haveinfluenceandpoweroverthediscursivepracticearelimited bythediscourseswithregardtohowtheyunderstandand cre-atemeaninginspecificsituations,andlegitimacyisconstructed inrelationtothespecific,availableanti-dopingdiscourse.In addi-tion,thediscursivepracticeisalsogovernedandconstrainedbythe surroundingsocialpracticeofsportandsocietyandtheprevailing powerrelationsandpowerstructureswithinit(Fairclough,1992, 2010).Consequently,theprevailinganti-dopingdiscourseand sur-roundingsocialpracticeaffecthowthesystemislegitimated;and viceversa.Thediscourseisatonceconstitutiveandconstituted.The changewewereabletoseeinthisstudytowardsamorerational attitudemightindicateamovementawayfromtheauthoritarian approachtotheconstructionoflegitimacyintheanti-doping sys-tem.Asabovementioned,authorizationcan,toacertainextent,be regardedasapower-oriented,instrumentalformoflegitimation thatisunlikelytoproducetheoptimalconditionsforalong-term, legitimateeffort(cf.Tyler,2006).Whethergreaterfocuson ratio-nallegitimationor,forthat matter,someotherstrategy, would provideabetterbasisforasustainableanti-dopingeffortisa ques-tionthatgoverningbodiesshouldconsiderinfuturepolicy-making processes.

Thisstudyshedslightondiscursivelegitimacyaspectsof anti-dopingworkfromatop-downperspective,andcontributeswith newknowledgerelevanttopolicyinthearea.Withthe methodol-ogyapplied,weaimedtoanalysewhatthetextandimagesarean expressionof,whatisheldtobetrueandwhatistakenforgranted inthediscourse(cf.Fairclough,2003).Wehavetriedtomovethe

(10)

attentiontohowlegitimacyisdiscursivelyconstructed.Our empir-icalmaterialisnotarepresentationofthecreationofthelegitimacy oftheentireanti-dopingdiscourse,butasectionofit.Otherparts constitutingthediscourseareforinstancetheWADCitself, addi-tionalinformation material, educationprogrammes for athletes etc., allof which would berelevant to include in an extended analysis.However,thesection wehave paid attentionto–the legitimationstrategies in texts aimedathletes–is vital forthe understandingofthegroundsforanti-dopingauthoritiesclaimfor legitimacyfromtheathletes.Wehaveshedlightonhow legitima-tionisconstructedasexplanationsofwhythesystemexistsand whythissocialpracticelooksthewayitdoes.Inaddition,wehave alsobeenabletoobserveaninterestingchange,inspiteofthe rela-tivelyshortintervalbetweentheﬁrstversionoftheathlete’sguide andthelatestone.Ourstudycontributestheoreticallyand method-ologicallytotheﬁeldofanti-dopingbyacombinationofdiscourse analysisandthelegitimacyapproach.Thetop-downperspectiveon legitimationusedherecouldhavepracticalimplicationsfor policy-makers,includingthosewhocommunicateregulationstoathletes, aswellasfortheathletesthemselves.

DeclarationofCompetingInterest

Theauthorsdeclarethatthereisnoconﬂictofinterest.

References

Ahmadi,N.,&Svedsäter,G.(2016).‘Thewinnertakesitall’–Individualizationand performanceandimageenhancinginsportandinsociety.InN.Ahmadi,A. Ljungqvist,G.Svedsäter,N.Ahmadi,A.Ljungqvist,&G.Svedsäter(Eds.),Doping andpublichealth(pp.38–48).NewYork,NY,US:Routledge/Taylor&Francis Group.

Bauman,Z.(2001).Theindividualizedsociety.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Beetham,D.(2013).Thelegitimationofpower(2ndedition).Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.

Bourdon,F.,Schoch,L.,Broers,B.,&Kayser,B.E.(2014).Frenchspeakingathletes’ experienceandperceptionregardingthewhereaboutsreportingsystemand therapeuticuseexemptions.PerformanceEnhancement&Health,3(3–4), 153–158.

Bryman,A.(2012).Socialresearchmethods(4thedition).Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.

Critcher,C.(2014).Newperspectivesonanti-dopingpolicy:Frommoralpanicto moralregulation.InternationalJournalofSportPolicy,6(2),153–169.http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2013.778321

Dimeo,P.(2010).Understandingandmanagingdrugsinsport.Shield:Research JournalofPhysicalEducation&SportsScience,(5),29–43.

Donovan,R.J.,Egger,G.,Kapernick,V.,&Mendoza,J.(2002).Aconceptual frameworkforachievingperformanceenhancingdrugcomplianceinsport. SportsMedicine,32(4),269–284.

Efverström,A.,Ahmadi,N.,Hoff,D.,&Bäckström,Å.(2016).Anti-dopingand legitimacy:Aninternationalsurveyofeliteathletes’perceptions.International JournalofSportPolicy,8(3),491–514.

Efverström,A.,Bäckström,Å.,Ahmadi,N.,&Hoff,D.(2016).Contextsand conditionsforalevelplayingﬁeld:Eliteathletes’perspectivesonanti-doping inpractice.PerformanceEnhancement&Health,5,77–85.

EganSjölander,A.(2011).Introduction.Comparingcriticaldiscourseanalysisand discoursetheory.InA.EganSjölander,&J.GunnarssonPayne(Eds.),Tracking discourses:Politics,identityandsocialchange.Lund:NordicAcademicPress.

Fairclough,N.(1989).Languageandpower.London:Longman.

Fairclough,N.(1992).Discourseandsocialchange.Cambridge:Polity.

Fairclough,N.(2003).Analysingdiscourse:Textualanalysisforsocialresearch.New York,NY:Routledge.

Fairclough,N.(2010).Criticaldiscourseanalysis:Thecriticalstudyoflanguage(2nd edition).Harlow:Longman.

Fairclough,N.,&Wodak,R.(1997).Criticaldiscourseanalysis.InT.A.VanDijk (Ed.),Discoursestudies:Amultidisciplinaryintroduction(Volume2).Thousand Oaks,CA,US:SagePublications,Inc.Discourseassocialinteraction.

Giddens,A.(1991).Modernityandself–Identity:Selfandsocietyinthelatemodern age.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Gleaves,J.,&Christiansen,A.V.(2019).Athletes’perspectivesonWADAandthe code:Areviewandanalysis.InternationalJournalofSportPolicy,11(2), 341–353.

Henne,K.E.(2015).Testingforathletecitizenship:Regulatingdopingandsexinsport. AustralianNationalUniversity:RutgersUniversityPress.

Hoff,D.(2004).Socialastyrningsformerochantidopningspolicy–enrättssociologisk forskningsstrategitillämpadpåantidopningsarbetetinomidrotten.(Social governanceandanti-dopingpolicy-alegalsociologicalresearchstrategyapplied toanti-dopingworkinsport.)[inSwedish].Idrottsforum.Org/NordicSport ScienceForum.

Hunt,T.M.,Dimeo,P.,&Jedlicka,S.R.(2012).Thehistoricalrootsoftoday’s problems:Acriticalappraisaloftheinternationalanti-dopingmovement. INHDR2010Conference,1,55–60.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2012.05.001

(2)

Jalleh,G.,Donovan,R.J.,&Jobling,I.(2014).Predictingattitudetowards performanceenhancingsubstanceuse:Acomprehensivetestofthesportdrug controlmodelwitheliteAustralianathletes.JournalofScienceandMedicinein Sport,17(6),574–579.

Jedlicka,S.(2014).Thenormativediscourseofanti-dopingpolicy.International JournalofSportPolicy,6(3),429–442.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19406940. 2012.717098

Macedo,E.,Englar-Carlson,M.,Lehrbach,T.,&Gleaves,J.(2017).Moral communitiesinanti-dopingpolicy:AresponsetoBowersandpaternoster. Sport,EthicsandPhilosophy,13(1),49–61.

Mazanov,J.,&McDermott,V.(2009).Thecaseforasocialscienceofdrugsinsport. SportinSociety,12(3),276–295.

McDermott,V.(2016).Thewarondrugsinsport:Moralpanicsandorganizational legitimacy.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Møller,V.(2011).Onesteptoofar–AboutWADA’swhereaboutsrule.International JournalofSportPolicy,3(2),177–190.

Overbye,M.,&Wagner,U.(2013).Betweenmedicaltreatmentandperformance enhancement:Aninvestigationofhoweliteathletesexperiencetherapeutic useexemptions.InternationalJournalofDrugPolicy,24(6),579–588.http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.03.007

Read,D.,Skinner,J.,Lock,D.,&Houlihan,B.(2019).Legitimacydrivenchangeatthe worldanti-dopingagency.InternationalJournalofSportPolicy,11(2),233–245.

Rojo,L.M.,&VanDijk,T.A.(1997).“Therewasaproblem,anditwassolved!”: Legitimatingtheexpulsionof“illegal”migrantsinSpanishparliamentary discourse.Discourse&Society,8(4),523–566.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0957926597008004005

Shearer,J.C.,Abelson,J.,Lavis,J.N.,Kouyate,B.,&Walt,G.(2016).Whydopolicies change?Institutions,interests,ideasandnetworksinthreecasesofpolicy reform.HealthPolicyandPlanning,31(9),1200–1211.

Stewart,B.,&Smith,A.T.(2010).Theroleofideologyinshapingdruguse regulationinAustraliansport.InternationalReviewfortheSociologyofSport, 45(2),187–198.

Suchman,M.C.(1995).Managinglegitimacy:Strategicandinstitutional approaches.TheAcademyofManagementReview,20(3),571–610.

Tyler,T.R.(2006).Whypeopleobeythelaw.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Vaara,E.,&Tienari,J.(2008).Adiscursiveperspectiveonlegitimationstrategiesin multinationalcorporations.TheAcademyofManagementReview,33(4), 985–993.

Vaara,E.,Tienari,J.,&Laurila,J.(2006).Pulpandpaperﬁction:Onthediscursive legitimationofglobalindustrialrestructuring.OrganizationStudies,27(6), 789–810.

VanLeeuwen,T.(1996).Thegrammaroflegitimation.SchoolofMedia,London CollegeofPrinting.

VanLeeuwen,T.(2007).Legitimationindiscourseandcommunication.Discourse& Communication,1(1),91–112.

VanLeeuwen,T.,&Wodak,R.(1999).Legitimizingimmigrationcontrol:A discourse-historicalanalysis.DiscourseStudies,1(1),83.

WADA.(2004).Athleteguide2004Retrieved2018-04-04at:.http://www.korfball. org.hk/Athlete%27sGuide2004.pdf

WADA.(2009a).QuestionsandAnswers/2009worldanti-dopingcodeRetrieved 2018-04-24at:. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/2009-world-anti-doping-code

WADA.(2009b).Edition5.Theguide.AthleteguideRetrieved2018-04-05at:.http:// igfederation.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/WADA-AthleteGuide2008EN.pdf

WADA.(2015a).Theworldanti-dopingcodeRetrieved2018-04-04at:.https:// www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/ﬁles/resources/ﬁles/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf

WADA.(2015b).Athletereferenceguidetothe2015worldanti-dopingcodeRetrieved 2018-04-05at:. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/education-and-prevention/athlete-reference-guide-to-2015-code-online-version

Waddington,I.(2010).Surveillanceandcontrolinsport:Asociologistlooksatthe WADAwhereaboutssystem.InternationalJournalofSportPolicy,2(3),255–274.

Wagner,U.,&Pedersen,K.M.(2014).TheIOCandthedopingissue–An institutionaldiscursiveapproachtoorganizationalidentityconstruction.Sport ManagementReview(ElsevierScience),17(1),160–173.