Police officers’ perspective on doping and prevention among recreational athletes: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

IntroductionThe use of anabolic androgenic steroids among recreational athletes has received growing attention in recent decades. Several countries have implemented bans on doping; however, recreational athletes and other subpopulations continue to use doping substances. Recognizing that the police play a crucial role in preventing the use and dealing of doping substances in Sweden, efforts have been made to intensify police interventions and enhance collaboration with other key actors. This study examined police officers’ perceptions of doping as defined in Swedish law, related problems, and suggestions for effective prevention of doping in the society.MethodsA cross-sectional survey study was conducted using a web survey of police officers (N = 597). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and free-form text responses were analyzed using content analysis.ResultsParticipant responses to the survey (73.7% response rate) indicated that approximately 62.6% thought that doping is a societal problem, and approximately 26% perceived that the availability of doping substances has increased over the past three years. A total of 95.6% of respondents believed that doping occurred in connection with other crimes such as intimate partner violence (88.2%) and drug-related crimes (88.0%). Further, 96.3% of respondents perceived that it was their duty to prevent doping, but 63.8% indicated that doping-related work was not prioritized within their local police district.DiscussionPolice officers perceived doping as a societal problem and expressed motivation to counteract it, highlighting increased knowledge, legislative changes, intensified doping prevention in gyms, and commitment from other societal actors to increase the effectiveness of doping prevention. Suggestions for increasing the efficiency of doping prevention included education and increased knowledge at all levels in the police organization, intensified prevention efforts at gyms, legislative changes to permit simplified doping test procedures, and breach of secrecy for postal items. There was also a suggestion for further engagement from other actors, such as healthcare workers, school officials, and non-governmental organizations.