Erviewees viewed doping as unhealthy or harmful to health. The perception of health risks was present even when the interviewee could not identify what the Leupeptin (hemisulfate) site possible negative health outcomes would be of using such substances. For example, 32-year-old runner Kim states: There are really bad side effects to using, like the reason those things are illegal are because there are horrible side effects, like if you use steroids for a long time they have horrible side effects … if everyone took anabolic steroids, what kind of health problems would we have? Kim was unable to specifically identify the “horrible side effects” of the anabolic steroids she named. She acknowledged she found some anti-doping rules “somewhat arbitrary,” yet clung to the idea that banned substances present a health risk because that was a basis for their prohibition. Other interviewees also expressed concerns about negative health impacts,NIH-PA Author Crotaline site Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptSurveill Soc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 04.HenningPagebut were similarly unable to describe what those impacts might entail. The designation of banned or not banned was the key element of the interviewee’s self-surveillance, not whether a substance presents an objectively negative health risk. Rather, making sure they are vigilant in using substances or products that were not widely viewed as linked to doping was considered important. Carrie, the ultra-marathon runner, lamented what she sees as a lack of information about doping that prevented her from self-surveilling: “They should give us information or a link would be nice…It’s hard to follow rules when you don’t know what they are.” The list of prohibited substances is available on the WADA homepage, and includes links to the rules in the waiver that non-elite runners must agree to when registering for a NYRR race online. However, only two of the interviewees had ever read the prohibited substances list, and none of the runners reported clicking on the link to read the regulations when registering for a race. German, a former semi-professional baseball player and attorney, admitted: “You know, I never read that thing all the way through. I just assumed that I was signing up to run a fair race and I know I’ll run a fair race.” German’s view of a fair race is based on selfsurveillance: his individual decision not to any of the few substances or methods he identified as doping. As far as these runners understand the rules and risks of banned substances, they do ensure they avoid their use. However, their own interpretation of what is or is not doping is often based on incomplete or incorrect information from other runners, the running media, or others within the running community they view as an expert. So, while these non-elite athletes are self-surveilling, the lack of accurate information leads to many false perceptions amongst runners who think they are acting in the best possible way, while they are actually at risk of unforeseen hazards, such as those presented by legal nutritional supplements. Supplementing Most interviewees reflected official elite anti-doping discourses that prohibited substances are dangerous and a form of cheating. Drawing on the cases of elites who have failed antidoping tests to determine what substances must be avoided, non-elite runners turned the anti-doping gaze inward and engaged in self-surveillance of their own practices. The interviewees monitored.Erviewees viewed doping as unhealthy or harmful to health. The perception of health risks was present even when the interviewee could not identify what the possible negative health outcomes would be of using such substances. For example, 32-year-old runner Kim states: There are really bad side effects to using, like the reason those things are illegal are because there are horrible side effects, like if you use steroids for a long time they have horrible side effects … if everyone took anabolic steroids, what kind of health problems would we have? Kim was unable to specifically identify the “horrible side effects” of the anabolic steroids she named. She acknowledged she found some anti-doping rules “somewhat arbitrary,” yet clung to the idea that banned substances present a health risk because that was a basis for their prohibition. Other interviewees also expressed concerns about negative health impacts,NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptSurveill Soc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 04.HenningPagebut were similarly unable to describe what those impacts might entail. The designation of banned or not banned was the key element of the interviewee’s self-surveillance, not whether a substance presents an objectively negative health risk. Rather, making sure they are vigilant in using substances or products that were not widely viewed as linked to doping was considered important. Carrie, the ultra-marathon runner, lamented what she sees as a lack of information about doping that prevented her from self-surveilling: “They should give us information or a link would be nice…It’s hard to follow rules when you don’t know what they are.” The list of prohibited substances is available on the WADA homepage, and includes links to the rules in the waiver that non-elite runners must agree to when registering for a NYRR race online. However, only two of the interviewees had ever read the prohibited substances list, and none of the runners reported clicking on the link to read the regulations when registering for a race. German, a former semi-professional baseball player and attorney, admitted: “You know, I never read that thing all the way through. I just assumed that I was signing up to run a fair race and I know I’ll run a fair race.” German’s view of a fair race is based on selfsurveillance: his individual decision not to any of the few substances or methods he identified as doping. As far as these runners understand the rules and risks of banned substances, they do ensure they avoid their use. However, their own interpretation of what is or is not doping is often based on incomplete or incorrect information from other runners, the running media, or others within the running community they view as an expert. So, while these non-elite athletes are self-surveilling, the lack of accurate information leads to many false perceptions amongst runners who think they are acting in the best possible way, while they are actually at risk of unforeseen hazards, such as those presented by legal nutritional supplements. Supplementing Most interviewees reflected official elite anti-doping discourses that prohibited substances are dangerous and a form of cheating. Drawing on the cases of elites who have failed antidoping tests to determine what substances must be avoided, non-elite runners turned the anti-doping gaze inward and engaged in self-surveillance of their own practices. The interviewees monitored.
