‘Cheating’ your way to the top: a focus on language in the Australian media’s representation of performance enhancing drugs

Abstract

Sports media holds significant power in informing societal views on performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) which are routinely depicted through the ideals of morality and expected sporting behaviours. This has provided an emergent focus for research studies. This study aims to identify how the Australian media frames PEDs across a diverse range of media sources through the selection of five print and online media publications. Using media framing, agenda setting and content analysis, the study analyses the language and framing each publication used to report on individuals and countries associated with, linked to, or found to be using, PEDs. Observed writing styles positioned PEDs as moral transgressions which tarnish the ‘spirit of sport’. Such writing revealed the media’s self-imposed responsibility to define acceptable sporting acts for the community. This manuscript critiques the negative impact of the media’s imbalanced debate and calls for a more balanced approaching to reporting.

Keywords:

• Doping
• media
• language
• sport journalism
• Australia

Introduction

The media can significantly influence society’s perspective on elite athletes, performances, and events through the creation of mythological champions and analysis of sporting behaviours and performances (Rowe 2013; Rowe, Tiffen, and Hutchins 2022). As outlined by Travan et al. (2023), several studies have investigated the emerging area of the ways media frames performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) (Bell and Hartman 2018; Laine 2006; Pfister and Gems 2015). Bell and Hartman (2018) investigated Sharapova’s 2018 tennis ban, Laine (2006) studied the Finnish doping scandal during the 2001 Nordic World Ski Championships, and Pfister and Gems (2015) reviewed the treatment of American media outlets on Marion Jones. Stereotypically, sports media presents PEDs through a storyline of morality, nationalism, and expected behaviours. Minimal academic research, however, has addressed the Australian media’s presentation of PEDs.

This project examined the language and framing processes used by the five separate media outlets in Australia in articles related to PEDs. Qualitative content analysis was used to examine the five separate media publications identified for this project (Hsieh and Shannon 2018). Collecting data across varied sources enabled researchers to use media framing to identify key themes in relation to the presentation of PEDs (Scheufele and Tewksbury 2007). The writing styles of journalists reflected a strong notion that any association with prohibited substances or methods was positioned as a moral transgression. Publications revealed a potential bias to protect the ‘spirit of sport’ by assuming the guilt of all athletes who were believed to have a connection with PEDs, and rarely acknowledged differing perspectives, thereby glorifying anti-doping policies and practices across sports in general (Daily Telegraph 2020c; Ingle 2020b, para. 13; Linden 2020c, para. 6; The Australian 2020b, para. 5).

Key literature

Performance enhancing drugs and the drug testing process

Competing arguments and ideologies have debated the ethics of sport preventing the use of specific performance enhancing substances and methods (Efverström et al. 2016; Goh 2021; Overbye et al. 2015; Weston 2017). Discouraging doping attempts to protect the purity, fairness, and spirit of sport whilst presenting PEDs as destructive factors to an athlete’s physiology (Bloodworth, McNamee, and Jaques 2018; Travan et al. 2023). Protecting sport from PEDs allows for the continuation of the positive effect sport has across society (Strelan and Boeckmann 2006; Travan et al. 2023).

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) bans the use of methods or substances if they meet two-thirds of the criteria set by WADA (Travan et al. 2023; WADA 2021a). The first criteria questions if the advancement can potentially improve or it does improve sporting outcomes. The second asks if the advancement presents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete, and the third prevents a violation of the spirit of sport (this definition is outlined in the Code). Ultimately, the criteria protects athletes by preventing the use of methods or substances believed to endanger athlete physiology or the spirit of sport (Travan et al. 2023; WADA 2021a). Predominantly athletes, fans, media, and sports policies describe PEDs negatively (Bell and Hartman 2018; Morgan 2009; Savulescu 2016; Travan et al. 2023). Recent studies have identified PEDs are mainly banned because it is believed athletes engage in unrestricted PED use (Coomber 2014; Mazzeo and Ascione 2013). Ethical questions have been raised to query the impact of regularly drug testing athletes (Georgiadis and Papazoglou 2014; Kondric et al. 2011; McNamee, Savulescu, and Willick 2014).

The examination of athlete anti-doping testing protocols and bans for using or associating with PEDs has identified several ethical issues (Travan et al. 2023).¹ Researchers found anti-doping procedures can become more effective and trustworthy by addressing the impediment of civil liberties during drug testing (Gleaves and Christiansen 2019). Anti-doping processes have been found unequitable across different countries, sports, and organizations, often with ethically questionable testing processes (Gleaves and Christiansen 2019). Participation in anti-doping is currently mandatory for athletes in the testing pool of the National Olympic Committee. For one hour of every day of the year, these athletes must be contactable and available for the prospect of randomized blood and/or urine tests (Kondric et al. 2011; WADA 2021a). High-profile and Olympic sports athletes regularly encounter even more testing (Kondric et al. 2011).

Reducing social and health comprises of testing can be addressed by considering athletes’ personal lives beyond the sporting arena (Kondric et al. 2011). To comply with protocol, Belgian cyclist Kevin Van Impe encountered a doping test during a funeral service for his recently deceased new-born with Danish cyclist Michael Rasmussen defecating three times in front of strangers during anti-doping tests (Gleaves and Christiansen 2019). These examples highlight WADA’ expectations for athletes to prevent anti-doping transgressions (Park 2005; Travan et al. 2023). However, the anti-doping and clean sport ideologies have established WADA’s special privileges, specifically the ability to conduct unannounced, out of competition testing and governing international doping practices and education (Park 2005). These behaviours have consequently prioritized sports’ health above an athlete’s health (Kondric et al. 2011; Travan et al. 2023). This manuscript focuses on how these testing procedures and ethical questions are framed in the Australian media. Firstly, to understand the framing process, it is critical to examine the media framing of research on this issue.

The framing of performance enhancing drugs in the media

Media framing assembles factors of perceived reality to promote a particular interpretation of a story (Entman 2010; Travan et al. 2023). Media framing is part of the core business model for news media. As addressed in Travan et al. (2023), Entman (2010) outlines the influence journalists have on societal perspectives and ideologies on stories and issues which is affected by three forms of media framing (distortion bias, content bias, and motivation/mindset). Distortion bias involves purposefully fabricating reality while content bias favours one perspective of a story instead of providing equal credibility to both sides (Entman 2010). The motivation and mindsets of journalists impact the creation of biased content (Entman 2010). Consequently, media framing allows researchers to identify and analyze the issues, suggest moral assessments, and promote a workable solution to resolve the issue (Entman 2010). Despite the media being an epicentre for public debate, at times, it has been found to distort issues removing the opportunity for real debate (Simon and Xenos 2000; Travan et al. 2023). Politics and economics can also influence the usefulness of media, considering these factors can alter the neutrality of the content (Simon and Xenos 2000).

Travan et al. (2023) found several studies have examined the misrepresentation of PEDs use in sports. For instance, Travan et al. (2023) examined Pfister and Gems (2015) details of the American media sensationalizing and moralizing PEDs usage relating to the assessment of American athletes Marion Jones and C. J. Hunter. Pfister and Gems (2015) found PEDs were not linked to impacting performance, health, or legal issues and did not influence philosophical discussions. However, the American media focused on portraying PEDs usage as a moral violation and how United States’ sporting federations are protecting the nation’s association with morality and justice by promoting clean sports (Pfister and Gems 2015). Travan et al. (2023) used Laine (2006) to understand how the Finnish media were integral to launching the public discussion that clarified clear national moral behaviours during the analysis of the 2001 Nordic World Ski Championships doping scandal.

The media can be a platform to manipulate ideologies and discourse, whilst also being an important medium to outline values, unity, and identity (Li et al. 2016; Pfister and Gems 2015; Travan et al. 2023). Analysis of international media and sports has found athletes using PEDs have historically been met with negativity and admonishment (Bell and Hartman 2018; Li et al. 2019; Travan et al. 2023). Currently, athlete association and usage of PEDs are met with media coverage that prioritizes national pride and identity by honouring athletes who do not dope and suggesting clean sports practices protect national reputations (Li et al. 2019; Travan et al. 2023; Weedon and Wilson 2020). Nationalistic sports journalism has been found to create social division beyond the sporting landscape by using jingoistic and divisive language (Travan et al. 2023; Weedon and Wilson 2020). Nationalistic writing jeopardizes the objectivity and neutrality of reporting and exaggerates the negative portrayal of other countries within the media (Li et al. 2016; Travan et al. 2023).

In the context of the 2016 Rio Olympics, both the Chinese and Australian media utilized their print, digital, and broadcast channels to establish a debate regarding Chinese swimmer Sun Yang’s alleged use of PEDs (Li et al. 2019). The Chinese media categorized Sun as a hero, for beating Western countries including Australia in their historically strong domain of swimming, whilst critiquing the poor sportsmanship of Australia and swimmer Mack Horton² (Li et al. 2019). The Australian media framed Sun in complete contrast to the Chinese media reflecting the importance of story framing (Li et al. 2019).

Australia’s success in swimming is tied to the sport’s popularity preceding and following Australia’s federation (Cashman 1995, 2002; Hess and Parker 2009). Australia’s history of success in the swimming pool provided positive and attractive sporting role models to the public (Cashman 1995). As such, swimming has become a sport of national importance and has created a desire to dominate rival countries like America and China in the pool (Curry and Salerno 1999).

The media has been found to influence societal perspectives on an athlete, athletes from different countries, and entire countries (Travan et al. 2023). As outlined in Travan et al. (2023), Denham (2008) found the American media described doping in baseball as a dangerous and unethical avenue to pursue (Denham 2008). This was despite the American media not providing context, circumstances and did not outline organizational problems within baseball in their coverage of the issue (Denham 2008). As a result, America was considered ‘clean’ when violators were caught and punished (Denham 2008). In a similar manner to nationalism bias, national media organizations frequently refrain from criticizing their own behaviours (Travan et al. 2023).

By removing the opportunity for self-reflection or democratic reporting processes, the rhetoric that is publicized relating to PEDs needs to be investigated (Travan et al. 2023). Critcher (2014) found that the media can exaggerate, distort, and predict what is said while symbolizing acts that can define and demean actions like doping as deviant. By misrepresenting and misattributing evidence, responsibility, and symptoms of cause, the media can help spread moral panic on any issue they like, whilst helping engrain laws to protect a particular ideology (Critcher 2014). As a result, the media have been found to have an ability to define issues and set public opinion (Entman 2007; Simon and Xenos 2000; Travan et al. 2023). As such, the language and media framing that journalists use regarding performance enhancing drugs play a pertinent part in how society might view performance enhancing drugs.

Language and the responsibility of sports media

The media’s use of language towards a certain campaign can help sensationalize events, including the moralizing and demonizing of particular viewpoints. In terms of performance enhancing drugs, the media’s characterization has significant impact on the formation of public opinion and organizational policy (Denham 2008). Gleaves (2014) argues that for the views of performance enhancing drugs to avoid being influenced by confirmation bias, different perspectives are crucial in questioning the current stance to avoid the inventing of mistruths about prohibited substances and methods. Confirmation bias is the act of interpreting information in a manner that confirms your own perception (Gleaves 2014). Consequently, it is suggested that by replicating and reproducing the same ideology through academia it becomes easier to engrain certain views and ideas when they go unchallenged or unchecked (Gleaves 2014). Similarly, in a media context, readers may struggle to engage in critical thinking if their own opinions and thoughts are replicated in the media that they read and consume.

Georgiadis and Papazoglou (2014) found that Greek athletes who failed doping tests experienced agony, anxiety, and distress worrying about the negative opinions of relatives and the nation that were influenced by the media coverage. The tone of reporting has an ability to corrupt the trust organizations and people have in athletes (Georgiadis and Papazoglou 2014). As a result, media framing occurs through the selection and salience of what to report or what the media omits within their reporting (Bell and Hartman 2018). Slavtcheva-Petkova (2016) highlights the importance of readers being key stakeholders within journalism that can provide democratic debate on articles and keep journalists accountable. In the case study of Sun Yang, research revealed a practice that media uses, which is to tarnish and reprimand other athletes from the same country despite them not being involved in the practice (Li et al. 2019). Performance enhancing drugs and athletes who associate with the substances or methods are negatively framed, which impacts audience perception. Individuals are described to be morally inferior and willing to cheat the system when suspected or found to be using performance enhancing drugs (Denham 2008). Georgiadis and Papazoglou (2014) found that the social stigma of being labelled (as guilty or a cheat) following a positive doping test, can last a whole career and at times, can be an unbearable burden that brings about personal insecurity and uncertainty.

As media are clearly powerful platforms by which to express political or business influence or interest, there is a need to ensure ideal forms of journalism are upheld (Slavtcheva-Petkova 2016). Australian sports journalism comprises the largest single speciality provider of journalists but has a reputation for lacking credibility, ethics, and legitimacy (Buzzelli et al. 2020; English 2019). According to Weedon and Wilson (2020), the sports journalism sector has an ability to become a ‘respected pedagogy’ when their responsibility is taken seriously. The ideal forms of journalism contain western principles of impartiality, objectivity, being loyal to the public, and being the watchdog over sports to inform the public appropriately (Buzzelli et al. 2020; Weedon and Wilson 2020). Denham (2008) states that journalism in a democratic society relies upon the presentation of a debate to help the general public make informed decisions. Horky and Stelzner (2013) suggest that the idealistic construction of sports journalism contains many elements, including the avoidance of nationalistic writing and championing doping-free sport.

Similarly, Denham (2008) suggests that sports journalists have a reluctance to identify and publicize systematic problems and are more comfortable blaming individuals because of the media’s symbiotic relationship with sports. There are potential gains for media when athletes are suspected of doping and sports journalists can label them as ‘cheaters’ and focus on the individuals as morally flawed and too focussed on winning at all costs (Denham 2008). By avoiding the criticism of sports organizations or anti-doping ideology and simply focussing on an individual’s achievement or downfall, sports media can maximize its audience and profit margins without disrupting the sports system they rely on for news.

Methodological approach

Three questions framed this study’s understanding of how the Australian media frames PEDs. The first considered how the Australian media frames the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. The second examined the extent the Australian media cites scientific sources beyond the WADA code and Sports Integrity Australia (SIA) [previously ASADA]³ language. The third question examined the effect that framing has on the narrative(s) of drugs in sports. This project collected data from five Australian media publications that produced online and printed articles from 1 January to 31 March 2020. This specific timeframe was chosen because the 2020 Summer Olympic Games were postponed, and the original plan involved data collection during the 2020 Summer Olympic Games. This manuscript came from a 12-month post graduate project completed in 2020 meaning data collection could only continue for three months. Consequently, this project’s data collection focused on data available before the postponement of the 2020 Summer Olympic Games retrospectively available via online media databases.

Five media publications were used in this study which were a mix of online-only and online and print media. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and The Guardian Australia (TGA) were used as online-only sites for analysis. The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), Daily Telegraph, and The Australian produced online and hardcopy stories for data analysis. Researchers selected publications covering differing Australian audience markets to evaluate how varying demographics received PEDs knowledge and information and to understand the consistency of PEDs messaging to the Australian public. These print and online publications were selected because the research team had access to a print and online article database but recognize this is not representative of all media platforms. Data collections from both online and print media maximized diversity and sample size, which is a key feature for content analysis and particularly, directive qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon 2018). These publications had varying target and sized audiences with SMH the New South Wales (NSW) based publication having the highest cross-platform audience. From January to March 2020, the SMH consistently reached 8.1 million Australians through print newspapers or online via apps, websites, or news platforms (Morgan 2020). Around 32% of the SMH audience was aged 45–64 years. In the same period, the Daily Telegraph reached 4.7 million Australians with 46% of distribution in NSW (Morgan 2020; News Corp 2020), while The Australian regular cross-platform audience was four million Australians (Morgan 2020). Furthermore, the ABC, averaged approximately 12 million unique viewers per month during January to March 2020 with 82% of 18–75-year-olds labelling the ABC a valuable national asset (Nielsen 2020a, 2020b). TGA averaged 7.9 million unique views per month in the same time period (Nielsen 2020a, 2020b).

One hundred and thirty-five articles were analyzed, with duplicated articles across print and online platforms excluded. Seven key search terms were selected to ensure the focus of articles was on the Australian media’s portrayal of PEDs: ‘doping’, ‘dope’, ‘banned substances’, ‘performance enhancements’, ‘PED’, ‘performance enhance’, and ‘drugs’. Ninety-nine of the 135 articles retrieved, were accessed via the Factiva database, with 36 articles (by TGA) manually obtained via Google News.

Framing allows journalists to use comprehendible language to clarify complex concepts to society giving journalists the capacity to influence a consumers perspective (Scheufele and Tewksbury 2007). Consequently, it was important to understand the possible content bias and framing used by the Australian media to discuss PEDs. As explained by Travan et al. (2023), ‘slanted framing’ was used by Entman (2010) to explore content bias and the resulting tone of articles in his research of the American 2008 presidential campaign. According to Entman (2010): ‘Slant occurs when a news report emphasizes one side’s preferred frame in a political conflict while ignoring or derogating another side’s. One-sided framing emphasizes some elements and suppresses others in ways that encourage recipients to give attention and weight to the evaluative attributes…that privilege the favored side’s interpretation. This is the essence of slanted news’ (392). Entman (2007), explained content bias is created by patterns of slant or favouring of interests of certain groups or individuals. Furthermore, Entman (2010) stated to prove the existence of content bias, ‘we would have to demonstrate patterns of slant that regularly (and perhaps without an audience’s conscious awareness) promote support for some interests or actors who seek power – and disapproval of their opponents’ (393).

This paper was part of a larger research project undertaken by Travan et al. (2023), meaning the data was analyzed in the same manner. This meant researched articles collected data on the individuals or stakeholders quoted, arguments used, key individuals, instances of performance enhancing drug use, or countries identified and exhibiting evidence from more than one perspective. Consequently, this helped establish themes relating to the language used with qualitative content analysis used to identify slant and potential bias (Hsieh and Shannon 2018). More broadly, content analysis is an analytical methodology used in quantitative or qualitative research for the interpretation or systematic deductions of texts or video data and helps confirm, expand, or refine thinking for a particular research area or phenomenon (Hsieh and Shannon 2018). Collecting a breadth and depth of data helped researchers identify emerging themes through media framing. Thematic analysis allowed for recognition and coding of recurring ideas or patterns throughout the data (Patton 2015). Thematic analysis enables analysis of all aspects of the media articles to determine the common features or ideas media uses to frame stories relating to PEDs.

Data analysis

As stated above, this data was collected as part of a 12-month research project undertaken by Travan et al. (2023). Consequently, the data recorded for each article included the language used to describe PEDs use, the gender of journalists, and the nationality and gender of athletes who were the focus of news stories This paper was part of a larger research project undertaken by Travan et al. (2023). Further analysis detailed how sporting history, broader contexts, and general slant influenced the overall framing of news articles (Travan et al. 2023). This was achieved by identifying key phrases, quotes, and perspectives to understand the presentation of events or perspectives from journalists or interviewee/s (Travan et al. 2023). Excel documents recorded data elements with filters helping differentiate how athletes from different countries or with different physical characteristics were discussed in relation to PEDs (Travan et al. 2023). Key phrases such as ‘drug cheat’ or ‘cheat’ were recorded to identify the prevalence of use within articles and across publications (Travan et al. 2023). These recordings allowed the exploration and identification of general or recurring themes (through slant and languages used to describe PEDs). Subsequently, by identifying these concepts, researchers identified the specific tonality and viewpoint each publication supplied to the portrayal of PEDs (Travan et al. 2023). As a result, several themes were discovered including the presentation of performance enhancing drugs as a moral violation, the use of language to establish criminal and/or heroic behaviour, and the use of language to establish assumed guilt. Furthermore, researchers identified the use of negative and disapproving language and tone to frame any athlete, sporting individual, or organization in violation of the expected behaviours regarding PEDs.

Results and discussion

Through the data collection process, male journalists were identified as writing the majority of articles in the space of PEDs with 93 written by male journalists, 11 written by female journalists, and unidentified authors producing 31 articles (Travan et al. 2023). The findings of predominantly male-authored articles in sports journalism are reflective of previous research which uncovered gender bias towards males in all facets of the sports environment (Litchfield and Kavanagh 2019). Within the obtained data, three mastheads (the Daily Telegraph, The Australian, and the SMH) produced 44 articles for print publications. The three other publications only appeared online, including TGA and ABC. All publications had varied portrayals of PEDs expressing differing perceptions on this issue.⁴

Performance enhancing drug use as a moral violation

The use of unfavourable language in the framing of banned substances is a major theme within this research. The data showed a predominantly disapproving tone towards any athlete, sporting individual, or organization in violation of the expected behaviours regarding PEDs. Those ‘caught’ using, contributing to, or failing a test for PEDs were condemned for their behaviour. For instance, athletes were described with monikers such as ‘monster’ and ‘cheat’ or said to be ‘lacking respect’ for the rules and sport. Any links to banned substances were associated with negative sentiments, influencing the assessment of how sports celebrate and accept these individuals. For instance, the word ‘cheat’ or references to ‘cheating’, which appeared in 50 articles, reflects the notion that achievements aided by PEDs are not considered to be athletically superior in sports (Gleaves and Christiansen 2019). For instance, descriptions of the Russian athletics doping scandal,⁵ America’s horse racing doping scheme,⁶ and a historical breakdown of the biggest ‘drug cheats’ Chinese swimmer Sun Yang, UK long-distance runner Mo Farah and boxer Tyson Fury⁷ reflected the perception that performances perceived to be influenced by PEDs are morally flawed and/or illegitimate (Daily Telegraph 2020c; Ingle 2020b, para. 13; Linden 2020c, para. 6; The Australian 2020b, para. 5). Individuals such as Sun Yang were presented as a ‘brazen’ performance enhancing drug user who is a ‘disgrace’ and a ‘fallen idol’ (Harris 2020, para.1; Linden 2020b, para. 2; 2020c, 2020d, para. 2).

This finding is not dissimilar to previous studies exploring media and the use of PEDs, with substances traditionally portrayed in a negative manner (Bell and Hartman 2018; Laine 2006; Li et al. 2019; Pfister and Gems 2015). Bell and Hartman (2018) show how the media’s selection, salience, and framing of issues including PEDs has an ability to influence how news is reported to society. Pfister and Gems (2015) suggest that media coverage drives moral consciousness and the framing of PEDs within society. The media’s ability to taint and erase achievements, accomplishments, and results from sports is a result of their ability to instill widespread condemnation of athletes who dope. The media has an ability to moralize stories before they even properly develop, by aggravating the incident or even reporting on incidents before the confirmation of laboratory results (Georgiadis and Papazoglou 2014). The language used to describe Sun Yang’s ban and his alleged reception of the eight-year ban contributed to a continued perception that PEDs users are bad individuals. As outlined in Travan et al. (2023), in February 2020 Sun received an eight-year ban from the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS) for not cooperating with testing personnel collectors during a 2018 home test. WADA classed Sun’s actions as his second ADRV. However, after his appeal, Sun’s ban was voided and overruled as the original 2020 CAS panel decision was found to be biased. In May 2021, a CAS retrial found Sun guilty banning him from competitive swimming for four years and three months.

For instance, Linden (2020c, para. 6) wrote, ‘Sun’s reputation (outside of China) is in tatters, and he’s now cast alongside Ben Johnson, Lance Armstrong, and Marion Jones as one of sport’s most notorious dopers’. This language further undermines the legitimacy of his right to appeal and Sun Yang’s conviction to fight the charges. This is a result of the continued inferences of Sun Yang being referred to as a ‘cheat’, a statement rarely rebutted. This criticism is seen as a vital tool to ensure athletes associated with PEDs within the sport are removed from the competition. In contrast, Travan et al. (2023) found that Australian media moralized Australian athletes’ actions with a sense of nationalism and pride and did not include the rebuke seen in describing non-Australian instances of doping violations.

Similarly, the description of RusAF implied that there was little trust and support for Russian athletes and achievements following their historical association with PEDs (Daily Telegraph 2020a, para. 1; The Australian 2020a, 2020b). This concept of doping being damaging to the fairness of sport is engrained through the continued negative framing and language used to imply guilt is associated with any and all Russian athletes unless they can provide evidence of their innocence. ‘Russian athletes who could demonstrate they were clean should not be victims of what is called ‘collective responsibility’ – a blanket ban on all Russian athletes for four years, including those who were aged 14 at the last Olympics’ (Masters 2020, para. 11). Furthermore, the description of historical and contemporary Russian association with PEDs in a historical and contemporary context were described as ‘farcical’ (Gleeson 2020b, para. 2), a ‘serious blot to the system’ (Gleeson 2020a, para. 10, 2020b, para. 5), ‘manipulating doping data’ (Daily Telegraph 2020a, para. 1), and ‘having a lack of contrition’ (The Australian 2020b, para. 5). The messaging of World Athletics President, Sebastian Coe, engrained the notion of doping being a ‘tainted’ act. Russia’s continued denial of wrongdoing led Coe to suggest that without punishment, performance enhancing drugs will never be stopped: ‘The package of sanctions approved reflects the seriousness of RusAF’s wrongdoing and sends a clear message that we take these types of offences by our member federations extremely seriously’ (Coe, as cited in Ingle 2020d, para. 4). Ultimately, the language used described Russian sport as having:

behaviour [that] has not changed, they want to paint a picture of it being different, but they continue to manipulate evidence. The powers-that-be have not changed, the behaviour of manipulating evidence has not changed either and we would be fools to think otherwise. (Gleeson 2020a, para. 5)

Negative association and a continued link to PEDs infers athletes have a lesser moral ability and their results are less culturally significant even if they do not have a registered failed test on their record (Ventresca 2011). By establishing a clear position through moralized language, the mythology of sports can continue its pursuit of heroes, with criticism presented with a clear nationalistic perspective. According to several studies, this is a worrying precedent, with nationalism found to divide society and amplify the effect of reporting, corrupting the power of journalists to be objective or even neutral on a topic (Li et al. 2016; Weedon and Wilson 2020). This resounding sense of nationalism and definition of expected behaviours towards drugs in sports, leave little room to explore the philosophical and analytical debate in the media on this issue. Nationalistic writing virtually deifies the pursuit of zero doping, an ideology flawed through the misrepresentation of facts regarding the influence of performance enhancing drugs on the fairness and equality that is supposed to exist within sport. Consequently, by presenting the argument from only one perspective, such reporting can be biased.

Ventresca (2011) states that idealistically, sporting heroes are those that uphold the values of being ‘hard working’, ‘stoic’, and/or ‘humble’. Within the data, Mack Horton, Travis Tygart, and CAS are praised as they reflect these highly regarded values that are deemed as necessary for supporting clean athletes and sports (Ventresca 2011). The criticism conveyed about Sun Yang and historical Russian doping occurrences is in stark contrast to the conscious credibility given to the portrayal of USADA Chief Executive Travis Tygart and Mack Horton who are supporters of ‘clean’ sport. Tygart and Horton are considered to be ‘crusaders’ and ‘heroes’ of ideal moral traits of supporting the anti-doping movement (Linden 2020a, para. 1, 2020g, para. 2). Horton is similarly characterized as a ‘victim’ of doping and a ‘national hero and a brave campaigner for fair play in sport’ (Rothfield 2020, para. 1). While the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was glorified for the perceived positive and desirable moves of enforcing bans for violating anti-doping practices. The decision by CAS to apply the eight-year ban, in the wake of Sun Yang’s second doping violation, was described as ‘a rare win for clean athletes with a stunning decision that could be a game changer for world sport’ (Linden 2020h, para. 1; Linden 2020b, 2020d). It was considered proof that CAS ‘has listened and made the absolute right decision to kick Sun [Yang] out’ (Linden 2020c, para. 5) to show that ‘justice in this case has been rendered’ (The Guardian Australia 2020, para. 16).

As a result, this use of language can normalize an attitude of contempt and disgrace towards any association or link with PEDs or moves against the anti-doping movement. However, without legitimizing academic counter arguments or analytical debate on this topic, there is a generalized ideology glorifying ‘clean’ sport. This has the potential to turn people, the media, organizations, and the whole sporting world against athletes and organizations that do not value or do not meet these anti-doping expectations (Georgiadis and Papazoglou 2014). The concept of a balanced debate is questionable considering the concerted effort to present such a dominant perspective that supports anti-doping measures.

The use of language to establish criminal and/or heroic behaviour

The publications resoundingly frame the behaviour of using PEDs as immoral and/or criminal, as seen with the description of soccer player Bambo Diaby.⁸ For instance, TGA writes that Bambo Diaby ‘faces a maximum four-year ban if found guilty. It is understood he has pleaded his innocence to his teammates and intends to clear his name’ (Fisher 2020, para. 2). Furthermore, individuals and countries found to be hiding their use of PEDs are all denounced by the Australian media. This is reflected in the results by the continuous denouncement of Sun Yang due to his eight-year ban and associated behaviour. Similarly, Maria Sharapova’s drug ban is seen as a ‘cloud’, while Russia is continually criticized for contributing to a secretive national ‘scheme’ that has corrupted the integrity of their national athletics body (Holmes 2020, para. 23).

The language used by the Australian media contributes to an establishment of cultural affiliation towards the brutalization of PEDs. This leads to the presumption that associating with PEDs is deplorable whilst those protecting sports and anti-doping policies and codes are immortalized. As the Australian media defines their stance on desirable traits, the publications engrain a clear position towards expected and accepted behaviours of athletes. This is reflective of the media’s ability to exaggerate, distort, predict, and frame doping as a moral transgression, which has an ability to spread moral panic (Critcher 2014; Pfister and Gems 2015).

In relation to Sun Yang’s ban, the extended period it took to overturn Sun’s world title is criticized for delaying the justification of Horton’s stance on clean sports. ‘It took fewer than four minutes for Australian swimmer Mack Horton to complete the 400 m men’s freestyle final at last year’s world titles in South Korea. But it took nearly 200 days before the right man was recognized as the winner’ (Daily Telegraph 2020b, para. 1). Consequently, this is reflective of studies that found the media have a crucial role in crafting and encouraging desired and distinctive values and identity in society (Billings and Eastman 2003; Maguire and Tuck 2005; Pfister and Gems 2015).

The language used in media reports reinforces a skewed perception of PEDs, preventing an even-handed portrayal of the issue. For instance, there is questioning of certain treatments like specialized diets, marathon training sessions, or pain killers as being potentially in the same vein as some PEDs (Bloodworth, McNamee, and Jaques 2018; Buzzelli et al. 2020; Savulescu 2013; Weedon and Wilson 2020). This distinction, however, was not legitimized by the publications within the data collection. The journalists and publications in this data set appear to make a conscious decision to ensure PEDs receive a negative portrayal. This is despite research suggesting ideal democratic journalism requires multiple perspectives to present a topic in an impartial and objective manner (Denham 2008; Horky and Stelzner 2013). It is imperative that the Australian media provide neutrality and differing perspectives in accordance with the notion of democratic journalism. However, the data collected in this study suggests that this is not the case.

The use of language to portray guilt

By promoting anti-doping ideologies, the articles in this study endorse the belief that athletes themselves must prove they are in no way associated with PEDs. This contributes to the Australian media assuming guilt rather than innocence when reporting performance enhancing drugs charges. The language used by the Australian media in this study serves the anti-doping movement rather than supporting individual athletes’ rights (see Kondric et al. 2011).

The data revealed that Mo Farah faced questions about credibility despite Farah being ‘one of the most tested athletes in the UK, if not the world, and has been required to fill in numerous doping forms’ (“‘I genuinely forgot’…” 2020, para. 10). However, having repeatedly denied receiving injections of a controversial supplement, Farah then recanted, altering his account of what happened (Ingle 2020c, para. 1). The supplement in question, L-carnitine (an amino acid) was administered to Farah in a bid to boost his performance before his first attempt at 26.2 miles (Ingle 2020b, para. 3). Furthermore ‘UK Athletics figures debated whether giving Farah four injections of L-carnitine two days before he ran the 2014 London marathon was ethical and in the “spirit of the sport”’ (Ingle 2020a). This led to UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) announcing an ‘independent reviews into safeguarding in the sport’ to consider the possibility of Mo Farah having corrupted doping results (Ingle 2020a, para. 13). This review of Farah’s behaviour created a need for him to apologize for the events even though:

It is not against [WADA] rules to take [L-carnitine] as a supplement within the right quantities. He is a human being and not a robot. That is relevant – if in fact something was missed from the form. Interviews are not memory tests (Ingle 2020a, para. 21).

Mo Farah’s continued work with Coach Alberto Salazar was also critiqued following a BBC Panorama documentary in 2015, questioning the coach’s practices at the Nike Oregon Project (NOP).⁹ Farah, who trained with the NOP from 2010 and 2017, has never been implicated in any wrongdoing but faced questions and pressures to prove his innocence:

I can sleep at night knowing I’ve done nothing wrong. I love representing my country, making my country proud and doing what I do best because it is a gift and that’s why I do it with a smile. But it’s not fair what comes with it. It’s not fair on my kids and my family. It’s just not right. It’s depressing. Mentally and physically it’s had an effect on me. (Farah as cited in “I genuinely forgot …” 2020, para 10)

This example characterizes the notion of guilt seeping into every aspect of media relating to the portrayal of PEDs. The refusal of Mo Farah to cooperate with anti-doping procedures and avenues to clear up his eligibility through his use of L-carnitine, is described as a negative trait, and by extension, an assumption of guilt. However, L-carnitine was not a prohibited substance at the time: ‘Injections and infusions of it were permitted within WADA rules in 2014 provided the volume was below 50 millilitres every six hours. The permitted volume is now 100 ml every 12 h’ (“I genuinely forgot …” 2020, para 12). As athletics is considered to be ‘dying a drug‑fuelled death’ (Ingle 2020a, para. 1) the refusal by UKAD to hand over Mo Farah’s blood and urine samples was viewed as hiding from the truth. The move was described as causing a ‘wall of mistrust’ with the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) deputy general director, Margarita Pakhnotskaya, encouraging the hand-over of the samples as necessary to protect the sanctity of the anti-doping movement:

The World Anti-Doping Code and Wada standards are the same for everyone. Be it the British Anti-Doping Agency, RUSADA or some other. Otherwise the system will not work. Therefore, I believe that UKAD should not obstruct any transfer of samples. (cited in Ingle 2020a, para 6)

This language is reflective of the WADA code that argues that in the initial proof of a violation: ‘it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1’ (WADA 2021b). This results in the situation of WADA not having to prove guilt, rather the individual having to prove their innocence. This contributes to a habit by the Australian media to assume guilt rather than innocence when describing PEDs charges. Through examples of Mo Farah and Sun Yang, a clear narrative of mistrust and wrongdoing is established within the language.

Disruption and refusal to coordinate properly with anti-doping measures is assessed in the same manner as providing a positive test for taking PEDs. By establishing this concept, the idea of athlete’s rights and freedoms are forgotten and overpowered by a more dominant pro anti-doping movement. This language consequently reflects research findings that show sporting landscapes still hold faith in legal sanctions, despite their inability to reduce criminal acts (Strelan and Boeckmann 2006). Gleaves and Christiansen (2019) found that a refusal to participate with anti-doping policies is considered suspicious, with athletes believed to be concealing the truth. Consequently, varying levels of breaches all earn athletes the same branding as a ‘drug cheat’. For instance, the Australian media did not question the Kenyan government’s steps towards criminalizing the use of PEDs including possible jail terms ‘in a bid to get to grips with the problem’ (Ingle 2020c, para. 7). Harsher penalties are lauded within the analyzed media articles, as they are viewed as a deterrent for the use of PEDs. By way of example, World Athletics was commended for handing down a $10 million dollar fine and four-year ban to Russian Athletics. The decision was labelled as a sanction that ‘would finally provoke real change in the ‘tainted’ Russian athletic system, which has repeatedly failed to acknowledge any wrongdoing despite a series of drug scandals in recent years’ (Ingle 2020a, para. 3).

One journalist suggested that ‘maybe 99%’ (Ingle 2020c, para. 3) of athletes can be trusted to uphold anti-doping measures. This results in the media assuming every athlete facing a PEDs charge has the potential to be a part of the one percent who dope. Critcher (2014) further argues that misrepresentation of evidence, misattribution of responsibility, and mistaken symptoms of cause can contribute to creating moral panic within society. This notion of presumed guilt is not regularly an element of democratic societies, but the Australian media adhere to a rhetoric of individuals needing to prove their innocence. The confounding negativity of the Australian media’s language around PEDs has created a permanent definition and characterization of individuals who participate in taking, supplying, or promoting performance enhancing drugs. This notion of defining behaviour has contributed to the Australian media constructing their perceived ideals of nationalism. Consequently, this has influenced how transgressions by athletes of other nations are described within the Australian media and, indeed, how the perception of athletes fluctuates in relation to their nationality.

For instance, numerous Russian associations with PEDs both in a historical and contemporary context have seen all Russian athletes being considered guilty unless they can prove their innocence. According to Masters, ‘Russian athletes who could demonstrate they were clean should not be victims of what is called ‘collective responsibility’ – a blanket ban on all Russian athletes for four years, including those who were aged 14 at the last Olympics’ (2020, para. 11). There was a clear desire from WADA for ‘Russian athletes to compete as neutrals at the [2020 Tokyo] Olympics and major events only if they pass a vetting process which examines their history of drug testing and possible involvement in lab cover-ups of positive tests’ (“WADA calls for open…” 2020, para. 6). Similarly, Maria Sharapova’s failed 2016 drug test created ‘a shadow’ that hung over her career (Carayol 2020, para. 11). Sharapova was described as one of ‘the biggest drug cheats in history’ (Daily Telegraph 2020c) who should be remembered as ‘a flawed person’ (Carayol 2020, para. 13). This is despite over 170 athletes being found to be using Meldonium in competition, ‘Sharapova was one of the few to receive significant punishment for it’ (Carayol 2020, para. 12).

Concluding comments

Travan et al. (2023) argue that the Australian media lacks the authority to appropriately critique the association or use of performance enhancing drugs. This is due to hesitancy to continually present well-rounded arguments on this topic. Consequently, varying levels of breaches all earn athletes the same branding as a ‘drug cheat’. From whereabouts breaches, failing tests for banned substances, to destroying samples to protect an athletes’ rights, all these acts are described as equally callous and deviant to testing positive for a banned substance. All breaches are criticized due to the media’s self-imposed responsibility to define and demean deviants within society (Critcher 2014). Critcher (2014) argues that within the global sporting landscape, the mass media have contributed to an ability to moralize campaigns about integrity. This has created the inference that anti-doping movement is a ‘quasi-religious’ movement that is generating a crusade for clean sport (Critcher 2014).

By questioning the current and expected advancements of the anti-doping process, a necessary assessment is undertaken to critique the importance of modern-day doping structures. This presentation of alternative ideas is an element of idealistic journalism and sports journalism (Weedon and Wilson 2020) but also helps society avoid engraining confirmation bias. Without research into alternative positions, unchecked or unquestioned ideology is easier to engrain within society (Gleaves 2014). However, without the continued presentation of valid counter arguments or a wider presentation of contrasting views, a broader understanding of performance enhancing drugs is avoided and invalidated. In this study, not one article analyzed presented a counter argument that cited academic work. Although this study provides an analysis of media reports from a specific moment in time, it does highlight the importance of debate. Without critically analyzing subjects such as anti-doping and PEDs, society contains the ability to engrain confirmation bias. This study showcases that the presentation of one-sided opinions is easily accessible but the strength of such writing needs to be analyzed further considering it faces minimal critique from society.

In relation to PEDs, the notion of an imbalanced debate is present. Prohibited substances and methods are all considered symbols of moral corruption and any individual is initially presumed guilty. This notion of presumed guilt is not regularly an element of democratic societies, but the Australian media and mentioned sporting policies have established a clear practice that individuals need to prove their innocence. The Australian media constructs ideals related to how sport should be practiced. This raises the question of whether an engrained attitude of anti-doping thinking impacts the audience and, in some ways, results in a reluctance of audiences and journalists to question their conservative stance on performance enhancing drugs. This suggests that confirmation bias has influenced society, policy, and procedure to accept the negative definition given to performance enhancing drugs (Gleaves 2014). Consequently, the negative presentation has restricted the Australian population from engaging and reading about the contested space of performance enhancing drugs and deciding for themselves how they view the topic. Most notably journalists have an inability to remain neutral, leading to the production of biased content. While distorting the reality of accepted behaviours towards anti-doping, the Australian media lacks credibility in the description, portrayal, identification, and distribution of the performance enhancing drugs debate to society.

This can be linked to engrained importance of sport to Australian society, most notably evident in the various instalments of anti-siphoning laws. These laws were designed to protect the availability, on free-to-air television, of events of Australian cultural significance (Rowe, Tiffen, and Hutchins 2022) and in its first iteration all events listed were sporting events (Rowe 2013). Australia’s investment in sporting success, both cultural and financial, is couched in the rhetoric of ‘clean’ sport and with much of Australia’s national pride dependent on both continued success and a strong and visible anti-PEDs stance. As a result, it is not surprising that the Australian media narrative around PEDs is hegemonic in nature. This serves to discourage alternate narratives and even dissuade investigation into the circumstances of PEDs use and testing. This is particularly true in the case of non-Australian athletes who test positive or avoid or refuse testing as it further strengthens the ‘us versus them’ dichotomy. Ultimately this allows the media (and the Australian sports organizations) to frame ‘failed’ drug tests and the suspected use of PEDs as simultaneously unfair, untruthful, un-Australian, and damaging to sport, and this is regularly played out in the media before the case is investigated.

The Australian media in both their own reporting and the reposting of international media paint a pervasively negative picture of PEDs transgression, one which constantly reminds the reader that PEDs use is a salient threat to sport and indeed to Australian values. This stance further influences the perception of non-Australian athletes in relation to PEDs use and extends to how the Australian media employ anti-PEDs language to consolidate the self-efficacy of Australian sporting success.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 For instance, the Code is unable to distinguish natural physiological differences between athletes and this prevents an ethical interpretation of illegitimate performance enhancers (Goh 2021). In fact, all anti-doping rules violations (ADRV) are subject to similar negative social stigma and there is potential for all acts, intentional or not, to receive the same ban (Loland and McNamee 2019).

2 Horton is an Australian swimmer and competitor of Sun. He was an outspoken critic of Sun, continually questioning his legality to swim whilst Sun faced allegations of a second anti-doping rules violation.

3 ASADA stands for the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency.

4 There were no limiting factors on what articles were assessed, the research project collected all articles that were produced by the search terms.

5 The Russian Athletic Federation (RusAF) purportedly directed and condoned a national state sponsored doping scheme for its athletes that distorted testing processes. Subsequently, the RusAF paid a USD$6.31 million fine and fulfilled a reinstatement plan to allow for a provisional inclusion of some Russian athletes at events, including the Olympics, from 2021 (Ingle 2020f).

6 As of March, 2020, 27 people in the USA are being served federal indictments for their use of performance enhancing drugs in horse racing (Roots 2020).

7 Fury was the 2020 Heavyweight World Boxing Council [WBC] champion (Ingle 2020e).

8 Bambo Diaby failed a drug test following a game in November 2019.

9 A BBC Panorama programme that researched former athletics coach Alberto Salazar, who was accused of breaking anti-doping rules with his Nike Oregon Project (NOP) training group. He received a four-year ban in 2019 following an investigation into his practices.