Young networked athletes and performance-enhancing substances: who are the actors in their network, and how do the actors shape athletes’ meaning-making?

Abstract

Ambitious youth athletes continually strive to enhance their performance, and as they age, more people are involved in this process. Athletes are immersed in a network of actors who wield significant influence over their performance-enhancing endeavours, encompassing training, nutrition, and at times, the use of various performance-enhancing substances. Our study predominantly revolves around various permitted substances, primarily in the form of nutritional supplements of various kinds. Also relevant in this regard is anti-doping, as knowledge of and a critical attitude towards supplements are a central part in this preventative educational work. More specifically, in this study, we explore the actors that contribute to young athletes meaning-making of nutritional supplements and anti-doping and examine how the young athletes describe these actors’ contribution. Twenty-four athletes from private elite upper secondary sport schools (PEUSS) in Norway were interviewed, with a semi-structured approach to facilitate the various tales. Our analysis revealed seven actors/actor groups in athletes’ network. The actors/actor groups were diverse and contributed to athletes meaning-making in different ways. We argue that the diversity of actors illustrates the relevance of the networked athlete concept and that the concept should be further developed by interactionist perspectives.

Keywords:

• Youth athletes
• performance-enhancing substances
• nutritional supplements
• networked athlete
• interactions

Introduction

In the context of competitive sport, athletes continuously push the limits to enhance their performance. In this pursuit, athletes plan and monitor training load, nutrition, restitution, and also the use of various nutritional supplements. Athletes manage these tasks with direct and with more implicit influence from several actors.

Very few young athletes use banned performance-enhancing substances, known as doping (Sandvik et al., 2018). Therefore, our primary focus lies on various permitted substances, primarily in the form of nutritional supplements. As knowledge of such supplements are part of athletes’ anti-doping education, these two topics are closely linked. Also, anti-doping raises awareness to what is banned, doping. In other words, nutritional supplements are part of broader anti-doping discourses and relevant to shaping athletes’ meaning-making.

In this paper, we explore who the actors within athletes’ networks are – such as coaches and teammates – and how they contribute to the meaning-making process of nutritional supplements and anti-doping. The term ‘actor’ refers to the diverse array of individuals, organisations, and institutions within the athletes’ network. Our emphasis on describing and discussing the role in athletes’ meaning-making of the diverse range of actors aims to enhance our understanding of athletes’ context-dependent lives and to further develop the networked athlete concept (Connor, 2009).

Overall, the main body of research on how athletes think and behave concerning permitted and banned performance-enhancing substances has focused on personal characteristics. These studies are guided by psychological theories and focus on intrapersonal processes, such as cognition, motivation, and moral reasoning (Barkoukis et al., 2015). Scholars have argued for the individual perspective to be complemented by studying the context in which athletes live (Aubel & Ohl, 2014; Connor, 2009; Ohl et al., 2013; Pappa & Kennedy, 2012), and to explore in more detail the broader social context (Hauw & McNamee, 2015; Smith et al., 2010) and the role of significant others (Mazanov et al., 2014; Patterson et al., 2023).

The broad social context and the role of significant others are particularly interesting when studying youth elite athletes as they are in a formative phase and often with the ambition of transitioning into a professional career (Bruner et al., 2008), and are in the process of developing their athletic identity (Ronkainen et al., 2016). Compared to adult athletes, they may be more vulnerable to pressure and persuasion from influential individuals and institutions (Damon, 2004). More generally, there are biological, cognitive, and psychosocial changes all young people face in their transition to adulthood (Rutter, 1997).

Based on these research gaps, we explore two main questions, drawing from interviews with youth athletes aged 17 to 19 from private elite upper secondary sport schools (PEUSS) in Norway. Firstly, who are the actors that contribute to young athletes’ meaning-making of nutritional supplements and anti-doping? Secondly, how do the young athletes describe these actors’ contribution?

Theoretical perspectives

Connors’s (2009) concept of the networked athlete highlights the importance of several actors in athletes’ lives, such as coaches, doctors, nutritionists and physiotherapists.

According to Connor, one important aim of this concept is that it can facilitate understanding ‘the micro-sociological interactions in this peculiar social world; that of the elite athlete’ (p, 339). We find this a fruitful approach that is nevertheless sparsely theoretically elaborated in Connor’s paper. We suggest including symbolic interactionist perspectives to analyse the relations between young athletes and their network actors in more nuanced ways (Blumer, 1969; Goffman, 1964, 1974; Mead, 1934).

Generally speaking, symbolic interactionism ‘…sees meanings as social products, as creations that are formed in and through the defining activities of people as they interact’ (Blumer, 1969, p. 5). Blumer (1969, p. 132) suggests that all human action - single, collective, and societal - are based on our interpretation of the meaning of the situation in which we find ourselves and how things make sense to us. We focus on how interactions shape young athletes’ meaning-making of nutritional supplements and anti-doping with the actors in their network.

In symbolic interactionism, the others are central to meaning-making. Mead employs the concepts of ‘the significant other’ and ‘the generalised other’ to explain this process. While the significant others are the concrete important actors in the athletes’ environment, generalised other is the result of ‘… taking the attitudes of others towards himself and of his finally crystallising all these particular attitudes into a single attitude or standpoint’ (Mead, 1934, p. 90). According to Mead (1934), the counterpart to the generalised other is the ‘me’. The adoption of the attitudes of others towards oneself implies a development of self (me). In other words, the self finds its form in, and is a product of, social interaction. In our case, and in their network interactions, athletes manoeuvre views towards various forms of nutritional supplements of various actors in ways that impact and shape their meaning-making and their ideas of what it means to be an athlete.

When delving into how the athletes describe actors’ contribution to their meaning-making, we will discuss different socialisation and interaction perspectives. We are inspired by Goffman’s (1964–1983/2020) work regarding social encounters in everyday life, either direct face-to-face or through mediated contact. In all these meetings, people are likely to practice what Goffman calls a line: a pattern of verbal and non-verbal actions expressing a person’s perception of a situation and his/her assessment of the persons involved, especially of him/herself. The concept face refers to the positive social image we desire to maintain in social interactions (Goffman, 1964–1983/2020, pp. 43–78). Facework can be described as different acts individuals perform to project a specific social image of themselves (Goffman, 1964–1983/2020, pp. 43–78). For our study, athletes may desire to give the impression that they distance themselves from performance-enhancing substances, especially in their banned forms in terms of doping (Sandvik et al., 2017).

Another relevant concept from Goffman is frames, which can be described as an organisation of experiences that enables people to ascribe meaning to ‘what is going on’. People are prone to use certain frames or interpretation forms to react to a phenomenon. The frame enables the perception, identification, and classification of an infinite number of concrete events. Goffman points out that people are mostly not aware of the extent to which frames organise their world (Goffman, 1964–1983/2020, pp. 221–241). As athletes are exposed to strict anti-doping regimes, an antidoping frame can be assumed to play an essential role in athletes’ meaning-making of performance-enhancing substances.

In our study, the framing and meanings that are ascribed to permitted vs banned substances in this context are expected to differ. Especially since doping has been shown to evoke touch anxiety (Sandvik et al., 2017). However, as the focus of this article is the actors and their contribution to meaning-making, we argue that the antidoping discourse also shapes the interaction related to various nutritional supplements.

Overall, taking an interactionist perspective, our analysis of young athletes’ interactions with their network is guided by three central premises: (1) individuals act based on the meanings objects have for them, (2) meanings are shaped in social interactions with other actors, (3) meanings are continuously created and recreated through interpretation processes in individuals’ dealing with the actors they encounter (Blumer, 1969, p. 2).

Previous research: performance-enhancing substances and athletes’ network in youth sport

Studies investigating the key individuals influential in athletes’ sense-making of performance-enhancing substances (prohibited and permitted), have focused on various actors, such as coaches (Waddington, 2000), support personnel (e.g. team doctors, physiotherapists) (Patterson et al., 2023; Waddington, 2000), and teammates (Barkoukis et al., 2019).

One such study is Pappa and Kennedys’ (2012) interview study of athletes with a history of doping in their previous sport career. The athletes explained doping as a normalised practice and described the coaching staff’s widespread involvement. The authors expected the athletes to blame the social context and sport culture, whereas the athletes emphasised that doping use was their own fault. So, even though athletes’ narratives confirmed the idea of the networked athlete (Connor, 2009), the athletes insisted on their individual responsibility for engaging in doping.

Ohl et al. (2013) have addressed how the interactions between cyclists and other actors influence the socialisation processes by which cyclists learn their jobs, and how this determines doping attitudes. The authors described seven key socialisation factors that can explain various views. One key factor was organisational contexts, which grasp how the cycling teams are organised. Other factors were linked to sponsors, family involvement, use of pharmaceutical techniques and so on. Overall, the authors argued that the socialisation in each cycling team is multifaceted, demonstrating the impact of specific and context-dependent social relationships on sense-making.

An interactionist study from the Norwegian context deals with how young, ambitious cyclists communicate about doping (Sandvik et al., 2017). Based on focus group interviews, the authors gained insight into cyclists’ interaction and communication regarding doping, which appeared brief and strictly norm-regulated. The authors suggest this reflects the strong and hegemonic frame of anti-doping.

A survey study of elite youth athletes from Serbia, Germany, Japan and Croatia, exploring their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and practices concerning sports supplements, shows that athletes reported using them to enhance their athletic performance. Also, the survey indicated high prevalence, although well over half of the respondents considered some sports supplements to carry certain health risks. Half of the athletes considered the coach their primary source of information (Jovanov et al., 2019).

When it comes to young athletes, a recent systematic literature review revealed that qualitative studies on youth athletes’ understanding of performance-enhancing substances are scarce (Kristensen et al., 2022). In response to this gap in research, our interview study focusses on youth athletes, specifically ambitious individuals between the ages of 17 and 19, who are enrolled in elite sport schools.

A solid body of research on young athletes’ relations and networks in sport has addressed parents and peers (Atkins et al., 2013). Research suggests that this early socialisation within the family has a lasting effect on youth’s future sport participation (Haycock & Smith, 2014; Strandbu et al., 2020). A recent study involving Norwegian youth athletes revealed their desire for parental involvement in their sporting endeavours; however, the athletes wanted to define how their parents should be involved (Strandbu et al., 2019).

As young and ambitious athletes head towards a more professional sport scene, their network of significant individuals and other actors expands. Sporting staff such as coaches, physiotherapists, and nutritionists facilitate and serve sporting development. This involvement also exerts power on athletes’ meaning-making of various substances and supplements (Barkoukis et al., 2019). Additionally, when performing at higher levels, anti-doping regimes and organisations enter young athletes’ lives (Gleaves & Christiansen, 2019). In this current study, one of the aims is to provide insights into the range of relevant actors in the lives of these young athletes.

Method

In the Norwegian context there is a history of strong anti-doping work in sport and broader society (Gilberg et al., 2006). The reported doping prevalence is low (for example, anabolic steroids) (Sandvik et al., 2018), while the supplement use is estimated as relatively high. In 2020, Norwegian Health authorities reported that 79% of the adult population had used at least one nutritional supplement product during the last 12 months, and 46% used supplements daily or most days (Abel & Totland, 2021, p. 7).

In the sport context, substance use is even more visible, typically in the form of protein and pre-workout supplements and energy drinks of different kinds.

Youth athletes at private elite sport high schools

The first private sport school was established in 1981 (Kristiansen & Houlihan, 2017). In 2006, elite sport was introduced as an elective academic subject in Norway’s national public school curriculum. Since then, the number of public and private schools offering elite sports in their programme has grown massively, with 110 schools in 2019 (Kårhus, 2019). The athletes in our study are exclusively from private sport schools, which are approximately 30 schools spread across Norway. The schools are partly financed via the Ministry of Education and do not have a formal role in the Norwegian sports model, but they are recognised in Norwegian sports as an important contribution to elite sport development (Sandbakk et al., 2023). Anyone with a completed lower secondary school diploma can apply at the different sport schools. Although the government provides support in line with pupils attending public high schools, the school fees are higher and require a stronger financial background.

Twenty-four athletes aged 17 to 19 from three different PEUSS in Norway participated in this study. The athletes practice various sports: ice hockey, handball, biathlon, motocross, track and field, swimming, cross country, and football. The schools are located across Norway, and share the vision of developing elite athletes. Most athletes have left their hometowns to attend a specific sport school to develop their athletic skills and careers. Living away from home implies handling household chores such as making food and cleaning clothes, managing good everyday routines such as regular and healthy meals, and getting enough sleep. All these duties come in addition to a strict time schedule with lectures and training sessions. Weekdays and weekends consist of school and sport activities, with little spare time. The athletes can be described as ambitious, and compared to the average teenager, they are all making significant sacrifices to reach their goals.

Interviews

In line with our theoretical perspectives, we view the interviews as a window into meaning-making processes. We explore what actors are important in the meaning-making and how they shape the meaning-making. Therefore, the interview guide consists of questions about who the young athletes turn to for help and information and who they trust and distrust. The intention is to capture the patterns and variations in the network of actors with whom athletes interact.

The athletes who participated in the interviews got information regarding the research project and agreed to be contacted by the first author, who scheduled all interviews to accommodate the athletes’ convenience. The sample is based on self-selection, but also on pragmatic concerns linked to time-schedule, training camps and sport season. Some athletes had to withdraw for reasons such as sickness. There were no further criteria for their interview attendance other than going on a PEUSS.

The first author conducted the interviews, transcriptions, and analyses. Most interviews were face-to-face, while two were via video. The interviews lasted from 40 to 70 minutes and were semi-structured, ensuring the same topics were covered in all interviews and simultaneously enabling diversity in the athletes’ narratives (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). The topics encompassed performance and ambitions, knowledge, information, and the presence of nutritional supplements, as well as norms and values associated with various nutritional supplements within the sports context. This exploration also indirectly addressed the delineation between permitted and banned substances, while delving into the athletes’ experiences with anti-doping work. The interviews were recorded, allowing the interviewer to focus on the conversation with the athlete and ask follow-up questions. Immediately after each interview, the interviewer wrote down thoughts and impressions.

Interviews were transcribed and to the greatest extent, every word was recorded in the text. However, changes have been made to improve readability and ensure that the meaning is maintained (Lareau, 2021). In addition, as the interviews were conducted in Norwegian, we translated the quotes with caution when reporting them. Many slang expressions and ‘filler’ words used by young people convey meaning in Norwegian but may not express the same meaning when translated into English.

Interview analysis and construction of actor groups

The interviews were analysed following Braun and Clarkes’ systematic yet theory-flexible approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019; Clarke & Braun, 2013).

When initiating the analysis and exploring the relevant actors in athletes’ meaning-making, all transcribed interviews were read and reread. In some cases, the interview guide directed what actors were mentioned. In other cases, it invited athletes to explore and elaborate on what they found to be other important actors. Several actors were revealed, representing individuals, groups of people, institutions and organisations. Some were involved are involved in face-to-face interaction, while others were more distant. All in all, in constructing the actors and actor groups, labelled themes in Braun and Clarke’s terminology, our aim was to capture the variety of actors in athletes’ networks as defined by the athletes themselves, while also creating a comprehensible overview. For example, the athletes often referred to the school as a unit, although the school consisted of various employees and employee groups. Other actors are grouped together as they played similar professional roles, such as coaches, physiotherapists and nutritionists. This resulted in actors that reflect different compositions and proximity to the athletes. The thematic analysis led to the following actor groups: Coach and other Experts, School, Antidoping Norway, Family, Teammates, the Internet and Other athletes.

When we explored how the different actors contributed to athletes’ meaning-making, all quotes related to each actor group were clustered together, followed by scrutinising all quotes searching for how the athletes describe the various actors’ contribution. In this analysis phase, efforts have been made to describe commonalities in athletes’ narratives about each actor while simultaneously identifying differences and contradictions (Dowling & Flintoff, 2011). When presenting our findings, each actor’s contribution is described in general terms, with athletes’ quotes illustrating how these actors contribute to athletes’ meaning-making. However, it is important to note that this portrayal is not exhaustive; rather, it highlights a distinctive aspect of each actor’s contribution. Moreover, in line with our symbolic interactionist perspective, we recognise the authors’ impact in the different phases of this research. We acknowledge that our interaction in both the interview and the analysis is part of the co-construction of meaning (Berger, 2015).

Ethical consideration

The project has been approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD), and all athletes signed the informed consent before the interviews. To ensure athletes’ confidentiality and anonymity, we use pseudonyms that only reveal the participant’s gender. The athletes’ sports and other facets that could identify them are anonymised to protect their right to confidentiality.

Findings

Overall, most athletes depict everyday life encompassing various actors who play diverse roles in meaning-making processes. This is illustrated by Victoria’s response to the question about to whom she turns if she needs knowledge or information concerning supplements:

I think I maybe will ask mum first. She is, in a way, my second coach, kind of, so I will ask maybe her, and then I will ask my coach. But also, we have this dietitian, and we know we can send a message to her.

In the following section, all actors are summarised, described, and illustrated, with athletes voicing each actor group’s contribution to their meaning-making.

Coaches and other experts: knowledgeable and trustworthy

In many athletes’ accounts, coaches appear as knowledgeable and credible. The athletes frequently turn to them with trust in the coaches’ knowledge and based on their previous experience as athletes. Some athletes describe the coach as someone who can be very clear about what is necessary for performance development, and what is not. Although the majority express that the coaches have restrictive views regarding supplements, variations can be found. Mari explains how her coaches have slightly different views regarding nutritional supplements:

Our coach is a bit more, I don’t want to say that he is negative about it, but he thinks that we don’t need it, and we don’t really need it. I also have the coach at my club. He is more neutral about it as long as you pay attention to the content.

Some coaches are described as having more liberal supplement views, and this has consequences for athletes’ approach. For example, John describes how he and his teammates would rather go to their physical coach than to staff at school:

I guess there is no one on the team that would go to anyone at school, but maybe, yes, our fitness coach. He has recommended some [supplements] to someone.

Although the variations in the recommendations do not appear to be very different, as seen in John’s quote, some athletes hesitate to ask actors whom they believe hold a restricted view.

In addition to coaches, the athletes talked of other experts, such as dietitians and physiotherapists, who either give lectures or convey information and knowledge in other ways. Several of the athletes mentioned that a dietitian conducted lectures upon their enrolment at the school, emphasising the importance of a nutritious diet aligned with the ‘plate model’¹. Olivia sums up some of the content in the nutrition seminar:

We talk about what it is important and what can be smart to refill with. And one PowerPoint slide says there is no point in drinking energy drinks. It gives you nothing. And nutritional supplements, you must be careful with and check what’s in them before taking them.

The overall impression is that coaches and experts are seen as trustworthy and knowledgeable. In our study, the interactions with coaches are in line with those of other experts. Considering the relatively high level of education in elite sport school coaches, their expert status is meaningful in this context. The coaches and experts and their advice are held to be dependable. In general, experts are consulted when athletes have a concrete question. However, some athletes avoid certain experts as they are seen to have restrictive views. Nevertheless, this does not seem to be an expression of a lack of trust but perhaps a concern about being misunderstood or taken as an athlete who is tempted to use discommended supplements, or simply that they don’t want this knowledge in their meaning-making. Also, as they express it as a repetitive message, it seems that athletes experience an overload of messages and advice about proper diet and avoiding nutritional supplements.

The school: clear messages and strictness

The actor group school consists of various people with different roles, including coaches, teachers, dietitians, and other sport-related staff. However, in the interviews, several athletes refer to the school as a unit. Banned substances have been explicitly notified as unacceptable, and the athletes share stories about the schools’ clear mantra about a ‘healthy’ and ‘normal’ diet as the best option. Athletes describe the school as strongly encouraging them to work hard to get this into their routines. Furthermore, athletes retell two clear signals from the school regarding the nutritional supplements1) nutritional supplements are unnecessary, and 2) their use implies a risk of contamination of banned substances. Charlotte confirms the school’s communication in this respect:

They don’t recommend any nutritional supplements or energy drinks. They just want us to have a regular healthy diet with fruit and vegetables and fish and things like that. So I feel like the diet guidance is good because we learn about eating disorders in our milieu and that you should have lots of snacks and food when training, and so on, even though it is very individual.

In line with Charlotte, all athletes express feeling supported and helped by the school in one or more ways when it comes to questions about diet and supplements. Also, many of the athletes support the school’s point of view. However, as indicated above, some athletes seem to experience the school as rigid in their healthy diet recommendations. John argues that the school has only one main answer to the use of other supplements:

No to, for example, powder or really everything. They just say, eat normal food. That’s really the main answer.

At the same time, some athletes hold a somewhat contrasting impression of the school as not being absolute in their signals. Helena’s statement illustrates this:

They [teachers] do not like that you drink sports, no, not sports drinks, energy drinks. But many [athletes] do that, and the teachers don’t care. So it was more like it’s not something you need as an athlete.

All in all, the school is perceived as communicating a unified position that nutritional supplements are not necessary and should be avoided. Some athletes perceive the school as narrow-minded regarding certain supplements, while simultaneously observing ambiguity in practice, particularly in the lack of reactions when someone consumes energy drinks.

Anti-doping Norway: fair and complex

The athletes express a strong trust in Anti-doping Norway (ADNO) and their work to keep the sport fair and clean. Although most athletes in our study have not been subjected to a doping test, ADNO seems visible in the athletes’ sphere. This is through their presence at competitions, in courses and lectures at school, and in ADNO’s mandatory and annual online course called ‘Clean Athlete’. In addition to the explicit presence of ADNO, the athletes express a strong presence of anti-doping attitudes in their context.

Helena expresses an unwavering trust in the ADNO system and talks of Norway as a unified community when it comes to rejecting doping:

I would say that I have a good impression of them [ADNO] and the work they do. And that they are very exact and fair with the rules. There is no doubt that doping is something Norway distances itself from. And if there are cases where people have taken doping, it has hard-hitting consequences.

William shares this view and considers ADNO’s visibility in competition as important when it comes to countering doping use and prevention:

I don’t think it’s that much [doping] in The North because there are extreme rules here. Anti-doping Norway comes to many races during the year, so in Norway, it’s probably not much. I don’t think there’s anything. There’s probably someone who tries, but in the USA, for example, which is biggest within [sport], there are probably a few people who try.

Although they have strong confidence in the system, some athletes describe a concern that the rules are highly detailed and complicated. This includes John, who argues that the length of the doping list and the use of Latin terms make it hard to figure out whether one is on the safe side:

That doping list is quite long, isn’t it? So it is, when you don’t really know what some of those things are, it’s very difficult without help to go in there to check a substance. Or if you’re unsure if you have some medicines or allergy tablets and will check them because there are Latin names for everything, and you don’t know what any of it is.

All in all, ADNO is described as a visible actor ensuring fairness in elite sport. Their work is well known among athletes, although most have not taken a doping test. However, some athletes express concerns that the anti-doping system is complex and can be hard to understand. This is especially related to the increased responsibility they themselves have in that setting.

Family: advocates of a healthy diet

Family members and family values are often part of athletes’ meaning-making about supplements. The athletes refer to siblings, parents, and cousins in this coherence, but parents are most frequently mentioned. They are thought to have solid knowledge about the topic or have prior experience as former athletes. Also, they are often highlighted as advocates for proper, healthy, and enough food. In continuation, some of the parents have a clear voice about nutritional supplements and their irrelevance. Emma talks about how she was raised to eat healthy food and understand the importance of enough food:

I don’t quite see the point in having a shake or something before or after training. I’m more just brought up with the fact that you have to get enough food and enough healthy food, and that’s, in a way, good enough.

Robert describes similar experiences from his upbringing:

At home, we’ve been completely against nutritional supplements. And now when I look back on it, it’s perfectly fine, there’s no problem, I don’t need it.

The young athletes retell their parents’ views about nutritional supplements as something that is ‘no point’ and should be avoided. Their parents’ views are ‘anti-nutritional supplements’. Christina tells about her father:

My older brother used to worry about being big, so he took a lot of protein powder. But my father was very like, it’s no point [Christina] you shouldn’t do things like that. So, I was like, okay, I don’t need that.

In sum, the family shapes athletes through their upbringing, moulding their views and habits regarding food and nutrition, which they then bring into their school life. Many athletes refer to their family origins in their meaning-making of nutritional supplements, highlighting families’ continued importance.

Teammates: exploration

This actor group represent teammates and other in-groups such as training groups and the class. The overall interpretation is that the athletes rarely discuss performance-enhancing substances in general. Some athletes say they never discuss the topic, while others say they rarely do. Some argue it is unnecessary to talk about it, as they seem to take for granted that the group shares the same values, especially when it comes to banned subsances.

Ella talks about how they rarely discuss nutritional supplements or doping, but that they still have a shared view of what is right:

We don’t really talk about it, really. I just feel that people do, in a way, a bit as they want. If it’s not illegal. Because then, I feel like everyone agrees that it’s not okay. If you take something that enhances performance or something, that’s not okay.

The notion that the athletes agree on what is permissible and not permeates many of the athletes’ stories, and it seems like a backdrop to why they consider the discussions irrelevant. There seems to be a signal in the absence of communication. This might be caused by doping being a sensitive issue, but also by the athletes’ more or less agreement on what is okay and what is not.

As Ella explains, there is not much discussion about these topics. However, she reports that athletes interact through non-verbal signs, and compromise the school’s recommendations:

You get the message that energy drinks are not good for you, and you see everyone in the class drinking them.

There are, of course, exceptions where athletes talk about these topics with their teammates. One such occasion that brings up doping is when controversial situations are highlighted in the media, especially cases that have received extensive attention in Norwegian society. One occasions to discuss nutritional supplements are when someone is curious and wants to explore alternatives. Also, the athletes describe how the interaction with teammates can involve a form of positive pressure, and that they influence each other’s choices. The positive pressure takes various forms. Tomas explains how they push each other not to choose the unhealthy pizza but the chicken and the vegetables, while at the same time encouraging the use of, for instance, pre-workout supplements:

Yes, it happens that we tend to push each other not to take the pizza, and rather take the chicken and rice or salmon and salmon and pasta with broccoli and try to have that vegetable on the side of the meal if we cook together […] But it’s also the other way around, that, yes, you have to buy that pre-workout because it was insanely good, so it goes a bit both ways.

Although the athletes rarely discuss supplements in a broad sense, there is the impression that they are not overly scared about bringing up the topic in the peer groups. In some groups, supplements are visible, but not necessarily brought up in discussions. Athletes describe supplements as something that just is or that they just do, and not necessarily as controversial issues in need of discussion.

Internet: ambiguity

The internet, as an actor group, comprises various actors, and the selected quotes used to illustrate this group do not provide a comprehensive representation of them.

The fluctuating levels of trust imply that ambiguity characterises this actor. Apart from the official websites of ADNO and Olympiatoppen² (OLT), most athletes are sceptical about the information they find online. Other sources they mention from the internet are influencers and athletes. The internet generally does not appear as a widely used source. At the same time, some athletes say they get curious about supplements that are claimed to have an effect, though, they frequently state that it is not safe to follow internet advice. Lilly’s reasoning on online promotions by influencers can serve as an illustration:

Yes, I think it’s a bit scary because I don’t quite know why they promote it. Whether it’s because they know a lot about it, it’s because it has worked for them, or it’s because they get paid.

One source of uncertainty is whether influencers and athletes are sponsored and promote products solely for monetary gain. If the recommendations come from elite athletes, especially those that are reputable, the athletes are more positive. Jack reflects on who he thinks is trustworthy on the Internet and who is not:

On social media, you are critical because it is most likely for the money. There are always many people doing everything for money. But if it had been a national team athlete, an elite athlete, and you know that they use it, don’t just say that they use it, then I wouldn’t be so critical because they are at the top and are tested all the time.

The athletes’ discussion about internet as a source to supplement knowledge is characterised by ambiguous trustworthiness. On the one hand, ADNO and OLT’s web pages are considered viable sources of information. Likewise, elite athletes are met with certain credibility and sometimes used as inspiration concerning nutrition. On the other hand, advice coming from influencers is described as questionable as their motives are unclear.

Other athletes: an anti-doping identity

This actor group consists of athletes not part of the athletes’ ingroup—meaning athletes from other sports, other nations, etc. Therefore, with this actor group, there is not necessarily face-to-face interaction, and the actor group is mainly relevant in athletes’ construction of their anti-doping identity. The reasoning of the athletes testifies to an ‘us versus them’-logic, in their reasoning about doping on other sport milieus. One such view is expressed by some team sport players, who describe their sport as too complex to gain an advantage by using doping, whereas they argue that endurance athletes, especially individual athletes, have a lot to win.

Lucas explains why he thinks doping is more present in cycling and are not relevant in his own team sport:

It doesn’t help a lot in [my sport] as it might do in cycling because in cycling, it’s about having good endurance and doping substances is absolutely perfect. But in [my sport], it’s like maybe doping substances make you stronger, but being strong doesn’t mean you become a better player, so there’s not much like that in [my sport].

Jack shares Lucas’ view on how certain athletes, such as individual endurance sports athletes, have more to gain by using doping:

There is not so much doping in our sport, as for example in cross-country skiing and cycling, which need fitness, there it is very easy to find something that can help you with that.

Also, this assumption about who has the advantage to gain from doping impacts the athletes’ thoughts about whom the anti-doping education and information are more relevant for. Charlotte expresses that she thinks other athletes, such as cross-country athletes, benefit more from the anti-doping lectures:

They have a bit of it in their milieu, so I would think that they might get more out of that education and take it to heart more than we do.

Overall, when athletes contemplate where doping might be more frequent, certain sports and countries more easily come to mind, such as endurance sports and Russia. In other words, it is harder for the respondents to picture doping in their milieu, sport, or country. Although other athletes differ a bit from the other actors, as this is not an actor used for information and discussions and so on, the actor still shapes athletes’ construction of meaning. It seems especially salient in constructing athletes’ anti-doping identity, both personally, who they see themselves as athletes, but also related to their milieu and even the nation.

Discussion

One ambition of this article is to further develop Connor’s (2009) concept of the networked athlete and show how the network can look like in a youth sport context. He suggests that the concept can contribute to ‘understand the micro-sociological interactions in this peculiar social world; that of the elite athlete’ (Connor, 2009, p. 339).

Our analysis of the actors in athletes’ network and how they contribute to athletes’ meaning-making about various supplements and anti-doping, shows the relevance of the networked athlete concept. The uncovering of several actors outside the support personnel having considerable influence illustrates the complexity of the social web of which athletes are parts. The networked athlete concept is mainly an inspiration and included to remind us of how ‘the athlete is part of a social web’ (Connor, 2009, p. 339). In combination, however, it provides a useful perspective through which the relations between athletes and various actors with varying relational and interactional quality can be analysed.

The network of actors identified illustrates the multiple interactions athletes engage in, some taking the form of personal relationships and others as interactions with elite athletes online. Regardless of the form and quality of the relationship and interaction between athletes and the various actors, we argue they are all part of the athletes’ meaning-making. From the symbolic interactionism standpoint, athletes’ meaning-making of various supplements and anti-doping remains an ongoing formative process, not an arena for the expression of pre-existing meanings. According to Blumer it is the interactional elements, indications and definitions that determine meaning and status to objects, suggesting they have no fixed status (Blumer, 1969, pp. 10–12). In our context, this means that meaning about supplements, anti-doping and so on arises from athletes’ interactions with their network. With our analysis we go beyond, parents and coaches, often referred to as the athletic triangle (Smoll et al., 2011, p. 14) and the support personnel (Patterson et al., 2023), and display the scope of the athletes’ network. Considering the various relationships to the actor groups, some being formal in character as with anti-doping personnel, others being semi-formal as with coaches, and some personal as with family and close teammates, it is not startling that the actor groups contribute differently to athletes meaning-making. The findings illustrate the diversity of proximity from athletes to the different actor groups, and also aim to relflect varioations inside the actor groups. The face-to-face interaction that Goffman (1964–1983/2020) emphasises in his work is highly relevant, as several of the actors are in the same PEUSS context with the youth athletes. However, actors ‘further’ away also play a role in athletes’ meaning-making. For example, young athletes carry values about a healthy diet from family upbringing as they move out, and elite athletes online can inform and inspire when it comes to various forms of performance-enhancement.

In our study, we found seven actor groups with which athletes interact. Coaches and other experts (e.g. physiotherapists and dietitians) are described as a knowledgeable and helpful actor group approachable in athletes’ everyday life. Many similar descriptions can be found when athletes describe the schools’ contribution (e.g. teachers, coordinators). When athletes refer to the school, they indirectly also refer to some of the same individuals as in the coach and other experts actor group. They are all described as helpful in facilitating athletes’ everyday life and as generally conveying the message that permitted substances such as nutritional supplements are unnecessary. Our impression is that athletes, in communicating that supplements are redundant, respect their opinions and trust their knowledge. However, it is our interpretation that interaction with other actors such as teammates, with other and more liberal views sometimes weigh more heavily. These findings illustrate that the asymmetrical coach and athlete power relationship (Kerr & Stirling, 2012) does not necessarily mean that coaches’ view have primacy even if their messages are clear and is infused with more authority.

As stated above, teammates are, in some cases, the actor group that drives the meaning ascribed to nutritional supplements in a less strict direction, facilitating more exploration. The interaction among teammates can be both verbal, in the form of positive pressure and recommendations, and non-verbal in the form of behaviour, for in seeing teammates having a protein shake after a training session or an energy drinks on the desk in class. The desire to belong and identify with the group (Bruhn, 2009), in this case, teammates and classmates, can overrule expert advice. This seems more likely to be the case in ambiguous situations with nutritional supplements and not so much in situations with banned substances.

Another actor group reported by the athletes to have restrictive views on nutritional supplements is the parents (actor group family). In line with the school, coaches and other experts, parents seem to have some authority in this concern. Their views are expressed in explicit messages similar to the coaches and teachers about supplements as unnecessary and potentially dangerous (contamination). The interaction with parents is also more implicit. As the primary persons in the athletes’ socialisation, their role in internalisation of values and habits has a lasting importance in youth athletes’ lives (Côté, 1999). The importance of primary socialisation related to nutrition is supported by a previous survey study with an athlete and non-athlete sample (aged 13–25) revealing that the family represents an important source of information (Vázquez-Espino et al., 2022).

The interaction with the actor group other athletes somewhat differs from actors in everyday interaction. Several times, other athletes act as a group the young athletes prefer to distance themselves from. This projection of a certain image of themselves resonates with what Goffman (2004) describes as facework: different acts people do, both defensive and protective, ensuring that the wanted impression come across. It is not particularly startling that the young athletes want to voice an anti-doping identity of themselves. However, it is noteworthy that the groups used to separate ‘them’ from ‘us’ are athletes present at their schools but belonging to other sports, as well as more distant groups, such as ‘Russian athletes’.

ADNO represents several interactional types; an internet resource where the young athletes find information and an organisation that holds seminars at the school (or online). ADNO’s visibility and persistence seem central to why athletes doubt there exist much doping in Norway. On the other hand, the athletes do not always see the relevance of the lectures about prohibited substances. This can be related to athletes assuming they will never consider or use doping. Another interpretation is that the strong anti-doping discourse stands in the way of youth athletes seeing the relevance of the lectures that promote anti-doping behaviour. Research from the Norwegian context has illustrated that the strong national anti-doping discourse can restrain athletes from having open discussions about potential dilemmas – and as a consequence also hinder them from preparing for such dilemmas later in their careers (Sandvik et al., 2017).

Concerning the internet, apart from web pages such as ADNO’s, the athletes express a certain scepticism. They are particularly critical of the intentions of non-athlete individuals who share advice and experiences with exercise and food, as they suspect it can be motivated by money. A national survey has shown increased social media use among Norwegian youth, estimating an average of 74% of them spend more than three hours a day in front of a screen outside of school hours (Bakken, 2022). A recent quantitative survey representing mostly non-elite youths in Australia showed that their use of online expertise (19%) equalled their use of dietitians (20%) (Trakman et al., 2019). Hence, we expected online actors to exert some impact on the young athletes’ meaning-making in these respects. Although some athletes seek information online, it is our interpretation that they are, to some extent, more restricted in their internet consumption than non-athlete youths. This can be due to the specific context of the sport schools, where athletes are educated frequently and systematically in training and healthy eating and where they are physically surrounded by coaches and experts considered to possess sound knowledge.

In general, the strongly articulated antidoping position from most actor groups seems to exert a general influence on the young athletes. From our theoretical view, this anti-doping position can act as a frame. In Goffman’s work a frame has consequence for meaning constructions related to objects, events and actions, and also shapes what can be said and communicated in the specific context (Goffman, 1974). Frames can be understood as some ground rules, that help individuals read their reality. In our study this means that the athletes’ world becomes comprehensible through the frames used. When it comes to nutritional supplements, the anti-doping frame is the main driver of the athletes’ explicit distance from it. Although being permitted, athletes’ main perception from the face-to-face interaction actors is that nutritional supplements are unnecessary and not negotiable. Although there is a certain statistical chance that nutritional supplements may be contaminated (Helle et al., 2019), other products such as nutritional bars with similar content are framed differently.

Although not every single actor in athletes’ lives is covered in this article, we have extended the subject of analysis and complemented previous research that has focused on how certain actors have influence, such as coaches (Barkoukis et al., 2019) and other support personnel (Patterson et al., 2023). Recent research has also considered other stakeholders (agents, race organisers, and sponsors) and their responsibility in doping issues (Shelley et al., 2023). We argue that this line of research supports Connor’s (2009) goal of understanding the interactions going on in athletes’ social world. It is reasonable to assume that the actors who have a considerable impact on athletes’ meaning-making regarding the matters discussed in this paper also exert significant influence on other issues, such as training volume, how to become a serious athlete, and so on. Therefore, we argue that the networked athlete concept can be fruitful for further exploration of youth athletes and their navigation in the search for their athlete identity.

Limitations and practical implications

As seen in the study of Sandvik et al. (2017), the strong anti-doping discourse, to some degree, restricts the athletes’ willingness to elaborate on these issues in the interviews. Based on the impact of the anti-doping discourse on verbal communication (Bloodworth & McNamee, 2010) and the athletes’ emphasis on non-verbal communication in interaction about nutritional supplements, it would be interesting to observe how this plays out in their context, for example by studying gestures and body language. For future research, a comparison of described interaction in interviews and observed interaction, could contribute insights into their handling of a potential dissonance.

Our exploration of the diverse network of actors involved in athletes’ meaning-making underscores the necessity for athletes to engage with multiple perspectives and navigate potentially differing points of view. The insights presented here are crucial to enable an environment where sensitive issues such as the use of performance-enhancing substances and so-called grey zones that trigger doubt are more freely discussed. Professionals who work with young athletes can benefit from these insights to create an environment where young athletes feel safe and empowered to define their own goals and ambitions in their (sporting) lives.

Disclosure statement

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

Notes

1 A common term that defines the distribution of different foods on the plate. From Norwegian governments the recommendation is 1/3 vegetables, 1/3 carbohydrates and 1/3 fish, meat or vegetarian (Helsenorge, 2021).

2 Olympiatoppen is an organisational body of The Norwegian Confederation of Sports and has the operational responsibility and authority to develop Norwegian elite sport, and the overall responsibility for the results in Norwegian elite sport.