Improving antidoping education for coaches in Greece: A questionnaire-based study on knowledge gaps and recommendations for enhancement

Abstract

Background

Coaches play a critical role as athlete support personnel in shaping attitudes and behaviors related to clean sport. Despite their influence, evidence suggests that coaches’ antidoping knowledge and operational readiness may be inconsistent, increasing the risk of inadvertent antidoping rule violations.

Purpose

This study aimed to assess baseline antidoping knowledge, awareness, and perceived ethical influences among coaches in Greece prior to participation in a structured antidoping education program, and to identify priority areas for targeted educational intervention.

Methods

A cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to 633 coaches from multiple sports disciplines between August 2023 and April 2024. The questionnaire assessed sociodemographic characteristics, awareness of antidoping organizations and rules, knowledge of prohibited substances, Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs), testing procedures, supplement and medication risks, use of digital compliance tools, and ethical pressures related to performance. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and 95% confidence intervals were used.

Results

While general awareness of antidoping organizations was high, substantial knowledge gaps were identified. Only 25.57% of respondents reported knowledge of the 11 antidoping rule violations, and 78.06% were unfamiliar with TUEs. Awareness and use of digital tools such as Global DRO and ADAMS were limited. Although most coaches rejected the use of unfair means, performance-related pressures emerged as a salient ethical influence. Supplement use was common, despite uncertainty regarding contamination risks.

Conclusions

The findings reveal important deficits in operational antidoping knowledge among coaches, particularly in areas associated with inadvertent doping risk and regulatory compliance. These results highlight the need for coach-focused education that emphasizes applied competence, ethical decision-making, and digital literacy.

Keywords

Doping ethics health medication prohibited substances supplements therapeutic use exemption

Introduction

Educating coaches on antidoping is a central component of maintaining fairness, athlete health, and ethical integrity in contemporary sport. As athlete support personnel, coaches play a pivotal role in shaping training environments, influencing decision-making processes, and guiding athletes’ understanding of acceptable practices. Despite sustained global efforts led by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and international federations, growing evidence indicates that both athletes and coaches continue to demonstrate insufficient knowledge of key antidoping principles.¹

The consequences of inadequate antidoping knowledge extend beyond regulatory non-compliance. In practice, limited understanding of supplement contamination risks, medication verification procedures, and testing protocols may increase the likelihood of inadvertent anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs), even in the absence of intentional doping. Such violations can lead to athlete suspensions, loss of competitive opportunities, reputational damage, and financial penalties.^2,3 In addition, poor decision-making regarding supplement use or recovery strategies may compromise athlete health, increase injury risk, and disrupt long-term performance development.^4,5 Psychological consequences, including stress and stigma following sanctions, further highlight the broader impact of doping-related violations.^6–8

Doping behavior is widely understood as a multifactorial phenomenon shaped by personal, social, and environmental influences.^9–11 Within this framework, coaches represent a critical interpersonal influence, acting as role models and mediators of ethical norms within sport settings.^12,13 Their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors can either reinforce clean sport values or inadvertently contribute to risk environments. Consequently, insufficient coach education represents not only an individual knowledge gap but a systemic vulnerability within antidoping efforts.

Several domains are particularly relevant to coaches’ responsibilities. Dietary supplement use remains prevalent across all levels of sport and is associated with increased risk of inadvertent doping due to contamination and inconsistent regulation.¹⁴ Coaches frequently advise athletes on supplement use but may lack the expertise required to evaluate product safety or evidence-based effectiveness. Similarly, limited knowledge of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs), medication verification tools such as Global DRO, and digital compliance systems (e.g., ADAMS) may increase the risk of unintentional violations, particularly in settings with limited medical supervision.

While previous research has explored antidoping knowledge among athletes, comparatively fewer studies have focused specifically on coaches as athlete support personnel, particularly in Southern European contexts. Moreover, existing literature often examines isolated aspects of antidoping knowledge rather than providing a comprehensive assessment that integrates operational knowledge, ethical influences, and digital literacy. Given the increasing complexity of antidoping systems—particularly with the integration of digital platforms and data-driven monitoring tools—there is a clear need for research that captures these interconnected domains.

The present study addresses this gap by providing a large-scale, questionnaire-based assessment of baseline antidoping knowledge, awareness, and ethical influences among coaches in Greece prior to participation in a structured education program. By identifying specific deficiencies in rule-based understanding, procedural literacy, and applied decision-making, this study aims to inform the development of more targeted, role-specific, and practically relevant antidoping education strategies. In doing so, it contributes to a growing body of research advocating a shift from awareness-based education toward competence-based approaches that support long-term compliance and sport integrity.^15,16

In the context of this study, a clear distinction is made between awareness, knowledge, and practical competence. Awareness refers to general familiarity with anti-doping concepts and institutions; knowledge reflects a factual understanding of rules, procedures, and regulations; whereas practical competence denotes the ability to apply this knowledge effectively in real-world situations, such as managing whereabouts information, verifying medications, or navigating digital compliance systems. This distinction is essential for understanding how educational gaps may translate into inadvertent anti-doping rule violations.

Methods

Participants

A total of 633 coaches participated in this study. Participants were recruited through collaboration with national sport federations affiliated with the Hellenic Anti-Doping Agency (EOKAN/HADA). A convenience sampling strategy was employed, targeting actively registered coaches involved in organized sport activities.

Inclusion criteria were: (i) active coaching role at the time of data collection, (ii) affiliation with participating federations, and (iii) voluntary provision of informed consent. Participants who did not complete at least 80% of the questionnaire were excluded from analysis. The final sample represented a wide range of sports disciplines, including combat sports, endurance sports, Olympic disciplines, and recreational sports. A cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to 633 coaches from multiple sports disciplines between August 2023 and April 2024. The survey covered sociodemographic characteristics and key anti-doping knowledge domains, including awareness of anti-doping organizations and regulations, prohibited substances, Therapeutic Use Exemptions, testing procedures, supplement and medication risks, use of digital compliance tools, and ethical pressures related to performance. A comprehensive summary of the assessed variables is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Statistical analysis of Coaches’ Questionnaire before education program. Data represented as Number of responses (N), percentages (%), 95% CI and p value. For Q2, responses were reported as the number of participants (N), the corresponding years, 95% CI and p value.

Questions	Coaches (N = 633)	95% CI	p value
	N (%)
Antidoping Αgency
Q1: What is your sex?
Men	437(70.38)	65.43% to 72.64%	p < 0.001
Women	196(29.62)	27.36% to 34.57%
Q2: What is your age?
Years	633(39.5years)
Q3: What is your highest level of education?
High school	189(29.85)	26.29% to 33.42%.	p > 0.05
College-University	405(63.98)	60.24% to 67.72%.
Master	33(5.21)	3.48% to 6.94%.
PhD	6(0.96)	0.19% to 1.70%.
Q4: How many years of experience do you have in the sport?
0 to 10 years	84(13.3)	10.63% to 15.91%.	p > 0.05
11 to 20 years	159(25.11)	21.74% to 28.50%.
21 to 30 years	168(26.54)	23.10% to 29.98%.
31 to 40 years	165(26.06)	22.65% to 29.49%.
41 to 50 years	45(7.1)	5.11% to 9.11%.
51 to 60 years	12(1.89)	0.83% to2.96%.
Q5: How many years of professional experience do you have in the sport?
0 years	85(13.42)	10.30% to 16.44%	p < 0.05
1 to 10 years	233(40.44)	32.80% to 40.46%
11 to 20 years	177(26.09)	24.07% to 31.59%
21 to 30 years	82(11.91)	9.91% to 15.93%
31 to 44 years	59(8.14)	6.90% to 11.66%
Antidoping Education
Q6: Have you, as an athlete, or your athletes ever been submitted to a doping control test?
No	430(64.95)	64.31% to 71.59%	p < 0.05
Yes	203(35.05)	28.5% to 35.6%.
Q7: Have you ever participated in an anti-doping education activity/program?
No	386(61.32)	57.31% to 64.89%	p > 0.05
Yes	247(38.68)	35.11% to 42.69%
Sport Ethics
Q8: To what extent do the following factors impact your behavior? Large financial rewards.
None	163(26.45)	21.7% to 29.7%	p > 0.05
Low	134(20.95)	17.4% to 25.0%
Moderate	212(33.53)	29.1% to 37.9%
High	84(12.84)	10.4% to 16.2%
Very high	23(3.47)	2.1% to 5.1%
No response	17(2.76)	1.6% to 3.8%
Q9: To what extent do the following factors impact your behavior? Gaining fame and prestige.
None	118(18.64)	15.61% to 21.68%	p < 0.05
Low	91(14.38)	11.64% to 17.11%
Moderate	199(31.44)	27.82% to 35.05%
High	102(16.11)	13.25% to 18.98%
Very high	65(10.27)	7.90% to 12.63%
No response	58(9.16)	6.92% to 11.41%
Q10: To what extent do the following factors impact your behavior? Achieving better competition results.
None	66(11.34)	8.86% to 13.82%	p < 0.05
Low	52(7.91)	5.83% to 9.99%
Moderate	116(18.33)	15.27% to 21.39%
High	167(26.42)	22.97% to 29.87%
Very high	215(33.46)	30.10% to 36.82%
No response	17(2.54)	1.74% to 3.34%
Q11: Have you ever conducted research, either as an athlete or as athlete support personnel
(ASP) (e.g., coach, doctor, physiotherapist, etc.), related to prohibited substances?
No	459(74.32)	71.94% to 76.70%	p < 0.05
Yes	174(25.68)	23.30% to 28.06%
Q12: Have you ever considered using unfair means to achieve a specific goal, either as an athlete or
as athlete support personnel (ASP) (e.g., coach, doctor, physiotherapist, etc.)?
No	592(93.4)	91.91% to 94.89%	p < 0.05
Yes	41(6.6)	5.11% to 8.09%
Antidoping education −18.2 article of WADA Code
Q13: Do you know WADA?
No	134(21.09)	17.97% to 24.01%.	p < 0.05
Yes	499(78.91)	75.79% to 82.03%.
Q14: Do you know which the 11 anti-doping rule violations are?
No	473(72.43)	69.74% to 75.05%	p < 0.05
Yes	160(25.57)	23.59% to 27.55%
Q15: Do you know what the sample collection procedure entails?
No	223(34.08)	31.51% to 38.95%	p > 0.05
Yes	410(65.92)	61.05% to 68.49%
TUE, Biological passport and use of medication
Q16: Are dietary supplements tested for banned substances?
No	348(54.17)	51.10% to 58.85%	p > 0.05
Yes	285(45.83)	41.15% to 48.90%
Q17: Do you know how you can check if a medication is prohibited in-competition
and/or out-of-competition?
No	146(23.06)	19.78% and 26.35%	p > 0.05
Yes	212(33.5)	29.81% and 37.17%
No response	275(43.44)	39.58% and 47.31%
Q18: Are you familiar with the GlobalDro website?
No	445(71.3)	66.74% to 73.86%	p > 0.05
Yes	188(28.7)	26.14% to 33.26%.
Q19: If you are familiar with GlobalDro, do you know how to use it?
No	271(42.81)	39.41% to 46.21	p > 0.05
Yes	20(3.15)	2.02% to 4.28%
No response	342(54.04)	50.15% to 57.91%
Q20: Do you know what a TUE is? (Therapeutic Use Exemption)
No	504(78.06)	76.34% to 79.78%	p < 0.05
Yes	129(21.94)	19.50% to 24.38%
Q21: Do you know what a Biological Passport is?
No	491(76.43)	74.5% and 78.4%	p < 0.05
Yes	145(23.57)	21.6% and 25.5%
Q22: What are the consequences of using/distributing prohibited substances? (Select all the correct answers)
Economical	84(12.28)	10.63% to 15.91%	p > 0.05
Disciplinary	196(31.56)	27.36% to 34.57%
Social	130(20.91)	17.39% to 23.68%
Psychological	99(14.25)	12.81% to 18.47%
Penal	79(14.33)	9.91% to 15.05%
Health	45(6.67)	5.11% to 9.11%
Whereabouts and ADAMS
Q23: Do you know what whereabouts and the ADAMS system are?
No	449(70.9)	67.21% to 74.61%	p < 0.05
Yes	184(29.1)	25.39% to 32.79%
Risk of supplements use
Q24: Have you ever used dietary supplements as an athlete, or encouraged your athletes to use them?
No	281(46.5)	42.5% to 50.5%.	p > 0.05
Yes	352(53.5)	49.5% to 57.5%.
Q25: Have you conducted any research on these supplements? If so, what criteria did you use to select them?
Medical	39(6.94)	4.90% to 9.00%	p > 0.05
Trainer	22(6.02)	3.95% to 8.09%
Dietician	43(6.46)	4.38% to 8.54%
Research publication	2(0.36)	0.00% to 0.88%
Internet	29(4.16)	2.47% to 5.85%
Pharmacist	7(1.22)	0.21% to 2.23%
Blood test results	8(1.33)	0.28% to 2.38%
Friends	8(1.61)	0.56% to 2.66%
Company	5(0.85)	0.00% to 1.88%
Quality and price	21(3.52)	2.03% to 5.01%
Health	10(1.28)	0.21% to 2.35%
No	55(6.57)	4.68% to 8.46%
Yes	36(4.25)	2.56% to 5.94%
No response	348(58.38)	55.43% to 61.33%

Questionnaire validity

The questionnaire was developed based on established theoretical frameworks, including Social Cognitive Theory and the Theory of Planned Behavior, and aligned with the World Anti-Doping Code¹⁷ and International Standard for Education. Content validity was ensured through expert review by antidoping educators and practitioners. As the instrument was designed as a diagnostic needs-assessment tool rather than a psychometric scale, formal internal consistency reliability testing (e.g., Cronbach's alpha) was not applied.

Data handling and missing data

Data were screened for completeness prior to analysis. Missing responses were retained and reported explicitly as “no response” to preserve transparency. Analyses were conducted using a complete-case approach for each variable, with percentages calculated based on the total sample size. No imputation procedures were applied.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using GraphPad Prism (version 10.0, GraphPad Software, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses and are presented as frequencies (N) and percentages (%).

Chi-square tests were used to assess differences between observed and expected frequencies where appropriate. Prior to analysis, assumptions of independence of observations and minimum expected cell counts (>5) were evaluated. Where these assumptions were not fully met, results were interpreted with caution.

Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated to estimate population proportions. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. As the study employed a cross-sectional design, analyses were limited to descriptive and associative interpretations, and no causal inferences were made.

Results

Interpretation of findings

The results provide a baseline profile of coaches’ anti-doping awareness and knowledge prior to education. While general awareness of organizations such as WADA was relatively high, gaps were observed in key operational areas, including rule violations, Therapeutic Use Exemptions, digital tools, and compliance procedures.

The gender imbalance observed among respondents suggests uneven engagement with antidoping education opportunities. While the data do not allow causal inference, the underrepresentation of female coaches may reflect broader structural or cultural barriers to participation, indicating a need for more inclusive and targeted educational outreach. In contrast, age, educational background, and years of coaching experience were not associated with participation, suggesting that knowledge gaps persist across experience levels and are not resolved through professional longevity alone.

Findings related to supplement use and medication verification indicate elevated risk for inadvertent antidoping rule violations. The widespread use of dietary supplements, combined with uncertainty about testing procedures and limited use of verification tools such as Global DRO, suggests that many coaches may lack the practical skills required to support athletes in managing everyday compliance risks. Similarly, limited awareness of whereabouts requirements and the ADAMS system indicate insufficient digital literacy in areas central to modern antidoping governance.

Ethical influences reported by respondents reveal that competitive success is perceived as a stronger driver of behavior than financial rewards or fame. Although most coaches reported never considering unethical practices, the prominence of performance pressure underscores the importance of embedding ethical decision-making within coach education. Together, these findings indicate that effective antidoping education for coaches should extend beyond rule awareness to include applied competence, ethical reasoning, and contextual risk management.

Overall, the results highlight the need for education strategies that are role-specific, practically oriented, and sensitive to structural and contextual factors influencing coaches’ engagement with antidoping systems. Establishing this baseline understanding provides a foundation for designing targeted interventions aimed at strengthening coaches’ capacity to support clean sport and reduce the risk of unintentional violations.

Sample characteristics

A total of 633 coaches completed the questionnaire. The sample was predominantly male (70.38%), while 29.62% of respondents were female, indicating a statistically significant gender imbalance (χ², p < 0.001). The mean age of participants was 39.5 years, suggesting that the sample largely consisted of experienced coaches.

Regarding educational attainment, most respondents held a college or university degree (63.98%), followed by high school education (29.85%), a master's degree (5.21%), and a PhD (0.96%). Statistical analysis revealed no significant association between education level and participation in antidoping education.

Coaching experience was widely distributed across categories. The largest proportion of respondents reported 21–30 years (26.54%) or 31–40 years (26.06%) of experience, followed by 11–20 years (25.11%). In terms of professional experience, 40.44% reported 1–10 years, while smaller proportions reported longer professional careers. No statistically significant relationship was observed between years of experience and participation in antidoping education. Overall, gender was the only demographic factor significantly associated with participation.

Exposure to anti-doping testing and education

Most respondents (64.95%) reported that neither they nor their athletes had previously been subjected to doping control testing, while 35.05% reported prior exposure. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

With respect to formal antidoping education, 61.32% of respondents reported never having participated in an antidoping education activity or program, whereas 38.68% indicated prior participation. The relatively close proportions of respondents who had been tested and those who had received education aligned with the WADA principle of prioritizing education before testing.

Ethics-related influences and research behavior

Achieving better competition results emerged as the most influential factor affecting behavior, with 59.88% of respondents rating its impact as high or very high. Financial rewards and fame or prestige was more frequently perceived as having a moderate influence. No statistically significant differences were observed across response categories for these factors.

Most respondents (74.32%) reported never having conducted research related to prohibited substances. In addition, 93.4% stated that they had never considered using unfair means to achieve a specific goal, either as athletes or as athlete support personnel.

Awareness of anti-doping organizations and rule structure

Most respondents (78.91%) reported being aware of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), while 21.09% indicated no awareness. In contrast, knowledge of the 11 antidoping rule violations was limited: only 25.57% reported being familiar with them, whereas 72.43% indicated they were not. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Knowledge of doping control procedures

Approximately two-thirds of respondents (65.92%) reported knowing what the sample collection procedure entails, while 34.08% reported that they did not. No statistically significant difference was observed between awareness categories, although a substantial minority lacked familiarity with testing procedures.

Knowledge related to supplements, medications, and digital tools

Regarding dietary supplements, 54.17% of respondents reported uncertainty or lack of awareness about whether supplements are tested for banned substances, while 45.83% reported that they are tested.

When asked about checking medication status for in-competition or out-of-competition use, 33.5% reported knowing how to do so, 23.06% reported not knowing, and 43.44% did not respond.

Familiarity with the Global DRO website was limited, with 28.7% reporting awareness and 71.3% reporting no familiarity. Knowledge of how to use Global DRO was particularly low, with only 3.15% reporting confidence in using the platform, while 42.81% reported that they did not know how to use it; more than half of respondents did not provide a response.

Therapeutic use exemptions and athlete biological passport

Only 21.94% of respondents reported knowing what a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) is, while 78.06% reported unfamiliarity, representing a statistically significant knowledge gap (p < 0.05). Similarly, 23.57% reported knowing what the Athlete Biological Passport is, whereas 76.43% reported that they were not familiar with this antidoping tool.

Awareness of whereabouts and ADAMS

Less than one-third of respondents (29.1%) reported knowing what the whereabouts system and ADAMS are, while 70.9% reported no awareness. This discrepancy was statistically significant (p < 0.05), indicating limited familiarity with key compliance systems.

Perceived consequences of prohibited substance use

When asked about the consequences of using or distributing prohibited substances, disciplinary consequences were most frequently identified (31.56%), followed by social (20.91%) and psychological consequences (14.25%). Health-related consequences were selected least frequently (6.67%), suggesting comparatively lower awareness of health risks associated with doping.

Dietary supplement use and selection criteria

More than half of respondents (53.5%) reported having used dietary supplements themselves or having encouraged their athletes to use them, while 46.5% reported not doing so. No statistically significant deviation from expected proportions was observed.

Regarding criteria used to select supplements, a substantial proportion of respondents (58.38%) did not report any selection criteria. Among those who did respond, consultation with medical professionals, dieticians, or trainers was reported more frequently than reliance on research publications, pharmacists, or company-provided information, including third-party certification programs. This distribution indicates variability in information sources and limited reliance on evidence-based resources.

Discussion

Importantly, the present findings highlight a distinction between awareness, knowledge, and practical competence. While many coaches demonstrate general awareness of anti-doping institutions, this does not necessarily translate into the applied skills required for real-world compliance. This gap suggests that education strategies should move beyond information provision toward competence-based approaches that enable coaches to act effectively in complex, real-life scenarios.

From an applied perspective, the identified knowledge gaps have direct implications for athlete safety and performance. For example, the finding that only 21.94% of coaches were familiar with Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) suggests that a substantial proportion of athletes may be at risk of non-compliant medication use. Similarly, limited awareness and use of digital tools such as Global DRO and ADAMS may increase the likelihood of administrative errors, including whereabouts failures, which can result in sanctions independent of substance use. These findings indicate that deficiencies in operational knowledge may translate into real-world risks affecting athlete eligibility, training continuity, and competitive performance.

Taken together, these findings support a shift from knowledge-based education toward competence-driven and practice-oriented models, in line with the International Standard for Education, emphasizing not only what coaches know, but what they are able to do in practice.^18–65

Practical implications

From an applied perspective, the identified knowledge gaps have direct implications for athlete safety and performance. The finding that only 21.94% of coaches were familiar with TUEs suggests that many athletes may be at risk of non-compliant medication use. Similarly, limited awareness of Global DRO and ADAMS may increase the likelihood of administrative violations, including whereabouts failures. These deficiencies may affect athlete eligibility, disrupt training, and compromise performance outcomes.

Future anti-doping education programmes could benefit from incorporating scenario-based learning approaches, where coaches engage with realistic cases involving therapeutic use exceptions, supplement risks, or whereabouts reporting. In addition, guided training in the use of digital tools such as ADAMS and Global DRO may improve practical competence and reduce the likelihood of inadvertent anti-doping rule violations.

In practical terms, education programs may benefit from incorporating scenario-based learning approaches, where coaches are presented with realistic situations involving supplement use, medication verification, or whereabouts compliance. Simulation-based exercises—such as guided use of ADAMS, Global DRO, or supplement risk evaluation platforms—can further enhance applied competence. These approaches allow participants to actively engage with decision-making processes, reducing the likelihood of inadvertent anti-doping rule violations in real-world settings.

Causality statement

As this study is cross-sectional, findings reflect associations rather than causal relationships. It cannot be determined whether knowledge deficits directly result in antidoping violations.

Alternative explanations

Limited digital literacy may reflect broader structural barriers such as access to education or technological resources. Supplement use behaviors may also be influenced by cultural and commercial factors.

Causality limitation

It is important to emphasize that the present findings reflect associations rather than causal relationships. Due to the cross-sectional design of the study, it is not possible to determine whether knowledge deficits directly result in antidoping rule violations or behavioral outcomes. Future longitudinal research is required to examine how changes in knowledge and education influence compliance and decision-making over time.

Alternative explanations

Alternative explanations should also be considered. For example, limited familiarity with digital tools may reflect broader issues related to access, technological literacy, or organizational support rather than individual knowledge deficits alone. Similarly, supplement use behaviors may be influenced by cultural norms, peer practices, or commercial pressures, highlighting the need for systemic approaches to antidoping education.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive baseline assessment of antidoping knowledge, awareness, and ethical influences among coaches in Greece, highlighting critical gaps in operational understanding, digital literacy, and applied decision-making. These deficiencies are particularly relevant given the evolving complexity of antidoping systems and the increasing reliance on digital compliance tools.

Importantly, the findings underscore that limited knowledge in key areas—such as Therapeutic Use Exemptions, supplement risk management, and whereabouts systems—may increase the likelihood of inadvertent violations, with potential consequences for athlete eligibility, performance continuity, and health. Addressing these gaps requires a shift from traditional awareness-based education toward competence-based, coach-centered learning models that integrate practical skills, ethical reasoning, and digital engagement.

By providing empirically grounded evidence of coaches’ educational needs, this study contributes to the development of more targeted, effective, and context-sensitive antidoping education strategies. Strengthening coach capacity in these areas is essential for safeguarding athlete welfare, supporting informed decision-making, and sustaining the integrity of sport in an increasingly complex regulatory environment.^15,16

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Alkistis Kapelouzou

Ethical considerations

According to the policies of ΕΟΚΑΝ/HADA ethical committee approval was not required for this anonymous questionnaire-based study. The questionnaire was completed anonymously, and no identifiable personal data was collected.

Consent to participate

Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and completion of the questionnaire was considered to indicate informed consent to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable, as no identifiable personal data are included in this study.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. A detailed description of the questionnaire structure, administration procedures, and analytical approach has been provided to facilitate transparency and reproducibility.

References

Backhouse

Whitaker

Patterson

, et al. Social Psychology of Doping in Sport: A Mixed-Studies Narrative synthesis. World Anti-Doping Agency: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2016.

Blank

Flatscher-Thöni

Gatterer

, et al. Doping sanctions in sport: knowledge and perception of (legal) consequences of doping—an explorative study in Austria. J. Risk Financ Manag 2021; 14: 03.

Petersen

Jung

. Sanctions in doping: the harsh reality of strict liability and collective punishment. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport 2019; 54: 181–197.

Backhouse

Whitaker

Petróczi

. Doping in sport: perceived deterrents and reasons for use. Psychol. Sport Exerc 2007; 8: 545–560.

Nikolopoulos

Spiliopoulou

Theocharis

. Doping and musculoskeletal system: short-term and long-lasting effects of doping agents. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2011; 25: 535–563.

Georgiadis

Papazoglou

. The experience of competition ban following a positive doping sample of elite athletes. J. Clin. Sport Psychol 2014; 8: 57–74.

Donovan

Egger

Kapernick

, et al. A conceptual framework for achieving performance enhancing drug compliance in sport. Sports Med 2002; 32: 269–284.

Jones

Williams

. Coach-athlete collaboration in anti-doping education. Int. J. Sports Educ 2014; 8: 72–84.

Blank

Kopp

Niedermeier

, et al. Predictors of doping intentions, susceptibility, and behaviour of elite athletes: a meta-analytic review. Springer Plus 2016; 5: 1333.

10.

Erickson

McKenna

Backhouse

. A qualitative analysis of the factors that protect athletes against doping in sport. Psychol. Sport Exerc 2015; 16: 149–155.

11.

Ntoumanis

JYY

Barkoukis

, et al. Personal and psychosocial predictors of doping use in physical activity settings: a meta-analysis. Sports Med 2014; 44: 1603–1624.

12.

Backhouse

Whitaker

Petroczi

. Gateway to doping? Supplement use in the context of preferred competitive situations, doping attitude, beliefs, and norms. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2013; 23: 244–252.

13.

Kirby

Moran

Guerin

. A qualitative analysis of the experiences of elite athletes who have admitted to doping for performance enhancement. Int. J. Sport Policy Polit 2011; 3: 205–224.

14.

Dodge

Robertson

. Justifications for unethical behavior in sport: the role of the coach. Can. J. Women Coach 2004; 4: 1–17.

15.

Backhouse

Whitaker

Petróczi

. Reframing antidoping education: from compliance to capability building. Int. J. Sport Policy Polit 2024; 16: 45–61.

16.

Henning

Dimeo

. Athlete support personnel and regulatory burden: navigating complexity in modern antidoping systems. Sport Soc 2024; 27: 389–405.

17.

The World Anti-Doping Code: 2021 Prohibited List. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2021list_en.pdf (2021 (2021, accessed January 2026).

18.

López

García

Rodríguez

. Universal antidoping education programs: reaching athletes at all levels. Int. J. Sport Policy Polit 2020; 12: 265–278.

19.

McNamee

Parry

. Interactive approaches to antidoping education: increasing athlete engagement. J. Sport Health Educ 2021; 5: 42–56.

20.

Petróczi

Haugen

. Artificial intelligence, big data, and the future of anti-doping governance. Perform. Enhanc. Health 2024; 12: 100230.

21.

International Standard for Education. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/world-anti-doping-code-and-international-standards/international-standard-education-ise (2021, accessed January 2026).

22.

Czarnota

Dimeo

. The effectiveness of tailored antidoping education programs for athletes at different experience levels. J. Sports Ethics Doping Control 2019; 15: 134–145.

23.

Waddington

. The role of antidoping education in creating a culture of clean sport. Int. J. Sport Policy Polit 2019; 11: 495–511.

24.

Backhouse

. Ethical decision-making and antidoping education: a conceptual framework. J. Sport Soc. Issues 2020; 44: 30–51.

25.

Gauthier

Leclerc

. Enhancing engagement in antidoping education: the role of interactive learning. Sports Educ. Rev 2021; 32: 88–95.

26.

Hall

Mehta

Patton

. Peer-led education in sports: fostering trust and accountability in antidoping initiatives. J. Sport Integr 2018; 27: 120–128.

27.

Varga

Molnar

. Tailoring antidoping education for athletes at various career stages. J. Sports Sci. Med 2020; 19: 50–58.

28.

Thomas

Chalmers

. Continuous education and feedback mechanisms in antidoping programs. J. Doping Prev. Aware 2018; 3: 89–102.

29.

Smith

Brown

. Enhancing athlete awareness of antidoping: ethical considerations and educational strategies. J. Sport Integr 2018; 34: 45–56.

30.

Anderson

Miller

. Campaign strategies to improve doping control participation. Sport Policy Rev 2020; 12: 204–213.

31.

Jones

Williams

. Coach-athlete collaboration in antidoping education. Int. J. Sports Educ 2019; 8: 72–84.

32.

McNamee

Møller

. Ethics, pressure, and performance in elite sport: rethinking responsibility in antidoping. J. Philos. Sport 2024; 51: 1–18.

33.

Petróczi

Haugen

. Artificial intelligence, big data, and the future of antidoping governance. Perform. Enhanc. Health 2024; 12: 100230.

34.

Deci

Ryan

. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY, USA: Springer Sci. Bus. Media, 1985.

35.

Whelan

. The role of motivation in antidoping education. Int. J. Sport Policy Polit 2017; 9: 413–427.

36.

Backhouse

Whitaker

Patterson

. Peer-Led anti-doping education: the role of athlete mentors in promoting clean sport. Int. J. Sport Policy Polit 2020; 14: 278–293.

37.

Engelberg

. Intrinsic motivation and antidoping education: promoting long-term athlete health. J. Sport Health Educ 2021; 5: 102–110.

38.

Hardie-Bick

Engelberg

. Moral resilience in high-performance sport: implications for coach education and clean sport leadership. Psychol. Sport Exerc 2025; 72: 102621.

39.

Maughan

Burke

Dvorak

. Dietary supplements and high-performance athlete. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab 2018; 28: 212–219.

40.

Chan

DKC

Dimmock

Donovan

, et al. Role of antidoping education in reducing unintentional doping cases. Psychol. Sport Exerc 2020; 47: 101636.

41.

Backhouse

Whitaker

Patterson

. Anti-doping education and learning: challenges and opportunities. Front Sports Act Living 2021; 3: 642025.

42.

Overbye

Elbe

Knudsen

. Digital compliance and unintended antidoping violations: challenges for athletes and support personnel. Eur. Sport Manag. Q 2024; 24: 261–280.

43.

Kayser

Smith

ACT

Pitsiladis

. Next generation antidoping science: ethics, technology, and unintended consequences. Sports Med 2025; 55: 1–14.

44.

Donovan

Egger

Kapernick

, et al. A conceptual framework for achieving performance enhancing drug compliance in sport. Sports Med 2002; 32: 269–284.

45.

Ntoumanis

Barkoukis

, et al. Personal and situational variables influencing doping use in sport. Int. J. Sport Policy Polit 2021; 13: 245–260.

46.

Moston

Engelberg

Skinner

. Digital literacy in antidoping education: the role of online resources in doping prevention. Int. J. Sport Policy Polit 2021; 13: 528–544.

47.

Petróczi

Norman

Brueckner

. Can we better integrate antidoping education into sport? Psychological perspectives on knowledge transfer and behavior change. Psychol. Sport Exerc 2017; 29: 68–76.

48.

Artificial intelligence in antidoping: Opportunities, risks and governance considerations. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/scientific-research/arietta-artificial-intelligence-evoking-target-testing-antidoping (2024, accessed March 2026).

49.

Waddington

. Sport, Ethics and Doping: A Global Perspective. London, UK: Routledge, 2019.

50.

Backhouse

Griffiths

McKenna

. Anti-Doping education for athletes: a systematic review and critical analysis. Sports Med 2020; 50: 1355–1370.

51.

Engelberg

. The impact of antidoping education on athletes’ knowledge and attitudes. J. Sport Health Sci 2021; 10: 143–150.

52.

Parker

Kitchener

. Peer-led antidoping education: encouraging athletes to take ownership of their education. Sport Educ. Soc 2017; 22: 317–330.

53.

Engelberg

Thomas

Shilton

. Peer-led education and antidoping: an effective approach for improving knowledge retention. Sport Soc 2021; 22: 444–457.

54.

Backhouse

Manning

Hayton

. A framework for education in anti-doping. J. Sport Soc. Issues 2020; 44: 147–163.

55.

Zohar

Ben-David

. Substance abuse prevention in education systems. J Sch Health 2019; 89: 337–344.

56.

Hunt

Gauthier

. Peer influence and social consequences of substance use: a review of educational approaches. J Adolesc Health 2018; 62: 89–96.

57.

Lee

Rutter

. Mental health and substance abuse in youth: implications for education programs. J. Educ. Psychol 2017; 109: 462–475.

58.

Smith

Williams

. Economic impact of substance abuse: a case for awareness in schools. Addict. Econ. Conseq 2020; 35: 140–151.

59.

WADA Code: Athlete Whereabouts. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/wada_whereabouts_aag_eng_web.pdf (2015, accessed February 2026).

60.

A guide to antidoping education. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), https://www.wada-ama.org/en/athletes-support-personnel/anti-doping-education (2020, accessed February 2026).

61.

McKeag

. The role of coach education in promoting antidoping and athlete health. J. Sports Ethics 2018; 7: 56–62.

62.

FIFA’s regulations on antidoping education for coaches. FIFA, https://inside.fifa.com/legal/anti-doping (2016, accessed February 2026).

63.

Code Compliance and Safe Supplement Use. World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/compliance-monitoring/code-compliance-implementation-and-maintenance (2020, accessed February 2026).

64.

Olympic AI Agenda: Artificial Intelligence in Sport Governance and Integrity. Lausanne: International Olympic Committee, https://www.olympics.com/ioc/olympic-ai-agenda (2024, accessed February 2026).

65.

Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Sport Integrity: Policy Considerations for Global Sport Systems. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367823 (2024, accessed March 2026).