Inside the Minds of Professional and Elite Athletes: A Qualitative Exploration of Perspectives on Cannabinoid Use in Contact Sports

Why Athletes Use Cannabis

Cannabis Use Patterns

Cannabis in Athletic Culture

How Athletes Learn About Cannabis

Athletes learn through varied sources including peers, the internet, and personal experimentation, with limited formal guidance. One athlete explained, “None of my coaches or trainers, or doctors had any resources or knowledge regarding the subject” (EA10). Another pursued scientific literature: “I’d find PubMed, I’d find academic papers on it” (EA8).

Peer influence played a central role. Athletes turned to teammates, friends, and family, describing their sources as “users, peers that have experience, whether it be good or bad or different” (EA4) and seeking advice from people who “understood the industry more” than they did (EA6). These conversations, including with high‑profile users, prompted questions such as, “What are the benefits to this [cannabis]? And why are these other people that have had amazing careers. . . using something like this?” (EA8). At the same time, athletes recognized the risks of relying on peers in the absence of clear guidelines: “There is [sic] no real guidelines on how much [cannabis] you should be taking, when you should be taking it, and how often. . . if you don’t have the knowledge from someone teaching you, it could leave people kinda stranded. . . and if you don’t have guidelines on what it looks like when you do need help for that [cannabis use disorder]. . . that can lead to big trouble” (EA2). 

Self‑experimentation was common. Athletes tried different products and dosages, adjusting to personal responses and competition schedules: “We just went and got it [cannabis] from whoever we knew locally. . . I just took it [cannabis] little by little and took a little bit more when I didn’t have a game” (EA9). Others became familiar with commercial products “by using the products” and “just seeing what works and what doesn’t work” (EA2, EA5). Healthcare practitioners were rarely consulted, and team presentations mainly framed cannabis as a negative and harmful substance which “honestly just felt just like persuasion tactics” (EA4, EA6).

Reasons Athletes Want Cannabis Education

Athletes want education tailored to their physical and mental demands, particularly around performance, recovery, and health, noting they were “never actually told what it [cannabis] can do to our health” (EA10). They also asked for structured sessions like other preseason presentations, so staff and players could learn about cannabinoid options openly without feeling they had to “go through the back door and sneak around people” (EA2).

If cannabis rules changed to allow use, athletes suggested prioritizing education, hoping medical staff and management would initiate conversations and provide “some sort of education module about how to consume it responsibly,” emphasizing that responsible use would be crucial (EA10). Curiosity about cannabis’ effects and detection further motivated learning, as athletes were unsure whether it would help or hinder performance or how long it would stay in their system, especially relative to training demands and testing (EA2, EA9).

Several athletes described seeking information to manage health, avoid abuse, and understand past use, including one who believed earlier education about chronic THC use, concussions, and memory could have supported academic performance and mental health (EA5). Others reported discovering CBD only later and felt earlier guidance could have supported faster recovery and improved wellbeing during their competitive years (EA3).

Public visibility added pressure to be well informed so they could respond to scrutiny and parental questions, with one predicting that if a major league allowed cannabis “so many people [would be] freaking out about it” and called for “education across the board for everyone” (EA3). Harm reduction was a key motivator, as athletes wanted guidance on safe, effective use and “harm prevention,” with some preferring to “trust somebody else. . . to learn that stuff and to advise me” rather than complete a formal course themselves (EA7, EA9).

Participants reported that the limited education they received from teams or governing bodies was largely 1‑sided, focused on negative effects and rarely clarified the rationale for cannabis rules, leading them to question why alcohol was permitted while cannabis remained prohibited and noted that annual “safe sport” trainings seldom addressed cannabis specifically (EA1, EA3, EA4, EA10). Athletes argued that punishment for cannabis use should incorporate counseling and education, rather than rely solely on suspension, recalling cases where players were simply removed from competition instead of being “educated about cutting back.” Athletes suggested “something that they go to, just like counseling to get educated,” would feel “so super cool” and change how they viewed both discipline and cannabis use (EA5, EA9).

Medical Staff Need Cannabis Education

Athletes reported that medical staff lacked cannabis knowledge and experience, and showed little interest in learning, viewing it as “more of an unknown” that sport culture avoided because of “confusion” (EA2). “Older” trainers and clinicians were seen as particularly resistant to change, shaped by “war on drugs” messaging and long‑standing reliance on traditional medications, with some “grow[ing] up with weed being a bad thing” and a “gateway drug,” while alcohol was treated as acceptable (EA1, EA6). Athletes strongly desired open conversations with team medical staff, believing that mutual lack of education undermined communication and mental‑health support. One commented that simply “being able to have an open dialogue is huge,” suggesting they would have learned more about cannabis and their own mental health if such dialogue had been possible (EA5). They also pointed to confusion within sport hierarchies, where unclear or absent cannabis policies left leagues, teams, and clinicians without consistent guidance, and argued that education should occur “at every level,” targeting trainers, team doctors, coaches, and sport psychologists who interact closely with athletes (EA7, EA8). Athletes stressed that cannabis should be understood as a plant‑based medicine. They emphasized the need for medical staff “to be educated on that narrative to shift their prior perceptions of this being a ‘bad drug’” (EA10) so practitioners can consciously consider cannabis as potential medicine, not solely a harmful substance (EA6, EA10).

Negative Stigma and Punishment

Stigma and punitive responses shape athletes’ experiences and behavior. Athletes feared negative judgment for using cannabis or asking questions, leading many to become secretive. One athlete linked this to stereotypes and said they refrain from telling people they use cannabis “because of fear of negative judgment” (EA10). Others worried that being caught smoking, or “even asking,” could result in being cut from the team or traded (EA5, EA6). This fear extended to medical interactions, where athletes believed staff might report them simply for showing curiosity (EA3, EA9, EA10). Concerns were reinforced by punitive experiences, such as a teammate’s dismissal for using cannabis on a day off in an environment described as “zero tolerance. . . Done, goodbye, see you,” which discouraged athletes from “investigat[ing]” cannabis because the consequences felt so severe (EA3).

Stigma influenced behavior in complex ways: most athletes hid their use, while a few described leaning into a rebellious identity, saying teenage rule‑breaking around cannabis was “tied up in that rebel aspect” and that “a lot of [the] trouble. . . came from the stigma,” which made them push against a “stupid boundary” rather than feel like worthy participants (EA5). Sources of stigma included peers, management, medical staff, family, and society, with parents warning athletes not to “ruin [their] shot” and especially judged smoking compared with tinctures or gummies, which some believed might have less stigma by reducing valid concerns about the effects of inhalation (EA5, EA9, EA10). Stigma also affected performance evaluations, with athletes worried they would be viewed as less committed if they used cannabis (EA1, EA5, EA6, EA7).

Athletes noted contexts with less stigma (such as teams or regions with legal markets) where they felt comfortable being open, especially when “the majority of [the] team used it,” compared with places where they “might not be as comfortable” disclosing use (EA1). Punitive policies and drug testing created ongoing anxiety. Athletes perceived testing and current cannabis education as reinforcing existing stigma, with lessons that only include an exaggerated stereotypical and unrealistic downward‑spiral narrative. They felt this approach was more about satisfying funders than supporting athletes, leading 1 person to complete a module as a sanction while actively using cannabis, “. . .it’s funny because I was smoking weed while doing it [the punishment educational module]. . . and then a year later, doing the same thing [smoking cannabis while watching the punishment video again]” (EA5).

Drug testing reinforced fear and raised fairness concerns, as athletes questioned why cannabis was treated like performance‑enhancing drugs and argued that if cannabis use warranted sanction, alcohol should be treated similarly given how heavy drinking was common yet less harshly judged (EA1). Overall, athletes described pervasive stigma and punishment that shaped their behavior, limited open dialogue, and discouraged even basic questions about cannabis, setting the stage for calls for more open, education‑focused approaches.

Complexities of Trusting Medical Staff

The subtheme “Complexities of Trusting Medical Staff” explores how athletes navigate trust in team medical staff, particularly around cannabis. Trust varied widely and was shaped by personal relationships, team hierarchy, and fears that information would be passed up to management. 

Trust in trainers developed over time and grew with how much time athletes spent with them. Athletes reported stronger relationships and better communication with staff they saw daily, especially strength and conditioning coaches, and said these friendships made it easier to discuss sensitive topics such as cannabis. One athlete noted, “It’s just their [trainers’] willingness to hang around the guys. . . it’s just how much conversations you have about anything with them” (EA2). Another elaborated, “. . . You might even end up telling them. . . I’m having trouble sleeping because I’m going through this with my family. . . it’s almost like it’s therapy” (EA8). Some athletes described highly trusting relationships with particular trainers who were open‑minded and willing to learn. These trainers were seen as counsellors, from taping ankles daily, sharing handshakes, hearing complaints about coaches, and forming “very strong” relationships that felt different from other roles in the organization (EA3, EA9). This trust depended heavily on individual trainer characteristics, however. Athletes felt safer with trainers who held positive views on cannabis or used it themselves and were wary of those seen as judgmental. One athlete explained, “It depends on the trainer. . . I wouldn’t have said anything to some because anything you say goes straight back to coach. . . The other 2 I feel like I would have felt more comfortable. . . but I would have had to preface it with ‘Please keep this between us. . . I’m just asking for a ‘friend’ type of thing’” (EA3).  Athletes relied on teammates to signal which staff could be trusted. New players reported low initial trust after “hear[ing] stories” of trainers “ratting on other matters” and were warned to “steer clear” of certain staff (EA2). Because trainers and performance staff answered to upper management, athletes believed that questions about cannabis could quickly reach senior decision‑makers and threaten their careers, leading some to say they would “definitely not” ask team medical staff about cannabis because of potential repercussions (EA6, EA2).

Concerns extended to doctors and higher‑level personnel, whom athletes saw less frequently and perceived as more likely to judge or report them. Many preferred third‑party medical providers outside the team, who had no power over contracts or playing time, and described limited trust in internal staff, saying they “wouldn’t trust [them] a whole lot with conversations regarding cannabis use” or “wouldn’t tell a soul. . . I wouldn’t trust any of them” (EA7, EA10). One athlete described opening up to an outside professional because they feared team‑affiliated staff would tell the coach, who might think there was a problem and bench them (EA3).  When asked whether players would trust internal staff more than third‑party providers, athletes consistently said they would “trust somebody outside of [the team] more for sure” and “would never go to the trainer and/or the doctor [about cannabis]” (EA7). As a result, many avoided discussing cannabis with team medical staff altogether.

Athletes perceived younger staff as more receptive and knowledgeable about contemporary issues, including cannabis. One athlete felt able to “tell [a younger coach] anything” (EA1), while another believed it would be “very hard” for older personnel to accept cannabis but expected younger staff to be more open, especially if they had grown up with different cultural views (EA6). Some athletes mentioned staff who used cannabis themselves or were clearly aware of its role in athletes’ lives and open to learning more, suggesting that as organizational attitudes shift, these younger or more progressive staff could become key partners in future cannabis education and support (EA1, EA8, EA9).

The Influence of Rule and Law

Rules and laws guide athletes’ decisions. Many avoided cannabis during the in-season because there are rules against it. One athlete stated, “I do not use cannabis during the season because it is a banned substance” (EA10). Others focused on avoiding trouble with the league, stressing they did not want to do “anything illegal” (EA5, EA7); however, recent legalization shifted attitudes and behavior. One athlete described a legalized setting with “a thousand different places that would deliver. . .thousands of different products” (EA5). With legalization, athletes felt more comfortable experimenting and saw teammates “more willing to experiment with it. . .see the benefits” (EA2, EA1). Legal markets also reduced reliance on street dealers: “It. . . is good because you don’t have to get it [cannabis]. . . off somebody on the street” (EA2, EA1).

Despite increased openness in society, most athletes still prioritized staying within the law, like avoiding travel with cannabis because “there's still laws out there” (EA6, EA7). Geography strongly shaped comfort levels. Legal-market regions (especially the West Coast of the United States and Canada) were seen as more knowledgeable and accepting (EA9). One athlete picked the location of his sports team partly because “the weed laws. . .were really cool” and cannabis was decriminalized (EA5). In long‑legal jurisdictions, dispensary visits became “way more common” and discussed more openly, and athletes believed people would be receptive if educated “on the positive effects” (EA1, EA10). Athletes hoped ongoing legalization would foster education. Once cannabis was not viewed solely as illegal, athletes felt people were “open to a conversation” (EA8). Athletes stressed pairing any rule change with education so athletes “go about using cannabis responsibly,” seeing it as “more so about being educated” (EA10).