Publications by authors named "J Mazanov"

Debate about the ethics of drug control in sport has largely focused on arguing the relative merits of the existing antidoping policy or the adoption of a health-based harm minimisation approach. A number of ethical challenges arising from antidoping have been identified, and a number of, as yet, unanswered questions remain for the maturing ethics of applying harm minimisation principles to drug control for sport. This paper introduces a 'third approach' to the debate, examining some implications of applying a stakeholder theory of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to the issue of doping in sport.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Athlete support personnel (ASP) failing to meet responsibilities under the World Anti-Doping Code risk sanction. It is unclear whether the poor knowledge of responsibilities seen in sports physicians and coaches applies to other ASP (e.g.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background/aim: Discussions of doping often report Goldman's sensational results that half of the elite athletes asked would take a drug that guaranteed sporting success which would also result in their death in 5 years' time. There has never been any effort to assess the properties of the 'Goldman dilemma' or replicate the results in the post World Anti-Doping Agency context. This research evaluated the dilemma with contemporary elite athletes.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objectives: There is debate concerning whether the guiding paradigm for anti-doping policy should be the current legalistic approach or a "harm minimisation" approach prioritising athlete health. This study sought to determine whether a representative sample of Australians prioritises health above other concerns using the World Anti-Doping Code's Spirit of Sport statement which lists the 11 attributes that define the moral basis for anti-doping.

Design: A Best-Worst Scaling (BWS) Balanced Incomplete Block Design experiment using 11 choice sets of five Spirit attributes from the set of 11, with the attributes within each choice set in a random order.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF