Author(s): GRIMES, H., OHL, F., PRITCHARD, K., Institution: UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE, Country: SWITZERLAND, Abstract-ID: 1426

Introduction: In April 2024, media outlets reported the positive doping tests of 23 Chinese swimmers at a national swimming event in China in 2021. The case garnered considerable public attention and saw a heated debate emerge between key actors in anti-doping. This study seeks to understand how the case was presented in public, and the different strategies each side used to credit/ discredit and ultimately gain trust.

Theoretical Framework: Using Bourdieu’s (1989) sociology, we understand anti-doping as a social space, or field, characterised by relations between actors, structuring, reshaping and reproducing the field through relations, doxic norms and struggles for symbolic capital.

Methods: A frame analysis (Benford & Snow, 2000) was conducted on 205 articles from organisations, and media outlets to understand the way different actors represented the case. Articles were coded to highlight the different strategies used to gain support, and what meanings actors were giving to the situation.
Results: Much of the actors’ communication revolved around enhancing their frame credibility, articulation, and resonance. They credited their own science, while undermining the ‘other sides’ in a struggle for empirical credibility, and used law as a device to support claims. Frequently, they used frame articulators (other actors) as a tool, who would be credited and discredited to present a certain frame. For example, ‘athletes’ were frequently highlighted by both sides as being in support of that organisations’ argument, but often it was ambiguous which athletes they were referring to. Finally, the use of athletes as credible frame articulators allowed actors to enhance their frame resonance, aligning their argument with established social norms of democracy and athlete voice. Aligning themselves with the ‘victims’ of this case allowed organisations to portray themselves as the voice of justice, without necessarily providing evidence for this claim.

Discussion: Overall, the case both demonstrated, and worsened trust in anti-doping. Forceful accusations of cover-ups, systematic doping and misconduct undermine trust not only in the actors targeted, but in the anti-doping system in general. Allegations were often presented without irrefutable evidence, despite the certainty of the claims. The nature of the debate made trust difficult to rebuild, but recommendations include the creation of deliberative bodies so that critical voices can be heard, more proactive transparency and a call for organisations to refrain from unproven accusations, personality disputes and misrepresentations of ‘facts’ within the case.