Centennial Anniversary of the International Olympic Movement and Modern Olympic Games

This scholarly history of the International Olympics and modern Olympic games will be an outstanding source for scholars interested in the Olympics and all its glory. Oleg A. Milshteyn is particularly qualified as a researcher through his former affiliation in the Moscow Institute of Sport, where he was a professor of sport sociology. Some of his former students there read like a Who’s Who in the rarefied world of Olympic champions.

In preparation for this unique historical tome, Dr. Milsteyn conducted sociological interviews with 500 leading world experts from more than 80 countries regarding the Centenial Anniversary of the International Olympic Movement and Modern Olympic Games. Among those polled were outstanding Olympians; participants in the Games from 1932 in Los Angeles to 1996 in Atlanta, as well as famous coaches, scientists, journalists, IOC members, heads of the ISF, NOCs and other international and national sport bodies; culture, art, religious figures, managers, businessmen, and sponsors involved in the Olympics.

Altogether, 230 audio recorded hours in 12 languages were made. In 1997-’98, all of this unique information was translated, processed and analyzed in the Jubilee Olympiad International Research Project. This work is still ongoing as Dr. Milsteyn is working on a manuscript of a book with the same title. The collected material is so voluminous, that only one tenth has been utilized to date. There are strong indications that, when completed, Milsteyn’s work will be studied intensely by sport scientists, journalists, sport historians, and students.

Dr. Milsteyn would like the opportunity to finish writing his book and translate it into English and/or other languages. To realize this, he is looking for any creative cooperation, including coauthorship.

Individuals or organizations interested in working with Dr. Milsteyn may contact him at:

Dr. Oleg Milshteyn
Proufsoyuznay 144-131
Moscow 117321, Russia
Home phone: (7 095) 429-5790
Office telephone: (7 095) 242-8452
Fax: (7 095) 247-0844
Email: olm98@dol.ru (for Dr. Oleg Milshteyn)

2013-11-27T17:05:45-06:00February 12th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports History|Comments Off on Centennial Anniversary of the International Olympic Movement and Modern Olympic Games

Centennial Anniversary of the International Olympic Movement and Modern Olympic Games

This scholarly history of the
International Olympics and modern Olympic
games will be an outstanding source for scholars interested in
the Olympics and all its glory. Oleg A. Milshteyn is particularly
qualified as a researcher through his former affiliation in the Moscow Institute
of Sport, where he was a professor of sport sociology. Some of his
former students there read like a Who’s Who in the rarefied world
of Olympic champions.

In preparation for this unique
historical tome, Dr. Milsteyn conducted sociological interviews with 500 leading world experts from more
than 80 countries regarding the Centenial Anniversary of the
International Olympic Movement and Modern Olympic Games. Among
those polled were outstanding Olympians; participants in the
Games from 1932 in Los Angeles to 1996 in Atlanta, as well as famous coaches,
scientists, journalists, IOC members, heads of the ISF, NOCs
and other international and national sport bodies; culture, art, religious
figures, managers, businessmen, and sponsors involved in the Olympics.

Altogether, 230 audio recorded
hours in 12 languages were made. In 1997-’98, all of this unique information was translated,
processed and analyzed in the Jubilee Olympiad International Research Project.
This work is still ongoing as Dr. Milsteyn is working on a manuscript
of a book with the same title. The collected material is so voluminous,
that only one tenth has been utilized to date. There are strong indications
that, when completed, Milsteyn’s work will be studied intensely
by sport scientists, journalists, sport historians, and students.

Dr. Milsteyn would like the
opportunity to finish writing his book and translate it into English and/or other languages. To realize
this, he is looking for any creative cooperation, including coauthorship.

Individuals or organizations interested in working with Dr. Milsteyn may
contact him at:

Dr. Oleg Milshteyn
Proufsoyuznay 144-131
Moscow 117321, Russia
Home phone: (7 095) 429-5790
Office telephone: (7 095) 242-8452
Fax: (7 095) 247-0844
Email: olm98@dol.ru (for Dr.
Oleg Milshteyn)

2013-11-27T17:32:20-06:00February 12th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports History, Sports Management|Comments Off on Centennial Anniversary of the International Olympic Movement and Modern Olympic Games

Athletics as a Predictor of Self-esteem and Approval Motivation

Abstract

Past research has found a negative correlation between the variables of self-esteem and approval motivation (Larsen, Martin, Ettinger, & Nelson, 1976). This relationship has not been explored specifically for individuals who participate in athletics. The purpose of this study was to compare athletes and non-athletes on their levels of self-esteem and approval motivation, and to determine if a positive correlation exists for athletes in contrast to the negative correlation found in the general college population. A significant difference was found between athletes and non-athletes in their levels of self-esteem and approval motivation.

Previous research has been conducted in order to identify and explore personal attributes which are associated with participation in sports. There has been a significant relationship found between athletics and the attribute of self-esteem (Kumar, Pathak, & Thakur, 1985). Studies based on the general population suggest a significant negative relationship between self-esteem and an attribute known as approval motivation. Self-esteem is defined as, “an intrapsychic structure: an attitude about the self” (Baumeister, Tice, & Hutton, 1989, p. 547). Coopersmith (1967) defined self-esteem as “the evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself” (p. 4-5). Kawash and Scherf (1975) asserted that, “there is probably no personality trait more significant in the context of total psychological functioning than self-esteem” (p. 715). Approval motivation is defined as the desire to produce positive perceptions in others and the incentive to acquire the approval of others as well as the desire to avoid disapproval (Martin, 1984; Shulman & Silverman, 1974).

Geen (1991) listed three conditions that he felt must be met before he considered approval motivation to have occurred. First, an individual must be in direct contact with a person or a group of people, such as an audience or a partner or partners in interaction. Next, the social presence has a nondirective effect. This means that the social group does not provide direct cues on how the person should act in the situation. Finally, the socially generated effect on the individual is considered an intrapsychic state, and this state is capable of initiating and/or intensify behavior.

Research has shown that an individual’s level of approval motivation can be used to predict how he or she will react to expectations or influences of others. Smith and Flenning (1971) conducted a study that investigated the connection between subjects’ need for approval and their susceptibility to subtle unintended influence of biased experimenters. They found that individuals with a high need for approval altered their behavior in the direction of the experimenter’s expectancy, while those in the low approval motivation group did not. Past research has also found a negative correlation to exist between self-esteem and approval motivation (Larsen, Martin, Ettinger, & Nelson, 1976). This indicates that as an individual’s level of self-esteem increases, their need for approval from others decreases. There is no research at this time that has examined the relationship of athletic participation on the negative correlation between self-esteem and approval motivation or on approval motivation alone. However, research has examined the affect of athletic participation and coaching style on self-esteem.

Taylor (1995) conducted a study where he compared athletic participants and nonparticipants in order to ascertain if participating in intercollegiate athletics had an effect on self-esteem. He reported that athletic participation did have a positive effect on self-esteem, but it was not strong enough to have a statistically significant effect on its own. Kumar, Pathak and Thakur (1985) compared individual athletes, team athletes, and non-athletes on their levels of self-esteem using the Self-esteem Inventory (Prasad & Thakur, 1977). The Self-esteem Inventory (Prasad & Thakur, 1977) had two subscales: the personally perceived self, and the socially perceived self. They found that individual athletes were significantly higher on personally perceived self and socially perceived self than team athletes and non-athletes.

Research examining coaching behaviors has found that a coach’s instructional style can have an impact on individual’s with low self-esteem. Smoll, Smith, Barnett, and Everett (1993) examined the effect of coach’s instructional style on self-esteem. Eighteen male head coaches and 152 male Little League Baseball players were studied with 8 of the head coaches participating in a workshop that was designed to increase their supportiveness and instructional effectiveness. A preseason measure of self-esteem of the 152 players who played under the 18 coaches was taken. Post-season measures of the players’ self-esteem were assessed and compared to their preseason score. It was found that players who scored low on self-esteem in the preseason assessment showed a significant increase in their general self-esteem scores in the postseason assessment.

There has been no research conducted at this time that has examined the variable of approval motivation among athletes. However, research investigating other aspects of athletic participation suggests a need for approval among athletes. For example, research in conformity has found that rookies and newcomers to teams quickly learn and adopt attitudes and behaviors of veteran players and team leaders. This influence can be found to affect the athletes’ beliefs and behaviors in both athletic and non-athletic situations (Carron, 1980). Also, Harris (1973) examined the motivational factors related to athletic participation and concluded that motivational forces such as love, social approval, status, security and achievement are basic components to the overall motivational structure which would encourage someone toward athletic participation. Finally, additional research conducted by Smith (1990) indicated that some athletes continue to participate in sports although they do not want to in order to avoid letting down coaches or family members (as cited in Thorton, 1990).

The purpose of this study was to compare athletes and non-athletes on levels of self-esteem and approval motivation. The researchers proposed the following hypothesis. First, there would be a significant difference between athletes and non-athletes in levels of self-esteem and approval motivation. Second, for non-athletes, as supported by past research, there would be a negative correlation between the variables of self-esteem and approval motivation. Finally, for athletes, the variables of self-esteem and approval motivation would be positively correlated.

Methods
Four hundred ninety-two undergraduate students over the age of 18 attending core courses at a small southern university volunteered to participate in this study. There were 94 athletes and 398 non-athletes with the participant’s ages ranging from 18 years to 49 years, with a mean age of 21.95 years. Participants were provided with a description of the project and inform consent forms prior to receiving the questionnaire.

After returning the signed informed consent forms, participants were given a questionnaire that contained a demographics sheet, Revised Martin-Larsen Approval Motivation Scale (MLAM) (Martin, 1984), and the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSS) (Rosenberg, 1989). The MLAM is a questionnaire consisting of 20 statements designed on a five point Likert-type scale. This instrument measures an individuals level of approval motivation “by assessing both the desire to receive positive evaluations and social reinforcements and avoid negative evaluations and social punishment” (Martin, 1984, p.509). The MLAM has a total range of summative scores from 20 to 100 and a total range of mean scores from one to five. Higher scores indicate a greater need for social approval while lower scores indicate a lower need for approval. This scale has stability coefficients ranging from .73 to .93, and a reliability coefficient of .79.

The RSS is a ten item Guttman scale designed to measure an individuals level of self-esteem. It is unidimensional, which means that individuals may be ranked along a single continuum from very low to very high. Scores range from 10 to 40 with higher scores indicating a higher level of self-esteem and lower scores indicating a lower level of self-esteem. This measure has been found to have a test-retest reliability of .85 (Rosenberg, 1989).

The survey required approximately 35 to 40 minutes to take and participants were allowed to withdraw at any time without penalty. Participants did not place their names on the answer sheet and their signed informed consents were kept separate from their answer sheets to insure anonymity. All participants were treated according to the ethical guidelines concerning research set forth by the American Psychological Association.

Results
The data was analyzed using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to determine if there was a significant difference between athletes and non-athletes on the variables of self-esteem and approval motivation. The MANOVA revealed that there was a significant main effect found between the two groups (see Table 1). The results of the MANOVA also revealed that there were no interaction effects between the two groups. This supported the first hypothesis that there was a significant difference between athletes and non-athletes on the variables of self-esteem and approval motivation.

Table 1
Degrees of Freedom, F Values, and Levels of Significance for Self-esteem and Approval Motivation
df F Sig.
Self-esteem 1 21.8685 .0001
Approval motivation 1 4.2735 .0392

A Pearson r correlation was computed to examine the nature of the relationship between the variables of self-esteem and approval motivation for both the athlete and non-athlete groups. For non-athletes, a negative correlation was found to exist between the variables of self-esteem and approval motivation (r = -.4503, p< .001). This finding is consistent with the findings of past research that examined the relationship between self-esteem and approval motivation in the general population (Larsen, Martin, Ettinger, & Nelson, 1976). The second hypothesis of this study was supported.

A negative correlation was found to exist between the variables of self-esteem and approval motivation for the group consisting of college athletes (r = -.4534, p< .001). Resulting in the rejection of hypothesis three. This finding suggests that athletes, like non-athletes, exhibit a negative correlation between the variables of self-esteem and approval motivation.

Discussion
The findings of this study suggest that there is a significant difference between athletes and non-athletes on the variables of self-esteem and approval motivation. These findings mirror those of Kumar, Pathak, and Thakur (1985) who found that athletes have higher levels of self-esteem than non-athletes. In this study, a portion of the subjects were Division I college aged athletes. There are several factors that may have contributed to these athletes having higher self-esteem than non-athletes, such as receiving special treatment. For example, many of these athletes may have received scholarships to college for their athletic skills, been allowed to travel to other schools to compete, and had access to uniforms and other athletic wear that served to set them apart from their non-athletic peers. In addition, these athletes may have received special attention from the press and fans, and received certain rewards that non-athletes have not received. Further, athletes have the unique opportunity to develop close friendships with team members and identify with the team itself.

Results of the current study indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between athletes and non-athletes on the variable of approval motivation. However, despite being statistically significant there is some question as to whether these findings have everyday applicability (see Table 2). Further research is needed to determine if there is a true behavioral difference between athletes and non-athletes on the variable approval motivation, and if so what aspect of athletic participation is responsible for this difference.

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Athletes and Non-Athletes
on the Variables of Self-esteem and Approval Motivation
Mean Standard Deviation
Self-esteem Approval Motivation Self-esteem Approval Motivation
Athletes 34.1064 2.5840 4.6315 .4373
Non-athletes 31.3668 2.7045 5.2139 .5234

There are a number of possible reasons why the need for athletes to receive praise or to avoid the rejection of others, is met through sport participation. Athletes, especially at the collegiate level, receive many benefits from participating in sports. For example, athletes receive praise and support from their parents, peers, coaches, fans, and community. In addition, personal rewards are obtained through the athlete’s athletic prowess and identity with the team. Many of the athletes competing at the Division I collegiate level bring with them to college successful high school experiences in athletics. Therefore, athletes in this study may have received approval for a number of years through athletic participation. Due to the history of approval and reward associated with athletic participation, athletes may not need to engage in further approval seeking behaviors.

It should be noted that the athletes in this study are most likely the elite athletes from their high school programs. They are good at what they do and have excelled in athletics for many years. Therefore, the athletes in this study due to their history of athletic success, may be more likely to participate in Division I athletics. Athletes with low self-esteem and high needs for approval may not be as likely to reach Division I college athletics. Future research may wish to examine approval motivation and self-esteem in youth sports and high school athletics to determine if there is consistency of findings.

As predicted, there was a negative correlation found between self-esteem and approval motivation for non-athletes. This finding was consistent with those of Larsen, Martin, Ettinger, & Nelson (1976) who also examined the relationship between approval motivation and self-esteem in the general population. However, what was not predicted was the negative correlation that was found between the variables of self-esteem and approval motivation for the group of collegiate athletes. Although there was a significant difference between athletes and non-athletes on their levels of approval motivation, these results imply that athletic participation does not alter the negative relationship between self-esteem and approval motivation. The results of this study suggest that athletes are more likely to view themselves positively and see themselves as worthy and are less likely to engage in approval seeking behavior than non-athletes.

The findings of this study lead to several additional questions concerning the difference between athletes and non-athletes on the variables of self-esteem and approval motivation. Future research may wish to explore factors that contribute to the differences found in self-esteem and approval motivation for athletes, such as the number of years experience, ethnicity, gender, and types of athletic experience.

References
Baumeister, R.F., Tice, D.M., & Hutton, D.G. (1989). Self-presentational motivations and personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 57, 547-579.

Carron, A.V. (1980). Social psychology of sport. Ithaca: Mouvement Publications.

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Geen, R.G. (1991). Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 377-399.

Harris, D.V. (1973). Involvement in sport: A somatopsychic rationale for physical activity. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

Kawash, G.F. & Scherf, G.W. (1975). Self-esteem, locus of control, and approval motivation in married couples. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 715-720.

Kumar, A., Pathak, N., & Thakur, G.P. (1985). Self-esteem in individual athletes, team members, and nonathletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 178.

Larsen, K.S., Martin, H.J., Ettinger, R.H., & Nelson, J. (1976). Approval seeking, social cost, and aggression: A scale and some dynamics. The Journal of Psychology,94, 3-11.

Martin, H.J. (1984). A revised measure of approval motivation and its relationship to social desirability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 508-519.

Prasad, M.S. & Thakur, G.P. (1977). Manual and directions for Self-esteem Inventory. Agra: Agra Psychological Research Cell.

Rosenberg, M. (1986). Conceiving the self. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company

Shulman, A.D. & Silverman, I. (1974). Social desirability and need approval: Some paradoxical data and a conceptual re-evaluation. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 27-32.

Smith, R.E. & Flenning, F. (1971). Need for approval and susceptibility to unintended social influence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 383-385.

Smoll, F.L., Smith, R.E., Barnett, N.P., & Everett, J.J. (1993). Enhancement of children’s self-esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 602-610.

Thornton, J.S. (1990). Playing in pain: When should an athlete stop? The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 18, 139-142.

Taylor, D.L. (1995). A comparison of college athletic participants and nonparticipants on self-esteem. Journal of College Student Developement,36, 444-451.

2013-11-27T17:35:44-06:00February 11th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Athletics as a Predictor of Self-esteem and Approval Motivation

You Go Girl ! The Link Between Girls’ Positive Self-Esteem and Sports

Positive self-esteem is a favorable perception of one’s self, or, how happy you are with just being you. In general, feelings of self-esteem contribute to a person’s self-worth, confidence and competence. These feelings of worthiness, assurance and proficiency can influence a person’s life in regard to personal aspirations, motivation, achievement potential and relationships (Melpomene Institute, 1996). A person’s self-esteem is affected by and formed from a variety of circumstances in life, some of which are:

  • degree of parental expectations, encouragement and influence
  • degree of peer expectations, encouragement and influence
  • involvement in making of decisions
  • development of talents, hobbies or interests
  • influence and importance of role models
  • extent of emphasis on body image
  • experiences and interactions during education
  • participation in physical activity and/or sports (Kopecky, 1992)

 

Many studies have been done to investigate the self-esteem of young girls and have concluded that as girls move from grade school to high school, their self-esteem levels drop (Feldman & Elliott, 1990; Gilligan, Lyons & Hammer, 1990; How Schools Shortchange Girls, 1992). For example, one study found that 69% of grade school boys and 60% of grade school girls responded that they were “happy the way I am”. The same study found 46% of high school boys and only 29% of high schools girls reported being “happy the way I am”. Overall, girls self-esteem dropped at a rate three times that of boys. Feelings of low self-esteem in adolescence are one contributing factor that increases the likelihood of a young girl dropping out of school or becoming pregnant. The low self-esteem seen in girls does not disappear with maturity; girls with low self-esteem often grow to be women with low self-esteem. Low levels of self-esteem are linked to increased rates of depression, substance abuse, suicide and eating disorders in both adolescents and adults (How Schools Shortchange Girls, 1992; Melpomene Institute, 1996).

What can be done about the decrease in self-esteem? What can girls do to maintain their self-esteem as they mature? To answer these questions, it is important to look at what boys are doing differently from girls as both groups move from grade school to high school. One important difference to consider is the rate of sports participation among boys and girls. As girls move from grade school to high school, they drop-out of sports at a rate six times higher than boys (Women’s Sports Foundation, 1998). Could the lower rate of sports participation among girls be linked to a lower self-esteem? In order to answer the question, it is essential to consider two factors: what contributes to the development of self-esteem and the benefits of sport participation.

For girls living in the 1990s, self-esteem is linked to both physical attractiveness and physical competence. Prior to the 1990s, however, the main factor contributing to a girls’ self-esteem was physical attractiveness (Nelson, 1994). Coupling self-esteem to both competence and beauty is a step in the right direction, although it’s still unfortunate that girls place so much importance on physical attractiveness as it relates to their happiness. Recognizing that young girls often compare themselves to unrealistic standards of beauty can help parents better understand, guide and influence their children (Nelson, 1994; Women’s Sports Foundation, 1998). In attempting to de-emphasize the importance their daughters place on beauty and emphasize the importance of physical competence, parents may find it helpful to utilize the benefits of participation in sport.

Participating in sport is one way that girls can develop physical competence. Girls learn to appreciate their bodies for what they can do, instead of the perceived appearance by oneself or by others. In a sport environment girls learn to control their bodies and to rely on acquired physical skills. Partaking in sport also helps girls trust and rely on themselves and teammates while working toward common goals. In a sense, participation in sport allows each girl to become her own personal cheerleader – cheering on her physical self and what might be possible; not just standing on the sidelines, or in the bleachers, cheering others on (Nelson, 1994). Involvement in athletics provides lessons in teamwork and leadership, the development of citizenship, and community involvement. Membership in sport also offers girls a greater pool of adult role models from where they can draw guidance and support (Melpomene Institute, 1996; Murtaugh, 1988). Additionally, girls find new friends in the sport setting. For girls, this sense of friendship is essential, being liked by other girls is sometimes more important than having others see them as smart or independent (Feldman & Elliott, 1990).

 

A study published by the Women’s Sport Foundation on over 30,000 girls compared athletes to non-athletes.

The study stated that athletes were more likely than non-athletes to:

  • score well on achievement tests
  • feel “popular” among one’s peers
  • be involved in other extracurricular activities
  • graduate from high school (three times more likely)
  • attend college and obtain a bachelor’s degree
  • stay involved in sport as an adult
  • aspire to community involvement
  • not become involved with drugs (92% less likely)
  • not become pregnant (80% less likely)

(Women’s Sports Foundation, 1998).

 

It is important that parents realize the many contributions participation in sport can make to young girls’ development. The positive aspects of sport can help girls maintain their self-esteem as they make the difficult transition from grade school to high school.

References

Feldman, S. & Elliott, G. (Eds.). (1990). At the threshold: the developing adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, C., Lyons, L., & Hammer, T. (Eds.). (1990). Making connections: The relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma Willard School. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

How Schools Shortchange Girls – The AAUW Report. (1992). New York, NY: Marlowe & Company.

Kopecky, G. (1992). The age of self-doubt. Working Mother, July, 46-49.

Murtaugh, M. (1988). Achievement outside the classroom: The role of nonacademic activities in the lives of high school students. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 19, 383-395.

Melpomene Institute. (1996). Melpomene Institute packet -Girls, physical activity and self-esteem. St. Paul, MN.

Nelson, M.B. (1994). The stronger women get, the more men love football – sexism and the American culture of sports. New York, New York: Avon Books.

Women’s Sports Foundation. (1998). Eisenhower Park, East Meadow, New York.

2017-08-07T15:37:24-05:00February 11th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology, Women and Sports|Comments Off on You Go Girl ! The Link Between Girls’ Positive Self-Esteem and Sports

Lausanne Declaration on Doping in Sport

The World Conference on Doping
in Sport, with the participation of representatives of governments,
of inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations, of
the International Olympic Committee, the International Sports
Federations (IFs), the National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and
of the athletes, declares:

 

  1. Education, prevention and
    athletes’ rights

    The Olympic oath shall be extended to coaches and other officials,
    and shall include the respect of integrity, ethics and fair play
    in sport. Educational and preventive campaigns will be intensified,
    focusing principally on youth, and athletes and their entourage.
    Complete transparency shall be assured in all activities to fight
    doping, except for preserving the confidentiality necessary to
    protect the fundamental rights of athletes. Partnership with
    the media shall be sought in anti-doping campaigns.

     

  2. Olympic Movement Anti-Doping
    Code

    The Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code is accepted as the basis
    for the fight against doping, which is defined as the use of
    an artifice, whether substance or method, potentially dangerous
    to the athletes’ health and/or capable of enhancing their performances,
    or the presence in the athlete’s body of substance, or the ascertainment
    from the use of a method on the list annexed to the Olympic Movement
    Anti-Doping Code.
    The Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code applies to all athletes,
    coaches, instructors, officials, and to all medical and paramedical
    staff working with athletes or treating athletes participating
    in or training for sport competitions organized within the framework
    of the Olympic Movement.

     

  3. Sanctions
    The sanctions which apply to doping violations will be imposed
    in the framework of controls both during and out of competition.
    In accordance with the wishes of the athletes, the NOCs and a
    large majority of the Ifs, the minimum required sanction for
    major doping substances or prohibited methods shall be a suspension
    of the athlete from all competition for a period of two years,
    for a first offense. However, based on specific, exceptional
    circumstances to be evaluated in the first instance by the competent
    IF bodies, there may be a provision for a possible modification
    of the two-year sanctions. Additional sanctions or measures may
    be applied. More severe sanctions shall apply to coaches and
    officials guilty of violations of the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping
    Code.
  4. International Anti-Doping
    Agency
    An independent International Anti-Doping Agency shall be established
    so as to be fully operational for the Games of the XXVII Olympiad
    in Sidney in 2000. This institution will have as its mandate,
    notably, to coordinate the various programs necessary to realize
    the objectives that shall be defined jointly by all the parties
    concerned. Among these programs, consideration should be given
    in particular to expanding out-of-competition testing, coordinating
    research, promoting preventive and educational actions and harmonizing
    scientific and technical standard and procedures for analyses
    and equipment. A working group representing the Olympic Movement,
    including athletes, as well as the governments and inter-governmental
    organizations concerned, will meet, on the initiative of the
    IOC, within three months, to define the structure, mission and
    financing of the Agency. The Olympic Movement commits to allocate
    a capital of US $25 million to the Agency.
  5. Responsibilities of the
    IOC, the IFs, the NOCs and the CAS

    The IOC, the IFs, and the NOCs will maintain their respective
    competence and responsibility to apply doping rules in accordance
    with the International Anti-Doping Agency. Consequently, decisions
    handed down in the first instance will be under the exclusive
    responsibility of the IFs, the NOCs or, during the Olympic Games,
    the IOC. With regard to last instance appeals, the IOC, the IFs
    and the NOCs recognize the authority of the Court of Arbitration
    for Sport (CAS), after their own procedures have been exhausted.
    In order to protect athletes and their rights in the area of
    disciplinary procedure, the general principles of law, such as
    the right to a hearing, the right to legal assistance, and the
    right to present evidence and call witnesses, will be confirmed
    and incorporated into all applicable procedures.

     

  6. Collaboration between the
    Olympic Movement and public authorities
    The collaboration in the fight against doping between sports
    organizations and public authorities shall be reinforced according
    to the responsibilities of each party. Together, they will also
    take action in the areas of education, scientific research, social
    and health measures to protect athletes, and coordination of
    legislation relative to doping. 

Done in Lausanne (Switzerland),
4 February 1999

2013-11-27T17:59:09-06:00February 11th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off on Lausanne Declaration on Doping in Sport
Go to Top