Overview of Major Assignments in CO150

Sample Annotated Bibliography

Elizabeth Albrecht

Annotated Bibliography


Carstairs, Catherine. "The Wide World of Doping: Drug Scandals, Natural Bodies, and the Business of Sports Entertainment." Addiction Research and Theory 11.4 August (2003): 263-281. Academic Search Premier, 12 July 2004 . <http://0-search.epnet.com.catalog.library.colostate.edu:80/direct.asp?an=10289284&db=aph>.

Notes: Carstairs writes that “The role of doping scandals in sports entertainment must be considered in light of why people watch sport. … People enjoy viewing the efforts and physical prowess of athletes, but this does not have to be “natural” to take pleasure in it, in fact it is enjoyed precisely because it is out of the range of the normal” (264). The article is about performance enhancing drugs and how the public's response depends on each individual situation. The article uses Mark McGwire as an example of this. When he was found to be and admitted to taking androstenedione (andro) during the summer of 1998, not much was said or done. This was partly because of “the fact that andro was legal in baseball and available over-the-counter” (Carstairs, 270). Another reason given in the article is that “there has been much less attention paid to doping in team sports…[and] the only reason why McGwire's drug use came to light at all was because he was in pursuit of an individual record” (Carstairs, 270). This article says that “doping stories may actually involve new viewers/readers who normally lack interest in sport but enjoy the emotional and moral spectacle of scandal and the important questions raised by doping” (Carstairs, 264). According to Carstairs it also seems as though “audiences appear to enjoy the extra excitement afforded by the battle to catch the dopers” (276). I liked this article because it gives me a possible explanation as to why certain sports deal with performance enhancing drug problems more frequently than others. I also liked Carstairs reasons for why the issue of doping is so interesting to the general public. Carstairs seems like a good source to me. She is a professor in the History department at the University of British Columbia and has written multiple articles about drugs and drug addiction.
( Added: July 15, 2004 Last Updated: July 19, 2004 )



Casey, Karen L... Executive Summary--Educational Program Development Athlete Survey . United States Anti-Doping Agency. 2001. 9 July 2004 . <http://www.usantidoping.org/education/survey_results.htm>.

Notes: This survey was conducted “in order to develop and deliver effective educational programming in preventing and deterring doping in sport” (Casey, 1). Out of 3200 athletes receiving a survey, 23% returned a response to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). The summaries of the survey results are as follows. According to Casey, those athletes who are supportive of supplements also are less concerned with any health risks connected to those supplements. Athletes who thought that drug tests were violating their rights also believed that drug tests cause non-users to worry about testing positive. According to Casey's summary, “Those athletes with teammates who approve of using various performance enhancing substances also reported a willingness to try certain substances, with creatine being at the top of the list” (1). The summary also says that cheating, fellow-athlete disapproval, cost, and fear of testing positive are reasons some athletes choose not to use performance enhancing drugs. This survey helps the USADA Education Division to educate athletes, coaches, and trainers on the subject of the drugs themselves, as well as the testing methods. I chose this source because it includes responses directly from the athletes themselves. I think this is a credible source because, according to the USADA website, it has “full authority for testing, education, research and adjudication for U.S. Olympic, Pan Am Games, and Paralympic athletes. It is USADA's responsibility to develop a comprehensive national anti-doping program for the Olympic Movement in the United States .”
( Added: July 15, 2004 Last Updated: July 19, 2004 )



Donovan, Robert J., Garry Egger, Vicki Kapernick, John Mendoza. "A Conceptual Framework for Achieving Performance Enhancing Drug Compliance in Sport." Sports Medicine 32.4 (2002): 269-284. Academic Search Premier, 7 July 2004 . <http://0-search.epnet.com.catalog.library.colostate.edu:80/direct.asp?an=6356791&db=aph>.

Notes: This article is about a study that was done in Australia prior to the 2000 Olympics that looked at athletes' attitudes and beliefs. Those creating the study constructed a model based on “three behavioral science frameworks: social cognition models; threat (or fear) appeals; and instrumental and normative approaches” (Donovan, 270). This model found six influences to the attitudes of an athlete “with respect to performance enhancing drug usage: personality factors, threat appraisal, benefit appraisal, reference group influences, personal morality and legitimacy” (Donovan, 270). There are two different threat appraisals: health and enforcement. The possibilities of becoming sick or getting caught taking the drug are the main reasons an athlete would not take the performance enhancing drugs. Using the Health Belief Model (Donovan, 274) as a mold, this article says that “drug usage will occur if athletes: see themselves as unable to achieve at their desired level; if achieving at the desired level has considerable rewards; consider that drug usage will effectively deliver the required performance without undue adverse effects or expense; something, such as being informed that a rival in a forthcoming event is using [performance enhancing drugs], occurs to trigger action” (Donovan, 275). In terms of legitimacy, athletes will be more willing to comply with anti-doping laws if they see that the anti-doping agencies are fairly testing the athletes and if the testing processes are “scientifically accurate and effective” (Donovan, 277). Personal morality can influence an athlete one way or another; it all just depends on that person. “The relative influence of specific reference groups will vary by individual, by type of sport (e.g. individual vs. collective), and by sporting level” (Donovan, 278). These reference groups can include coaches, doctors, team managers, and psychologists. An athlete's personality also influences whether or not they might use performance enhancing drugs. According to the article, “optimistic athletes were far less affected by previous poor performances than were pessimistic athletes. Optimists attributed failure to external sources, and to quite specific and temporary conditions, whereas pessimists attributed failure to internal sources, and to broad, generalized conditions” (Donovan, 279). In summary the article states that “the likelihood of drug use will be highest when: threat appraisal is low; benefit appraisal is high; personal morality is neutral; perceived legitimacy of the laws and enforcement agency is low; relevant reference groups are supportive of drug use; there is high vulnerability on personality factors” (Donovan, 279-280). I think this source will be beneficial to me because it gives reasons why athletes may or may not use these drugs. It will help me to see the athletes' view on performance enhancing drugs. The authors are all members of health agencies in Australia , so I believe that they make this a credible source.
( Added: July 18, 2004 Last Updated: July 19, 2004 )



Hannigan, David. "Drugs in Sport; A Habit US Sport Doesn't Want to Kick: The Authorities are Lenient and the Public Indulgent over Doping." The Guardian 5 December (2003): 33-33. LexisNexis Academic, 18 July 2004 . <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>.

Notes: David Hannigan starts this article with the story of Mary Decker Slaney, who was inducted to the USA Track and Field hall of fame, even though she tested positive seven years ago for having “excessive levels of testosterone in her urine.” He finds it interesting that although this happened, it “obviously counted for little when journalists, officials and existing hall members recently filled in their ballot papers” (Hannigan, 33). Hannigan believes that there are many Americans who “care passionately about sports yet [are] largely unmoved by the subject of doping.” He uses the public's response to baseball's problems to state that “For some, it matters not how they manage to hit the balls out of the park but simply that they do” (Hannigan, 33). The new penalties for those baseball players testing positive are not very harsh, with the fifth offense resulting in a one year suspension and a $100,000 fine. Hannigan concludes his article by saying how the United States government did not pay the $800,000 annual contribution to the World Anti-Doping Agency. This only furthers his opinion that the United States is not very interested in the fight against performance enhancing drugs. The reason I chose this article was because it is from a European newspaper. Published in London , England , The Guardian gives me the view of someone looking at this American problem from the outside. This article also gives me possible reasons for why the penalties for Major League Baseball and other professional sports listed are not very strict. The associations for these sports are making money because of these athletes, so if they are penalized for too long, the public will lose interest in that sport. I believe The Guardian is a solid source for my research. It has been in production since 1821, and it won the Newspaper of the Year Award in 1997 and 1998.
( Added: July 18, 2004 Last Updated: July 19, 2004 )



Hruby, Patrick. "Bush's steroid remarks get mixed reaction." The Washington Times 22 January (2004): C2-C2. LexisNexis Academic, 7 July 2004 . <http://www.washingtontimes.com>.

Notes: This article was written in response to President Bush's State of the Union address in January 2004 in which he talked about performance enhancing drugs. The article quotes Bush saying that “‘Athletes play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message that they are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character'” (Hruby, C2). Hruby also quotes two doctors who are experts in the area of drugs and sports. Both agreed with what the President had to say, but Dr. Robert Ruhling thinks that without a specific program to combat performance enhancing drugs, nothing will change. Another quote by President Bush was when he told “the sports world ‘to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now'” (Hruby, C2). I chose this article because it gives the President's view on the issue I am researching. Although Bush is the President of the United States , he is part of the general public in the world of sports, which gives me another approach to my issue. The Washington Times seems like a valid source. Looking at the website, I found that this newspaper has been in production since 1982, and that it is a newspaper that is often quoted by Americans.
( Added: July 19, 2004 Last Updated: July 19, 2004 )



Mayo Clinic Staff, . Steroids and sports: A dangerous mix? . Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. 1998-2004. 16 July 2004 . <http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=HQ01105>.

Notes: This article, found on the Mayo Clinic website, gives a nice summary of the different types of performance enhancing drugs and supplements and what they do to a person's body. The article includes anabolic steroids, androstenedione, creatine, stimulants, and diuretics in its research. The staff at the Mayo Clinic gives a brief description of each drug, what it is meant to help achieve, and possible side effects. It also states whether or not each drug is legal in the United States . One part of this article that is interesting is at the end when Dr. Edward Laskowski of the Mayo Clinic says that “Athletic performance has more to do with skill and hard work than popping a pill or downing a super-drink” (Mayo Clinic Staff). He says “‘There's a danger that kids or young adults will think: ‘If I want to be like that, I'll need to take something'…There's a tendency to look for an external agent as a magic bullet, a magic pill that's going to help us perform. The truth is there isn't any'” (Mayo Clinic Staff). I picked this article to use for my research because it gives a great summary of performance enhancing drugs and what they do. I liked that it wasn't too in depth, and that I could understand what it was telling me. I trust what this article says because of the credibility of the Mayo Clinic. According to the website, “A team of Web-publishing professionals and medical experts work side by side to produce this site. Through this unique collaboration, we give you access to the experience and knowledge of the more than 2,000 physicians and scientists of Mayo Clinic.”
( Added: July 18, 2004 Last Updated: July 19, 2004 )



Rhoden, William C... "Sports of The Times; Track Tries to Retain Its Ideals." The New York Times 24 January (2004): D1-D1. LexisNexis Academic, 7 July 2004 . <http://www.nytimes.com>.

Notes: This article was in The New York Times in January 2004, just days after the State of the Union address was given by President Bush. “Saying that athletes play an important role in society, the president acknowledged that some of them ‘are not setting much of an example'” (Rhoden, D1). Some of the other quotes by President Bush in this article are the same as the quotes in the annotation of Hruby's article about this same topic. The article also quotes Craig Masback, who is the chief executive of USA Track and Field. He says that the issue of performance enhancing drugs “is not a track issue, this is an American issue - [and] has now been raised to the highest possible level of discussion. America has a problem where it has sent cues, subtle and otherwise, to people in every endeavor, whether it be Wall Street or sports, that cheating might be something that you consider. America 's got to deal with that problem” (Rhoden, D1). Masback believes that “‘If track and field wants to say it is at the pinnacle of Olympic sports, then we should be held to the highest standard'” (Rhoden, D1). Rhoden writes that he doesn't approve of performance enhancing drugs, but that “[He] won't allow an athlete's recklessness…to destroy the greater values of competition.” I chose this article for the same reasons as the other article about the State of the Union address by Hruby because of the general public views. The President and Rhoden himself give their responses to this issue of performance enhancing drugs. I think that this is a credible source because it is coming from The New York Times, which is a well written newspaper, and according to the website of The New York Times Rhoden has been writing about sports for this newspaper since March 1983.
( Added: July 19, 2004 Last Updated: July 19, 2004 )



Robbins, Liz. "'Cheaters' Subculture is Cited." The New York Times 7 July (2004): D7-D7. LexisNexis Academic, 7 July 2004 . <http://www.nytimes.com>.

Notes: The New York Times published this article before the Olympic Trials began for track and field. It is about the six athletes who are accused of using performance enhancing drugs, and how the whole issue of these drugs may take over the spotlight of the actual competition. Chief executive of USA Track and Field Craig Masback says in the article “that the scandal over performance enhancing drugs emanated from a ‘small subculture of drug cheaters'” (Robbins, D7). The athletes competing at the trials who are accused of using these drugs are Chryste Gaines, Michelle Collins, Tim Montgomery, Alvin Harrison, Regina Jacobs, and Calvin Harrison. According to Robbins, “If any of these athletes should qualify, they would be eligible to be chosen for the United States Olympic team. They might still be sanctioned at their arbitration hearings, and if this occurs before the Olympics in Athens next month, a change in the rules might allow American officials to replace them on the team.” Masback is hoping that these cases can be quickly resolved in order to focus America 's attention on the competition. He states that “‘Our goal for the sport is, one, that the matters be cleared up as quickly as possible, two, that they all be done as fairly as possible, and three, that the athletes who are guilty be punished and those who are innocent be allowed to move on in the sport'” (Robbins, D7). I liked this article because I felt that I could get a good sense of Masback and how he feels about this issue that is surrounding his sport more than others right now. The New York Times is a credible source, and I thought that this article got right to the point, only giving information that is important to this issue.
( Added: July 19, 2004 Last Updated: July 19, 2004 )



Sweeney, H. Lee.. "Gene Doping." Scientific American 291.1 July (2004): 62-69. Academic Search Premier, 7 July 2004 . <http://0-search.epnet.com.catalog.library.colostate.edu:80/direct.asp?an=13345807&db=aph>.

Notes: Sweeney writes in this recent article about gene therapy, and how in the near future it will probably become a problem with athletes using it to further their careers. Sweeney writes that “Despite repeated scandals, doping has become irresistible to many athletes, if only to keep pace with competitors who are doing it.” Because winning has become the only definition of success in sports these days, athletes are always looking for a way to enhance their performances. And gene therapy is the next medical advancement that will probably be exploited for this reason. The article states that “Sports authorities fear that a new form of doping will be undetectable and thus much less preventable. Treatments that regenerate muscle, increase its strength, and protect it from degradation will soon be entering human clinical trials for muscle-wasting disorders. Among these are therapies that give patients a synthetic gene, which can last for years, producing high amounts of naturally occurring muscle-building chemicals” (Sweeney). The article gives a somewhat complicated overview of gene therapy and how it grows muscles. Sweeney then writes how athletes can use this therapy to enhance their muscles, possibly so that it is undetectable to anyone testing for performance enhancement. Although this article is about gene therapy and not performance enhancing drugs, I thought it would be an interesting source to include in my research. Since this will probably be the next step in performance enhancement, I wanted to read about it so that I can be informed. Also, Sweeney seems to really know what he is talking about. He is a professor and chairman of physiology at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and a member of the Board of Scientific Councilors for the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases. Sweeney also is the scientific director of the Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy and a member of the Muscular Dystrophy Association's Translational Research Advisory Council.
( Added: July 19, 2004 Last Updated: July 19, 2004 )


Doping in Elite Sport; The Politics of Drugs in the Olympic Movement . Eds. Wayne Wilson, Edward Derse. Champaign , IL : Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc., 2001.

Notes: This book had a section that discussed “four types of arguments from harm: (1) harm to users, (2) harm to other athletes, (3) harm to society, and (4) harm to the sport community” (Doping in Elite Sport, 136). Although not all drugs are harmful, the majority are in some way. This section in the book describes each argument, giving examples that show how performance enhancing drugs can cause harm. The basic argument for users is that the substance harms the user; the user needs to be protected; the user can be safe by banning the substance; therefore the substance needs to be banned (Doping in Elite Sport, 136). The argument for harm to other athletes is as follows: a user of a substance causes harm to clean athletes; the clean athletes need protection; banning the substances protects the clean athletes; therefore, the substances should be banned (Doping in Elite Sport, 139). Harms to society and the sport community are not as simple as the previous two arguments. Harm to society mostly affects the children because they view athletes as role models. “If elite athletes take drugs such as steroids, they are no longer suitable as role models and the general public has lost a significant benefit” (Doping in Elite Sport, 140). According to this book, the sports community is the sports-watching public. “These people have been harmed because they have been cheated” (Doping in Elite Sport, 142). I picked this book because I liked how it laid out the four groups that are harmed by the use of performance enhancing drugs. This source helps me by describing how each group feels about being harmed by these drugs. I think this is a credible source because the book says that the two editors are heavily involved in sports, and the contributing authors are almost all professors at universities around the country.
( Added: July 19, 2004 Last Updated: July 19, 2004 )