Individual and contextual factors in ethical decision making: A case study of the most significant doping scandal in Canadian university sports history

This case study is written for instructors of sport management courses focused on ethics and integrity-related issues in team environments. The case highlights the real world example of the University of Waterloo Warriors varsity football that, in 2010, experienced the most significant doping scandal in Canadian university sports history, with a total of nine anti-doping rule violations asserted through the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. This case study also incorporates the findings of an independent review of the Waterloo football program in relation to the use of banned substances, and includes first-hand accounts from Bob Copeland who was the acting director of athletics. These findings are then interpreted in the context of relevant theory related to performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) use. Along with the findings of this review, which included interviews with athletes, coaches, and administrators, the case study provides important insights into ethical decision making processes and leadership structures in a team sport environment. Particular emphasis is placed on the role that individual cognitive antecedents and contextual organizational factors (i.e., policies, leadership, ethical climate, and infrastructure) play in ethical decision-making processes.     

Therapeutic use exemptions and the doctrine of double effect

Without taking a position on the overall justification of anti-doping regulations, I analyse the possible justification of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) from such rules. TUEs are a creative way to prevent the unfair exclusion of athletes with a chronic condition, and they have the potential to be the least bad option. But they cannot be competitively neutral. Their justification must rest, instead, on the relevance of intentions to permissibility. I illustrate this by means of a set of thought experiments in which only an athlete’s intentions vary. I argue that the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) sheds some light on TUEs and illustrate this by applying different readings of the DDE to the thought experiment. This underpins a justification of anti-doping exemptions very different from the approach adopted by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). I argue for three changes to bring TUEs in line with this understanding: rewriting of the regulations, transparency, and a greater role for athletes in determining what exemptions are allowed, and when.