{"id":316,"date":"2008-07-08T11:20:14","date_gmt":"2008-07-08T11:20:14","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2016-04-01T09:54:28","modified_gmt":"2016-04-01T14:54:28","slug":"compliance-by-hong-kongs-national-sport-organizations-with-the-world-anti-doping-program","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/compliance-by-hong-kongs-national-sport-organizations-with-the-world-anti-doping-program\/","title":{"rendered":"Compliance by Hong Kong\u2019s National Sport Organizations With the World Anti-Doping Program"},"content":{"rendered":"
Submitted by: Lena Fung – Hong Kong Baptist University; Yvonne Yuan – Hong Kong Sports Institute Limited<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The present study aimed to assess current anti-doping efforts among Hong
\nKong\u2019s national sport organizations (NSOs), for example
\norganizations\u2019 readiness to change and to initiate or strengthen
\nanti-doping measures. The points of view of administrators, coaches,
\nand committee members were considered. A great majority of NSOs in Hong Kong appeared to be at the
\ncontemplation stage, concerning anti-doping actions. The major
\nconstraints they faced were limited funds and manpower.<\/p>\n


\nThe World Anti-Doping Program, developed by the World Anti-Doping
\nAgency (WADA), is structured in three levels: a World Anti-Doping
\nCode, international standards, and models of and guidelines for best
\npractices. WADA officials state that one purpose of the World
\nAnti-Doping Program and code is \u201cto ensure harmonized, coordinated,
\nand effective anti-doping programs at the international and national
\nlevel with regard to detection, deterrence, and prevention of doping\u201d
\n(World Anti-Doping Agency, 2003). We would like to suggest that the
\nprogram actually can serve two purposes. On the macro level, it can
\nprovide various international federations and national anti-doping
\norganizations (NADOs) with a framework for developing anti-doping
\npolicies, rules, and regulations. On a micro level, it can guide
\nnational sport organizations (NSOs) in carrying out anti-doping
\nfunctions like educational programming and in adopting appropriate
\npractices to demonstrate compliance with various anti-doping
\nregulations.
\nThe World Anti-Doping Code has been in place for over 5 years, so the
\nroles of international federations and NADOs in promoting and
\nmonitoring athletes\u2019 anti-doping behaviors should be clear to sport
\norganizations and professionals involved in high-level competition
\n(e.g., World Games, Olympics). Those not involved at that level may
\nbe less familiar with arrangements, for instance coaches and
\nadministrators of NSOs that have not produced athletes qualifying for
\nhigh-level competitions. Even NSOs with experience in high-level
\ncompetition may have second- or third-tier athletes lacking the
\nexposure their elite counterparts have had. Given that NSOs play a
\nsignificant role in communicating anti-doping information to athletes
\nand explaining their role in anti-doping regulations, the evaluation
\nof NSOs\u2019 current practices is important. The present study provided
\nsuch an evaluation, using a case-study approach to determine the
\nextent of Hong Kong NSOs\u2019 compliance with the anti-doping program.
\nSpecifically, we aimed to assess whether Hong Kong\u2019s NSOs were
\nimplementing anti-doping functions, as well as to identify
\nconstraints on their full compliance. Although the study involved
\nonly Hong Kong organizations, knowledge gained should be applicable
\nin countries with similar anti-doping experience, and the study
\nshould thus prove useful to international federations, NADOs, and
\nWADA as they direct resources and efforts.
\nSince to an extent NSOs are organizations whose anti-doping
\ncompliance or noncompliance can be treated as the adoption of one
\nmanagement practice over another, their anti-doping compliance can be
\nmodeled as organizational change. We therefore reviewed such models
\nand chose Prochaska\u2019s transtheoretical model (TTM) (Prochaska,
\n2000) to analyze NSO anti-doping functions. The popular TTM was
\noriginally developed to explain behavioral change in individuals
\n(Prochaska, Prochaska, & Levesque, 2001).
\nCentral to the TTM are three theoretical constructs related to
\nchange: (a) stages of change, (b) decisional balance, and (c) process
\nof change. Intentional change\u2014whether by an individual or an
\norganization\u2014can occur in stages and so can be seen as a series of
\nmovements along a continuum. There are six such movements or stages:
\npre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action,
\nmaintenance<\/em>, and termination.<\/em> The terminology process
\nof change,<\/em> in contrast, connotes the belief that change is
\ninfluenced by both overt and covert activities that comprise
\nexperiential<\/em> processes<\/em> and behavioral<\/em> processe<\/em>s.
\nExperiential processes characterize the early-stage transition and
\ninclude consciousness raising, dramatic relief, environmental
\nreevaluation, social liberation,<\/em> and self-reevaluation.<\/em>
\nBehavioral processes characterize later-stage transition and include
\nstimulus control, helping relationship, counter conditioning,
\nreinforcement management,<\/em> and self-liberation.<\/em>
\nIn sum, the TTM provides an opportunity to understand the temporal
\nordering of events as an established pattern is changed, which is
\nwhat we intended to do in terms of the NSOs\u2019 implementation of
\nanti-doping functions. It also provides opportunity to explore
\nmechanisms mediating intentional change (e.g., constraints on
\nimplementation of anti-doping functions). An additional rationale for
\nadopting the model was its prior successful application in an
\nanalysis of family-service agencies (Prochaska, 2000), a study of the
\nimplementation of a system of \u201ctime-limited therapy\u201d that has
\nnotable parallels to the implementation of anti-doping functions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Method<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Design of Questionnaire<\/em><\/p>\n

The three versions of the self-report instrument used in the present
\nstudy were developed with input from three NSOs of different sizes,
\nwhose staffs were invited to participate in face-to-face interviews
\nwith a member of the research team experienced in anti-doping works.
\nDuring these interviews, the purpose and procedures of the study were
\nclarified for the NSOs, and items for inclusion in the questionnaire,
\nas well as in a structured interview, were identified. NSOs
\nparticipating in these preliminary interviews did not participate in
\nthe study itself.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Collection of Survey Data<\/em><\/p>\n

A letter of invitation to participate in the research project and
\nthree copies of the final questionnaire were delivered to each NSO in
\nHong Kong (except the three involved in instrument development).
\nFollow-up telephone calls were made to confirm the organizations\u2019
\ninterest in participating. NSOs that volunteered to participate were
\nscheduled for interviews with research team members. Completed
\nquestionnaires were collected during or after an interview session.
\nThe three versions of the study questionnaire included one for NSO
\nadministrators, one for NSO coaches, and one for NSO committee
\nmembers. All versions included Part 1 and Part 2; the version for
\nadministrators contained an additional three parts. Part 1 of the
\nquestionnaire represented a modification of the Readiness to Change
\nQuestionnaire (RTCQ) (Rollnick, Heather, Gold, & Hall, 1992). The
\noriginal RTCQ, designed to study drinking behavior, is a 12-item
\nquestionnaire that assigns excessive drinkers to either the
\nprecontemplation, contemplation,<\/em> or action<\/em> stages
\n(Heather, Gold, & Rollnick, 1991). For the present study, the
\nmodified questionnaire assessed each NSO\u2019s readiness to increase
\nits anti-doping efforts. Part 2 of the questionnaire was based on the
\nearly interviews with the three NSOs not generating study data. From
\nthese interviews, a list of pros and cons of increased anti-doping
\nefforts was developed. Part 2 asked respondents to rate the
\nimportance of these pros and cons as influences on the NSO\u2019s
\ndecisions about increasing or not increasing anti-doping work.
\nFinally, Parts 3, 4, and 5 of the questionnaire were directed to NSO
\nadministrators only and collected information about (a) spending on
\nanti-doping works, (b) opinions about anti-doping education programs,
\nand (c) an NSO\u2019s demographic information.<\/p>\n


\nCollection of Interview Data<\/em><\/p>\n

Two members of the research team conducted structured face-to-face
\ninterviews with representatives of NSOs who were either
\nadministrators, committee members, or senior coaches. All were
\nfamiliar with their NSO\u2019s anti-doping works. Standard questions
\nwere posed initially, with a respondent\u2019s answers guiding a series
\nof appropriate follow-up questions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Results<\/p>\n

A total of 62 invitations were sent to NSOs in Hong Kong to
\nparticipate in the research project, and 44 NSOs returned completed
\nquestionnaires, a response rate of 71%. Interviews were completed
\nwith 42 NSOs\u2019 representatives, a response rate of 67.7%.<\/p>\n

National
\nSport Organization Demographics<\/em><\/p>\n

The participating NSOs\u2019 demographics provide a rough idea of the
\nscope of Hong Kong\u2019s locally organized sport. Tables 1\u20134 present
\nthe numbers of athletes, of coaches, and of competitions organized by
\nor participated in by our respondents. Most of the NSOs had fewer
\nthan 5 full-time and 5 part-time employees. A majority (77.1%) had
\nfewer than 50 athletes active in international events that were
\nendorsed by an international federation. Over half of the surveyed
\nNSOs (60.6%) had 50\u2013200 Level-1 coaches, while about half (57.6%
\nand 51.5%, respectively) had fewer than 31 Level-2 coaches and fewer
\nthan 6 Level-3 coaches. About half of the NSOs organized fewer than
\n10 local competitions per year, and 65% organized 0\u20131 international
\nevent annually. About 63% of the NSOs sent athletes to 1\u20135
\ninternational competitions each year.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table
\n1<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Numbers
\nof Employees at Hong Kong\u2019s National Sport Organizations, With
\nPercentage of All Surveyed NSOs Having Similar Numbers<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nFull-time<\/th>\n<\/th>\nPart-time<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Count<\/td>\n%<\/td>\nCount<\/td>\n%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
0<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n4.8<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n48.8<\/td>\n1\u20135<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n66.7<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n48.8<\/td>\n>5<\/td>\n12<\/td>\n28.6<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2.4<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\n42<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n41<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 2<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Numbers
\nof Athletes Within Hong Kong\u2019s National Sport Organizations, By
\nCompetitive Event Type, With Percentage of All Surveyed NSOs Having
\nSimilar Numbers<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

26<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nInternational Eventa<\/sup><\/th>\nOther Event<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Count<\/td>\n%<\/td>\nCount<\/td>\n%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
0\u201310<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n20.0<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3.8<\/td>\n11\u201350<\/td>\n20<\/td>\n57.1<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n19.2<\/td>\n51\u2013100<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n11.4<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n34.6<\/td>\n101\u2013200<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n8.6<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n7.7<\/td>\n> 200<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2.9<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n34.6<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\n35<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

a<\/sup>For
\npurposes of this study, an international event is a competition
\nendorsed by an appropriate international federation.
\nTable 3<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Numbers
\nof Coaches Within Hong Kong\u2019s National Sport Organizations (By
\nLevel), With Percentage of All Surveyed NSOs Having Similar Numbers<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Level 1<\/th>\nLevel 2<\/th>\nLevel 3<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
<\/td>\nCount<\/td>\n%<\/td>\n<\/td>\nCount<\/td>\n%<\/td>\n<\/td>\nCount<\/td>\n%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
0\u201350<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n24.2<\/td>\n0\u201310<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n39.4<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n21.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
51\u2013100<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n27.3<\/td>\n11\u201330<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n18.2<\/td>\n1\u20135<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n30.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
101\u2013200<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n33.3<\/td>\n31\u201350<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n9.1<\/td>\n6\u201310<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n21.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
201\u2013300<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n12.1<\/td>\n51\u2013100<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n15.2<\/td>\n11\u201320<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n12.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
>300<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n3.03<\/td>\n>100<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n18.2<\/td>\n>20<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n15.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n33<\/td>\n100<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\n33<\/td>\n100<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\n33<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 4<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Annual
\nAverage Number of Competitions Organized By and Participated in By
\nNSOs, With Percentage of All Surveyed NSOs Having Similar Numbers<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

17<\/p>\n

42.5<\/p>\n

3\u20135<\/p>\n

13<\/p>\n

31.7<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Average # of Local
\nCompetitions Organized<\/th>\n		Average # of
\nInternational Competitions Organized<\/th>\n		Average # of
\nInternational Competitions
\nParticipated In<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
<\/td>\nCount<\/td>\n%<\/td>\n<\/td>\nCount<\/td>\n%<\/td>\n<\/td>\nCount<\/td>\n%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
0\u20135<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n34.1<\/td>\n0<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n22.5<\/td>\n1\u20132<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n31.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6\u201310<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n24.4<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11\u201320<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n19.5<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n15<\/td>\n6\u201310<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n14.6<\/td>\n21\u201330<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2.4<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2.5<\/td>\n11\u201320<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n14.6<\/td>\n>30<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n19.5<\/td>\n>3<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n17.5<\/td>\n>20<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n7.3<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\n41<\/td>\n100<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n100<\/td>\nTotal<\/td>\n41<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Resources
\nUsed for Anti-Doping Efforts<\/em><\/p>\n

Our data suggest that Hong Kong\u2019s national sport organizations have
\nnot invested much, either in terms of finances or manpower, in
\nanti-doping efforts (Table 5). A majority of our respondents\u2014close
\nto 88%\u2014had expended no funds for anti-doping efforts within the 3
\nyears preceding the study and anticipated no such spending throughout
\nthe current year. Moreover, 80%\u201390% of the NSOs had neither any
\nstaff members nor honorary consultants assigned to anti-doping work.
\nTable 5<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Average
\nAnnual Spending on Anti-Doping Efforts by Hong Kong NSOs, Over 4-Year
\nPeriod, in United States Dollars, With Percentage of All Surveyed
\nNSOs Spending Similar Amounts<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nAverage Annual
\nSpending in 3 Years Preceding Study<\/th>\n		Anticipated Spending
\nDuring Current Year<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
0 USD<\/td>\n36 (87.8%)<\/td>\n37 (88.1%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1\u20131,000 USD<\/td>\n3 (7.3%)<\/td>\n2 (4.8%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1,001\u20132,000 USD<\/td>\n1 (2.4%)<\/td>\n2 (4.8%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
> 2,000 USD<\/td>\n1 (2.4%)<\/td>\n1 (2.4%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Tables 6<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

NSOs\u2019
\nStaffing for Anti-Doping Efforts, By Paid Status and Position, With
\nPercentage of All Surveyed NSOs Providing Similar Numbers of Staff<\/em>
\nPaid Staff<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nCount<\/th>\n%<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
0<\/td>\n35<\/td>\n85.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n12.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Honorary
\nConsultant from Medical Profession<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nCount<\/th>\n%<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
0<\/td>\n32<\/td>\n80<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n7.5<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n>2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n7.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Honorary
\nConsultant from Legal Profession<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nCount<\/th>\n%<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
0<\/td>\n36<\/td>\n90<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Honorary
\nConsultant from Technical Field (e.g., Doping Control Officer)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nCount<\/th>\n%<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
0<\/td>\n33<\/td>\n82.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n7.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
>2<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Honorary
\nConsultant (Unspecified)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nCount<\/th>\n%<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
0<\/td>\n38<\/td>\n95<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Opinions
\nAbout Anti-Doping Education Programs<\/em><\/p>\n

The NSO respondents were asked their opinions or perceptions
\nconcerning appropriate content for inclusion in anti-doping
\neducational programs or informational materials (Table 7). The three
\nmost important content areas, according to our respondents, were
\n\u201cways to avoid inadvertent doping,\u201d \u201crights and
\nresponsibilities of athletes in doping control,\u201d and \u201canti-doping
\nrules and regulations.\u201d
\nTable 7<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

NSO
\nRespondents\u2019 Rank Ordering of Importance of Content Areas in
\nAnti-Doping Educational Programs, From Most to Least Important<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Content<\/th>\nScore<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Mean<\/td>\nSD<\/em><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ways to avoid inadvertent doping<\/td>\n.97<\/td>\n1.09<\/td>\n\n

Rights and responsibilities of athletes in doping control<\/td>\n

.95<\/td>\n1.17<\/td>\nAnti-doping rules and regulations<\/td>\n.77<\/td>\n1.02<\/td>\nResponsibilities of NSO in doping control<\/td>\n.56<\/td>\n.93<\/td>\nCompetitive sports and ethics<\/td>\n.47<\/td>\n.69<\/td>\nTherapeutic use exemption for prohibited drugs<\/td>\n.45<\/td>\n.92<\/td>\nDrug testing procedures<\/td>\n.40<\/td>\n.80<\/td>\nCurrent international anti-doping practices<\/td>\n.39<\/td>\n.84<\/td>\nWhereabouts information of athletes<\/td>\n.35<\/td>\n.87<\/td>\nCurrent Hong Kong anti-doping practices<\/td>\n.34<\/td>\n.72<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

As shown in Table 8, the surveyed respondents indicated that the most
\nsuitable medium to deliver anti-doping educational programs was a web
\npage. Workshops, pamphlets, and video presentations were also
\nconsidered suitable modes of delivery.
\nTable 8<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

NSO
\nRespondents\u2019 Rank Ordering of Suitability of Anti-Doping
\nEducational Program Delivery, From Most to Least Suitable<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nMean<\/th>\nSD<\/em><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Web page<\/p>\n

2.77<\/p>\n

2.02<\/p>\n

Workshop<\/p>\n

2.58<\/p>\n

2.12<\/p>\n

Pamphlet<\/p>\n

2.15<\/p>\n

1.79<\/p>\n

VCD<\/p>\n

2.13<\/p>\n

1.73<\/p>\n

Other<\/p>\n

.35<\/p>\n

1.03<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Surveyed
\nNSO associates suggested other suitable media for providing
\nanti-doping education (Table 9), as well.
\nTable 9
\nOther Modes of Anti-Doping Education Suggested by Respondents<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Mode<\/th>\nNumber of
\nRespondents Making This Suggestion<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
TV
\nCommercial\/Program<\/td>\n		3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Seminar<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Newspaper Article<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Commercial Media<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Exhibition<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Respondents
\nwere asked what they thought would be a suitable time to conduct an
\nanti-doping workshop; opinions varied from NSO to NSO. As shown in
\nTable 10, while 45% preferred weekday evenings, other times also had
\nsupport (i.e., weekday \u201coffice hours,\u201d 30%; weekends, 25%).
\nTable 10
\nAnti-Doping Workshop Times Preferred By Respondents<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nFrequency<\/th>\n%<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Monday\u2013Friday
\n\u201cOffice Hours\u201d<\/td>\n		12<\/td>\n30<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Monday\u2013Friday
\nEvenings<\/td>\n		18<\/td>\n45<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Saturday\u2013Sunday<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n25<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 
\nAsked if they would recommend that their NSO staff attend a 6\u20138-hr
\nanti-doping workshop costing $300 HKD (about $40 U. S.) per
\nparticipant, 68.3% of our respondents said yes (Table 11).
\nTable 11
\nNumber\/Percentage of Respondents Who Would\/Would Not Recommend NSO
\nStaff Attendance at 6\u20138-Hr, 300 HKD Anti-Doping Workshop<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nFrequency<\/th>\n%<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Yes<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n68.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
No<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n31.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n41<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Readiness
\nfor change<\/em><\/p>\n

Data from the modified RTCQ completed by NSO administrators, coaches,
\nand committee members are presented in Table 12. A majority of
\nrespondents of all three types were in the contemplation stage (54.5%
\nof administrators, 51.1% of coaches, and 47.7% of committee members).
\nBeing in the contemplation stage meant actively considering whether
\nto initiate or strengthen an NSO\u2019s anti-doping effort.
\nTable 12<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Indicated
\nReadiness to Initiate or Strengthen NSO\u2019s Anti-Doping Efforts, In
\nTerms of RTCQ \u201cStage,\u201d With Percentage of All Respondents at Same
\n\u201cStage\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/th>\nPrecontemplation<\/th>\nContemplation<\/th>\nAction<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Administrators<\/td>\n8 (18.2%)<\/td>\n24 (54.5%)<\/td>\n14 (27.3%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Coaches<\/td>\n8 (17.8%)<\/td>\n23 (51.1%)<\/td>\n14 (31.1%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Committee Members<\/td>\n10 (22.7%)<\/td>\n21 (47.7%)<\/td>\n13 (29.5%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Factors in
\nDecision Making About Anti-Doping Efforts<\/em><\/p>\n

Administrators, coaches, and committee members were asked to rate the
\nimportance of a list of pros and cons of initiating or strengthening
\nanti-doping efforts within their NSO (Tables 13 and 14).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table
\n13<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

NSO
\nRespondents\u2019 Rank Ordering of Importance of \u201cPro\u201d Factors in
\nAnti-Doping Decisions, From Most to Least Important<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Pros<\/th>\nScore<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Average<\/th>\nSD<\/em><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Administrators<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It will directly or
\nindirectly improve professional knowledge of the NSO staff.<\/td>\n		5.1<\/td>\n1.17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

It will help us to
\navoid being penalized by an international federation.<\/p>\n

3.85<\/p>\n

1.61<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It will affect the
\nprofessional image of the NSO.<\/p>\n

3.69<\/p>\n

1.49<\/p>\n

It will help to
\npreserve the health of our athletes.<\/p>\n

3.17<\/p>\n

1.38<\/p>\n

There is a need to
\ncomply with the rules and regulations set forth by the
\ninternational sporting community.<\/p>\n

2.06<\/p>\n

1.17<\/p>\n

It will help to
\nmaintain fair play.<\/p>\n

2.06<\/p>\n

1.21<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Coaches<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
It will directly or
\nindirectly improve professional knowledge of the NSO staff.<\/td>\n		4.11<\/td>\n1.41<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
It will help us to
\navoid being penalized by an international federation.<\/td>\n		3.93<\/td>\n1.67<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
It will affect the
\nprofessional image of the NSO.<\/td>\n		3.7<\/td>\n1.66<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
There is a need to
\ncomply with the rules and regulations set forth by the
\ninternational sporting community.<\/td>\n		2.93<\/td>\n1.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
It will help to
\npreserve the health of our athletes.<\/td>\n		2.7<\/td>\n1.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
It will help to
\nmaintain fair play.<\/td>\n		2.41<\/td>\n1.54<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Committee
\nmembers<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
It will directly or
\nindirectly improve professional knowledge of the NSO staff.<\/td>\n		4.85<\/td>\n1.24<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
It will help us to
\navoid being penalized by an international federation.<\/td>\n		4.1<\/td>\n1.62<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

It will affect the
\nprofessional image of the NSO.<\/p>\n

3.94<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1.6<\/p>\n

It will help to
\npreserve the health of our athletes.<\/p>\n

2.73<\/p>\n

1.58<\/p>\n

There is a need to
\ncomply with the rules and regulations set forth by the
\ninternational sporting community<\/p>\n

2.45<\/p>\n

1.11<\/p>\n

It will help to
\nmaintain fair play.<\/p>\n

2.24<\/p>\n

1.28<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table
\n14<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

NSO
\nRespondents\u2019 Rank Ordering of Importance of \u201cCon\u201d Factors in
\nAnti-Doping Decisions, From Most to Least Important<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Cons<\/td>\nScore<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Average<\/td>\nSD<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Administrators<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It will create
\nunnecessary hassle for our athletes.<\/td>\n		4.98<\/td>\n1.23<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

It will pose additional
\nfinancial pressure on our NSO.<\/p>\n

3.81<\/p>\n

1.46<\/p>\n

Anti-doping work is not
\nessential to the development of our NSO.<\/p>\n

3.36<\/p>\n

1.55<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Athletes in our sport
\ndo not use prohibited substances to enhance performance.<\/p>\n

3.12<\/p>\n

1.66<\/p>\n

There is a lack of
\nprofessional knowledge to implement such works.<\/p>\n

3.07<\/p>\n

1.51<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There is a lack of
\nmanpower to implement such works.<\/p>\n

2.44<\/p>\n

1.38<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Coaches<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
It will create
\nunnecessary hassle for our athletes.<\/td>\n		4.56<\/td>\n1.28<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Anti-doping work is not
\nessential to the development of our NSO.<\/td>\n		3.78<\/td>\n1.41<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
It will pose additional
\nfinancial pressure on our NSO.<\/td>\n		3.6<\/td>\n1.55<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Athletes in our sport
\ndo not use prohibited substances to enhance performance.<\/td>\n		3.58<\/td>\n1.76<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
There is a lack of
\nprofessional knowledge to implement such works.<\/td>\n		3.06<\/td>\n1.63<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
There is a lack of
\nmanpower to implement such works.<\/td>\n		2.76<\/td>\n1.21<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Committee
\nMembers<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
It will create
\nunnecessary hassle for our athletes.<\/td>\n		4.92<\/td>\n1.41<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Anti-doping work is not
\nessential to the development of our NSO.<\/p>\n

3.92<\/p>\n

1.68<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It will pose additional
\nfinancial pressure on our NSO.<\/p>\n

3.85<\/p>\n

Athletes in our sport
\ndo not use prohibited substances to enhance performance.<\/p>\n

3.27<\/p>\n

1.71<\/p>\n

There is a lack of
\nprofessional knowledge to implement such works.
\n3.52<\/p>\n

1.69<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There is a lack of
\nmanpower to implement such works.<\/p>\n

2.85<\/p>\n

1.66<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For
\nthe list of \u201cpros\u201d associated with initiating or strengthening an
\nanti-doping effort, administrators, coaches, and committee members
\nalike said the three most important considerations were, in
\ndescending order of importance, \u201cIt will directly or indirectly
\nimprove professional knowledge of the NSO staff,\u201d \u201cIt will help
\nus to avoid being penalized by an international federation,\u201d and
\n\u201cIt will affect the professional image of the NSO.\u201d Similarly,
\nfor the list of \u201ccons,\u201d they agreed that the most important
\nconsideration was \u201cIt will create unnecessary hassle for our
\nathletes,\u201d and that the second and third most important factors
\nwere \u201cAnti-doping work is not essential to the development of our
\nNSO\u201d and \u201cIt will pose additional financial pressure on our NSO,\u201d
\nrespectively. However, administrators said financial pressure was a
\nmore important consideration than coaches and committee members said
\nit was, while the latter groups felt more influenced than
\nadministrators did by anti-doping\u2019s perceived nonessential role in
\nthe development of an NSO.<\/p>\n

NSOs\u2019
\nPresent and Upcoming Anti-Doping Efforts<\/em><\/p>\n

The interviews we conducted with representatives of Hong Kong\u2019s
\nNSOs allowed for collection of information about their current and<\/p>\n

upcoming anti-doping activities, including work in education,
\ncapacity building, drug testing, cooperation with international
\nfederations and anti-doping organizations, and policy. Results
\nobtained are presented in Table 15.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table
\n15<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

NSOs\u2019
\nPresent and Upcoming Anti-Doping Work, By Activity, With Percentage
\nof All Surveyed NSOs Pursuing Same<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Activity<\/td>\nStatusa<\/sup><\/td>\nCount<\/td>\n%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Education<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
To remind athletes
\nand athlete support personnel that they are bound by the
\nanti-doping rules<\/td>\n		1<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n16.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\n35<\/td>\n81.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

To distribute
\ninformation on doping control from third parties to your athletes
\nand athlete support personnel<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

14<\/p>\n

32.6<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

2.3<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

28<\/p>\n

65.1<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To distribute
\ninformation about education programs on doping control to
\nathletes\/coaches\/sport administrators<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

18<\/p>\n

41.9<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

25<\/p>\n

58.1<\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To include
\ninformation on doping control in newsletter, web page, or
\ncorrespondence with NSO members<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

30<\/p>\n

69.8<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

5<\/p>\n

11.6<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

8<\/p>\n

18.6<\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To seek assistance from
\nrelevant parties to organize education or information sessions for
\nyour athletes and athlete support personnel, on matters related to
\ndoping control<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

28<\/p>\n

65.1<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

8<\/p>\n

18.6<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

4.7<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

5<\/p>\n

11.6<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

To organize educational
\ntalk or seminar for your athletes\/coaches\/sport administrators on
\nanti-doping<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

35<\/p>\n

81.4<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

5<\/p>\n

11.6<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n

7<\/p>\n

 
\nTotal<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Capacity Building<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
To upgrade the existing
\nstaff on doping issues, through information\/education program<\/td>\n		1<\/td>\n32<\/td>\n74.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n11.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\n6<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

To train a doping
\ncontrol officer for your NSO<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

38<\/p>\n

88.4<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n

7<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

4.7<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 
\nDrug Testing (and Related Functions)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
To conduct drug tests
\nfor locally held international event<\/td>\n		1<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n53.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n9.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n37.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

To conduct drug
\ntests for local competition<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

39<\/p>\n

90.7<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

2.3<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n

7<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To conduct
\nout-of-competition drug tests on your athletes<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

41<\/p>\n

95.3<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

2.3<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

2.3<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

To keep record of all
\ndrug tests conducted on your athletes (for international
\ncompetition and out-of-competition)<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

26<\/p>\n

60.5<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n

7<\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

2.3<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

13<\/p>\n

30.2<\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To regularly update
\nyour international federation(s) and anti-doping organizations on
\nthe drug test record and results of your athletes<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

36<\/p>\n

83.7<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

2.3<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

6<\/p>\n

14<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To collect or
\ncoordinate the whereabouts information of your athletes<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

24
\n55.8<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

19<\/p>\n

44.2<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To regularly update
\nyour international federation(s) and anti-doping organizations on
\nthe whereabouts information of your athletes<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

30<\/p>\n

69.8<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

13<\/p>\n

30.2<\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To assist athletes in
\nthe application of the therapeutic use exemption (TUE)<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

34<\/p>\n

79.1<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

2.3<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

8<\/p>\n

18.6<\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To keep records of TUE
\nfor your athletes<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

35<\/p>\n

81.4<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

2.3<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

7<\/p>\n

16.3<\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

To regularly update
\nyour international federation(s) and anti-doping organizations on
\nthe TUE status of your athletes<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

39<\/p>\n

90.7<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

2.3<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n

7<\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 
\nCooperation
\nwith International Federations and Anti-Doping Organizations<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
To assist international
\nfederation(s) and anti-doping organizations in conducting drug
\ntests<\/td>\n		1<\/td>\n35<\/td>\n81.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n18.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n43<\/td>\n100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Policy<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
To discuss doping
\nissues in meetings of your NSO<\/td>\n		1<\/td>\n25<\/td>\n58.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n2.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n39.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

To include a clause
\nforbidding use of prohibited substances by athletes in the
\nconstitution of your NSO<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

26<\/p>\n

60.5<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

5<\/p>\n

11.6<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

12<\/p>\n

27.9<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

To prepare a procedural
\nguideline to handle anti-doping duties (If such a guideline
\nexists, please provide details on the target group and contents.)<\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

33<\/p>\n

76.7<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

7<\/p>\n

16.3<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n

7<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Total<\/p>\n

43<\/p>\n

100<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

a<\/sup>A
\nnumeral 1 in this column indicates an NSO does not intend to pursue
\nthe activity in the foreseeable future; a 2 indicates that an NSO is
\nseriously considering action within 6 months (i.e., in the
\nforeseeable future); a 3 indicates that an NSO has developed a plan
\nto act; and a 4 indicates that the NSO has a system in place and
\npursues the activity.
\nIn terms of education, most NSOs (81.4%) had reminded their athletes
\nand athlete support personnel that they are bound by anti-doping
\nrules. Answers to our follow-up questions suggested that most of the
\nreminders were sent prior to major competitions. The majority of Hong
\nKong NSOs would distribute to relevant persons information on doping
\ncontrol obtained from third parties (65.1%) and related educational
\nprograms (58.1%). However, only 18.6% of the NSOs had included
\nanti-doping information in a newsletter, a web page, or
\ncorrespondence with its members. To organize educational programs,
\nwith or without assistance from third parties, was uncommon among the
\nlocal NSOs. Programs to enhance an NSO staff\u2019s anti-doping
\nknowledge were also relatively undeveloped. Only 14% of NSOs had
\norganized educational programs to upgrade such knowledge, and only
\n4.7% had a trained doping control officer of their own.<\/p>\n

On issues of drug testing and related functions, 37.2% of the NSOs
\nreported they had experience conducting drug tests at locally held
\ninternational events. However, only 7% had conducted drug tests for
\nlocal competitions and 2.3% had conducted out-of-competition tests on
\nathletes. It seems that in Hong Kong only athletes competing at the
\ninternational level are monitored via drug testing. Athletes in local
\ncompetitions have minimal exposure to drug testing.<\/p>\n

In terms of record keeping, about 30.2% of NSOs had records of drug
\ntests conducted on their athletes, but only 14% reported this
\ninformation to an international federation (most federations made no
\nrequests for the information). About half of the NSOs (44.2%) had
\nexperience collecting or coordinating whereabouts information for
\nathletes. Only 30.2 %, however, updated an international federation
\nregularly about such information (follow-up questions suggested that
\ninternational federations did not request regular updates, especially
\nfrom NSOs without athletes competing internationally). Only 18.6% of
\nNSOs had experience applying the therapeutic use exemption with their
\nathletes; 16.3% kept records on TUE and 7% regularly updated an
\ninternational federation concerning athletes\u2019 TUE status.<\/p>\n

Only 8% of NSOs had assisted an international federation or
\nanti-doping agency in conducting drug testing. Responses to follow-up
\nquestions suggested that both in-competition testing and
\nout-of-competition testing were involved. In terms of policy, 39.5%
\nof NSOs had discussed doping issues in their meetings. About one
\nthird (27.9%) had included a clause prohibiting the use of specified
\nsubstances by athletes affiliated with them. Response to follow-up
\nquestions indicated that most NSOs addressed the issue only
\nindirectly, asking individuals to refer to rules and regulations set
\nforth by international federations. Among the respondents, only 7%
\nhad a procedural guideline for handling anti-doping duties.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Discussion and Recommendations<\/p>\n

The main purpose of the survey was to evaluate the anti-doping
\nfunctions of Hong Kong\u2019s NSOs. Data from a questionnaire and
\ninterview suggest that the majority of NSOs in Hong Kong were at the
\ncontemplation stage in terms of the implementation of anti-doping
\nfunctions. According to Prochaska\u2019s transtheoretical model,
\nindividuals at the contemplation stage have started to acknowledge a
\ntarget behavior, but they may not be ready to make any change
\n(Prochaska, 2000). Moreover, if pressured about the behavior,
\nindividuals in the contemplation stage can be very resistant to
\nchange. In the case of Hong Kong\u2019s NSOs in the contemplation stage,
\neducational workshops and realistic support with resources are
\nessential to moving them to the next stage, which is the action
\nstage.
\nStudies of TTM suggest that \u201cstage-matched interventions\u201d
\noutperform \u201caction-oriented interventions\u201d (Prochaska et al.,
\n2001); the former can increase the likelihood of progress to the next
\nstage, action. For organizational change, TTM dictates that
\ninterventions should be individualized and matched to employees\u2019
\nreadiness to change. This would be a necessary consideration during
\ndevelopment of anti-doping workshops\u2019 content.
\nAccording to Prochaska et al. (2001), dramatic relief,
\nself-reevaluation, and thinking about commitment are processes of
\nchanges that should be emphasized with those in the pre-contemplation
\nand contemplation stages. The Hong Kong NSOs can, then, be moved to
\nchange their anti-doping functions through the use of emotional
\narousal components, for example discussion of fears of sanctioning by
\nan international federation if noncompliance persists, or discussion
\nof advantages of successfully implementing the anti-doping code. A
\nreevaluation of the NSO\u2019s strengths and weaknesses pertaining to
\nimplementation can be helpful. NSOs should also be encouraged to
\ndiscuss the possibility of implementing anti-doping programs and to
\nmake a commitment to further anti-doping efforts.
\nThe present study found that resources are the major constraint on
\nimplementation of anti-doping functions by the Hong Kong NSOs. To
\nprovide the needed additional funds and manpower most
\ncost-effectively, a centralized body could be established to
\ncoordinate anti-doping functions, rather than providing funds to
\nunderwrite various NSOs\u2019 individual efforts.
\nThe present study is the first to study the status of anti-doping
\nefforts among Hong Kong\u2019s national sport organizations. Apart from
\ninvestigating what anti-doping functions the NSOs are currently
\nfulfilling, we also measured their\u2014the administrators\u2019, coaches\u2019,
\nand committee members\u2019\u2014readiness to change by starting or
\nstrengthening anti-doping efforts. It appears that a majority of NSOs
\nin Hong Kong are in the contemplation stage of implementing
\nanti-doping functions and facing the constraints of limited funding
\nand manpower. These data provide a starting point for the design of
\nassistance to the NSOs as they initiate or strengthen anti-doping
\nefforts to comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. Results are likely
\nrelevant, as well, in countries with similar anti-doping experience.
\nThey should thus be of use to international federations, national
\nanti-doping organizations, and the World Anti-Doping Agency, in terms
\nof directing effort and resources.
\nReferences<\/p>\n

Heather, N., Gold, R., & Rollnick, S. (1991). Readiness to
\nChange Questionnaire: User\u2019s manual.<\/em> (Tech. Rep. No. 15).
\nKensington, New South Wales: University of New South Wales, National
\nDrug and Alcohol Research Centre.<\/p>\n

Prochaska, J. M. (2000). A transtheoretical model for assessing
\norganizational change: A study of family service agencies\u2019 movement
\nto time-limited therapy. Family in Society,<\/em> 81,<\/em> 76\u201384.<\/p>\n

Prochaska, J. M., Prochaska, J. O., & Levesque, D. A. (2001). A
\ntranstheoretical approach to changing organizations. Administration
\nand Policy in Mental Health<\/em>, 28<\/em>(4), 247\u2013261.<\/p>\n

Rollnick, J. O., Heather, N., Gold, R., & Hall, W. (1992).
\nDevelopment of a short \u201creadiness to change\u201d questionnaire for
\nuse in brief, opportunistic intervention among excessive drinkers.
\nBritish Journal of Addiction, 87,<\/em> 743\u2013754.<\/p>\n

World Anti-Doping Agency. (2003). World Anti-Doping Code<\/em>.
\nRetrieved August 28, 2006, from http:\/\/www.wada-ama.org\/en\/<\/p>\n

Author Note
\nLena Fung, Hong Kong Baptist University; Yvonne Yuan, Hong Kong
\nSports Institute Limited.
\nThis research was supported by a social science research grant from
\nthe World Anti-Doping Agency.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Submitted by: Lena Fung – Hong Kong Baptist University; Yvonne Yuan – Hong Kong Sports Institute Limited<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/P>
\n

The
\npresent study aimed to assess current anti-doping efforts among Hong
\nKong\u2019s national sport organizations (NSOs), for example
\norganizations\u2019 readiness to change and to initiate or strengthen
\nanti-doping measures. The points of view of administrators, coaches,
\nand committee members were considered. A
\ngreat majority of NSOs in Hong Kong appeared to be at the
\ncontemplation stage, concerning anti-doping actions. The major
\nconstraints they faced were limited funds and manpower.<\/P><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[290,291,296],"tags":[112,23,66],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-56","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":239,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/performance-enhancement-drugs-knowledge-attitude-and-intended-behavior-among-community-coaches-in-hong-kong\/","url_meta":{"origin":316,"position":0},"title":"Performance Enhancement Drugs: Knowledge, Attitude, And Intended Behavior Among Community Coaches In Hong Kong","date":"June 7, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Lena Fung Abstract The purpose of the study was to elucidate the perceived knowledge, actual knowledge, attitude, and intended behavior of community coaches with respect to performance enhancement drugs (PED). The Theory of Planned Behavior was used as a guiding framework to structure the questionnaire used for data\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/03\/Table12.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":52,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/lausanne-declaration-on-doping-in-sport\/","url_meta":{"origin":316,"position":1},"title":"Lausanne Declaration on Doping in Sport","date":"February 11, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"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: Education, prevention and athletes' rights The Olympic oath shall be extended\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":86,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/its-time-to-work-together-to-stop-doping-in-sports\/","url_meta":{"origin":316,"position":2},"title":"It’s Time to Work Together to Stop Doping in Sports","date":"February 13, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Richard Bell, Ed.D. The greatest threat to international sport isn't the pay offs in Salt Lake City, but the use of dangerous performance-enhancing drugs. Their use threatens the very foundation of sport. The integrity, the image and even the existence of elite-level international competition is in jeopardy. Every\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2771,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/ethical-considerations-of-genetic-manipulation-in-sport\/","url_meta":{"origin":316,"position":3},"title":"Ethical Considerations of Genetic Manipulation in Sport","date":"May 27, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Submission by Dr. John T. Ehrbar1* 1* Student of doctoral studies in sports management at the United States Sports Academy ABSTRACT New technologies are currently being developed that will enable medical professionals to modify genes for medicinal purposes.\u00a0 As the process continues to be refined, the emergence of a controversial\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":81,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/united-states-anti-doping-agency-protocol-for-olympic-movement-testing\/","url_meta":{"origin":316,"position":4},"title":"United States Anti-Doping Agency Protocol For Olympic Movement Testing","date":"February 13, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Richard Bell, Ed.D. USADA\u2019s Relationship with the United States Olympic committee (\u201cUSOC\u201d)USADA is an independent legal entity not subject to the control of the USOC. The USOC has contracted with USADA to conduct drug testing and results management for participants in the Olympic movement within the United States\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":84,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-journey-through-olympic-drug-testing-rules-a-practitioners-guide-to-understanding-drug-testing-within-the-olympic-movement\/","url_meta":{"origin":316,"position":5},"title":"A Journey Through Olympic Drug Testing Rules: A Practitioner’s Guide to Understanding Drug Testing Within the Olympic Movement","date":"February 13, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Jill Pilgrim and Kim Betz It's the spring of the year 2000, and you are looking forward to your first summer of the new Millennium. Baseball season has started, the NBA playoffs are on the horizon, Wimbledon, the French Open, and the US Open are all ahead of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=316"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3656,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316\/revisions\/3656"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}