Recent research into the use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) in fitness and strength training environments have revealed great variance in users’ approach to AAS use and more specifically their approach to health risks and desired objectives. However, there have only been few attempts to develop theoretical frameworks directed at conceptualising the variance in AAS use. In this paper, we propose a unified framework in the form of a typology, which concerns men’s general approach to AAS use. The typology is based on sociologist Max Weber’s method on the ideal typology. The work comes out of the authors’ own qualitative empirical research on male AAS users in fitness and strength training environments, but is also related to and draws on the international literature on the subject. The suggested typology consists of four ideal types: the Expert type, the Well-being type, the YOLO type and the Athlete type. The four types are developed around two overarching categories, namely users’ approach to risk and effectiveness. The typology outlines distinct and characteristic approaches to AAS use and can, thus, be employed by researchers as well as health professionals as a heuristic tool for investigation and explanation.

Background and Aim: Measuring the prevalence of doping in recreational sport is difficult. However, to fit their initiatives, National Anti-Doping Organizations are interested in knowing the numbers, so their scarce resources are not wasted. The present study aimed to estimate the prevalence of doping and over-the-counter medicine use for performance enhancement among recreational athletes in eight European countries. Design: A survey covering + 200 sports aimed at recreational athletes 15 years and older was distributed via social media to sports clubs and individuals in eight European countries. To overcome social desirability bias, we applied indirect questioning by using the Randomized Response Technique and asked for the use of over-the-counter medicine and doping for the year 2019. Results: The prevalence of the use of over-the-counter medications for performance enhancement was estimated at 10.4%. We differentiated between the concept of “doping” as the behavior to enhance performance in a certain sport and the concept of “a doper” as a property of a person. The prevalence of dopers in recreational sport was found to be 0.4%, with 3.1% male and 0% female dopers. Responses were separated into four categories: “Artistic sports,” “Combat sports,” “Games,” and “CGS sports” (i.e., sports measured in centimeters, grams, and seconds). The overall prevalence of doping in recreational sports was found to be 1.6%, and the results from Artistic and CGS sports did not differ significantly from this. However, in Games we found an estimated doping prevalence of 6.9%. Discussion: The estimates for the prevalence of dopers and doping in this study do not equal Anti-Doping Rule Violations as stipulated by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Still, while doping is not absent in recreational sport in Europe, it appears to be a low frequent phenomenon. Also, the differences in doping prevalence between the sports categories might reflect structural and competition-related differences, rather than differences in the logic of the sporting competition or discipline-related subcultures. Conclusion: While few recreational athletes appear to use illegal drugs to enhance performance, those who do use them are more often men than women. Yet, 1 in 10 recreational athletes uses over-the-counter medication for performance enhancement and more than 4 out of 10 use medication for other reasons than performance enhancement when doing sports. The highest doping prevalence was found in the sub-category of Games, which can likely be attributed to competition-related differences between the categories. Therefore, research on doping in recreational sports needs tailored approaches to come to a better understanding of the phenomenon.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recently published a framework on fairness, inclusion, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations. Although we appreciate the IOC's recognition of the role of sports science and medicine in policy development, we disagree with the assertion that the IOC framework is consistent with existing scientific and medical evidence and question its recommendations for implementation. Testosterone exposure during male development results in physical differences between male and female bodies; this process underpins male athletic advantage in muscle mass, strength and power, and endurance and aerobic capacity. The IOC's “no presumption of advantage” principle disregards this reality. Studies show that transgender women (male‐born individuals who identify as women) with suppressed testosterone retain muscle mass, strength, and other physical advantages compared to females; male performance advantage cannot be eliminated with testosterone suppression. The IOC's concept of “meaningful competition” is flawed because fairness of category does not hinge on closely matched performances. The female category ensures fair competition for female athletes by excluding male advantages. Case‐by‐case testing for transgender women may lead to stigmatization and cannot be robustly managed in practice. We argue that eligibility criteria for female competition must consider male development rather than relying on current testosterone levels. Female athletes should be recognized as the key stakeholders in the consultation and decision‐making processes. We urge the IOC to reevaluate the recommendations of their Framework to include a comprehensive understanding of the biological advantages of male development to ensure fairness and safety in female sports.

Since the Tour de France doping scandal of 1998 there has been a concerted effort to ‘clean up’ cycling. But has this meant a change in attitude regarding the use of doping within the professional cycling community? In order to compare norms and values of today's elite cyclist with those of earlier periods, three historical phases in modern cycling are identified, and an account of professional cyclists’ preparations is given for each phase. Because of the different attitudes to doping found between riders of different categories, the article considers it necessary to reject the commonly held view that elite cyclists all take part in the same deviant subculture.