ПОРІВНЯЛЬНИЙ АНАЛІЗ ПІДХОДІВ ДО АНТИДОПІНГОВОЇ ОСВІТИ В АДАПТИВНОМУ СПОРТІ НА МАТЕРІАЛІ IPC, INAS ТА SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Yevhen Goncharenko; Dmytro Anikieiev; Olena Stepaniuk

doi:10.15330/fcult.46.30-38

Authors

Yevhen Goncharenko National University of Physical Education and Sport of Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7196-3061
Anikeev Dmytro National University of Ukraine on Physical Education and Sport
Olena Stepaniuk National University of Ukraine on Physical Education and Sport

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15330/fcult.46.30-38

Keywords:

anti-doping education, Special Olympics, IPC, INAS, adaptive sports, intellectual impairment, WADA, comparative analysis

Abstract

Abstract. Introduction and Purpose. The World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) regulatory framework was developed primarily for elite competitive sport and does not account for the organizational specificities of adaptive sport. The introduction of the International Standard for Education (ISE) as a mandatory component of the 2021 World Anti-Doping Code elevated anti-doping education to independent regulatory status. However, recent studies (2022–2025) reveal a significant gap between normative requirements and actual implementation, particularly for athletes with intellectual impairments. The purpose of this study was to characterize the role of anti-doping education in adaptive sport and to conduct a comparative analysis of the approaches applied by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), the International Federation for Para Athletes with Intellectual Impairments (INAS), and Special Olympics (SO).

Material and Methods. The study employed comparative analysis, document analysis of regulatory acts (WADA Code 2021, IPC and INAS rules, Special Olympics Anti-Doping Policy 2021), systematic review of peer-reviewed literature (2020–2025), and an ecosystem approach to organizational analysis. A total of 19 sources were analyzed, including empirical studies retrieved through the Consensus academic database.

Results. Three organizational models were identified. IPC fully integrates anti-doping education within the WADA framework, where education is mandatory but secondary to testing and sanctions. INAS occupies an intermediate position, applying adapted WADA procedures with limited testing coverage. Special Olympics operates outside the WADA Code, using education as its sole anti-doping instrument. Empirical evidence confirms that standard anti-doping procedures are structurally incompatible with the needs of athletes with intellectual impairments: 27% of elite para athletes have never received anti-doping education [Qvarfordt et al., 2025], and a significant portion cannot comply with standard testing procedures without assistance [Hurst et al., 2025]. The SO educational model engages athletes, coaches, and families as interconnected actors, with values-based education shown to be more effective than punitive approaches [Barkoukis et al., 2022].

Conclusions. Anti-doping education fulfills different regulatory functions depending on organizational mission and athlete population. The SO approach of replacing testing with education is not a governance deficit but a context-appropriate strategy grounded in athlete rights principles. The model's effectiveness depends critically on the quality and systematic delivery of educational programs, with coaches serving as the primary channel of anti-doping socialization in the absence of external oversight.

Keywords: anti-doping education, Special Olympics, IPC, INAS, adaptive sport, intellectual impairment, WADA, comparative analysis.

References

Qvarfordt A, Svedsäter G, Fagher K, Bjerkefors A, Blomqvist S. Para sport and anti-doping: a study of Swedish Para athletes' experiences and perceptions. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 2024; 6. Art. 1375359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2024.1375359.

Qvarfordt A, Svedsäter G, Fagher K, Bjerkefors A, Blomqvist S. International elite Para athletes' perspectives on anti-doping: what works, what doesn't and what's next? BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine. 2025; 11(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2025-002788.

Hurst P, Burns J, Van Biesen D. Athletes with intellectual impairments and their support personnel's experience of anti-doping. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. 2025;17(5):435-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676x.2025.2509067.

Антидопінгова освіта у спорті: оцінка стану та перспектив розвитку в Україні (за результатами опитування тренерів). Physical Culture And Sport: Scientific Perspective. 2026;4:24-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31891/pcs.2025.4.3.

Дутчак МВ, Коваль КО. Особливості антидопінгової освіти у спорті в Україні (на матеріалі опитування спортсменів). Вісник Кам'янець-Подільського національного університету імені Івана Огієнка. Фізичне виховання, спорт і здоров'я людини. 2025; 30(4):232-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32626/2309-8082.2025-30(4).232-239 .

Weber K, Patterson LB, Blank C. Doping in disabled elite sport: perceptions, knowledge and opinions from the perspective of German and UK coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2022; 62:102233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102233.

Weber K, Patterson LB, Blank C. An exploration of doping-related perceptions and knowledge of disabled elite athletes in the UK and Austria. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2022; 58:102061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102061.

Blank C, Weber K, Boardley ID, Abel T, Schobersberger W, Patterson LB. Doping in Paralympic sport: perceptions, responsibility and anti-doping education experiences from the perspective of Paralympic athletes and parasport coaches. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 2023; 5: 1166139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2023.1166139.

Schneider AJ, Morales Páez N, Lezama Ramírez Y, Butcher L. Safeguarding athletes and anti-doping: applying theories of vulnerability. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 2025;7:1512541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1512541.

Naughton M, Salmon PM, Kerhervé HA, McLean S. Applying a systems thinking lens to anti-doping: A systematic review identifying the contributory factors to doping in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2025;43(1): 8-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2306056.

Barkoukis V, Mallia L, Lazuras L. et al. The role of comprehensive education in anti-doping policy legitimacy and support among clean athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2022; 60: 102173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102173.

McConkey R, Menke S. The community inclusion of athletes with intellectual disability: a transnational study of the impact of participating in Special Olympics. Sport in Society. 2022; 25(9):1756-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2020.1807515.

Asunta P, Hasanen E, Kiuppis F, Rintala P, McConkey R. 'Life is team play': social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities in the context of Special Olympics. Sport in Society. 2022; 25(10): 2146-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2022.2037565.

World Anti-Doping Agency. World Anti-Doping Code 2021. Montreal : WADA. 2021. 225 p. URL: https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/world-anti-doping-program/world-anti-doping-code.

North DC. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. 152 p.

Scott WR. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001. 255 p.

Special Olympics. Special Olympics Anti-Doping Policy. Washington: Special Olympics International, 2021. URL: https://media.specialolympics.org/resources/sports-essentials/general/Special-Olympics-Anti-Doping-Policy-2021.pdf (дата звернення: 01.03.2025).

Pickett AC, Williams SE, Damon ZJ. Special Olympics involvement and families of individuals with intellectual disabilities: Impacts on sense of community, social isolation, and health. Managing Sport and Leisure. 2025; 30(1):79-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2022.2145345.

Giese M, Buchner T, Mihajlovic C, Oldörp F. The subject of Special Olympics – interrogating the inclusive potentials of a sport movement from an ableism-critical perspective. Sport in Society. 2022; 25(10):2178-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2022.2113061.