Evaluates strategic priorities and barriers in anti-doping programmes, highlighting challenges faced by national organizations.
National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs) play significant role in implementing the World Anti-Doping Code, yet little empirical research exists regarding their strategic priorities and perceptions about national and global anti-doping measures. This study explored the views of European NADO leaders on key areas for improving anti-doping programmes, perceived deterrent factors, and operational challenges. An online survey was distributed to 34 NADOs ahead of a 2025 European NADO conference; 32 (91%) NADO leaders responded. Across NADOs of all sizes, increased funding was the most frequently selected priority for improving both global (72%) and national (47%) anti-doping systems. Strengthening intelligence and investigation capacity (63%) and implementing values-based education (50%) were also considered essential for global improvement, while, improving testing effectiveness (41%) and expanding education programmes (31%) were key strategic aims within their own NADO. In contrast, increasing the number of tests or enhancing laboratory analyses were generally not considered a priority. More intensive anti-doping education was viewed as the most effective deterrent to prevent anti-doping rule violations (52%), followed by a higher perceived risk of detection (35%). Regarding risks of contamination, dietary supplements were widely regarded as high-risk for athletes in their country (68%), while environmental contamination was considered minimal risk. Major barriers to achieving strategic goals included insufficient funding (50%), limited human resources (31%), and inadequate political support (28%). These findings provide evidence-based insights into the shared challenges and strategic needs of European NADOs, informing future policy development and capacity building within anti-doping systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lauritzen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: