When they don't come around: how athletes and DCOs perceive the legitimacy of a remote sampling system in anti-doping testing

Introduction Remote Sampling Systems (RSS) represent a technological innovation to traditional anti-doping testing, yet successful implementation depends on stakeholder acceptance. To move RSS beyond emergency use, system design must account for user acceptance. Drawing on a contextualized Extended Valence Framework (EVF), this study examines how athletes and Doping Control Officers (DCOs) evaluate RSS legitimacy and how benefit, risk, and trust perceptions shape their attitudes toward RSS introduction. Methods A cross-sectional online survey with 132 athletes and 107 DCOs compared both groups on transparency, trust, perceived benefits, three risk dimensions (performance, privacy, psychological), perceived legitimacy, and attitude toward RSS. Group-specific PLS-SEM tested the hypothetical structural model, and multi-group analysis (MGA) identified significant between-group differences. Results DCOs reported higher performance risk. Athletes showed higher legitimacy perceptions and more favorable attitudes. PLS-SEM explained substantial variance in legitimacy (63.8% athletes, 56.6% DCOs) and attitude (74.2% athletes, 56.1% DCOs). Transparency was positively associated with trust, which related positively to perceived benefits and reduced all risk dimensions. Perceived benefits, performance risk, and psychological risk shaped legitimacy, which was strongly associated with attitudes. MGA showed that transparency was more strongly associated with trust among DCOs, while performance risk and legitimacy showed stronger associations among athletes. Discussion Perceived legitimacy emerges as the central mechanism linking benefit-risk evaluations to attitudes in a mandatory anti-doping technology context. Both groups converge on many RSS evaluations but diverge on performance risk and legitimacy. DCOs prioritize functional robustness; athletes are more receptive but sensitive to fairness. Findings highlight the need to address DCOs’ performance concerns and build legitimacy through transparent procedures, user-centered design, and communication that emphasizes fairness and effectiveness.