Abstract

Policies and approaches addressing image and performance enhancing drug (IPED) use in the gym and fitness context, also known as fitness doping, vary widely by country. Fitness doping, and those who participate in it, maybe met with individual-level strategies ranging from criminal penalties to harm reduction efforts. This research compares two distinct approaches to fitness doping: Sweden’s prevention-based approach and Scotland’s harm reduction approach. Drawing on the risk environment framework, we show how national-level policies around possession, sale, and use that represent different approaches to IPEDs structure how to use is understood and experienced using two case studies: Sweden’s national PRODIS program and a steroid clinic in Glasgow, Scotland. The results highlight how individuals and communities respond to environmental constraints around IPEDs. Restrictive anti-doping environments produce a range of risks for people who use these substances and may prevent harm reduction. Less restrictive environments may allow for more harm reducing work, but the remaining prohibitions may still produce social, economic, and policy risks. We argue that formal harm reduction focused on the health and needs of those who use IPEDs offers an environment in which safer use is supported and promoted.

摘要

解决在健身房和健身环境中使用形象和表现增强药物 (IPED) 的政策和方法，也称为健身兴奋剂，因国家而异。健身兴奋剂以及参与其中的人可能会遇到从刑事处罚到减少伤害努力等个人层面的策略。这项研究比较了两种不同的健身兴奋剂方法：瑞典的预防方法和苏格兰的减少危害方法。利用风险环境框架，我们通过两个案例研究展示了如何理解和体验代表 IPED 的不同方法的国家级有关拥有、销售和使用的政策如何使用：瑞典的国家 PRODIS 计划和格拉斯哥的类固醇诊所，苏格兰。结果突出了个人和社区如何应对 I​​PED 周围的环境限制。限制性的反兴奋剂环境会给使用这些物质的人带来一系列风险，并可能妨碍减少伤害。限制较少的环境可能允许更多减少伤害的工作，但其余的禁令仍可能产生社会、经济和政策风险。我们认为，以 IPED 使用者的健康和需求为重点的正式减害提供了一个支持和促进更安全使用的环境。