1. Lippi G, Franchini M, Guidi GC. Doping in competition or doping in sport? Br Med Bull. 2008. pp. 1–13. 2008. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldn014. [PubMed] 2. Trout GJ, Kazlauskas R. Sports drug testing – an analyst's perspective. Chem Soc Rev. 2004;33:1–13. [PubMed]
3. Hanstad DV, Loland S. Elite athletes' duty to provide information on their whereabouts: Justifiable anti-doping work or an indefensible surveillance regime? Eur J Sport Sci. 2009;9:3–10.
4. Breivik G, Hanstad DV, Loland S. Attitudes towards use of performance-enhancing substances and body modification techniques. A comparison between elite athletes and the general population. Sport Society. 2009;12:737–754.
5. Lucidi F, Zelli A, Mallia L, Grano C, Russo PM, et al. The social-cognitive mechanisms regulating adolescents' use of doping substances. J Sport Sci. 2008;26:447–456. [PubMed] 6. Sas-Nowosielski K, Swiatkowska L. Goal orientations and attitudes toward doping. Int J Sports Med. 2008;29:607–612. [PubMed]
7. Shakeri J, Parvizifard AA, Sadeghi K, Kaviani S, Hashemian AH. Cognitive correlations and psychological morbidities of doping in adolescent athletes in Kermanshah, Iran. Iranian J Psychiatry Behav Sci. 2009;3:38–43.
8. Tangen JO, Bergsgard NA, Barland B, Breivik G. “To dope or not to dope”. A study on the decision to use drugs in Norvegian sports. Corpus, Psyche et Societas. 1997;4:41–65.
9. Wiefferink CH, Detmar SB, Coumans B, Vogels T, Paulussen TGW. Social psychological determinants of the use of performance-enhancing drugs by gym users. Health Educ Res. 2007;23:70–80. [PubMed] 10. Backhouse S, McKenna J, Robinson S, Atkin A. Attitudes, behaviours, knowledge and education – drugs in sport: past, present and future. 2007. 2007: Available at www.wada-ama.org. 11. Donovan RJ, Egger G, Kapernick V, Mendoza J. A conceptual framework for achieving performance enhancing drug compliance in sport. Sports Med. 2002;32:269–284. [PubMed]
12. Lucidi F, Grano C, Leon L, Lombardo C, Pesce C. Determinants of the intention to use doping substances: an empirical contribution in a sample of Italian adolescents. Int J Sport Psychol. 2004;5:133–148.
13. Petróczi A. Attitudes and doping: A structural equation analysis of the relationship between athletes' attitudes, sport orientation and doping behaviour. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2007;2:34. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Strelan P, Boeckmann RJ. A new model for understanding performance-enhancing drug use by elite athletes. J Appl Sports Psychol. 2003;15:176–183.
15. Strelan P, Boeckmann RJ. Why drug testing in elite sport does not work: perceptual deterrence theory and the role of personal moral beliefs. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2006;36:2909–34.
16. Tangen JO. “Competitors influence each others drug use!” A heuristic use of discriminant analysis to predict drug abuse among Norvegian athletes. Corpus, Psyche et Societas. 1999;6:1–20.
17. Cunningham WA, Zelazo PD. Attitudes and evaluations: a social cognitive neuroscience perspective. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006;11:97–104. [PubMed]
18. Fazio R. Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 23. New York: Academic Press; 1990. pp. 75–109.
19. Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol Rev. 1995;102:4–27. [PubMed]
20. Paulhus DL. Braun HI, Jackson DL, Wiley DE, editors. Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. The role of psychological constructs in psychological and educational measurement. 2002. pp. 49–69. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
21. Rasinski KA, Visser PS, Zagatsky M, Rickett EM. Using implicit goal priming to improve the quality of self-reports data. J Experiment Soc Psychol. 2005;41:321–327.
22. Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JLK. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. J Personality Soc Psychol. 1998;74:1464–1480. [PubMed]
23. Aidman E. Measuring individual differences in implicit self-concept: initial validation of the self-apperception test. Pers Indiv Diff. 1999;27:211–228.
24. Aidman E. Measuring Aggression in a Computer Game Simulation. In: Morgan JP, editor. Perspectives on the Psychology of Aggression. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers; 2006. pp. 91–109.
25. Aidman EV, Shmelyov AG. Mimics: a symbolic conflict/cooperation simulation program, with embedded protocol recording and automatic psychometric assessment. Behav Res Methods, Instruments Computers. 2002;34:83–89. [PubMed] 26. Petroczi A, Aidman EV, Nepusz T. Capturing doping attitudes by self-report declarations and implicit assessment: a methodology study. Subst Abuse Treatment Prev Policy. 2008;3:9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Schirlin O, Rey G, Jouvent G, Dubal S, Komano O, et al. Attentional bias for doping words and its relation with physical self-esteem in young adolescents. Psychol Sp Exerc. 2009;10:615–620.
29. Pitsch W, Emrich E, Klein M. Doping in elite sports in Germany: results of a www survey. Eur J Sport Society. 2007;4:89–102.
30. Striegel H, Ulrich R, Simon P. Randomised response estimates for doping and illicit drug use in elite athletes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.07.026. [PubMed] 31. Petróczi A, Naughton DP, Nepusz T, Backhouse S, Mazanov J. Comfort in big numbers: False Consensus in hypothetical performance enhancing situations. J Occupat Med Toxicol. 2008;3:19. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 32. Uvacsek M, Ránky M, Nepusz T, Naughton DP, Mazanov J, et al. Self-admitted behaviour and perceived use of performance enhancing versus psychoactive drugs among competitive athletes. Scand J Sci Med Sport. 2009. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01041.x. [PubMed] 33. Sechrest L, McKnight P, McKnight K. Calibration of measures for psychotherapy outcome studies. Am Psychologist. 1996;10:1065–1071. [PubMed] 34. Glintborg B, Olsen L, Poulsen H, Linnet K, Dalhoff K. Reliability of self-reported use of amphetamine, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, cocaine, methadone, and opiates among acutely hospitalized elderly medical patients. Clin Toxicol. 2008;46:239–242. [PubMed] 35. Harris KM, Griffin BA, McCaffrey DF, Morral AR. Inconsistencies in self-reported drug use by adolescents in substance abuse treatment: Implications for outcome and performance measurements. J Subst Abuse Treatment. 2008;34:347–355. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 36. Johnson T, Fendrich M. Modeling sources of self-report bias in a survey of drug use epidemiology. Ann Epidemiology. 2005;15:381–389. [PubMed] 37. Legerwood DM, Goldberger BA, Risk NK, Lewis CE, Price RK. Comparison between self-report and hair analysis of illicit drug use in a community sample of middle-aged men. Addictive Behav. 2008;33:1131–1139. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 38. Musshoff F, Driever F, Lachenmeier K, Lachenmeier DW, Banger M, et al. Results of hair analyses for drugs of abuse and comparison with self-reports and urine tests. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;156:118–123. [PubMed] 39. Williams RJ, Nowatzki N. Validity of adolescent self-report of substance use. Subtance Use Misuse. 2005;40:1–13. [PubMed]
40. Crano WD. Petty RE, Krosnick IA, editors. Attitude strength and vested interest. Attitude strength: Antecedents and Consequences. 1995. pp. 131–158. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
41. Ross L, Greene D, House P. The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J Experiment Soc Psychol. 1977;13:279–301.
42. Monin B, Norton MI. Perceptions of a fluid consensus: uniqueness bias, false consensus, false polarization, and pluralistic ignorance in a water conservation crisis. Pers Soc Psychol Bulletin. 2003;29:559–567. [PubMed] 43. Gawronski B, Bodenhausen GV. Accessibility effects on implicit social cognition: the role of knowledge activation and retrieval experiences. J Personality Soc Psychol. 2005;89:672–685. [PubMed] 44. Fazio RH, Olson MA. Implicit measures in social cognition research: their meaning and use. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:297–327. [PubMed] 45. Greenwald AG, Poehlman TA, Uhlmann EL, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97:17–41. [PubMed]
46. Wittenbrink B, Schwarz N. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 2007. Implicit measures of attitudes.
47. Kintz P, Cirimele V, Sachs H, Jeanneau T, Ludes B. Testing for anabolic steroids in hair from two bodybuilders. Forensic Sci Int. 1999;101:209–216. [PubMed] 48. Dumestre-Toulet V, Cirimele V, Ludes B, Gromb S, Kintz P. Hair analysis of seven bodybuilders for anabolic steroids, ephedrine, and clenbuterol. J Forensic Sci. 2002;47:211–214. [PubMed] 49. Kicman AT. Pharmacology of anabolic steroids. Br J Pharmacol. 2008;154:502–521. [PubMed] 52. Shen M, Xiang P, Yan H, Shen B, Wang M. Analysis of anabolic steroids in hair: Time courses in guinea pigs. Steroids. 2009;74:773–778. [PubMed] 54. Greenwald AG, Nosek BA, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J Pers Soc Psy. 2003;85:197–216. [PubMed]
55. Petróczi A, Aidman EV. Measuring explicit attitude as an indicator of athletes' engagement in doping: psychometric assessment of the Performance Enhancement Attitude Scale. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2009;10:390–396.