There is increasing interest in using neuro-stimulation devices to achieve an ergogenic effect in elite athletes. Although the World Anti-Doping Authority does not currently prohibit neuro-stimulation techniques, a number of researchers have called on WADA to consider its position on this issue. Focusing on trans-cranial direct current stimulation as a case study of an imminent so-called ‘neuro-doping’ intervention, we argue that the emerging evidence suggests that tDCS may meet WADA’s own criteria for a method’s inclusion on its list of prohibited (...) substances and methods. We begin by surveying WADA’s general approach to doping, and highlight important limitations to the current evidence base regarding the performance-enhancing effect of pharmacological doping substances. We then review the current evidence base for the safety and efficacy of tDCS, and argue that despite significant shortcomings, there may be sufficient evidence for WADA to consider prohibiting tDCS, in light of the comparable flaws in the evidence base for pharmacological doping substances. In the second half of the paper, we argue that the question of whether WADA ought to ban tDCS turns significantly on the question of whether it is compatible with the ‘spirit of sport’ criterion. We critique some of the previously published positions on this, and advocate our own sport-specific and application-specific approach. Despite these arguments, we finally conclude by suggesting that tDCS ought to be monitored rather than prohibited due to compelling non-ideal considerations. (shrink)

Over the last two decades sport-related research has become increasingly influenced by ethical propriety and institutional governance. Whilst there has been thorough consideration of biomedical and associated research in sport and exercise, social research in sport studies has received less attention. In this article, following a brief contextualization of the current climate for research ethics discourse, the planks of an argument for social research in sport without informed consent are addressed. Dealing with ideas linked to ecological validity, impracticality, averting alarm, (...) public interest and ‘leaving only footprints’, a case is made based on two important questions: (a) is the research useful?; and (b) are other research methods available that are fit-for-purpose and allow informed consent to be secured? If the answers are ‘yes’ and ‘no’, respectively, the case should be considered. In such instances the principle of ‘McFee’s friends’ serves as an important source of guidance for researchers. (shrink)