Currently, a central debate within the anti-doping community concerns the balance between information used for the purposes of deterrence and/or education. Some experts in the field now claim that there has been overreliance on the former and that substantive educational strategies have not been implemented. Their argument is that the coercive orientation has failed to curb doping among athletes to the desired extent and that the time is ripe for a more educational approach in providing information to athletes about this issue, because in their view the only way to change attitudes to doping is through processes of reach-out, awareness-building and engagement. Despite the obvious centrality of language in the enterprise, be it in a coercive or educational spirit, there is an evident dearth of contributions from linguists to the debate. The following study considers the question from a linguistic perspective. To do this it adopts a corpus linguistic approach. Firstly, it draws on a corpus of anti-doping information available on the websites of five governing bodies and anti-doping agencies, using keyword analysis of lexis to assess the ratio of coercive to educational orientations within the data; secondly, using micro-analysis of the key function word category of pronominal reference, the study identifies both a coercive orientation and a commitment to interaction and engagement in the corpus of texts analysed.

Antconc. 2017. Available at: http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html

Baker, Paul, Gabrielatos, Costas, Khosravinik, Majid, Kryzanowski, Michal, McEnery, Tony and Wodak, Ruth. 2008. “A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourse of refugee and asylum seekers in the UK press”. Discourse and Society, 19, 273-306.

Backhouse, Susan. 2013. “The compliance factor: limiting the antidoping agenda”. INDR Commentary. http://ph.au.dk/en/research/research-areas/humanistic-sport-research/research-unit-for-sports-and-physical-culture/international-network-of-doping-research/newsletters/june-20

Barron, Anne. 2012. Public Information Messages: A contrastive genre analysis of state-citizen communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bloor, Meriel and Thomas Bloor. 2007. The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Hodder Arnold.

BBC. 2015. “Director General of the World Anti-doping Agency – David Hownam”. HARDtalk. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02x9m19. Last accessed 26.02.2018.

BBC. 2017. “The Woman Who Exposed Russian Doping”. The Documentary. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04kxdg4. Last accessed 26.02.2018.

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finnegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

David, Paul. 2008. A Guide to the World Anti-doping Code. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hanstad, Dag Vidar, Andy Smith, and Ivan Waddington. 2008. “The Establishment of the World anti-doping Agency: a Study of the Management of Organizational change and Unplanned Outcomes”. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 43(3): 227-249.

Fairclough, Norman, 1989. Language and Power. Harlow: Pearson.

Fogel, Brian. 2017. Icarus. Netflix.

Henning, April. 2017. “Seeking an alternative to clean”. INDR Commentary. Available at: http://ph.au.dk/en/research/research-areas/humanistic-sport-research/research-unit-for-sports-and-physical-culture/international-network-of-doping-research/newsletters/october-2017/indr-commentary-april-henning/. Last accessed 07.06.2019.

Hoberman, J. 2001. “How drug testing fails: the politics of doping control”. In Doping in Elite Sport, edited by Wayne Wilson and Edward Derse, 242-253. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Hourihan, Barrie. 2003 [1997]. Sport, Policy and Politics: A comparative analysis. New York: Routledge.

Kayser, Bengt, Alexandre Mauron, and Andy Miah. 2007. “Current anti-doping policy: a critical appraisal”. BMC Medical Ethics: 8:2, 1-10.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980 [2003]. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1966. English in Advertising. A Linguistic Study of Advertising in Great Britain. London/New York: Longman.

Meir, Henk Erik, Anica Rose, and Martin Hölzen. 2015. “Spirals of Signification? A Corpus Linguistic Analysis of the German doping Discourse”. Communication and Sport, 3 October, 1-22.

Nord, Christiane. 2002. “Über-Reden durch An-RedenDie phatische Funktion als Mittel zum

Appell in englischen, spanischen und deutschen Werbetexten.” Linguistica Antverpiensia

: 145–167.

Scott, Mike and Christopher Tribble. 2006. Textual Patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sowinski, Bernhard. 1998. Werbung. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Spitzer, Giselher and Elk Franke. 2010. “Translating Doping”. Available at: http://ph.au.dk/fileadmin/ph/Idraet/INHDR/Resources/Giselher_Spitzer_and_Elk_Franke_-_October_2010_-_INHDR_editorial.pdf. Last accessed 07.06.2019

Steen, Gerard E. 2007. Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

WADA. 2015. The World Antidoping Code. Available at: https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/the-code. Last accessed 07.06.2019.