Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Sports Med ; 48(3): 507-512, 2018 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29198023

ABSTRACT

The use of stimulants as a treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among elite athletes is a controversial area with some arguing that stimulant use should not be permitted because it offers an advantage to athletes (fair play perspective). Guided by an integrated model of athletic performance, we address common concerns raised about stimulant use in sports from our perspective, which we coined the "performance and health perspective," highlighting relevant research and pointing to gaps in empirical research that should be addressed before bans on use of stimulants for athletes with ADHD are considered. The current article posits that a stimulant ban for athletes with ADHD does not necessarily facilitate fair play, ensure safety, or align with existing policies of large governing bodies. Instead, we recommend that stimulant medication be allowed in high-level sport, following proper diagnosis by a trained professional and a cardiac assessment to confirm no underlying heart conditions. Athletes with ADHD approved to use stimulant medication should be monitored by a health care professional, physically reevaluated and reassessed for ADHD as clinically appropriate and as indicated by relevant sports governing bodies. This performance and health perspective is consistent with that of multiple sport governing bodies who offer therapeutic use.


Subject(s)
Athletes , Athletic Performance , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/drug therapy , Central Nervous System Stimulants/therapeutic use , Performance-Enhancing Substances/therapeutic use , Sports/ethics , Athletic Performance/ethics , Humans
2.
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med ; 2(1): e000074, 2016.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27900157

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIM: To determine if Boys Bantam and Peewee and Girls U14 sustain fewer concussions, head hits, 'other injuries' and penalties in hockey tournaments governed by intensified fair play (IFP) than non-intensified fair play (NIFP). METHODS: A prospective comparison of IFP, a behaviour modification programme that promotes sportsmanship, versus control (non-intensified, NIFP) effects on numbers of diagnosed concussions, head hits without diagnosed concussion (HHWDC), 'other injuries', number of penalties and fair play points (FPPs). 1514 players, ages 11-14 years, in 6 IFP (N=950) and 5 NIFP (N=564) tournaments were studied. RESULTS: Two diagnosed concussions, four HHWDC, and six 'other injuries' occurred in IFP tournaments compared to one concussion, eight HHWDC and five 'other injuries' in NIFP. There were significantly fewer HHWDC in IFP than NIFP (p=0.018). However, diagnosed concussions, 'other injuries', penalties and FPPs did not differ significantly between conditions. In IFP, a minority of teams forfeited the majority of FPPs. Most diagnosed concussions, HHWDC, and other injuries occurred to Bantam B players and usually in penalised teams that forfeited their FPPs. CONCLUSIONS: In response to significant differences in HHWDC between IFP and NIFP tournaments, the following considerations are encouraged: mandatory implementation of fair play in regular season and tournaments, empowering tournament directors to not accept heavily penalised teams, and introducing 'no body checking' in Bantam.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...