Online Doping: The Digital Ecosystem and Cyborgification of Drug Cultures 3031302710, 9783031302718

Table of contents :
Preface and Acknowledgements
Contents
1: Introduction
Performing Bodies and Technology
Doping Research: Development and Situatedness
Aim and Focus
Digital Sociology and Data
Book Outline
References
2: The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping
Introduction
From Experimentation to Initial Problematisation
The Cleaning Up and Commercialisation of Performance Cultures
Online Doping: Early User Communities of the Twenty-First Century
From Bazaars to an Online Ecosystem?
Digital Bodies and Technology in the Online Doping Ecosystem
Bodies and Technology
Online Narratives of the Self
The Cultural Space: The Online Doping Ecosystem
Conclusions
References
3: Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem
Introduction
Individuals and Their (Online) Environment
Flashback and MESO-Rx
Information for Harm-Reduction
Rules of Engagement: The Doping Template
Harm Reduction: “Givin’ the Green” and Lab Testing
Conclusions
References
4: Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities
Introduction
Doped Bodies
The Genetic Max
Body Aesthetics in the Zyzz Fandom
Rays of Sunshine
Conclusions
References
5: Tales from a Women-Only Forum
Introduction
Centring Women’s Experiences and Narratives of Self
Women’s Forums
Advice, By and For Women
“Coaching” and Sis-Science
Conclusions
References
6: Masculinities Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling Down the Rabbit Fuck Hole”
Introduction
From Harm and Pleasure Perspectives...
...to the Interface Between the Spectacle and the Real
Hyper-sexual Bodies and Spectacular Masculinities
Doping Reality: Inability and Restored Capacities
IPEDs, Sex, and Relationships
Conclusions
References
7: Transcending Online and Offline Doping
The Ontological Turn and Doping
Risk and Enabling, Online and Off
Offline Realities, Online Responses
Bodies, Dynamic and Stable
Conclusion
References
8: Conclusions: The “Cyborgification” of the Doping Phenomenon
Introduction
The Ecosystem of Online Doping
Cultural Manspreading: Upholding, Challenging, and Evolving
Harm, Risk, and Possibilities: Doping and Transcendence
The “Cyborgification” of the Doping Phenomenon
References
Appendix: Digital Methodology and Methods
Introduction
Methodology and Method
Internet Ethics
Study Positionality: Pursuing the Role the Trickster
References
Index

Citation preview

Online Doping The Digital Ecosystem and Cyborgification of Drug Cultures

Jesper Andreasson April Henning

Online Doping

Jesper Andreasson • April Henning

Online Doping The Digital Ecosystem and Cyborgification of Drug Cultures

Jesper Andreasson Department of Sport Science Linnaeus University Kalmar, Kalmar Län, Sweden

April Henning Edinburgh Business School Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh, UK

ISBN 978-3-031-30271-8    ISBN 978-3-031-30272-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30272-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration © Panther Media GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface and Acknowledgements

Writing this book has been both a challenge and an adventure. When we first met, we had previously engaged in doping research from sport (April) and fitness (Jesper) contexts. Though these doping sites have been treated mostly separately by academic researchers, we soon concluded through our discussions of our work that there were curious overlaps. In several different projects we engaged in the work of blurring, or at least questioning, the distinctions often made between these contexts in public discourse and in the scholarly debate. This work resulted in a book titled Performance Cultures and Doped Bodies: Challenging Categories, Gender Norms and Policy Responses (2021). When finishing that book, we started to talk about a possible follow-up project. Before long we realised that the hegemony of the sport/fitness divide we aimed to deconstruct and challenge had also served to background another highly relevant doping space: the ways doping cultures and use practices have emerged and developed over time in the digital arena of online communication. Having promised in the book proposal to capture the emerging digital ecosystem of online doping, we have spent considerable time browsing forums and analysing online doping cultures and communities. In doing so, we have utilised ongoing discussions on forums and websites where doping users debate drugs, bodies, lifestyles, gender, and more. Engaging in this project we knew that the data that could be gathered was rich and voluminous. Still, we underestimated the extent of information and v

vi 

Preface and Acknowledgements

debate that took place in the world of online doping. Though this book is not an exhaustive account of online doping, nor could any single book hope to be, we present the shape and texture of the digital doping ecosystem. Our analysis led us to viewing doping in new ways and required us to grapple with how to conceptualise and make sense of this phenomenon. We would like to thank Thomas Johansson, at the University of Gothenburg, and Ellen Sverkersson, Linnaeus University, for their continuous support. Thanks also to Millard Baker at MESO-Rx for advice and support for our project. We are also grateful that Sharla Plant liked the idea for this book and gave us the opportunity to publish with Palgrave Macmillan. Further, we would also like to express our gratitude to the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE) for financial support. A few chapters in the book build on articles already published by the authors in journals such as Communication and Sport, Sport in Society, and Journal of Bodies, Sexualities and Masculinities. These articles, however, have only been used as points of departure and have been reworked to suit the overall framework and purpose of the book. This has often meant restructuring, complementing, and reanalysing our empirical material, as well as adding new data when needed. Kalmar, Sweden  Edinburgh, UK

Jesper Andreasson April Henning

Contents

1 I ntroduction  1 2 The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 15 3 Community  Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem 43 4 Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities 67 5 Tales from a Women-Only Forum 91 6 Masculinities  Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling Down the Rabbit Fuck Hole”109 7 Transcending Online and Offline Doping131 8 Conclusions:  The “Cyborgification” of the Doping Phenomenon149

vii

viii Contents

Appendix: Digital Methodology and Methods163 R  eferences173 I ndex177

1 Introduction

Performing Bodies and Technology The now classical documentary Pumping Iron (1977) that followed Arnold Schwarzenegger and his bodybuilding buddies as they built their super bodies at Gold´s Gym at Venice Beach, California, illustrated how the massively muscular and masculine body, powered by steroids, became a cultural ideal in the 1970s. Propelled by this, super bodies soon became a feature in popular culture. Schwarzenegger became a successful actor and movie star, notably in films such as the iconic Terminator (1984) in which he played a cyborg assassin from the future. His role was pretty much all about technology-infused muscles, as he played a human-­ looking machine sent to the present to murder the mother of the yet to be born leader of the human resistance to the machines. Ideas and fears about future technological developments and their impact on human life and bodies were central to this movie. This paralleled a similar focus in the scholarly debate during this time that reimagined bodies and gender in light of continuously encroaching technological developments (Haraway, 1987, 1991).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Andreasson, A. Henning, Online Doping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30272-5_1

1

2 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

In contrast to the pumped up and doped muscles of Schwarzenegger and the physicality of bodies featured in the 1980s, more modest but still extraordinarily competent digitally enhanced bodies entered popular culture in the  1990s. The Matrix (1999), for example, illustrated digital realities and bodies. Here, artificial intelligence had taken over earth and humans were held captive as batteries in capsules that separated their bodies from their minds. The narrative is familiar and echoed the Terminator plot focused on the interdependence between bodies and technology, between the real and the simulated (Baudrillard, 1994; Debord, 2012; Haraway, 1987). But in The Matrix, it was the mind rather than the muscles that were in focus. Humans were connected to a digitally simulated reality in which they lived an illusory life, a place with virtually embodied selves (Broadhurst & Price, 2017). There are, however, those who can see through this simulation and disconnect from the Matrix. The awakening—the logging out—is brutal, as the unused physical body is disconnected from the Matrix and flushed from the womb-­ like capsule. The virtual embodied self and its capabilities far exceed the physical offline realities. Despite this dystopian beginning, some freed from the enslavement of the machines manage to reconnect (hack) their minds back into the virtual reality of the Matrix and fight the machines digitally. Even though the physical body cannot enter the digital-only Matrix, it is still possible for the human rebels to achieve fantastic things with their avatar bodies, as they now are aware that they are operating in a virtual reality. They can download martial art competencies, instantly know how to pilot a helicopter, and even learn how to dodge or stop bullets. Paradoxically, the physical body remains at the centre in this illusory world, despite the separation between physical (offline) realities and (online) consciousness. In the Matrix, bodies can be enhanced to achieve the most extraordinary things, but if you digitally die in the Matrix you also physically die outside of it, meaning even digital bloodshed may be lethal. Bodies, enhanced or not, exist in different arenas, contexts, and realities simultaneously. Digital body projects represented in popular culture and discussed in diverse online settings and communities travel into the realities of daily life, influencing choices people make and risks they take. Much like in The Matrix, the digital and the physical, online and offline,

1 Introduction 

3

fantasy and real are interdependent, even two sides of the same coin. Body projects, ambitions, and ideas about what one can accomplish with the body thus operate discursively across such stark categorisations. This has been addressed by scholars such as Baudrillard (1994) and Debord (2012) who anticipated drastic changes in Western societies and suggested that media and popular culture would increasingly become formative for how identities, bodies, and lifestyles are understood. This is illustrated in how people today busy themselves with their tablets and smartphones, consuming Instagram pictures and Tik Tok videos, and how we—in relation to such digital imaginaries underpinned by often technically enhanced images—form our own cultures and understandings about bodies and abilities. We find this movement and interaction between (offline) physical and (online) digital realities intriguing, particularly around questions of enhancement and doping. Ambiguity concerning bodily abilities, harms, and risks in relation to the use of technology is an appropriate starting point for this book.

 oping Research: Development D and Situatedness The scholarly debate on doping was largely initiated in the early 1990s. Image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs) as a research pursuit gained ground in parallel with a massive technological development. The internet (as we know it today) became mainstream in the mid- to late 1990s. During this time people began engaging in online discussions with others. Cellular phones gradually went from phones that were simply mobile to phones that were smart, and these came with a variety of possibilities for digital communication across the globe. It is thus safe to say that the development of the internet had and continues to have a huge impact on our everyday lives, influencing lifestyles and popular culture. For doping research, the use and influence of digital technology has not been a particularly hot topic, apart from anti-doping technologies developed to detect IPED use. Quite the contrary. Initially, medical, epidemiological, and structural functionalist perspectives of doping

4 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

dominated research. Within the medical paradigm, the focus was on the physical effects of various substances. Besides muscle growth, it was suggested that doping use could lead to both physical and mental health problems, such as psychiatric and behavioural disturbances, cardiovascular disease, hepatic dysfunction, acne, and hair loss (Kam & Yarrow, 2005; Pope et al., 2014; Rasmussen et al., 2018). It has also been shown that possible physical side effects are sex specific (Börjesson et al., 2016). Women run the risk of developing a deepened voice, enlarged clitoris, disrupted menstruation, and reduced fertility, while men may experience enlarged breasts (gynecomastia), smaller testicles, and impotence (Evans-­ Brown et al., 2012; Rasmussen et al., 2016). Doping research within the social sciences mainly tended to focus on individualised perspectives and explanations of drug use, especially in early studies. Scholars identified being male and engaging in strength training as possible predictors of doping in gym environments; in elite sport, qualitative meta-analyses were carried out, suggesting that sporting prowess and connected gendered understandings were potential doping triggers (DuRant et  al., 1995; Lazuras et al., 2010; Sagoe et al., 2015). Though these perspectives continue to be pillars of influence in this field of research, other approaches and understandings have gradually gained ground. Entering the twenty-first century, scholars made powerful arguments in favour of the need for broader understandings of doping as a phenomenon, lived experience, and cultural practice (Thualagant, 2012). Contributions to more diverse and sociologically grounded analyses of the doping phenomenon also came through various qualitative studies. In the early 1990s, Klein (1993) published one of the first sociologically informed analyses of doping users. His study on American west coast bodybuilders helped reveal a hyper-masculine subculture coloured by homophobia and misogyny, that paradoxically also included homosexual hustling. A decade later, Monaghan (2001) investigated the psychological, social, and cultural dimensions of doping in bodybuilding through ethnographic fieldwork. Building on these and other studies, a range of research has since contributed to widening the debate around doping and IPEDs (Andreasson & Henning, 2021; Christiansen, 2020; Henning & Dimeo, 2022; Liokaftos, 2019; Van de Ven et al., 2019). The broadening and consolidation of the research field can also be seen in how it has

1 Introduction 

5

brought different disciplines together under the doping umbrella, including gender studies, cultural studies, sociology, sports and health sciences, and social medicine, among others. However, even though this field has established a solid multi-disciplinary research foundation, its approach has largely continued to be contextually bound to offline realities, usually focused on doping in either elite sport or in gym and fitness culture (Andreasson & Henning, 2021; Ntoumanis et al., 2014). Though the fluidity between doping in sport and in gym and fitness contexts has been demonstrated through user experiences (Andreasson & Henning, 2021), this cultural and contextual separation has proven dense and resilient, seemingly like a diamond cut into two pieces. However, bodies are not simply polished into gems that can then be neatly categorised (Bladh, 2020). On the contrary, (doped) bodies are formed throughout one’s life—including their accumulated views, experiences, and practices—as they are culturally recalibrated against experiences gathered across diverse contexts, through processes of socialisation and interaction with other potentially challenging perspectives (Andreasson & Henning, 2021). Bodies are contextually and culturally transcendent. Therefore, the rigid contextual separation made between sport and fitness in research and often in public discourse is largely fallacious. Further, as this separation has become sedimented over time, emerging milieus or spaces that provide possible alternative interfaces for approaching doping as both a phenomenon and practice have been backgrounded or over-shadowed. Doping contexts and categories collide online. The world of online doping concerns how IPEDs are communicated about and dealt with in digital spaces, such as on different websites, blogs, and community forums (Andreasson & Henning, 2022; Andreasson & Johansson, 2016; Smith & Stewart, 2012; Sverkersson et  al., 2020; Turnock, 2021; Underwood, 2017). The technological development of anonymous online communication in recent decades, in combination with the increasingly judgmental attitudes found in public and governmental representations of doping, have undoubtedly created fertile ground for doping users’ online activities (Andreasson & Johansson, 2020). In and through digital spaces, people—no matter their background, national context, or previous experiences—can find information about IPEDs and use practices, how to gain access to drugs, as well as discuss their use

6 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

experiences with others. Online spaces can function as virtual social communities where sensitive content that is normally hidden from the general public can be debated, often openly (Adler & Adler, 2005, 2008; Bilgrei, 2018; Smith & Stewart, 2012). As individuals gain knowledge and discuss theories of how to achieve their goals in an online setting, they can become integrated into a community of practice (Wenger, 1998). Some of those people will then choose to take drugs, challenging the dominant norms and values around substance use in mainstream society.

Aim and Focus The overall aims of this book are to examine the bodies, communities, and cultures that evolve in the online doping space, as well as critically examine and discuss the interrelationship between online and offline doped realities and social life. To meet these aims we will focus on three interconnected themes or areas of analysis. First, we are interested in digital doping spaces and communities. Throughout this book we will analyse how different forums and communities have developed in order to meet the diverse motives and goals of users and potential users (Andreasson & Johansson, 2016; Andrews et al., 2005; Olive, 2015). IPED use is not only about elite athletes searching for a competitive edge or bodybuilders aiming for bigger muscles. Doping demographics may have some historical continuity, but they are not static. There is growing potential to enter different forums that target a range of bodies, lifestyles, and training goals related to IPED use. Today we see a myriad of national and international IPED communities and sites (such as MESO-Rx, Flashback, MuscleGurus) that target groups of users through a variety of dedicated online forums (Bilgrei, 2018; Henning & Andreasson, 2021; Sverkersson et  al., 2020; Underwood, 2017). Our first theme will capture the texture of these online doping spaces and analyse some existing communities. This includes how individuals use the online context to become acquainted with IPED practices, learn about courses and side effects, navigate their ambitions and goals in relation to the advice they receive from peers, and more (Becker, 1953; Ebaugh & Ebaugh, 1988).

1 Introduction 

7

The second theme concerns gender, power, and power relationships. Gender has repeatedly been addressed by scholars as a central factor for understanding IPED use and its motivations (Andreasson & Henning, 2022; Andreasson & Johansson, 2020; Klein, 1993; Thualagant, 2012). This theme centres on how women and men talk about and debate the practice, side effects, and sexual and physical health online among peers and in relation to the narratives of self made by individual users. We will also analyse the gendering of different forums and focus on both expressed identity claims and how these relate to norms and values within different communities (Smith & Stewart, 2012; Sverkersson et  al., 2020; Underwood, 2017). Thirdly, we zoom out from the online space and its particularities in an analysis of the interrelationship of online spaces and offline social life. Whereas the offline doping context usually has been referred to as either sports doping or fitness doping, we will deconstruct this hegemonic divide in a discussion about how the online doping space stretches across offline doping contexts/spaces/cultures, while at the same time being informed and influenced by them. This also lays the foundation for our main argument, which is that it is necessary to reconsider doping as a phenomenon. In our presentation we have not endeavoured to address our themes sequentially, as they are crosscutting and therefore relevant throughout. As the book progresses, however, we will increasingly problematise the division of and highlight the relationship between online and offline doping in contemporary society. It is also important to note our terminology. Throughout the book we use doping and IPEDs interchangeably. This is based on our understanding and analysis of doping as an embodied practice and social phenomenon, rather than relying on a legal definition like those found in national drug regulations or sport anti-doping policies such as the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) Code.

8 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Digital Sociology and Data Mainly, but not exclusively, this book can be situated within the emerging and expanding field of digital sociology (Lupton, 2014; Marres, 2017). Sociologists and others have clearly taken interest in various social issues relating to online cultures, spaces, communities, and identities, as well as how digital life increasingly is becoming an integral (if not central) part of daily life. As suggested by Deborah Lupton: Digital sociology can offer a means by which the impact, development and use of these technologies and their impact upon and incorporation into social worlds and concepts of selfhood may be investigated, analysed and understood. It seems to me that given the ways in which digital technologies have infiltrated everyday life and have become such an important dimension of how people gather information and connect socially with others the digital world should now be a central feature of sociological study and research. (Lupton, 2012, p. 4)

Following this, we took a sociologically critical and reflexive approach to our research into online doping. Throughout, we zoomed in on the online space and milieu of IPED use to analyse how IPEDs are debated and understood by users and other stakeholders, and how use is negotiated in relation to lifestyle choices, community formations, and gender, among other things. In our analysis we focus not only on the “texture and fibres” of diverse platforms and websites people use to diffuse narratives about the body and self, but also how such narratives include information about and impact offline activities and social life. For example, online activities produce not only stories about doping and doping cultures, they also change how people understand their world and how they acquire knowledge in general. Therefore, we consider how lived experiences are shaped at the intersection of online and offline activities. In such discussions there is no watertight distinction between digital sociology and a cultural sociological approach, nor would such a distinction be constructive to try to establish. Rather, it is sufficient to situate this book as a cultural sociologically informed analysis written in the context of digital sociology.

1 Introduction 

9

Online Doping primarily builds on material gathered by the authors over several years using mainly a qualitative and case study based approach to the research (Geertz, 2008; Kozinets, 2009, 2019; Yin, 2013). In the presentation of data we have also been influenced by the traditions of ethnography and netnography, aiming for “thick descriptions” (Geertz, 2008) of the communities analysed and their complexities. We have gathered data from discussions in various online doping forums and communities, including both sites with international reach and those more localised or national in scope. Platforms and forums such as MESO-Rx, Flashback.org, MuscleGurus.to, and others facilitate the ability for anyone with an internet connection to read posts from others, learn about doping, and share on their own experience and knowledge. Engaging in research on such forums makes it possible to follow users and communities over time. This is important as it enables us to see how individuals approach a doping forum to learn more about the practice, ask questions of the community, and then engage in both use and giving others advice as part of the community. We have sampled such discussions between community members, paying attention to how use is debated as well as how different forums are structured and directed towards users with diverse interests and ambitions. We have also looked at how these websites together constitute a comprehensive body of material, what we call a digital doping ecosystem (see Chaps. 2 and 3). In this ecosystem, (side)effects, risks, trading, and more are continuously debated, creating an enabling environment for users and simultaneously presenting a tremendous challenge for all those working in the field of anti-doping. The methodology and methods for the book are described in detail in the final chapter/appendix.

Book Outline This book is divided into eight chapters and an appendix. Broadly, the first two chapters introduce and generally contextualise the book. In this chapter, we have explained our rationale, aims, thematic focus, and our interest in the interrelatedness between doping, bodies, and technology. We have also situated the book within the area of digital sociology. This

10 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

discussion will be further developed in Chap. 2, where we more thoroughly explain the conceptual tools that constitute the overarching analytical frame for the book. This frame will then be gradually complemented with more precise concepts as they are needed throughout. Chapter 2 also includes a discussion of the cultural history of doping and how the online doping environment has evolved. Chapters 3–7 constitute the book’s main empirical contributions. In Chap. 3, we present an analysis of the online doping ecosystem as it has developed over time, resulting in the current ethnopharmacologically based culture. Here we address how users debate IPEDs and what they make of their online community. This chapter also contains a discussion on the variability that is represented on the forums, and how experiences are shared and advice met by new and old members. Following this, the focus in Chap. 4 is on digital bodies found in the world of online doping. Here we will concentrate on forums or forum discussions on the idealised and digital embodied self in relation to doping and wellness. In Chap. 5 we have singled out a women-only doping forum to analyse what kind of ethnopharmacological, sis-science culture develops when women are able to discuss their use and experiences uninterrupted by male commentators (and misogynistic perspectives). Whereas Chap. 5 is dedicated to women’s experiences, in Chap. 6 we pay attention to male users’ ways of debating and understanding IPED use and their effects. We look at how men discuss the anticipated effects of steroids and other IPEDs, with an eye towards the line between reality and fantasy. The online environment creates a possibility and space for users to write about dreams and fantasises, concerning incredible developments and capabilities. Testosterone dreams, however, sometimes clash with lived experiences. Those dreams can also colonise men´s thoughts, impacting their daily social life and intimate relationships. The chapter looks at IPED use in the intersection between hypermasculine or pornified sexualities and lived reality outside the sphere of online doping. Following this, in Chap. 7 we examine how doping transcends the dual realities of online and offline life. Using three levels of analysis—policy, community, and bodies—we examine how the two realities are inseparable and how changes in one impact the other.

1 Introduction 

11

We bring the threads from these chapters together in Chap. 8 to present our conclusions and the theoretical implications of our findings. We will use our findings to zoom out and show the complex interdependence of offline and online. We argue that doping itself has undergone processes of “cyborgification,” making the digital inextricable from the physical. Online and offline doping are one and the same, requiring new ways of approaching the issue that can account for this new hybrid reality. Finally, in the appendix we comment on the method and methodology of the book.

References Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2005). Self-injurers as loners: The social organization of solitary deviance. Deviant Behavior, 26(4), 345–378. https://doi. org/10.1080/016396290931696 Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2008). The cyber worlds of self-injurers: Deviant communities, relationships, and selves. Symbolic Interaction, 31(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2008.31.1.33 Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2021). Performance cultures and doped bodies. Challenging categories, gender norms, and policy responses. Common Ground. Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2022). Challenging hegemony through narrative: Centering women’s experiences and establishing a sis-science culture through a women-only doping forum. Communication & Sport, 10(4), 708–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795211000657 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2016). Online doping. The new self-help culture of ethnopharmacology. Sport in Society, 19(7), 957–972. https://doi. org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1096246 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2020). Fitness doping: Trajectories, gender, bodies and health. Palgrave Macmillan. Andrews, G. J., Sudwell, M. I., & Sparkes, A. C. (2005). Towards a geography of fitness: An ethnographic case study of the gym in British bodybuilding culture. Social Science and Medicine, 60(4), 877–891. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.029 Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan press. Becker, H. S. (1953). Becoming a marihuana user. American Journal of Sociology, 59(3), 235–242. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2771989

12 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Bilgrei, O. R. (2018). Broscience: Creating trust in online drug communities. New Media and Society, 20(8), 2712–2727. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444817730331 Bladh, G. (2020). Moving thresholds: Body narratives within the vicinity of gym and fitness culture. Bokförlaget idrottsforum.org. Börjesson, A., Gårevik, N., Dahl, M.  L., Rane, A., & Ekström, L. (2016). Recruitment to doping and help-seeking behavior of eight female AAS users. Substance Abuse: Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 11(11). https://doi. org/10.1186/s13011-­016-­0056-­3 Broadhurst, S., & Price, S. (2017). Digital bodies: Creativity and technology in the arts and humanities. Springer. Christiansen, A.  V. (2020). Gym culture, identity and performance-enhancing drugs: Tracing a typology of steroid use. Routledge. Debord, G. (2012). Society of the spectacle. Bread and Circuses. DuRant, R. H., Escobedo, L. G., & Heath, G. W. (1995). Anabolic-steroid use, strength training, and multiple drug use among adolescents in the United States. Pediatrics, 96(1), 23–28. Ebaugh, H. R., & Ebaugh, H. R. F. (1988). Becoming an ex: The process of role exit. University of Chicago Press. Evans-Brown, M. J., McVeigh, J., Perkins, C., & Bellis, M. A. (2012). Human enhancement drugs: The emerging challenges to public health. Centre for Public Health. Geertz, C. (2008). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In T. Oakes & P. L. Price (Eds.), The cultural geography reader (pp. 41–51). Routledge. Haraway, D. (1987). A manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Australian Feminist Studies, 2(4), 149–181. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08164649.1987.9961538 Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge. Henning, A., & Andreasson, J. (2021). “Yay, another lady starting a log!”: Women’s fitness doping and the gendered space of an online doping forum. Communication & Sport, 9(6), 988–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2167479519896326 Henning, A., & Dimeo, P. (2022). Doping: A sporting history. Reaktion Books. Kam, P. C. A., & Yarrow, M. (2005). Anabolic steroid abuse: Physiological and anaesthetic considerations. Anaesthesia, 60(7), 685–692. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-­2044.2005.04218.x

1 Introduction 

13

Klein, A. M. (1993). Little big men: Bodybuilding subculture and gender construction. Suny Press. Kozinets, R. V. (2009). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Sage. Kozinets, R. V. (2019). Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research. Sage. Lazuras, L., Barkoukis, V., Rodafinos, A., & Tzorbatzoudis, H. (2010). Predictors of doping intentions in elite-level athletes: A social cognition approach. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32(5), 694–710. https://doi. org/10.1123/jsep.32.5.694 Liokaftos, D. (2019). Natural bodybuilding: An account of its emergence and development as competition sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 54(6), 753–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690217751439 Lupton, D. (2012). Digital sociology: An introduction. University of Sydney. Lupton, D. (2014). Digital sociology. Routledge. Marres, N. (2017). Digital sociology: The reinvention of social research. Wiley. Monaghan, L. F. (2001). Bodybuilding, drugs and risk, health, risk and society. Routledge. Ntoumanis, N., Ng, J. Y. Y., Barkoukis, V., & Backhouse, S. (2014). Personal and psychosocial predictors of doping use in physical activity settings: A meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 44(11), 1603–1624. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40279-­014-­0240-­4 Olive, R. (2015). Reframing surfing: Physical culture in online spaces. Media International Australia, 155(1), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/132987 8X1515500112 Pope, H. G., Kanayama, G., Athey, A., Ryan, E., Hudson, J. I., & Baggish, A. (2014). The lifetime prevalence of anabolic-androgenic steroid use and dependence in Americans: Current best estimates. The American Journal on Addictions, 23(4), 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1521-­0391.2013. 12118.x Rasmussen, J.  J., Schou, M., Madsen, P.  L., Selmer, C., Johansen, M.  L., Hovind, P., Ulriksen, P. S., Faber, J., Gustafsson, F., & Kistorp, C. (2018). Increased blood pressure and aortic stiffness among abusers of anabolic androgenic steroids: Potential effect of suppressed natriuretic peptides in plasma? Journal of Hypertension, 36(2), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1097/ HJH.0000000000001546 Rasmussen, J.  J., Selmer, C., Østergren, P.  B., Pedersen, K.  B., Schou, M., Gustafsson, F., Faber, J., Juul, A., & Kistorp, C. (2016). Former abusers of anabolic androgenic steroids exhibit decreased testosterone levels and hypo-

14 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

gonadal symptoms years after cessation: A case-control study. PLoS One, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161208 Sagoe, D., McVeigh, J., Bjørnebekk, A., Essilfie, M. S., Andreassen, C. S., & Pallesen, S. (2015). Polypharmacy among anabolic-androgenic steroid users: A descriptive metasynthesis. Substance Abuse: Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-­015-­0006-­5 Smith, A. C. T., & Stewart, B. (2012). Body perceptions and health behaviors in an online bodybuilding community. Qualitative Health Research, 22(7), 971–985. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312443425 Sverkersson, E., Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2020). ‘Sis science’ and fitness doping: Ethnopharmacology, gender and risk. Social Sciences, 9(4). https:// doi.org/10.3390/SOCSCI9040055 Thualagant, N. (2012). The conceptualization of fitness doping and its limitations. Sport in Society, 15(3), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743043 7.2012.653209 Turnock, L. A. (2021). Supplying Steroids Online: The cultural and market contexts of enhancement drug supply on one of the World’s largest fitness & bodybuilding forums. Plymouth Policy Research Press. Underwood, M. (2017). Exploring the social lives of image and performance enhancing drugs: An online ethnography of the Zyzz fandom of recreational bodybuilders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 39, 78–85. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.08.012 Van de Ven, K., Mulrooney, K. J., & McVeigh, J. (2019). Human enhancement drugs. Routledge. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 2–3. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.

2 The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping

Introduction Currently, there is no authoritative study that fully explores and analyses the cultural history of doping. Several volumes would likely be needed to capture the complexity of a historical process that has roots stretching back to ancient cultures. Adding to this, even the concept of doping itself is vague and ever changing. If we look at how doping is approached by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), we see that the list of prohibited substance changes on a yearly basis, with new substances added in a rapid stream and few removed. The ways doping and image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs) are approached and dealt with legally and in practice also vary tremendously between countries (Andreasson & Henning, 2019). All this makes a comparative historical discussion imprecise and coarse at best. From a historical perspective, the meanings of doping have varied, to say the least. That said, there is a rich body of literature that focuses on a range of contextual or historical points that have contributed to the historical development and current cultural directions of doping as both a practice and phenomenon. There are several studies in which historians and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Andreasson, A. Henning, Online Doping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30272-5_2

15

16 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

sociologists have presented significant insights into the history of doping in sport, gym and fitness culture, or even on more specific topics such as doping in cycling, in Russia, or among early icons in power sports (Andreasson & Johansson, 2014a; Beamish, 2011; Fair, 1999; Gleaves, 2014; Henning & Dimeo, 2022; Hunt et al., 2012). Though often circumscribed in their focus, these studies together with others provide insights to important historical trends and perspectives that can be used to describe and understand the present. To place the whole phenomenon of online doping in a broader socio-­ cultural context, this chapter presents an overview of the cultural history of doping. The chapter will not provide a comprehensive archaeology that builds on primary data sources. Instead, we intend to engage with existing literature to illustrate some central events, root systems, and tendencies. We have chosen to structure our presentation in the first part of the chapter according to four consecutive, but overlapping, phases. First, we have the experimental phase, when doping largely was met by curiosity and ideas about performing bodies, aligned with thoughts about modernity and the potential of technological advances. As a phenomenon, doping was contextually embedded in both sport and fitness during large parts of the whole twentieth century, although these separated contexts have more commonalities than a first glance may imply (Andreasson & Henning, 2021). In the second phase during the 1990s, previous doping contexts were heavily commercialised and strong “clean up” efforts were made. In public discourse and through the institutionalisation of anti-doping, the rhetoric towards doping changed and opposition hardened.1 The third phase was initiated around the new millennium, when technological developments were implemented more broadly and increasingly influenced IPED use and supply patterns. Early online communities mostly emanating from the United States were introduced, which gradually reshaped the doping landscape. Moving into the 2020s, a fourth phase is underway. In an up-to-date presentation of the current online doping situation, we pay attention to the development of a diversified  For a more comprehensive account of the pre-online phases of doping see Andreasson and Henning (2021). 1

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

17

market characterised by an online doping ecosystem in which users and enablers operate in a myriad of communities. Though coarse, this historical overview captures some central developments and features of doping and it also sets the focus on the human body and its cultural elasticity. Perspectives on the doped body vary over time. In the philosophy of bodies, we can often see how nature is pitted against culture, normality against abnormality, and so on. Historical judgements and perspectives of the doped body have shifted and what is considered deviant or to be expected has changed across time. Following our historical overview, we will present our central theoretical concepts. Situated within digital sociology and inspired by a feminist philosophy of science, we conceptualise the digital spaces and online cultures in focus, as well as discuss the interrelatedness of online and offline activities and practices.

F rom Experimentation to Initial Problematisation With the use of biochemical resources and promises of new technologies to boost performance and muscle mass, it is not surprising that doping has been intimately intertwined with the historical development of modern organised sport and ideas about performing (male) bodies. The cultural history of doping is also largely a history of modernity and the plastic and changeable body. Through hegemonic ideas and ideals about performing bodies and cultures, sports have been successively modernised since the mid-1800s (Dimeo, 2007). In the 1930s, for example, various types of drugs were used to combat fatigue and to increase sport performance. This was largely done in a non-judgmental fashion, especially in comparison with contemporary public discourses on doping. Steroids were also widely used among Soviet weightlifters and US bodybuilders, among others, in the 1950s (Andreasson & Johansson, 2014a; Dimeo, 2007; Fair, 1999). Consequently, IPED use was understood as part of modernity and part of a medical and scientific approach to the performing, muscular, and (almost exclusively) male body (Holt et al., 2009).

18 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Though an account of people’s use of different means to increase performance could stretch back centuries, our discussion starts in the mid-­ twentieth century. During this period of wide social drug use, permissive attitudes and curiosity in public discourse were mirrored in sports and gym contexts. Previous use of animal extracts and other drugs to boost performance was gradually replaced by synthesised forms of testosterone, with fewer side-effects (Andreasson & Henning, 2021). In the sport context, there were no prohibitions against this kind of enhancement and the lust for experimentation was strong in some sports (Hunt et al., 2012). Similarly in gym culture, steroid-fuelled bodies gradually took over the scene and were put on display in the cultural Mecca of Bodybuilding, Venice Beach in California (Locks & Richardson, 2013). This was a time marked by experimentation and medical curiosity. In the 1960s and 70s, use of amphetamines and the growing use of steroids were largely unregulated by governments and athletes seemed unbothered by their use. The interest in extraordinary performances could be said to rule the debate and, in some ways, public opinion. Attitudes towards drug use that had built up in the wake of modernity during large parts of the twentieth century gradually began to change in the 1970s. These changes in perspective were related to growing fears around recreational and injected drugs, including heroin, which led to the declaration of a “war on drugs” (Lassiter, 2015). As social condemnations increased, sport followed. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) set up a Medical Commission in 1967 that would lay the foundation for much of anti-doping’s current science and testing-based approach (Henne et  al., 2013). Early sports rules around doping were directly related to what was detectable and it was not until 1974 that a screening test was developed to determine if steroids were present in a human sample (Henne et al., 2013). The IOC formally placed anabolic steroids on its prohibited list that same year and began full steroid testing at the 1976 Olympics. As moves to begin addressing doping were picking up pace in elite sport, a very different atmosphere existed within bodybuilding and gym culture. The effects of steroids were becoming highly visible on the bodies

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

19

of bodybuilders, marking the move towards muscle mass and definition as the preferred look (Locks & Richardson, 2013). This was evident in the world’s most recognisable bodybuilder, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Steroids fuelled his achievement of the now iconic look that became popular in the era. As in the pre-anti-doping sports period, there was little reason not to do so. Steroids were legal in most countries and largely understood as part of the masculine and homosocial culture of the gym, as well as part of the masculine imagery found in popular culture, as discussed in the previous chapter (Jeffords, 1994; Klein, 1993). In a 2015 YouTube video, Schwarzenegger spoke about this time: One of the most common questions I always get is, you know, did we take steroids. Because now of course drugs is such a big issue in sports. And the answer is yes. It was just in the beginning stage because bodybuilders at those days just experimented with it. But it was not illegal. It was like, we talked about it very openly. I mean anyone that were asked, ‘do you take steroids?’, and you, ‘Yeah, I take three Dianabol a day’ or someone else would say ‘I take this, this and that’. I was not an illegal thing. (https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiHu6Y6UOdI)

It was also near the end of the 1970s and into the 1980s that women began entering gyms as bodybuilders (Fair, 1999). Women were not immediately accepted into this body culture, especially on the bodybuilding competition circuit, but persisted anyway. Along with taking up weights, they also undertook other training practices that included using muscle  building drugs. These women often faced criticism and abuse because of their appearances, often considered to be “mannish” or “freakish,” and such sensationalist perspectives have been prominent in research since (McGrath & Chananie-Hill, 2009; Sverkersson, 2022). Despite the move to prohibition in the sports context in the 1960s and 70s, there was a delay in the gym context. This meant male muscle builders could engage in and experiment with various drugs without much question and with few consequences if they were caught.

20 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

 he Cleaning Up and Commercialisation T of Performance Cultures The 1980s and 90s were marked by a shift in sport and social views of doping and IPED use. Drug use within bodybuilding was beginning to be questioned as IPEDs were increasingly connected to the idea of fragile masculinities; that they were used to mask men’s internal insecurities (Fussell, 1994; Klein, 1993). This painted steroids and the people who used them in a negative light. This was also tied to drug scandals that highlighted doping in sport to a global audience. Infamously, Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson’s 1988 positive test for steroids spotlighted the issue of doping in sports against the backdrop of the men’s 100-meter track final at the Olympic Games. Johnson’s case received a huge amount of media attention that echoed all over the world, leading to investigations and government actions against IPEDs. The 1990s were also a decade in which both gym culture and sports underwent significant changes related to commercialisation. Fitness as a mass leisure activity expanded as a wave of new fitness franchises catering to a larger market than traditional bodybuilding gyms drew more participants, including new groups of women (Sassatelli, 2010). The fitness revolution (Andreasson & Johansson, 2014b) marked the split between a commercial health-focused fitness industry and a bodybuilding subculture associated with steroids, narcissism, and generally unhealthy lifestyles (Smith Maguire, 2007). With gyms and fitness moving into the mainstream during the early 2000s, the doping-fuelled bodybuilding subculture of the previous decades was further diminished and marginalised (Andreasson & Johansson, 2020; Locks & Richardson, 2013). These updated ideas of fitness and fitness centres were much more inclusive and commercialised than the previous iterations of gyms that were exclusive masculine and homosocial spaces. Paradoxically, cultural inclusion was to some extent brought about by the exclusion of the more hardcore bodybuilding lifestyles that had previously dominated the culture.

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

21

Sports in the 1990s also began to take the question of doping more seriously, especially as more scandals led to more media focus on the issue. A clear turning point came in 1998 with the Festina scandal ahead of that year’s Tour de France. The discovery of doping substances and paraphernalia in the possession of several competing teams nearly crushed the sport and its crown jewel event (Dimeo, 2014). This also coalesced support from national governments, the media, and public opinion for an updated approach, and these groups began applying more pressure on sports organisations (Hunt et al., 2012). The IOC was the target of these efforts, due to its seeming failure to control doping (Dimeo, 2014) and stakeholders began demanding more accountability (Christiansen, 2005). This came in 1999 in the form of WADA, the organisation tasked with developing and enforcing a single set of anti-doping policies across global sport. WADA and its new commitment to anti-doping impacted perceptions and policies related to substance use across sports, fitness, and society in a variety of ways. Some countries expanded anti-doping to include fitness centres and recreational athletes, while other countries have moved to (at least partially) criminalise doping (e.g., Italy, Sweden, U.S.) through national-level policies (Andreasson & Henning, 2019; Henning & Dimeo, 2018). However, these processes of commercialisation and “cleaning up” do not mean that bodybuilding, fitness, and sport became different activities or lifestyles. Rather, these processes and conceptions of performance mean these became partly disconnected and partly increasingly dependent on each other. The variety of ways IPED use was scrutinised and governed during the 1990s also created fertile ground for users and their enablers to find and establish new arenas in which they could engage in discussions about use, marketing, and trading of IPEDs in the security of anonymity. Enter the internet and the era of online doping.

22 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

 nline Doping: Early User Communities O of the Twenty-First Century Since the late 1990s, new avenues for potential doping users have developed. In the wake of anti-doping becoming increasingly institutionalised and in line with processes of commercialisation, globalisation, and the diversification of potential doping users, the supply and range of available illicit and licit IPEDs have also widened (Coomber, 2014; Fincoeur et al., 2015; Van Hout & Hearne, 2016). There is no doubt that this development has been powered by the ability to anonymously use the internet for IPED-related purposes. Inherent risks of social stigma or encounters with anti-doping organisations or law enforcement in the case of being discovered have also diminished the level of sociability among IPED suppliers and enthusiasts (Turnock, 2021). A new type of doping space has been evolving since the turn of the century. In it, the conditions for users and suppliers have transformed in relation to the possibilities facilitated by online communication and the changing perceptions of IPEDs offline; that is in sport, the fitness industry, and in public discourse. Having been previously socio-culturally and spatially embedded, the doping market has been relocated to an international, digital, and semi- to fully anonymous arena (van de Ven & Mulrooney, 2017). This displacement or relocation not only poses great challenges for national and international anti-doping policies and their enforcement, it also runs the risk of increasing drug use with the simultaneous loss of social support and mentoring around use (Henning & Andreasson, 2022; Henning et al., 2021). The development of online cultures and communities occurred rapidly around the millennial turn. Digital drug dealing had occurred earlier, even during what is considered the offline phase of doping. The technical architecture and hardware that later developed into the internet did not appear overnight; it was already in place by the 1970s, though not publicly available. It has also been suggested that the world’s first online drug deal was made in 1971 or 1972 when some Stanford students used a network called the Arpanet to arrange the sale of marijuana (Markoff, 2005, p. 109). Then in 1979, a worldwide discussion system called Usenet

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

23

was launched and propelled the development of a technical and cultural infrastructure that made it possible for people physically spread around the world to gather in one digital conversation space (Power, 2013). Usenet was massively popular and in the pre-web era of the 1980–90s some 20 million users were active on this platform. Usenet was one of the first exemplars of social media and a digital space where discussions among different newsgroups (interest groups) could thrive. During this time, and even though social aspects of online communications were developing rapidly, access to Usenet largely demanded some level of coding skill. Usenet was not for everyone, but rather “for geeks, by geeks” (Power, 2013, p. 56). Of course, this was about to change. Due to the ability to engage in discussions and trade all sorts of goods, it is not surprising that drug markets were quick to reap the benefits of anonymous online spaces. As suggested by Power (2013), most laws against different drugs, including IPEDs, were written in an era before mass communication, when communication with the other side of the world from wherever one was situated was slow, if not impossible. Propelled by new technical possibilities, and at least somewhat moot laws and regulations, various online drug cultures and communities soon developed. Entering the new millennium, a mainstream awareness of the ability to engage in discussions considered private over the internet was a common public reality. Power (2013) described the entrepreneurial momentum found in early online communities and drug cultures: Newsgroups disseminated the solid information on drugs that had been so lacking earlier. The Usenet newsgroup alt.drugs generated about 13 posts a day, its online FAQ said in 1995, and had about 120,000 daily readers. Alt. drugs.chemistry, a related group began in 1994, and its sole topic was the covert manufacture of illicit drugs. It seemed unbelievable at the time that all across the world drugs policy was toughening in response to the new wave of designer drugs. (Power, 2013, p. 59)

As the potential for online activities and communications was recognised, sites and forums began to develop and spread. In the wake of the war on drugs, early online drug cultures and supply markets were directed towards drug use broadly. The early Erowid forums provided information

24 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

and a harm reduction resource that has since developed immensely; the same goes for the pioneering Pshychonauts, where the lust for experimentation was nearly religious (Turnock, 2021). The tremendous diversification of digital spaces on the web, where all manners of drugs can be debated and distributed, has bled into the world of performance cultures. Indeed, one of the most prominent changes that occurred between the second and third phase of the cultural history of doping was this spatial repositioning. Seemingly as the anti-doping movement picked up steam, the development of online communication provided users with a (partial) solution to avoiding detection.

From Bazaars to an Online Ecosystem? Since the turn of the century interest in online drug markets has increased significantly, marking a major shift in the doping scene and in the scholarly debate. In the 1980s and 90s, drug use and supply were largely understood as spatially embedded. In the gym context, steroids were bought across the counter and experienced users often supported “newbies” in their efforts to boost performance. Scholars paid special attention to bodybuilders, mainly men but also some women, and how they developed drug regimens to pursue their weightlifting goals in the gym (Klein, 1993; Monaghan, 2002). As the internet provided new possibilities for communication, the embeddedness of doping was partly redefined. Though the focus of online doping initially was on “darknet” sites (Turnock, 2021), discussions on IPEDs became more or less open in the first decade of the twenty-first century. During this time, the media began reporting about websites and online pharmacies openly selling drugs. Following this, scholars have also begun to direct their attention to different forums and online doping communities (Andreasson & Henning, 2022; Henning & Andreasson, 2021; Smith & Stewart, 2012; Sverkersson, 2022; Turnock, 2021; Underwood, 2017). The bulk of IPED research still tends to focus on offline doping realities in sport or fitness. Nonetheless, online communities and doping forums have developed into an important, perhaps even the primary, means of accessing all sorts of substances. Turnock described:

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

25

In exploring the online market for steroids, therefore, it is relevant to note that online bodybuilding forums are often identified as one of the primary means by which IPED users access information on drugs and their use, and can further be used to access product itself, either in the form of recommendations for online pharmacies or direct peer-to-peer supply by forum users themselves. /.../ Research into IPED-using populations has similarly identified the significance of cultural norms to supply, with much of the existing literature pointing to how IPED-using populations’ distinct cultural norms shape market exchanges, including by encouraging the aforementioned social supply of drugs. (Turnock, 2021, p. 11)

As online drug cultures and doping communities have developed, the means of accessing drugs and debating their use have expanded. Treadwell (2012) suggested that the online doping culture and market can be understood as a trading “bazaar” (Enghoff & Aldridge, 2019). The bazaar metaphor directs attention to the potential of entering a digital space in which one can become familiar with substances and find information on where and how to access requested drugs. There is an intricate relationship between online activities and offline realities. In the former, ideas about use are formed and routes of accessing drugs established, while in the latter certain laws may or may not limit the possibility of engaging in IPED use practices. The bazaar metaphor surely has some merit, but this approach backgrounds the fact that users’ ways of approaching IPEDs also concern diverse lifestyle choices, identity claims, learning and knowledge about drugs, and community building. As such, we argue that online doping is better described as an ecosystem. By ecosystem, we refer to a more general understanding of this concept than the natural sciences approach to the relationship between the physical world and its organic inhabitants. Instead, we are looking more broadly at online environments and the networks of digital and physical bodies that exist within. An online doping ecosystem consists of drug stores, of course, but also communities in which people with diverse motives and goals, from different countries, and of different genders, try to navigate a moralistically challenging landscape of criminalised to semi-­ criminalised activity. The difference between the online bazaar metaphor and the online doping ecosystem can also be understood as a result of the

26 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

increasing complexity between bodies and lifestyles on one hand and technology on the other. The digital technologies of the last century (now often retrospectively referred to as ‘Web 1.0’) were based on websites and devises such as desktop or laptop computers. People could view information online and use facilities such as emails, online banking and shopping, but for the most part had little role to play in creating online content. /.../ Since the early years of the twenty-first century, the emergence of platforms and websites that were accessible online rather than loaded individually on to one’s desktop computer, the development of technologies such as wireless (‘wi-fi’) and broadband internet access and related devices have resulted in a proliferation of technologies. Ubiquitous wireless computing technologies allow for users to be connected to the internet in almost any location at any time of the day using their mobile devices that can easily be carried around with them. Some digital devices can be worn on the body, such as self tracking wristbands or headbands used to collect biometric data, smartwatches and Google Glass, a device worn on the face like spectacles. (Lupton, 2014, p. 9)

Following the development of the social web where it has become popular to exchange and share personal information and images, it is perhaps not surprising that the social complexity of doping communities has also evolved. Scholars have shown how users move between and across diverse sites and contexts to find and diffuse information that concerns IPED use, lifestyles, and bodies (Andreasson & Henning, 2021). We will develop our conceptualisation of an online doping ecosystem throughout the remainder of this book.

 igital Bodies and Technology in the Online D Doping Ecosystem This book will apply an overarching analytical approach that leans on methods and ideas developed within digital sociology in recent decades (Lupton, 2014; Marres, 2017). Digital sociology is not a research route that is essentially different from what can be expected from sociological

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

27

research more broadly. Rather, as human life has been increasingly digitalised, so has the need to develop tools to describe contemporary society. By re-reading sociological theory with a focus on technology and the impact of digitalisation in contemporary society, this sub-field has evolved and developed in its own right. The evolution of the digital components of the online reality of daily life across recent decades has also made explicit the central role that technology fills for people, as well as how the use of social media and other online communication has created spaces where the interrelatedness of individuals and culture/society is played out (Kozinets, 2019; Leaver, 2011). Parts or fragments of larger articulations of bodies, identities, and spatial realities are expressed in and through online communication (Schwartz & Halegoua, 2015). In the past two decades, the use of technology has become an integral part of life and even somewhat an extension of the human body. Due to growing human dependence on technology, it has been argued that people in large parts of the world, to some extent, are already cyborgs (Haddow et al., 2015; Haraway, 2006; Leaver, 2011). The synthesis of the human and the digital has implications for how individuals experience and navigate their bodies, communities, and environments.

Bodies and Technology In her ground-breaking work on the status of the body in contemporary society, feminist theorist Donna Haraway introduced the idea of the human cyborg in the late 1980s (Haraway, 1987). Haraway used the idea or model of the cyborg, a synthesis of organic and synthetic parts, as a root metaphor for changes occurring in contemporary society and the profound impacts of technological developments on human cultural life. The metaphor functions as an amalgamated picture of the extended and nearly extinguished self in the early era of digitalisation. Haraway’s metaphorical model captures more than the human-machine/technology interaction; it also shows how established categories and lines (e.g., between the physical and non-physical, self and other, nature and culture, mind and body, human and machine, reality and illusion) can be blurred in the realm of science and technology. Haraway and others

28 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

(Baudrillard, 1994; Debord, 2012; Lupton, 2014) pointed out these and other distinctions often applied to organisms and machines with the aim of illustrating the boundary-transgressing qualities of technology. In contrast to other cultural critics who interpreted technological development in terms of cultural crises, Haraway read technology as a possible way out of oppression and a support to form entirely new bodies and identities. [T]aking responsibility for the social relations of science and technology means refusing an anti-science metaphysics, a demonology of technology, and so means embracing the skillful task of reconstructing the boundaries of daily life, in partial connection with others, in communication with all of our parts. It is not just that science and technology are possible means of great human satisfaction, as well as a matrix of complex dominations. Cyborg imagery can suggest a way out of the maze of dualisms in which we have explained our bodies and our tools to ourselves. This is a dream not of a common language, but of a powerful infidel heteroglossia. It is an imagination of a feminist speaking in tongues to strike fear into the circuits of the super savers of the New Right. It means both building and destroying machines, identities, categories, relationships, spaces, stories. Although both are bound in a spiral dance, I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess. (Haraway, 1991, p. 181)

Since its introduction in the 1980s, the idea of the cyborg has decreased in popularity in the scholarly debate, perhaps for being understood as somewhat outdated; a clumsy academic construction equivalent to the Terminator, Robocop, or other science-fiction figures found in popular culture at the time. Understood literally, of course such critique has some bearing. But approached as a (feminist) philosophy of science, the idea of the cyborg and digital bodies are still highly relevant and able to capture the ever-changing multiplicities of human embodiment as they come into contact with non-human entities (see appendix) (Lupton, 2014). In the metaphor of the cyborg there is a close coupling of body and machine/technology. As a fictional character and metaphor, the cyborg can map both our social and bodily realities onto digital spaces (Orton-­ Johnson & Prior, 2013). The discussion of how the body and self are socially constructed and how power relations—not least in terms of

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

29

gender and gender performances—are inscribed on the body also suggests that the flesh is a suitable point of departure for talking about how to struggle with and potentially change social representations. Indeed, poststructuralist and (post-)humanist thinkers have also successfully generated theoretical tools and conceptual frameworks that can be used to discuss and/or create alternative representations of identity in contemporary (digitalised) society (Braidotti, 2002; Butler, 2004; Foucault, 2019; Haraway, 1997). Taking inspiration from Haraway and others’ discussions on the transformation of bodies and self in late modernity and the blurring of established categories, we find emergent movements or fluidities concerning how bodies are made possible, liveable, and visible through and within technology. Bodies are (re)shaped in new ways, discursively and in the flesh, regardless of their gender positions and commonly with the support of technology (Broadhurst & Price, 2017; Orton-Johnson & Prior, 2013). Sometimes these modifications are only limited by imagination and technological skills. Sometimes one’s imagination is pushed by the realities or fantasies of others. To this end it is possible to talk about digital corporealities. Indeed, in the context of online communication, corporealities are more about “bodies in theory” than “bodies in the flesh.” Digital bodies/corporealities, however, do not suggest that these are by essence different from physical existences (Broadhurst & Price, 2017; Marres, 2017), but rather that flesh can be bracketed in digital spaces to some extent. At the same time, in the process of technical experimentation our perception of reality might undergo a reconfiguration, and in doing so also recreate our experience in the world (Broadhurst & Price, 2017). To this end, digital corporealities may bring new forms of meaning making, where the body is extended, enhanced, reconfigured but still identifiable as a body, linked to a temporal existence. Rather than being separate from the body, technology is thus to be understood as part of that body (ibid.). Perhaps one could go even further to conclude that bodies in contemporary Western societies literally are in constant physical contact with digital devices. Indeed, as suggested by Lupton (2014, p. 165), on the ontological level, our sense of selfhood and embodiment are implicated with digital technologies, and as digital devices become ever smaller and unobtrusive their status as separate objects from our

30 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

bodies/selves diminishes in importance. We will return to this discussion in Chap. 7. In the remainder of this book we will develop our discussion on physical and digital corporealities. We refer to them simply as bodies throughout, as part of our project here includes investigating their interrelatedness and the potential for new senses of self and body aesthetics found in their in-betweenness. In doing so we will also pay attention to both their discursive and phenomenological nature. Our conceptualisation of digital bodies, inspired by Haraway, will be coupled with other concepts. Part of our conceptualisation of the body also includes how it can be used to analyse both processes of embodiment and identity formation (intra) and socio-cultural and relational aspects of doping communities (inter). This calls for some clarification. We will start with the former (intra) and return to the latter (inter).

Online Narratives of the Self As lifestyles and representations of self are expressed in the context of online communication, questions concerning online identities and how they relate to offline physical predicaments are perhaps an unavoidable discussion (Orton-Johnson & Prior, 2013). A critical voice may suggest, for example, that online narratives or representations may have little to do with offline realities. Such questions have also been debated within a wide variety of subjects, including doping (Arindita et al., 2021; Cooper, 2021; Henning & Andreasson, 2021; Seyri & Rezaee, 2022; Underwood, 2017). In this book, online discussions concerning doping experiences, bodies, and more are understood as narratives of self and thus as markers of identity (Turkle, 2011). Engaging in online discussions also means engaging in identity and community forming practices. However, we also recognise that due to their pseudo-anonymity users may assume a specially devised persona online, perhaps designed to bring social recognition and status within the community (Giles, 2006). Clearly, engaging in discussions on the internet and commenting on experiences, results, and more can be seen as a way for IPED users to present a highly curated version of

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

31

themselves (Papacharissi, 2010; Schwartz & Halegoua, 2015). To this end, different narratives of the self or identity claims as expressed in and through online communication are seen as real, though not necessarily rooted in a person’s offline existence (Baudrillard, 1994). As part of our interest in how bodies, identities, and community belonging are narrated online, we suggest that digital expressions are becoming increasingly embedded in both how we perform identities and bodies, and the social production of the digital space itself. As people use technology to form narratives of self (which may be grounded in physical realities or directed by fantasies about future achievements) with the support of followers and the like-minded, they also produce digital spaces that promote particular socio-cultural practices. Digital spaces can then be understood as places/spaces and arenas where people can share experiences and give a certain practice meaning. Such practices may be formative for how the self is understood and discursively represented. But digital spaces are also formative for social systems and culture. Regarding digital cultures and communities, online doping has sometimes been discussed in terms of ethnopharmacological culture.

The Cultural Space: The Online Doping Ecosystem Currently there are myriad studies that in different ways address how online communication technologies have enabled people to connect with one another and learn about IPEDs, discuss their use, risks, and more (Andreasson & Henning, 2022; Andreasson & Johansson, 2016; Underwood, 2017). Focusing on the social mechanisms and diffusion of knowledge between IPED users, Bilgrei (2018) showed how different online forums can serve as platforms for the formation of drug-using lifestyles and cultures. What is described is the formation (and gendering) of a particular socio-cultural power dynamic and an ethnopharmacological culture (Hakim, 2019; Underwood, 2017). In the context of doping, the term ethnopharmacology was initially used by Monaghan (2001, 2002). It described how bodybuilders, often through personal trial and error, formed a knowledge-based culture around IPEDs. This facilitated not only vocabularies of motivations for

32 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

use, but also counter-arguments to formal and often anti-doping influenced perspectives on IPEDs found in mainstream society. Though applied in an offline reality embedded in the gym and fitness context, this concept has a bearing on how online doping communities have evolved and developed since the late 1990s. Where Monaghan saw physical bodies and the effects of IPEDs on them, the current study zooms in on online reports of medicalised and discursive bodies (Andreasson & Henning, 2022; Bilgrei, 2018; Sverkersson, 2022; Sverkersson et  al., 2020; Underwood, 2017). In the literature it has sometimes been assumed that ethnopharmacology works because it is rooted in reports and cycle logs based in user experiences. Put simply, it has been thought that users form a digital culture by engaging in online conversations with each other and sharing advice to learn about doping as a practice. In doing so, they have also increased their ability to make informed choices with maximum gains and minimum risks (Andreasson & Johansson, 2016; Smith & Stewart, 2012). At the same time, addressing ethnopharmacology as a form of grassroots response also holds the potential for things to go sideways, as information is diffused anonymously and bodies (and their described responses) in fact may or may not be real (Bilgrei, 2018; Sverkersson et al., 2020). There is also the chance that users have become so inured to online information that they will believe in remedies or hacks to produce wished for results, despite simultaneously encountering information showing their potential harm. The dissemination of different “wellness” products or miracle cures (like Ivermectin as a cure for Covid or perineum sunning for gaining energy) are clear examples of the risks that come with ethnopharmacology (Susanto et al., 2021) and relying on anecdotal and unproven results or unconfirmed theories. They also show what these potentially politicised accounts may have for the individual when bodies are currency. We will discuss how individuals engage in ethnopharmacological cultures and debate potential gains and risks of use in other chapters. Here, we direct our attention to the socio-cultural shape and textuality of online ethnopharmacology and how to conceptualise this form of digitalised culture. As discussed above, the bazaar metaphor has sometimes been used to describe how ethnopharmacology works in the online context. However,

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

33

we argue that this metaphor is misleading, as it might be taken to simply mean a shopping mall for doping. Thus, it obscures the very socio-­cultural dynamic at play and the interrelatedness between users, sellers, enablers, those who are experienced users and those who are not, men and women, as well as individuals’ interactions with their online and offline environments. It may have described the online doping arena before the turn of the century, but it hardly captures the complexity and cultural dynamic at play in current online doping environments. To adapt to the variability of lifestyles, norms, and values found in the online doping context, we instead understand online doping as an ecosystem. The idea of a digital ecosystem has previously been used to describe the production and distribution of different products and services with focus on sustainability, information, and risk (Dommett et  al., 2021; Morgan-Thomas et  al., 2020; Susanto et al., 2021). Central to such studies is how the objectives of the ecosystem are achieved, not so much through explicit design goals in information and communication technology, but rather by the self-­ organisation of the digital ecosystem itself. The ecosystem is largely about culture and the interactions taking place between inhabitants themselves and between inhabitants and their environment/space. Approaching online doping as a digital ecosystem makes it possible for us to capture how different platforms and websites have developed over time to complement or compete with one another in terms of how users can engage in discussion, learn about the practice, and how their ways of navigating and relating to other users and enablers change as motivations change. The online doping ecosystem is also able to capture diversities in terms of users, and how users and other stakeholders in the doping field relate to both their physical and digital environments. Throughout this study, we will analyse the online doping environment as a digital ecosystem. Our ambition is to illustrate how this system can form lifestyles, identities, and bodies, as well as how it operates as a producer of culture, communities, and power relations. A word of caution though: the bubble of life occurring in the digital doping ecosystem does not exist and develop in complete isolation from an outer world. As a metaphor, the ecosystem is rather communicative in its sensitivity to external influence. By centring the phenomenon and practice of online doping, we are studying the online doping ecosystem and the relationship between

34 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

specific and distinct sociocultural patterns within a given ethnopharmacological culture. But we are looking even further and deploying the ecosystem as a way to examine and understand more common and general sociocultural patterns and power structures in society.

Conclusions During large parts of the twentieth century, IPED use aligned with the values of modern society. Medical and technological developments influenced how people thought about IPEDs and their potential. The lust for experimentation to restore or transgress physical limitations seemed to rule the debate. Gradually, however, things changed. Beginning in the 1970s and up to the 90s, different anti-doping organisations gained ground. Efforts to clean up sport and fitness were made, as were the ambitions detect and punish those who were not compliant with the new anti-doping agenda. As use was increasingly stigmatised culturally and socially, new ways of accessing and debating doping and IPED use evolved. Technological developments also played a crucial role in these changes. Entering the twenty-first century, we saw how doping cultures were relocated to a growing online spatiality (Andreasson & Henning, 2022; Fincoeur et al., 2015; Turnock, 2021). Supported by myriad digital platforms, a range of different IPED communities has developed. Lifestyles, identities, communities, and cultures are formed in a globalised digital arena seemingly ruled by neoliberal values and a willingness to experiment. This development has not sufficiently been met by anti-doping regulations and laws that seem suited mainly to offline realities. Sometimes there is a perfect match between online and offline realities, but other times there is not. The role of technology in daily life and its role in the production of culture are a key concern within digital sociology. This might be especially relevant in studies of lifestyle cultures with countercultural origins, and particularly in studies of groups involved in activities that are stigmatised or criminalised in mainstream society (Adler & Adler, 2008; O’Malley et al., 2022; Underwood, 2017). For example, technological developments have boosted new ways of accessing and discussing IPEDs,

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

35

as they may involve discussions that are normally hidden from the general public and authorities (Saba & McCormick, 2001; Treadwell, 2012). But to engage in such discussions, as this book sets out to do, and to fully contextualise the data upon which it builds, we must provide something of a conceptual map regarding how to understand the digital space and its potential to form bodies, communities, and cultures. For that reason, we introduced our approach to digital bodies, online narratives of self, ethnopharmacological cultures, and the online doping ecosystem. The interrelatedness of our concepts may be obvious. The development of an ethnopharmacological culture and an online doping ecosystem heavily impacts users, enablers, and other stakeholders’ approaches to online doping. It may form bodies, cultures, and communities. Due to the potential for complete anonymity, the risk and reward analysis of what takes place online does not always stretch to offline realities and potential harms. Nonetheless, engaging with online doping can provide advanced insights on how to discuss and form bodies (digital or physical) with the help of IPEDs. Our analysis of online doping stretches further still. The online doping space constitutes a cultural structure—a construction—through which social relationships, cultures, and fantasies are made and debated: an ecosystem. These constructions are often limited to the online environment, but as we argue, they spill over or transcend the increasingly fuzzy line between online and offline. New offline realities, such as a policy focus on anti-doping, may directly impact how the online environment develops. Similarly, lifestyle-forming practices that include the use of IPEDs may bleed into offline realities, significantly impacting users’ intimate relationships or their fantasies thereof. Online risks may transform to offline harms/gains and vice versa. The tensions and overlaps between online and offline behaviours, relationships, and experiences, and between bodies and technology, are at the core of online doping.

36 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

References Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (2008). The cyber worlds of self-injurers: Deviant communities, relationships, and selves. Symbolic Interaction, 31(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2008.31.1.33 Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2019). Glocal fitness doping: Policy, practice and prevention in the United States and Sweden. Performance Enhancement and Health, 6(3–4), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2018.11.001 Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2021). Performance cultures and doped bodies. Challenging categories, gender norms, and policy responses. Common Ground. Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2022). Challenging hegemony through narrative: Centering women’s experiences and establishing a sis-science culture through a women-only doping forum. Communication & Sport, 10(4), 708–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795211000657 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2014a). The fitness revolution: Historical transformations in the global gym and fitness culture. Sport Science Review, 23(3–4), 91–112. Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2014b). The global gym: Gender, health and pedagogies. Palgrave Macmillan. Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2016). Online doping. The new self-help culture of ethnopharmacology. Sport in Society, 19(7), 957–972. https://doi. org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1096246 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2020). Fitness doping: Trajectories, gender, bodies and health. Palgrave Macmillan. Arindita, R., Nasucha, M., Hartanti, L. E. P., Arifah, N., & Lubna, S. (2021). Construction of mothers identity in online community: Study of members of Halo Ibu Community. ASPIRATION Journal, 2(1), 1–21. https://doi. org/10.56353/aspiration.v2i1.24 Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan press. Beamish, R. (2011). Steroids: A new look at performance-enhancing drugs: A new look at performance-enhancing drugs. ABC-CLIO. Bilgrei, O. R. (2018). Broscience: Creating trust in online drug communities. New Media and Society, 20(8), 2712–2727. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444817730331 Braidotti, R. (2002). Metamorphoses: Towards a materialist theory of becoming. Polity Press. Broadhurst, S., & Price, S. (2017). Digital bodies: Creativity and technology in the arts and humanities. Springer.

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

37

Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. Routledge. Christiansen, A.  V. (2005). The legacy of Festina: Patterns of drug use in European cycling since 1998. Sport in History, 25(3), 497–514. https://doi. org/10.1080/17460260500396384 Coomber, R. (2014). How social fear of drugs in the non-sporting world creates a framework for doping policy in the sporting world. International Journal of Sport Policy, 6(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2012.756824 Cooper, R. A. (2021). “I am a caregiver”: Sense-making and identity construction through online caregiving narratives. Journal of Family Communication, 21(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2021.1889554 Debord, G. (2012). Society of the Spectacle. Bread and Circuses. Dimeo, P. (2007). A history of drug use in sport: 1876-1976: Beyond good and evil. Routledge. Dimeo, P. (2014). Why Lance Armstrong? Historical context and key turning points in the cleaning up of professional cycling. International Journal of the History of Sport, 31(8), 951–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952336 7.2013.879858 Dommett, K., Kefford, G., & Power, S. (2021). The digital ecosystem: The new politics of party organization in parliamentary democracies. Party Politics, 27(5), 847–857. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068820907667 Enghoff, O., & Aldridge, J. (2019). The value of unsolicited online data in drug policy research. International Journal of Drug Policy, 73, 210–218. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.01.023 Fair, J. D. (1999). Muscletown USA: Bob Hoffman and the manly culture of York Barbell. Penn State Press. Fincoeur, B., van de Ven, K., & Mulrooney, K.  J. D. (2015). The symbiotic evolution of anti-doping and supply chains of doping substances: How criminal networks may benefit from anti-doping policy. Trends in Organized Crime, 18(3), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-­014-­9235-­7 Foucault, M. (2019). Power: The essential works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984. Penguin UK. Fussell, S. W. (1994). Muscle. Confessions of an unlikely bodybuilder. Scribner’s. Giles, D. (2006). Constructing identities in cyberspace: The case of eating disorders. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 463–477. https://doi.org/1 0.1348/014466605X53596 Gleaves, J. (2014). A global history of doping in sport: Drugs, nationalism and politics. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 31(8), 815–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2014.909621

38 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Haddow, G., King, E., Kunkler, I., & McLaren, D. (2015). Cyborgs in the everyday: Masculinity and biosensing prostate cancer. Science as Culture, 24(4), 484–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2015.1063597 Hakim, J. (2019). Work that body: Male bodies in digital culture. Rowman & Littlefield. Haraway, D. (1987). A manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Australian Feminist Studies, 2(4), 149–181. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08164649.1987.9961538 Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge. Haraway, D. (1997). Modest−Witness@Second−Millennium.FemaleMan−Meets− OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. Routledge. Haraway, D. (2006). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-­ feminism in the late 20th century. In J.  Weiss, J.  Nolan, J.  Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 117–158). Springer. Henne, K., Koh, B., & McDermott, V. (2013). Coherence of drug policy in sports: Illicit inclusions and illegal inconsistencies. Performance Enhancement and Health, 2(2), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2013.05.003 Henning, A., & Andreasson, J. (2021). “Yay, another lady starting a log!”: Women’s fitness doping and the gendered space of an online doping forum. Communication & Sport, 9(6), 988–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2167479519896326 Henning, A., & Andreasson, J. (2022). Preventing, producing, or reducing harm? Fitness doping risk and enabling environments. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 29(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968763 7.2020.1865273 Henning, A., & Dimeo, P. (2018). The new front in the war on doping: Amateur athletes. International Journal of Drug Policy, 51, 128–136. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.05.036 Henning, A., & Dimeo, P. (2022). Doping: A sporting history. Reaktion Books. Henning, A., McLean, K., Andreasson, J., & Dimeo, P. (2021). Risk and enabling environments in sport: Systematic doping as harm reduction. International Journal of Drug Policy, 91, 102897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. drugpo.2020.102897 Holt, R. I., Erotokritou-Mulligan, I., & Sönksen, P. H. (2009). The history of doping and growth hormone abuse in sport. Growth Hormone & IGF Research, 19(4), 320–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ghir.2009.04.009

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

39

Hunt, T. M., Dimeo, P., & Jedlicka, S. R. (2012). The historical roots of today’s problems: A critical appraisal of the international anti-doping movement. Performance Enhancement and Health, 1(2), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. peh.2012.05.001 Jeffords, S. (1994). Hard bodies: Hollywood masculinities in the Reagan era. Rutgers University Press. Klein, A. M. (1993). Little big men: Bodybuilding subculture and gender construction. Suny Press. Kozinets, R. V. (2019). Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research. Sage. Lassiter, M.  D. (2015). Impossible criminals: The suburban imperatives of America’s war on drugs. Journal of American History, 102(1), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jav243 Leaver, T. (2011). Artificial culture: Identity, technology, and bodies. Routledge. Locks, A., & Richardson, N. (2013). Critical readings in bodybuilding. Routledge. Lupton, D. (2014). Digital sociology. Routledge. Markoff, J. (2005). What the dormouse said: How the sixties counterculture shaped the personal computer industry. Penguin. Marres, N. (2017). Digital sociology: The reinvention of social research. Wiley. McGrath, S. A., & Chananie-Hill, R. A. (2009). ‘Big freaky-looking women’: Normalizing gender transgression through bodybuilding. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(2), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.26.2.235 Monaghan, L. F. (2001). Bodybuilding, drugs and risk. Health, risk and society. Routledge. Monaghan, L.  F. (2002). Vocabularies of motive for illicit steroid use among bodybuilders. Social Science and Medicine, 55(5), 695–708. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0277-­9536(01)00195-­2 Morgan-Thomas, A., Dessart, L., & Veloutsou, C. (2020). Digital ecosystem and consumer engagement: A socio-technical perspective. Journal of Business Research, 121, 713–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.042 O’Malley, R. L., Holt, K., & Holt, T. J. (2022). An exploration of the involuntary celibate (Incel) subculture online. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(7–8), NP4981–NP5008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520959625 Orton-Johnson, K., & Prior, N. (2013). Digital sociology: Critical perspectives. Springer. Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites. Routledge.

40 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Power, M. (2013). Drugs 2.0: The web revolution that’s changing how the world gets high. Portobello Books. Saba, V.  K., & McCormick, K.  A. (2001). Essentials of computers for nurses: Informatics for the new millennium. McGraw-Hill/Appleton & Lange. Sassatelli, R. (2010). Fitness culture: Gyms and the commercialisation of discipline and fun. Springer. Schwartz, R., & Halegoua, G. R. (2015). The spatial self: Location-based identity performance on social media. New Media & Society, 17(10), 1643–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814531364 Seyri, H., & Rezaee, A. A. (2022). PhD students’ identity construction in face-­ to-­face and online contexts. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 27(1), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2021.2011507 Smith, A. C. T., & Stewart, B. (2012). Body perceptions and health behaviors in an online bodybuilding community. Qualitative Health Research, 22(7), 971–985. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312443425 Smith Maguire, J. (2007). Fit for consumption: Sociology and the business of fitness. Routledge. Susanto, H., Fang Yie, L., Mohiddin, F., Rahman Setiawan, A. A., Haghi, P. K., & Setiana, D. (2021). Revealing social media phenomenon in time of COVID-19 pandemic for boosting start-up businesses through digital ecosystem. Applied System Innovation, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/asi4010006 Sverkersson, E. (2022). ‘I’m quite tired of people saying that I don’t do enough or know anything’: Male hegemony and resistance in the context of women’s online communication on doping. Sport in Society, 25(6), 1176–1192. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2022.2064107 Sverkersson, E., Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2020). ‘Sis science’ and fitness doping: Ethnopharmacology, gender and risk. Social Sciences, 9(4), 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9040055 Treadwell, J. (2012). From the car boot to booting it up? EBay, online counterfeit crime and the transformation of the criminal marketplace. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 12(2), 175–191. https://doi. org/10.1177/1748895811428173 Turkle, S. (2011). Life on the screen. Simon and Schuster. Turnock, L. A. (2021). Supplying steroids online: The cultural and market contexts of enhancement drug supply on one of the World’s largest fitness & bodybuilding forums. Plymouth Policy Research Press. Underwood, M. (2017). Exploring the social lives of image and performance enhancing drugs: An online ethnography of the Zyzz fandom of recreational

2  The Cultural History and Digitalisation of Doping 

41

bodybuilders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 39, 78–85. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.08.012 van de Ven, K., & Mulrooney, K. J. D. (2017). Social suppliers: Exploring the cultural contours of the performance and image enhancing drug (PIED) market among bodybuilders in the Netherlands and Belgium. International Journal of Drug Policy, 40, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo. 2016.07.009 Van Hout, M. C., & Hearne, E. (2016). Netnography of female use of the synthetic growth hormone CJC-1295: Pulses and potions. Substance Use and Misuse, 51(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2015.1082595

3 Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem

Introduction It is not surprising that the technological push and increasingly strong incentives to prohibit the use of image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs) in sport, fitness, and society have created fertile ground for the development of diverse digital doping spaces and communities. In one of few comprehensive studies, Supplying Steroids Online, Turnock (2021) analysed the cultural and market contexts of online doping. The study provides a detailed analysis of one of the world’s largest fitness and bodybuilding forums where doping is debated and scrutinised. As such, the study offers insights on how the market for steroids operates more broadly, on different popular fitness forums and in relation to other platforms such as online pharmacies and social media (see also Andreasson & Johansson, 2016; Henning & Andreasson, 2022; Sverkersson, 2022; Underwood, 2017). What is described is an “open” and “free market” competition in the forum-based digital marketplace, in combination with an analysis of cultural and community norms as they develop (Turnock, 2021, p. 158). The focus is on the supply side of online doping, but questions on how © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Andreasson, A. Henning, Online Doping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30272-5_3

43

44 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

community self-policing plays out through cultural norms are ever present in user discussions on drug quality, services, risks, and more (Aldridge & Askew, 2017; van de Ven & Koenraadt, 2017). What is also illustrated, perhaps implicitly, is how earlier drug crypto markets, such as the Silk Road that provided anonymity via their location on the hidden web using cryptocurrencies, gradually have become somewhat more public in terms of reaching mainstream awareness. These are also connected to online pharmacies where illicit and licit drugs are supplied side by side, and where different user groups can use a variety of sites to discuss their use, risks, gains, and more (Barratt & Aldridge, 2016; Power, 2013; Turnock, 2021). In his study, Turnock (2021) did not conceptualise the online doping environment as a digital ecosystem. Still the analysis prepares for such a perspective, moving beyond the more “linear” metaphor of the bazaar, of buyers and suppliers, that has been prominent in the scholarly debate (Enghoff & Aldridge, 2019; Treadwell, 2012), as discussed in Chap. 2. The aim of this chapter is to describe and analyse the broad structures, infrastructure, and textuality of the doping ecosystem and how it forms users’ drug engagement and the cultural community it occurs within. We are interested in doping trajectories, but not so much in terms of individual narratives on IPED engagement. Research on individual motives and motivations for IPED use have been prominent in the scholarly debate for some time, though largely gender biased (Andreasson & Johansson, 2020; Christiansen et al., 2017; Cohen et al., 2007; Hanley Santos & Coomber, 2017; Hutchinson et al., 2018). Instead, we address this broadly, zooming out to look at the community and how the online doping environment can form cultural norms and ideals concerning drug initiation, as well as structure conversations in relation to the environment/space itself. The interdependence of the online environment with what is facilitated by moderators and community formation will be at the heart of our discussion. We begin with a short section in which we map out the infrastructure of the digital doping ecosystem in terms of its central constituents. Then we briefly describe the two selected sites (domains within the ecosystem) for analysis and why these are useful examples. Next follows a case study in which one of the founders and moderators of the highly popular

3  Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem 

45

website and platform MESO-Rx explains his approach to the online doping environment and what an online doping site provides for users. Following this, we then zoom in on different aspects of the doping ecosystem, looking at its inhabitants and the environment. We will situate and contextualise our discussion in relation to the cultural framing and community formation taking place both within the selected websites/ domains and in relation to an outer world, outside the secluded ecosystem. The chapter ends with the main conceptual implications of our findings.

Individuals and Their (Online) Environment The idea of digital ecosystems has often been used within business and marketing, to describe open and “loosely coupled, domain clustered, demand driven, self-organizing and agent-based” digital environments, in which different actors are proactive and responsive for their own benefit and in relation to their environment (Dong et  al., 2007; Wu & Chang, 2007, p. 2933). Initially narrowly used, the areas of application of this perspective have widened over time (Pelissier, 2021), though to the best of our knowledge, not in the context of online doping and analyses of IPED forums and communities. To understand the concept of a digital doping ecosystem and its implications for the study of online doping, we take a somewhat closer look at the blocks upon which it is built in this section. Like other ecosystems, the structure of a digital doping ecosystem is roughly based on two central and interrelated components. First, we have species, which can be individuals or organisations; second, we have the particularity of a given living environment where these named species operate. In our conceptualisation, the species at hand are individual users constituting a drug community and those enabling the use by facilitating the digital environment. The other component, the environment, concerns the structure and milieu that constitute the online spatiality where doping is debated and discussed in different capacities and to different extents. Perhaps needless to say, the texture and form of the online doping environment (what it looks like, what it facilitates for its inhabitants

46 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

in terms of discussions, etc.) should also be understood as somewhat conditioned by offline realities (national laws, public stigma related to doping, etc.). Having recognised the two foundational components of the digital ecosystem, we also must recognise the complexity of each component and their interrelatedness. We will use Dong et al. (2007) to roughly create a map of the infrastructure of the digital ecosystem. Central for understanding this complexity are interrelatedness and hierarchies. We will touch upon concepts such as roles, rules, and domains to describe the character of a digital ecosystem and in doing so adapt the terminology slightly for our purposes. To capture the complexity of the component of individuals, who together can create a community and formulate cultural norms and values within a doping ecosystem, we must recognise that these are not homogenous nor given equal opportunities within the system. Quite the contrary, individuals “play” different roles (have different positions in the system), such as enabler/user, leader/follower, experienced/new beginner, and so on. In relation to this, some individuals may take on or be granted a dominating position due to their level of experience (Andreasson & Johansson, 2016), gender (Andreasson & Henning, 2022), and more, whereas others may be perceived as less important to listen to for various reasons (Monaghan, 2012; Sverkersson, 2022; Underwood, 2017). Thus, individuals take on or are given different positions, and power relations operate within/between the species/individuals found in the ecosystem, as in daily life. Similarly, the environment is stratified in terms of it consisting of different domains with different rules (Dong et al., 2007; Morgan-Thomas et al., 2020). Flashback and MESO-Rx, which we will shortly return to and describe, constitute two domains. Domains are specific digital spaces within the digital ecosystem where individuals with common interests interact with one another. Even a specific forum, such as one dedicated to women’s experiences, may be seen as a domain or perhaps sub-domain (Henning & Andreasson, 2021). Different domains or doping sites/ forums may then attract different individuals and they may or may not have different rules of engagement. These rules determine boundaries, such as if doping can or cannot be debated, if it is allowed to sell drugs or not

3  Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem 

47

within the domain, if narratives about doping are structured by moderators or not, or if all individuals are allowed to engage in communication or not. Further, different domains may also be granted different statuses by the doping community and by individuals as they navigate the online doping ecosystem. One domain may seem appropriate at one point, but later become irrelevant as new perspectives and experiences are had or motives for use change (cf., Christiansen et al., 2017). Within the digital ecosystem there is not only complexity in terms of hierarchies within the two components of the ecosystem (individuals and environment), but also in the way these components are interrelated and how they interact (Karakas, 2009). Users and enablers, in one way or another, create and uphold the online environment, and the environment supports the individuals in their quest and development. Adding to this, though the digital doping ecosystem by definition constitutes its own system and architectural economy (Grosz, 1995), it also responds to outside influences. Indeed, conditions and happenings outside the “bubble” of the online doping ecosystem are brought into digital spaces via individual searches for support and solutions. And discussions on doping experiences or courses may or may not correspond with offline realities and bodies (see Chap. 7).

Flashback and MESO-Rx Aiming to capture some of the central features of the online doping ecosystem, as coarsely mapped above, we have selected two open online communities: Flashback and MESO-Rx/ThinkSteroids. These two domains are similar in that they both offer information on and dissemination of experiences and existing knowledge of IPEDs. They allow for anonymous and unregulated debates on doping and IPEDs, at least on a rudimentary level. At the same time, they differ in their architectural structure/economy, national framing, and, to some extent, the rules set by moderators. As cases taken together, they illustrate some of the complexity found in the online doping ecosystem. Our first selected domain mainly contains discussions in Swedish and is named Flashback. On this platform, anybody with an internet

48 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

connection can engage in a themed forum to read and debate about a particular subject. Discussions on Flashback may concern just about anything. Here we find forums focusing on topics such as computers, culture and media, politics, sport, travels, sex, drugs, and more. On its website, Flashback describes itself as Sweden’s largest forum for freedom of expression, opinion, and independent thinking. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this self-branding suggests that Flashback is a space where potentially controversial topics can be discussed. This is also a site where prohibited activities can and are debated. As Swedish legislation not only forbids the possession and distribution of doping substances but also the presence of these substances in the body, one such prohibited activity discussed on the forums is doping. Flashback also shows the clear interrelationship of offline and online contexts. As this community is largely physically and geographically based in Sweden, the members’ offline lives are bound up with that national socio-political context. As we discuss below, this offline reality informs and even shapes the topics and debates in this digital space. Thematically, “Doping” is placed under the main topic of “Drugs,” together with other sub-themes such as “Cannabis,” “Drug rehabilitation,” “Opiates,” “Trip and drunk reports,” and several others. The theme of doping is then divided further in sub-categories such as “course reports” and “doping substances,” which in turn contain a variety of themed threads. As our first case, Flashback represents a nationally bound domain in the field of online doping. Discussions taking place here are part of an ethnopharmacological culture that is formed partly in relation to the national framing and the formal approach to doping in Sweden, largely concerning legislation and public approaches. Further, as a site for distribution and diffusion of knowledge and debate, Flashback remains an example of the early years of online communication (Power, 2013). Since it was introduced in the late 1990s, it has not really evolved. Rather, it has stayed true to its goal of facilitating a space to have anonymous discussions in Sweden, including on the prohibited practice of doping. Engaging on this platform basically means public correspondence between individuals with a minimum of moderation and engagement from representatives of the website.

3  Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem 

49

As a contrast to Flashback, MESO-Rx has evolved into one of the largest international platforms for those interested in steroids and IPEDs. In a similar vein as Flashback, there are a large number of themed forums where doping can be discussed. Overarching themes are “steroids,” “women,” “medicine,” “sport specific,” and general “discussion.” Under each of these themes we then find sub-categories or sub-domains. Under the Steroid theme, for example, we find sub-categories such as “Steroid Forum,” “Steroid Lab testing,” “Steroid harm reduction research,” and “Steroid legal forum,” and under the Women category we find “Women’s steroid experiences” and “Women and steroids—open to everyone.” Looking at the ways different topics are distributed into themes, a multitude of categories and topics come to light. The forum discussions are open to anyone online to read, but if you want to comment and engage in conversations you must first create an account and username. What distinguishes MESO-Rx from Flashback is that forum discussions on the former are only part of what the site offers. We will not go into detail about this here, as the case study in the next section will provide a more comprehensive explanation of this site. However, we can briefly note that this site represents a commercialised, rather than subcultural (as Flashback), digital space that centres on topics of steroids and other IPEDs. The site contains information about a variety of different substances, articles by researchers, and sponsors of the site. A whole category is devoted to laboratory testing services for substances and here we find results of drug quality tests by accredited labs, along with information about how to deal with the IPEDs black market and harm reduction strategies. Recently the site has also expanded in terms of directing its attention to national markets. This site exemplifies a commercial and multifaceted domain within the online doping ecosystem (Andreasson & Johansson, 2014; Sassatelli, 2010). In the next section we meet Millard Baker, the founder of MESO-Rx.

50 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Information for Harm-Reduction Millard Baker is a founding moderator of one of the world’s largest sites for doping: MESO-Rx, sometimes also referred to as Thinksteroids. He has lived in various places but spent most of his life in Texas, which he considers his primary residence. To understand the development of MESO-Rx we must look at Millard’s background. In college he developed an interest in psychology and he was also into bodybuilding. Merging these two interests sparked his curiosity about body image issues. These interests also led him to begin pursuing a doctoral degree in clinical psychology, though he did not fully complete the degree. One thing that puzzled him during this time was that there was a lot of debate and research in the 1990s that focused on women around eating disorders and anorexia, but fewer discussions on men and bodybuilders. He thought there was a lack of information on the issue. In an interview with Millard, we got the chance to talk about his work within the domain of online doping. So, I started MESO-Rx. Originally it was Mesomorphosis. It was just a hobby site at the time. And I started it basically because there wasn’t that much information about steroids and how we use them, how we use them safely. I felt there was a need, a need for information. And with my own personal experience in the United States, which may differ from other places in the world, in the 90’s, doctors didn’t know anything about steroids and how to treat people, patients and clients, who were using steroids and I thought: “We need to fill that void and doctors aren’t providing information.” So I was really motivated to get more information like that online.

When talking about the site Millard repeatedly returned to the significance of and need for sound and research-based information. Initially, the site was almost exclusively about providing a space for steroid users to discuss and debate use and harm reduction strategies (see also Andreasson & Johansson, 2016; Henning & Andreasson, 2022; McVeigh et  al., 2016; van de Ven & Koenraadt, 2017; van de Ven & Mulrooney, 2017). Gradually, as the interest in debating doping online has grown, the

3  Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem 

51

information on MESO-Rx has become increasingly scientifically or medically based. This is the result of the dual developments of a solid user community and the scientifically based articles that are published on the site. Knowledge about steroids and IPEDs has been consolidated and refined within the community, which according to Millard also constitutes a sharp contrast to the expertise and experiences that are available offline. Millard explained: The online community gives them [users] opportunity to isolate themselves from the real-world environment, the real-world potential consequences, the negative consequences of, well: “What if my steroid abuse gets out to my boss, or my coworkers, and will they look down on me, will they do this? What if my wife and I get a divorce, or how will this impact child custody issues?” Things like that. When they are participating online, they get to find a non-judgemental community where they can relax and discuss these things. But in the real world it allows them to just forget about it and separate it. /.../ I mean there was a critical mass that was reached in the early 2000’s. There were so many people online, so many people looking for information about steroids, so many people with personal experience and knowledge, not just users, but people with different educational levels, people who had knowledge from use, from research, from medicine, and it kind of came together in this community. /.../ but we’re still struggling with, you know, the medical community and, you know, there’s still a lot of stigma, and steroids-users is still a marginalized group. So I think there’s still a need for sites like MESO and other websites where the community comes together and discusses their experiences.

Millard described how MESO-Rx has evolved over the years, turning into a community in its own right. Paradoxically, despite the anti-doping movement gaining momentum following the millennium shift, the online interest in doping has actually increased, according to Millard. In contrast to the potential stigma and judgements found in the offline world, the online doping environment provides a safe space for ongoing discussions about a potentially problematic topic and (with national variations) criminalised activity. According to Millard, the attention directed to doping, including its condemnations, has helped boost curiosity among a diversified user demography, pushing the practice closer to the

52 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

mainstream (Andreasson & Johansson, 2020). As the demographics of users widens, the motivations for and experiences of use may also become more diversified within the community (Germain et  al., 2021; Salinas et al., 2019). We asked Millard about the large number of users and if there might be different and sometimes competing perspectives on what constitutes informed use or risk behaviours. Millard talked about his perspective on moderating the discussions taking place in relation to this: It’s always evolving. I’ve traditionally liked to be hands-off, and not do too much moderation at all. It doesn’t work all the time. There’s a lot of harassment that needs to be addressed. A lot of the issues that we first mentioned about people, like teenagers who want to use steroids or are interested in it /…/ surprisingly it doesn’t require that much moderation though, because the community does a very good job of telling people: “You shouldn’t be using steroids,” or “You haven’t thought out the plan very well,” that they need to reconsider and re-evaluate what they’re doing. So, I don’t really need to censor that because there is some, I guess, self-regulation. You know, people are doing these blatantly uninformed things, and people who are young and really don’t understand what they’re doing or may not understand the full consequences, the long-term consequences, there are lots of people who are quick to call them out. And you know, I like that and most of the time I don’t need to censor or provide a good example of the things that people maybe shouldn’t do. But when it comes to other things, like harassment, sometimes that gets out of hand and I prefer that people just take a break and chill, but if it’s on-going, sometimes it does need intervention.

The intent behind providing a platform/environment for discussing steroids and IPEDs is obviously not primarily to stop people from using them. Rather, it is providing a space through which people can make “the best choices regarding their use that they possibly can.” As different users may have different goals and are willing to accept more or less risk, the diversity constitutes a challenge within the community even though the overarching ambition is about information and harm reduction. To support this ambition, Millard also initiated what he calls “the anabolic lab-­ project.” For this, he secretly obtained IPEDs from the black market, sent them for lab testing to verify their content, and then published the results

3  Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem 

53

on the site. In this way, different suppliers and their products were put under the magnifying glass. When discussing risks and measures taken towards harm reduction, Millard noted his concern about the future within this field: Every step towards criminalising just makes it riskier. So, these are the things I worry about, and I have yet to see a country repeal the anti-doping law, it just seems to go in one direction. You know, I’m hopeful that maybe some sensible people, some sensible politicians will realise, you know doping in sports, it’s a very small minority of the overall steroid using community. And you know, you can do what you want to this small group as far as sports go, I can understand that, but it has really harmful consequences for everyone else.

Developed as a grassroots response to harsher penalties and social stigmatisation, the online environment has gradually developed into a doping context itself (as compared with the fitness and sport contexts that have traditionally dominated the debate on doping) (Andreasson & Henning, 2021). Within this environment, communities consisting of individuals performing different roles (experienced users, curious potential users, users with diverse motives and ambitions, enablers, and more) are formed, as are norms and values for how to debate and discuss doping. In the next section we analyse how diverse motives for doping are met and formed through socialisation processes within the community.

Rules of Engagement: The Doping Template Previous research revealed that the motives for engaging in drug use vary (Hutchinson et al., 2018; Monaghan, 2002; Mulrooney et al., 2019; van de Ven et al., 2019). This might be particularly true at a time when the demographics of doping and the scholarly interest in diverse groups of users have widened. Nonetheless, when entering an online doping space, the community can discipline new users in how to address and debate IPEDs. To this end, it is possible to talk about community trajectories. That is, how rules for engaging in conversations on doping—and

54 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

potentially undertaking the practice—are implemented by moderators or senior members. On both Flashback and MESO-Rx there are dedicated spaces for new beginners and some instructions on how to behave and engage in conversations. In this section, we will focus on material found on Flashback and look at how new beginners are steered in how to engage in online communication about IPEDs and their use. Though anyone can read and potentially engage in discussions on Flashback there are still rules about how this is expected to be done. The following instructions are found on Flashback, concerning what newcomers are to do before they start a new thread: Do a search before you post anything There are loads of subjects that have been addressed before. Before you post anything, do a search and make sure that this hasn’t been discussed already. Exceptions are when the thread gives a new angle on the debate, which makes a personal advice motivated. If you post on something that is already being discussed, we will merge your post with the ongoing discussion or delete it. /.../ New beginner questions are solely dealt with in the new beginner thread. (mrModerator)

On Flashback there is a main forum called “course reports” consisting of multiple different threads and ongoing discussions in which both experienced users and people with no experience engage with one another. A course report is a kind of logbook where members are expected to provide detailed descriptions of what they want to achieve, how they plan to achieve it, and how they have structured their course of IPEDs over time. As shown by Sverkersson (2020), these course reports are usually formatted according to a certain template, or a narrative structure. Members are not only directed to a particular space within the site, but also instructed and disciplined by forum moderators and other members to introduce themselves in a particular way if they want to engage in conversations. Information requested when someone is introducing himself or herself may concern physical activity background; weight, height, and body composition; goals and ambitions for training; potential previous experiences of doping and other drugs; and more. Following this, when engaging in discussions on the forum newcomers are instructed to present a

3  Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem 

55

comprehensive account regarding their point of departure and their rationale for using IPEDs. Below is an example of a new member’s introductory post: Age: 19, weight: 81 kg, length: 180–183 cm, estimated body fat: 12–15%. No medical issues. Have a really good immune system. I feel young and healthy. Bench press: 120 kg, squats: 170 kg; ground lift: 210 kg. I don’t follow a special diet, but I eat what I can get my hands on, still living at home (with parents) and I’m not the one making dinner. The plan is to eat as usual, about 2800 kcal, but at the same time try to increase my proteins by eating more protein rich food and add protein shakes to that. I will also start with Creatine. I have trained for some 4 years but more regularly last 3 years. I train 7 times a week, sometime more. If I don’t have much to do on a day I through in an extra session. /.../ I’d say that my workouts are rather intense and varied. I have not used (IPEDs) before. (NextLevel)

Exemplified here is how a novice in the world of IPEDs may present themselves following the doping template. Though this post seems comprehensive, it may be considered insufficient by others. On such occasions, the initiates are asked to add missing information or clarify their intent, their training goals, previous training experience, and more. What is taking form is a comprehensive description of, in this case, NextLevel’s characteristics and motivations. In further posts we also learned about NextLevel’s current situation and why their thoughts about doping have occurred: My aim with a potential course would be to get more mass, become stronger and get the experience of doping to see how my body reacts on it. Other side effects such as more energy and that you “feel better” is something I look forward to because I’m not really enjoying my life that much, and never really has. My greatest passion is training and that’s why I think it’s worth taking the chance and try doping, because you only live once. I have a good life really and nothing to complain about but it’s hard to explain. I know there will be some heavy stuff in the near future, which might coincide with me completing a first course, but as long as I’m prepared I think it will be fine. (NextLevel)

56 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Though the bodily goals being pursued with the help of IPEDs may vary, the information provided is added to previous posts and taken as point of departure when other members give advice on how to think about and possibly proceed on the route towards a first course of IPEDs. In this case, when NextLevel laid out his thoughts more thoroughly and where he was “in life,” some were supportive and urged him on to give it a try and initiate a course of Testo Enhantate and Nolvadex for PCT, which is what NextLevel asked about in another post. However, when others connected the different posts here, they seemed a bit hesitant: Feels a bit stupid to have your first try if you know that negative stuff might collide when you are on your PCT. Solve the problems before if that is possible Many becomes depressed after their first course, or any course, loose their motivation by 100%. Maybe not you, but probably you. But if you want to proceed, do it :-) But you should engage this with the perspective that it will be a tough time during pct. (HoldYourHorses)

What this section illustrated is how new beginners, when entering this forum in different capacities, are guided to present their narratives and experiences in certain ways. The expected vocabularies of motive and the doping template are largely formative for new members, structuring the form and content of their presentations (Andreasson & Johansson, 2016; Monaghan, 2002; Sverkersson et al., 2020). The information provided in following this template is then evaluated on the basis of to what extent the post(s) complies with cultural codes and community values. This then forms a frame for community doping trajectories. In a way, this mirrors how trainers often approach clients or how doctors approach their patients. It is formulaic and efficiency oriented, particularly in how it instructs new members not to post things already discussed. There is a strong fostering aspect found here, where members are guided into a particular way of narrating their ambitions and goals and where certain paths are seen as legitimate while others are questioned.

3  Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem 

57

Though MESO-Rx has a more open approach and does not explicitly formulate rules of engagement, at least implicitly, similar narrative structures of the digital environment and community hierarchies are found in a “new beginners” forum where experienced individuals can support, steer, and foster those eager to learn. This makes it possible to talk about a more or less general template taking form, a structure and architectural economy that produce certain socio-cultural values and digital body projects within the online doping environment. The social psychology of this project also concerns how new members are guided into a certain way of narrating their ambitions. In a way, their experiences are culturally calibrated within the community—this is a prerequisite for the community to talk about their project (body composition, goals, previous experiences, planned courses, etc.). The doping template means that goals and ambitions, as well as potential risks and harms, are shared as narratives of use are formulated (Sverkersson et al., 2020). These communications are not equally distributed, though. There is a hierarchical structure between members, between experienced members and newbies, between moderators and users, between men and women, to mention a few. These relational hierarchies thus form not only what is said, but also how ideals are formulated (we will return to the gendered dimensions of this hierarchy in Chaps. 5 and 6).

 arm Reduction: “Givin’ the Green” H and Lab Testing Two common concerns that are debated on both Flashback and MESO-Rx are IPED access and quality. This is done somewhat differently between the two, but sources considered reliable are "greened" or given member approval. First we will consider how Flashback approaches such questions and then move on to MESO-Rx. These differences, found in the interface between users and enablers, are relevant for understanding the online doping ecosystem (Turnock, 2021). On Flashback there are quite a few threads that focus on online stores, both those supposedly situated in Sweden and internationally. Though the rules of engagement on Flashback prohibit direct dealing of drugs, the

58 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

website does not mind if members discuss external stores and products. Consequently, there are extensive debates about suppliers, their products, and their trustworthiness. Usually the comments are rather short and direct, as members simply want to know where to go and what to expect: Apoteksboden is as green as the grass. They are really professional in all contacts. And the deliveries come in nice packages. I don’t hesitate that their products are anything but good quality either. (GreenGoblin) Is there anyone here that has ordered from “balkanpharmacys.com”? Loads of greens and positive feedback on the board, but when I ordered my Anavar, they came in loose charts and no boxes, so I have 0 chance to verify them on Balkan Pharmaceuticals official website. (VerySure?)

At the heart of the discussions is the question of which drug stores can be trusted in terms of privacy and the quality of the products offered. Members are guided towards different stores that can meet the demands of the users. However, members still need to consider the shipping of the products and what sort of digital and economic traces they may leave behind given the illegality of IPEDs in Sweden: What do you think about ordering by swish [Swedish payment method via mobile] to bitcoin? Is it safe and not traceable?

Members offered advice in their replies: Bitcoins would be the safest and smoothest way in comparison with only direct Swish to the supplier, which some suppliers actually offer, were all their customers names will be listed....nothing that stops the authorities from placing an order and then get all the names of people who Swished them. So yeah, bitcoin is always a thumbs up. If a supplier accepts direct Swish you should go for another supplier or insist on bitcoin for your own security. (SecretMoney)

These instructions are followed by hundreds and hundreds of related posts, in which the best and safest way to deal with IPEDs is debated.

3  Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem 

59

Whereas some think that the Swedish mobile payment method, Swish, or other forms of direct payments are preferable, others suggest going for a more traditional approach: sending cash in an envelope using ordinary postal services. What is clear is that these discussions are something that community members find relevant. After giving step-by-step instructions and alternatives regarding where and how to order and how to pay, members will also provide checklists on what to do, how to do it, and what not to do. For example, members are encouraged to always use encrypted e-mail, delete all e-mail correspondence with suppliers, erase potential notes containing names, and to throw away receipts received from the post office when picking up their orders. Together, these discussions comprise a fairly comprehensive instructional guide for how to behave when purchasing IPEDs and how to minimise the risk of legal repercussions. This helps guide new members into the community of practice (Wenger, 2000). They find information and encouraging arguments alongside the instructions. Importantly, there is not always a consensus in these responses. Members certainly have different views on how to proceed and deal with IPEDs. Nonetheless, what is taking place here is a social diffusion of knowledge, through which the legislation against IPEDs is rejected and the curiosity of the individual boosted. In this process, therefore, it is not only physiological boundaries that are challenged through actual or intended drug use, but also the social control exerted by legislation. Moving on to MESO-Rx, a slightly different approach has been taken by members. Similar to Flashback, we also find ongoing discussions regarding online pharmacies and stores. The bazaar model of the online doping environment certainly has some relevance (Power, 2013; Treadwell, 2012), but such a model is unable to capture the complexity of what is actually taking place. Discussions about IPEDs are not limited to ethnopharmacological arguments about different drugs and were to get hold of them. Under the topic “Lab testing,” which was described earlier by Millard, it is possible to find information on the quality of the products that have been bought on different sites: Analytical lab testing is performed by the fully-accredited Simec AG in Switzerland and ChemTox in France. We believe it is important for analytical lab testing to be conducted at a fully accredited and licensed testing

60 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

facility to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the results. /.../ Simec AG has state-of-the-art infrastructure with modern analytic measuring instruments. Simec will perform various analyses for us in its facilities including high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analyses, total aerobial microbiological count (TAMC) testing, total yeast and mold count (TYMC) testing and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) screening for heavy metal contamination. (https:// anaboliclab.com/simec-­swiss-­lab-­testing/)

Through testing reports of different products, MESO-Rx provides information that can help reduce possible harms of IPED use. This form of harm reduction thus supports users in making more informed choices and to “minimize the risks associated with the use of underground steroid products” (https://anaboliclab.com/steroid-­harm-­reduction/). Adding to this, the ambition to test products and publish the results is also accompanied by further information found on other sites, creating a network of links between MESO-Rx and other online information sources. The lab testing is also frequently debated among the community members. Most community members were in favour of lab testing, but some also noted that more could be done. Below one member acknowledged the moderator’s (Millard) initiative, but also expressed doubts about the community: I am with ya, Millard. This is why, early on in that thread, I strongly urged more members who had those same pills from that source to please either test, or have them tested. My trust in the individuals we are talking about meant nothing in the big picture. What mattered was gathering as many test results as possible—that was going to be the only way to strengthen the case. We as a community must accept the fact that we can trust each other as much as we want, but beyond our board, our handle means nothing. Quantifiable and verifiable results are what will carry the most weight. (MoreTests)

Though initiated by the forum moderator, lab testing has gradually evolved and community members now sometimes post results of their tested products. Below is one example of how such a post can look. There was also an attached picture of the lab-test results with this post:

3  Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem 

61

Recently, I came across the manufacturer Driada Medical. This manufacturer had offered its Primo in past promo campaigns already 50% reduced and grants partly additionally even further discounts (for example by Bitcoin payment). I saw the actually very professional appearance of Driada in combination with the sometimes very low price in discount promotions as a reason to conduct a test myself. I removed the labels from all the ampoules and sent the samples to Janoshik without giving the lab any information about the possible active ingredient or dosage beforehand. The results were very positive from my point of view. I will use the results as an opportunity to order more frequently from Driada in the future.

Whereas on Flashback members can gain information on where to buy IPEDs and which enablers are “greens,” the interdependence and interrelatedness between users and enablers are more complex on MESO-Rx. This site provides not only discussion about different sellers and how to get hold of the drugs without interference, but it also provides content analysis of the products sold. This means that “greening” suppliers requires not only safe transactions but also information about the products and their quality. This entails a complex relationship between enablers and consumers, which is played out in the online environment.

Conclusions Looking at the use of IPEDs and how they are debated helps us to discern how different relationships between experienced users and new beginners are formed and may play out; how knowledge and experiences are diffused and transferred within the community; how community trajectories gradually develop over time or are steered by the online ecosystem; and its possibilities and limitations. Taking the step to engage in IPED use may be preceded not only by curiosity but also by interacting with others in online forums, asking questions about what to use, how to use it, and what to expect from it. The online doping ecosystem and what has

62 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

been conceptualised here as the doping template structures and forms expected collective doping narratives and trajectories within this ethnopharmacological culture (Bilgrei, 2018; Sverkersson et  al., 2020). Community members and moderators serve as advisers and supporters of the community. Socialisation processes include how the community is expected to deal with and help manage potential risks associated with use. Though the doping communities analysed seemingly agree that there are potential harm and health costs, the expected benefits of using IPEDs largely dominate the discussions. Becoming involved in these community trajectories involves a certain degree of risk taking and a willingness to use various means to reach desired goals. These communities also provide opportunities for the acquisition of ethno-scientific knowledge, through which members can construct the practice as rational and well informed. This chapter has revealed processes of deregulation and normalisation, in which the acceptance of certain kinds of drug use is extended and expanded. These processes can be connected to a more general discussion of how neo-liberal discourses have penetrated our thinking about individual freedom and health. In some ways, the striving for the perfect body even makes it logically necessary to develop certain community norms and values. And in online doping communities, people can find extensive knowledge and substantial support for using IPEDs and other means necessary to achieve their goals. The relationship between the online environment and its inhabitants has been at the heart of the debate in this discussion. As illustrated above, they seemingly reinforce one another. This is also illustrative of the essence of the online doping ecosystem. As discussions evolve and needs are expressed from within the community, the environment adapts and facilitates possibilities for the community and vice versa. Here, we have deliberately taken a somewhat coarse approach in terms of describing the texture and cultural structure of this ecosystem. We have not highlighted the diversity between individual community members or how doping and the doped body are approached and debated differently on different sites/domains. We take up these issues in the next chapter.

3  Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem 

63

References Aldridge, J., & Askew, R. (2017). Delivery dilemmas: How drug cryptomarket users identify and seek to reduce their risk of detection by law enforcement. International Journal of Drug Policy, 41, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. drugpo.2016.10.010 Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2021). Performance cultures and doped bodies. Challenging categories, gender norms, and policy responses. Common Ground. Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2022). Challenging hegemony through narrative: Centering women’s experiences and establishing a sis-science culture through a women-only doping forum. Communication & Sport, 10(4), 708–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795211000657 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2014). The global gym: Gender, health and pedagogies. Palgrave Macmillan. Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2016). Online doping. The new self-help culture of ethnopharmacology. Sport in Society, 19(7), 957–972. https://doi. org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1096246 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2020). Fitness doping: Trajectories, gender, bodies and health. Palgrave Macmillan. Barratt, M. J., & Aldridge, J. (2016). Everything you always wanted to know about drug cryptomarkets* (*but were afraid to ask). International Journal of Drug Policy, 35, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.07.005 Bilgrei, O. R. (2018). Broscience: Creating trust in online drug communities. New Media and Society, 20(8), 2712–2727. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444817730331 Christiansen, A. V., Vinther, A. S., & Liokaftos, D. (2017). Outline of a typology of men’s use of anabolic androgenic steroids in fitness and strength training environments. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 24(3), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2016.1231173 Cohen, J., Collins, R., Darkes, J., & Gwartney, D. (2007). A league of their own: Demographics, motivations and patterns of use of 1,955 male adult non-medical anabolic steroid users in the United States. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 4(12). https://doi.org/10.118 6/1550-­2783-­4-­12 Dong, H., Hussain, F. K., & Chang, E. (2007). An integrative view of the concept of digital ecosystem. In International conference on networking and services (ICNS ’07) (p. 42). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNS.2007.33

64 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Enghoff, O., & Aldridge, J. (2019). The value of unsolicited online data in drug policy research. International Journal of Drug Policy, 73, 210–218. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.01.023 Germain, J., Leavey, C., Van Hout, M. C., & McVeigh, J. (2021). 2, 4 dinitrophenol: It’s not just for men. International Journal of Drug Policy, 95, 102987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102987 Grosz, E. (1995). Space, time, and perversion | Essays on the politics of bodies. Routledge. Hanley Santos, G., & Coomber, R. (2017). The risk environment of anabolic– androgenic steroid users in the UK: Examining motivations, practices and accounts of use. International Journal of Drug Policy, 40, 35–43. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.11.005 Henning, A., & Andreasson, J. (2021). “Yay, another lady starting a log!”: Women’s fitness doping and the gendered space of an online doping forum. Communication & Sport, 9(6), 988–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2167479519896326 Henning, A., & Andreasson, J. (2022). Preventing, producing, or reducing harm? Fitness doping risk and enabling environments. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 29(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968763 7.2020.1865273 Hutchinson, B., Moston, S., & Engelberg, T. (2018). Social validation: A motivational theory of doping in an online bodybuilding community. Sport in Society, 21(2), 260–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1096245 Karakas, F. (2009). Welcome to World 2.0: The new digital ecosystem. Journal of Business Strategy, 30(4), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 02756660910972622 McVeigh, J., Kimergård, A., Bates, G., Hope, V. D., & Ncube, F. (2016). Harm reduction interventions should encompass people who inject image and performance enhancing drugs. BMJ. Monaghan, L.  F. (2002). Vocabularies of motive for illicit steroid use among bodybuilders. Social Science and Medicine, 55(5), 695–708. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0277-­9536(01)00195-­2 Monaghan, L. F. (2012). Accounting for illicit steroid use: Bodybuilders’ justifications. In A. Locks & N. Richardson (Eds.), Critical readings in bodybuilding (pp. 73–90). Routledge. Morgan-Thomas, A., Dessart, L., & Veloutsou, C. (2020). Digital ecosystem and consumer engagement: A socio-technical perspective. Journal of Business Research, 121, 713–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.042

3  Community Trajectories Within the Online Doping Ecosystem 

65

Mulrooney, K.  J. D., van de Ven, K., McVeigh, J., & Collins, R. (2019). Commentary: Steroid madness—has the dark side of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) been over-stated? Performance Enhancement and Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2019.03.001 Pelissier, M. (2021). Cultural commons in the digital ecosystem. Wiley. Power, M. (2013). Drugs 2.0: The web revolution that’s changing how the world gets high. Portobello Books. Salinas, M., Floodgate, W., & Ralphs, R. (2019). Polydrug use and polydrug markets amongst image and performance enhancing drug users: Implications for harm reduction interventions and drug policy. International Journal of Drug Policy, 67, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.01.019 Sassatelli, R. (2010). Fitness culture: Gyms and the commercialisation of discipline and fun. Springer. Sverkersson, E. (2022). ‘I’m quite tired of people saying that I don’t do enough or know anything’: Male hegemony and resistance in the context of women’s online communication on doping. Sport in Society, 25(6), 1176–1192. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2022.2064107 Sverkersson, E., Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2020). ‘Sis science’ and fitness doping: Ethnopharmacology, gender and risk. Social Sciences, 9(4). https:// doi.org/10.3390/SOCSCI9040055 Treadwell, J. (2012). From the car boot to booting it up? EBay, online counterfeit crime and the transformation of the criminal marketplace. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 12(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1748895811428173 Turnock, L. A. (2021). Supplying Steroids Online: The cultural and market contexts of enhancement drug supply on one of the World’s largest fitness & bodybuilding forums. Plymouth Policy Research Press. Underwood, M. (2017). Exploring the social lives of image and performance enhancing drugs: An online ethnography of the Zyzz fandom of recreational bodybuilders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 39, 78–85. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.08.012 van de Ven, K., & Koenraadt, R. (2017). Exploring the relationship between online buyers and sellers of image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs): Quality issues, trust and self-regulation. International Journal of Drug Policy, 50, 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.09.004 van de Ven, K., & Mulrooney, K. J. D. (2017). Social suppliers: Exploring the cultural contours of the performance and image enhancing drug (PIED) market among bodybuilders in the Netherlands and Belgium. International

66 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Journal of Drug Policy, 40, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. drugpo.2016.07.009 van de Ven, K., Mulrooney, K. J., & McVeigh, J. (2019). Human enhancement drugs. Routledge. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002 Wu, C., & Chang, E. (2007). Exploring a digital ecosystem conceptual model and its simulation prototype. In 2007 IEEE international symposium on industrial electronics (pp.  2933–2938). https://doi.org/10.1109/ ISIE.2007.4375080

4 Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities

Introduction In The History of Sexuality, Michel Foucault (1978) described how a self-­ cult, and what he calls the cultivation of the self, emerged during ancient times. Within certain social strata at the time, interest in and devotion to personal behaviour and to the nurture and care of the body were growing. The idea of being able to withdraw and devote attention solely to oneself certainly attracted many, not least the ancient philosophers, who spent a great deal of time on deep contemplation and self-reflection. At the same time, this was a luxury that few could afford. However, it is probably this form of self-care and self-cultivation that has developed over time, eventually leading to contemporary self-practices and body technologies. Today, people have become used to twisting and turning their narratives about themselves, often evidenced by corporeal changes. Body technologies such as plastic surgery, bodybuilding, doping, various diet programs, and more have opened possibilities for powerful modifications to the body. In doing so, we have also increasingly been held responsible for designing our own bodies (Giddens, 1991). The governing of selves has resulted to some extent in a society of the self-governing. It becomes © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Andreasson, A. Henning, Online Doping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30272-5_4

67

68 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

possible not only to desire, but also to create the desired body. Clearly, the fascination with body and self—for the possibilities of modelling and transforming oneself—has gained momentum in the era of medical development and digitalisation. This has been thoroughly addressed within digital sociology (Broadhurst & Price, 2017; Lupton, 2014). Scholars have analysed how sharing photos and self-presentations on social media platforms (online communities, public profiles, blogs) and the use of self-tracking devices to monitor and measure daily life have served to digitise the body as well as the self (Lupton, 2014). In doing so, the significance of face-to-face interpersonal relationships for shaping selves, bodies, and social worlds has been called into question (Orton-­ Johnson & Prior, 2013; Turkle, 2011). The relationship between physical and digitised bodies is porous and has been increasingly scrutinised. In her self-declaration as a cyborg, Haraway (1997) coupled the fluidity of selfhood with technological developments. In doing so, she drew attention to technically (or medically) enhanced and mediated experiences, rather than face-to-face experiences. Others have further contributed to this debate, emphasising how technology has become a prosthetic extension of our physical bodies, impacting our social spaces (Braidotti, 2002; Broadhurst & Price, 2017). To this end, notions of the (digitised) self exist somewhere between the physical and digital, between reality and imagination, unbound by time and context. Braidotti explains: Technologies freeze time in a discontinuous set of variations determined by speed and simultaneity. They thus induce a dislocation of the subject, allowing not only for deferred or virtual social and personal relations, but also for a pervasive social imaginary of ubiquity and timelessness. (Braidotti, 2002, p. 18)

Indeed, our melding with the digital world—how technologies have been incorporated into our physical bodies—has become so habituated that it is often taken for granted when we reflect upon ourselves and who we are. In this way, our lifestyles and bodies are intertwined with timeless social imageries and digital communities. In this chapter, we describe how digital imageries or narratives of bodies are debated in relation to IPEDs and their anticipated effects on

4  Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities 

69

physical bodies. The chapter can thus be positioned at the interface of the corporeal-material and the discursive-semiotic. We address how digital bodies are formed in diverse online settings and communities, and in relation to ideas about doping, testosterone, sense of self, and more. The chapter is structured as follows. First, we present a short background on doped bodies and motives in the scholarly debate. Then we look at a bodybuilding community and how ideas about reaching the genetic max are debated, showing the historical durability of the relationship between doping, muscles, and masculinity. Here we focus on the symbolic language used and how thoughts about a body in transformation through IPEDs are idealised. Next follows a section looking at what is known as the Zyzz fandom, a loosely organised online community of fans following the life of a late fitness model, in which body aesthetics are emphasised in the here and now. Whereas the previous IPED community can be positioned as a subcultural enterprise, the Zyzz fandom exemplifies a semiotics that aspires to mainstream recognition. We then consider doping-­adjacent trends that gained attention in online wellness and influencer communities: perineum and “testicle” tanning. These trends, though not strictly IPEDs, are discussed and deployed as ways of enhancing one’s body and, in the latter case, to boost testosterone and masculinity. The chapter concludes with a look at the main theoretical implications of the cases presented.

Doped Bodies A common position in the scholarly literature is that the main trigger for IPED use is men’s desire to gain muscle mass and to construct a voluminous and performance-oriented identity and masculinity (Andreasson & Johansson, 2020; Christiansen, 2020; Henning & Dimeo, 2022). Though this position and the bodies in question may vary, the coarse recipe has been the more muscles the better. Previous research also showed that IPEDs (mostly steroids) and their use have been understood variably as a search for a competitive edge within sport, as risk-taking behaviour, as an integral feature of hegemonic masculinity, and as an expression of some kind of social over-conformity when it comes to the embodiment

70 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

and construction of masculinity (Andreasson & Johansson, 2021; DuRant et al., 1995; Klein, 1993; Thualagant, 2012). At the same time, however, IPED use has also been analysed in terms of deviance and marginalisation. It has been connected to mixed forms of abuse, crime, violence, and the margins of society (Henning & Andreasson, 2022; Henning et  al., 2021; Kimergård & McVeigh, 2014; McVeigh et  al., 2016), thus linked to a sort of hyper-masculine body and identity involving anti-social activities. But achieving some normative masculine body is not the only reason for using IPEDs, particularly when we consider the reality of women’s use. Female body ideals have recently expanded, changing muscles and even vascularity into a desired look for women that was previously reserved for men (Simpson, & Mazzeo, 2017). In contemporary gyms and fitness centres, both men and women pursue muscle building practices to achieve these ideal looks (Andreasson & Johansson, 2014). Women’s IPED use, particularly related to building muscles, has largely been viewed from sensationalist perspectives, treating them in both academic work and public discourse as an abnormality and spectacle—that they are freakish (McGrath & Chananie-Hill, 2009). Women, though, are continually challenging the discursive connection between masculinity and visibly muscular bodies (Andreasson & Henning, 2021a, 2021b; Sverkersson, 2022; Sverkersson et  al., 2020), as captured in the social media tagline “strong is the new sexy” (Boepple et al., 2016). Notions of fitness and health, rather than the pursuit of thinness, underpinned this shift in goals (Dworkin & Wachs, 2009). Further, a growing number of gyms and apparel marketing campaigns encourage women to focus on developing muscular physiques, including by going into the weight room and undertaking the same workouts as their male counterparts (Knapp, 2015). Propelled by these offline developments, fitspiration, a social media movement that centres on sharing images and tips for reaching the idealised lean and muscular body for both men and women, has also taken off in recent years (Simpson & Mazzeo, 2017). One motive for using IPEDs may be directly linked to achieving this digitally disseminated shape (c.f., Jespersen, 2013), while others may be motivated by wellness goals (Christiansen, 2020). Research on doped bodies and IPED use has tended to focus on offline contexts that are divided in somewhat

4  Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities 

71

arbitrary ways, such as sport doping versus IPED use in bodybuilding gyms. However, research has largely overlooked the online context where such barriers are less rigid and where large and more diverse user groups gather (Andreasson & Henning, 2021a). As a result, there has been little investigation into the semiotics around doped bodies in digital environments. We explore what doped bodies and IPED use mean and how they get those meanings in the remainder of this chapter.

The Genetic Max In this section we turn our attention to the body ideals and symbolic language regarding IPED use that have developed on Flashback.1 Analytically, we focus on the dynamic and complex interplay between the idea of a hyper-muscular body and masculinity on one hand, and on ideas about more mainstream and acceptable masculine bodies on the other. Like many other communities, Flashback can be understood as part of a culture that has developed its own ways of talking about and understanding activities. Using IPEDs in the context of a Swedish community where use is prohibited can be understood in terms of the construction of a subcultural body and affiliation, in which a symbolic language game and specific terminology are developed in relation to one’s own body. One term often used when discussing IPEDs, body ideals, and muscular development on Flashback and other platforms is the “genetic max.” The genetic max refers to the idea that everyone has a physical limit concerning how much muscle mass and muscular strength they can possibly achieve due to their genes. One community member says: Certainly, it is reasonable to assume that we all have a genetic max, but the problem is to determine what that max is, for each individual. We all have different preconditions. If we look at testosterone production, for example: it varies quite a lot between different individuals. Then, in addition to the testo, there are hell of a lot of other factors that will affect how easily you can gain muscles (thyroid hormones, growth hormones, insulin). Your age  This section builds on an argument previously presented in Andreasson and Johansson (2016). The section has been reworked to suit the aim of the chapter.

1

72 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

is also a factor. It must be really hard to tell if someone reached their genetic max, when there are so many factors. One can always try a change something when it comes to training, nutrition, rest, etc. (WhatIsMax).

The relationship between IPED use and the genetic max is complicated. Sometimes the term genetic max is understood as reaching bodily goals that exceed a person’s genetic max, and sometimes it is more about using IPEDs in order to reach the max. The conceptual discussions about the genetic max can consequently be understood as a mixture of ideas about physical potential and masculine fantasies, sometimes dramatic, about what is humanly possible to achieve (Locks & Richardson, 2013). This is conveyed in posts like the below from FirstInjection, in which he describes the expectations he had for his first course of steroids: “No Guts, No Glory”. Mission accomplished! It’s time to get real! Be great or be nothing! I am so fucking powered up now. It will surely be interesting to see how things turn out at the gym. While working out clean, I have already managed to increase the number of reps on some exercises, despite my diet, so there will probably be like a swelling explosion with the juice [IPEDs] in my system! (FirstInjection)

Clearly, IPED use here is understood both symbolically and physically as a key rite of passage (van Gennup, 2019), enhancing different capabilities and aspects of the body. The expectations of bodily possibilities “with juice in the system” are high, anticipating a bodily explosion of muscles. Most often, discussions like the above are connected to ideas about reaching one’s genetic max and being transformed into a new, bigger, stronger, and better looking self. Further, when it comes to posts regarding the possible ways to achieve one’s genetic max without using IPEDs, the views are quite pessimistic within the community. This becomes evident in the post below, when one community member explains what he thinks of so-called natty (natural) bodybuilders (Liokaftos, 2019):

4  Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities 

73

All these “natty” bodybuilders have given people a distorted image of what is possible to achieve in a natural way. Natural bodybuilding is just something shitty that the industry created in order to sell us a bunch of crap. “Oh look, he is natural”. “If I only buy the same protein drinks as him, and follow the advice he presents in his blog, then I can also be like him!” The truth is that steroids are used on the “natural” bodybuilding scene. Another thing: I don’t understand the logic of those who are constantly saying “I think he is clean just because his physique can be reached by natural means.” /.../ It’s also worth checking out the time it takes for all these “natties” to reach their maximum natural potential. It doesn’t take two to three years to reach one’s genetic max; it takes a fucking lifetime, and in the meantime, you have to have experience and knowledge. (NoNatties)

On Flashback, there are quite a few posts in which the use of IPEDs is rationalised in different ways. IPEDs are an intrinsic part of this community and in relation to how the body is perceived. As above, there are many who discuss ways to use IPEDs to change the basic conditions of the human body, to exceed the limits of human genes, and reach the genetic max. In this sense, we are witnessing the construction of a transformable corporeality and the development of strong ideas about scientifically engineered and technologically enhanced “super-bodies” (Braidotti, 2002; Pitts, 2003). The sceptical perspective put forward regarding the chances of getting results from natural bodybuilding also strengthens this kind of narrative. The natural bodybuilder is seen as more or less a moral fantasy. Indeed, it is the natural bodybuilder who is to blame for distorted body images (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Muscular bodies are thus rarely understood as free from IPEDs within the community and when such perspectives are put forth they are viewed as unrealistic. The limit-pushing potential of IPEDs is further discussed below, through a hypothetical experiment presented by one community member. Think about this: Wouldn’t it be fun to conduct this experiment. Joe works as an officer and his brother works at Lindex [Swedish women’s lingerie chain], selling women’s underwear. You sneak some oestrogen into Joe’s coffee and give his brother testo instead. You do this for a couple of months.

74 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Talk about different results! What do you think would happen? Yeah, I think I know. In this way we would play out the extremes against each other, to see what really happens, within a particular profession. Testo could be EXTREMELY beneficial. Ha, ha, yeah, and it would be fun to see the outcome. The total ruin! From officer to army bitch! Ha, ha. I guess that the other military boys wouldn’t have to pay for porn mags any more. And the brother would probably be reported for sexual harassment at Lindex, found by the surveillance monitors jerking off, while watching the women trying on lingerie in the changing rooms. (TheProfessor)

Moving through posts and threads on Flashback takes us into a specific symbolic and social community. Within this community, a particular language game is developed and the discussions about IPEDs often incorporate both esoteric ethno-medical terminology and fantasies concerning the potency and potential of the drugs. Supplements, training regimes, fantasies, and IPEDs are all part of the equation. Pushing physical limits and creating an impressively muscular body are seen as core values and parts of a successful self-presentation. As such, the muscular and extreme body usually associated with a masculine-connoted ethos is put to the fore and idealised (Andreasson & Johansson, 2020; Christiansen, 2020; McGrath & Chananie-Hill, 2009). This does not mean that there is a universal representation of the growing and expanding body that can reach and exceed the genetic max through IPEDs. There is of course a huge diversity of body projects and various ways to create the personal picture of a perfect body, a body that has reached or potentially transgressed its genetic max. At the same time, the whole discussion around the genetic max, and the scepticism expressed towards natural means of reaching the desired body, points towards a historical continuity in the understanding of muscular and masculine bodies. Digital bodies are formed semiotically as ever expanding and incredible in this community domain. Discussion-based communities like those on Flashback reside alongside those that have emerged on image and video-based social media platforms. Though images are not uncommon in discussion threads on IPED forums, communities that form around images and personalities may be interpreted differently and lead to a range of behaviours by community

4  Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities 

75

members. Moving from internet forums into the world of social media influencers, we turn our attention to how the visual presentation of bodies and their accompanying lifestyle practices can further blur the line between reality and fantasy.

Body Aesthetics in the Zyzz Fandom Aziz Shavershian is perhaps better known by his internet handle Zyzz. He was born in Moscow, Russia, in 1989, but when he was four years old his family moved to Australia, where he grew up. In adolescence, Aziz often felt ridiculed and bullied due to his “skinny and nerdy” appearance. He got into muscle building in early adulthood and managed to establish himself as an acknowledged lifestyle influencer with a perfect body. He became the face of a relatively large crowd of training enthusiasts with an interest in bodily aesthetics; sort of a contemporary and charismatic version of Eugene Sandow, who made a name for himself as the father of bodybuilding in the early twentieth century (Fair, 1999). But Zyzz was clear about not being a bodybuilder himself. Rather, he aimed to become the “father of body aesthetics.” In an interview on the website Simplyshredded.com, Zyzz talked about his training ambitions: My end goal is not to be some massed up freak, but rather to have a physique that can be looked as art; streamlined, tapered, and universally appealing. /.../ If you asked me this question when I started training, my response would’ve been completely different. Originally, it started out innocently enough, I wanted to get bigger so I wasn’t so skinny, and have a bit of a build on me to impress girls. I’d look at pictures of shredded guys and tell myself, that’s going to be me. 4 years into my training, I can safely say that my motivation to train goes far beyond that of merely impressing people, it is derived from the feeling of having set goals and achieving them and outdoing myself in the gym. (https://simplyshredded.com/exclusive-­ zyzz-­interview.html)

What perhaps distinguished Zyzz in the fitness industry was how he so successfully managed to use social media to build “hype” around himself

76 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

and the branding of his persona. Instead of competing in bodybuilding, he showed off his body in online video clips from festivals and nightclubs where he could be seen dancing frenetically. He started his own clothing line and established his own food supplement, called “protein for the gods.” Gradually, his YouTube videos, Instagram posts, and more turned into a sort of bible for a fanbase consisting of thousands of likeminded followers. Zyzz became known for his ability to combine a ripped and commercialised body with a party-oriented lifestyle. Initially, he was also open about his IPED use, but as his fame grew he became less explicit on this issue. In one YouTube clip Zyzz tried to explain to the camera who he is and what he does. He said: “I am Aziz. Zyzz is a person that took over who I am. I am Az, Zyzz is a fucking spirit. Zyzz took over me.” Thus, Zyzz was largely invented as a fictional character and an online construction portraying a muscle enthusiast who aimed to develop muscles to a level that appealed to the general public rather than to bodybuilding judges or bodybuilders seeking the genetic max. He aspired to a lean body and constant  ready-to-party  lifestyle. That this differs significantly from the hugely muscular look traditionally associated with IPED use and masculine body goals is indicative of the diversity of online bodies prized within broader doping communities. Zyzz’s skilful use of social media to attract followers and monetise his own lifestyle also highlights the overlaps and interrelationships between various online communities. Online doping does not end with bodybuilding forums, but extends to include a range of platforms, media, and sub-cultures that form the online doping ecosystem. Sadly, Aziz died of a heart attack in a sauna in Thailand in 2011. Though no toxicology reports were publicly released, his death has since been debated and attributed to his acknowledged use of IPEDs and recreational drugs in combination with a heart condition. Nonetheless, his fanbase has continued to grow, as has the mythical lifestyle, bodily transformation, and “the spirit” that he represented. Aziz died and Zyzz lives on. If anything, Aziz’s death increased the popularity and impact of his alter ego. For example, in the year of his death Australians Google searched for “Zyzz” more often than they did the Australian prime minister (Underwood, 2017).

4  Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities 

77

A central element in Zyzz’s ongoing popularity is the bodily transformation he represented. Though his persona largely was constituted as a digitalised act, propelled by his death, the transformation he went through appealed to many fans. Zyzz himself expressed that “gods are not born, they are created” and he often returned to his previous life to illustrate his creation and development. In one of his YouTube videos he recounted the following: I had a girlfriend of 17, who was pretty but slightly chubby, when I was a skinny nerd, she kept pointing out how skinny I was and always looked at other guys with good bodies which was one of the reasons I wanted to start going to the gym. Needless to say when I saw her 2 years later her jaw dropped, brushing her off at that moment was probably the best feeling I have experienced in my life. (Zyzz transformation/progress: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=ToNLrthvFsE)

The duckling turning into a beautiful swan is an obviously appealing narrative for fans, especially for boys and young men though not exclusively. Through his bodily transformation, Zyzz went from being a bullied nerd to a sexualised and charismatic “god of aesthetics.” Interestingly, the bodily transformation also impacted his self-confidence. Through social media, Zyzz seemingly gained energy and sexual capital, further inspiring his fans even post-mortem. In various articles, Australian researcher Mair Underwood (2017; Underwood & Olson, 2019) has looked at the loosely assembled community that idolises Zyzz (the Zyzz fandom). Like Zyzz, this community is not bound to a particular platform, but rather operates more flexibly across diverse online spaces, including YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Spotify, and through community discussions on various online forums for bodybuilders and recreational training enthusiasts. In contrast to the previous section in which discussions about the genetic max were debated on a secluded forum, here we find a community that operates across different sites and online spaces. Within the community, Zyzz’s digital material is ever-present and circulated. This, in combination with different tributes to his life, body, and lifestyle that are produced by fans and regularly uploaded, makes him digitally and discursively immortal, turning him into a sort of myth.

78 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Underwood was interested in how the Zyzz fandom, consisting predominantly of men between 17 and 25 years old, operated and how IPEDs were understood within the community. The recipe for triumph, whatever that means for the individual, is usually connected to the idea of a perfectly aestheticised male body; the body of Zyzz. It was through such a body that the nerd Aziz could become the spirit Zyzz. It was also through this body that Zyzz could dominate so-called beta men and women. Within the community, the terms “alpha” and “beta” are often used to indicate a form of control and dominance. However, being an alpha is not about dominating through superior strength, as in the zoological sense, but instead about being able to hold the right aura. A Zyzz fan explains: You are alpha when you create an aura and you are automatically the leader... girls wants to be with you and guys wants to be like you.. we alphas are not like beta guys.. laughing for no reason just to seek attention of female.. an alpha will not beg a girl to let him fck her. (Underwood, 2017, pp. 82–83)

Obviously, appearance and aesthetics are seen as central elements to win a woman’s interest. Though this does not mean that “alphas” see themselves as always available, ready to perform sexually. Quite the contrary. Though the aesthetic body can provide sexual capital, it is the sense of being able to control and dominate that is put to the fore. This type of control has more than a hint of misogyny among Zyzz’ fans. Another fan commented on this, talking about Zyzz’s body and how he “used it”: He [Zyzz] had a body that literally made dozens of chicks wet [sexually aroused]. And how did he use it? Did he become a brainless fuck machine who hooked up with all sluts? No. He became your hero. He kept trolling every single slut in the name of his past betaness. He wanted to show every single slut how it felt to be rejected. He showed them how it felt to be told ‘sorry, you are inferior being, fuck off’. He flipped the cards. (Underwood, 2017, p. 83)

4  Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities 

79

According to the narrative in this community, Zyzz’s “ripped” or “shredded” body allowed him to take control of social situations and take revenge on women as a collective who used to reject him. In doing so he became a hero in the eyes of his admirers, but also hated and cursed by others. He became a voice, potentially even an avatar, for young men, and some women, who were laughed at or dismissed in adolescence. Though the type of gender configuration and body that is portrayed within the Zyzz fandom might be regarded as heteronormative and not infrequently misogynistic, it becomes clear that it is also constructed in and through an aestheticised and sexualised body and masculinity (Anderson, 2010). Interestingly, Zyzz’s own and his fans’ video material have also put him and the body he represents in a state of timelessness (Braidotti, 2002). He is physically dead but digitally immortal. Physically, his body does not exist. Digitally, it continues to inspire large crowds, serving to legitimise not only an aestheticised body and masculinity, but also IPED use as a means of reaching such goals (which contrasts the interrelatedness between digitised and physical bodies, as staged in The Matrix and discussed in the introductory chapter of the book). Pointing towards a more aestheticised lifestyle and sexualised body the Zyzz fandom could be said to represent a paradoxical corporeality. On the one hand, it idolises a body that is defined through beauty, fashion, and commercialisation. In Greek mythology Adonis was the handsome god of beauty and desire, and in contemporary society Zyzz represents the myth of bodily aesthetics and perfection. In the 1990s, such a corporeality would probably have been understood as an indication of a masculinity in crisis, symbolically representing a closer relation between homo- and hetero-men, resulting in a movement towards a new metrosexual masculinity (Anderson, 2010; Andreasson & Johansson, 2013). In contemporary digitalised society, this vibrant, commercialised, and sexualised masculinity has become mainstream. To this end, the imagery of Zyzz exceeds the limits of traits and norms traditionally considered male or female. On the other hand, there is much happening within the Zyzz fandom that points towards the construction of a dominant and

80 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

confident masculinity that constantly must defend and expand itself. The narrative about a young Aziz who turns into a man/a god/Zyzz can also be understood as a somewhat paradigmatic masculine narrative. Further, the misogynistic and heterosexist aspects of this community culture bear some resemblances to incel (involuntarily celibate) communities (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2013). These social networks with other men become a starting point for the formation of a “revenge” body and masculinity, and through this (imagined) corporeality women can be dismissed and constructed as ungrievable (Butler, 2009). Zyzz’s continuing influence is rooted in a combination of the physical man and his digital persona. Influencers, social media personalities who use their platforms to influence trends and behaviours among their followers, wield a kind of power that is underpinned by a commercialised neoliberalism. There is a clear profit motive, either through monetising their social media posts or receiving sponsorships for selling products. But this is always presented as a choice followers can make, though the implicit message is that the ideal lifestyle presented by the influencer is attainable only by following their enhancement recommendations.

Rays of Sunshine An Instagram post by a user with the handle metaphysicalmeagan went viral in 2019 when she shared an image of herself lying naked outside on a boulder with her legs pulled up and apart (https://www.instagram. com/p/B4xj6R9hU6A/). She explained in the caption that she was sunning her perineum—the connective skin between the anus and vulva—as part of a Taoist practice to improve her physical and spiritual self. She claimed 30 seconds to 5 minutes of sunning this area can improve energy, libido, focus, creativity, and hormone function among a slew of other spiritual benefits. Interest in the topic grew sharply, with research suggesting search interest in “perineum sunning” or “perineum tanning” from the day of the post in November 2019 grew an accumulated 919% to the end of December 2019 (Ottwell et al., 2021). Responses to her

4  Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities 

81

posts varied. Some comments were positive and indicated that others had experienced the same or similar benefits listed in the captions; others were sceptical and questioned the risks of exposing the area to direct sunlight. Metaphysicalmeagan was not the only, or even the first, social media personality to share this practice and its perceived benefits. Another Instagram user, gingermoon_apothecary, had extolled the virtues of “yoni sunning” in 2018 with the caption: FYI the many benefits of #yonisunning include easing pelvic pain, increasing circulation, curing (yes, even chronic) yeast infections, balancing over-­ dryness, dissolving scar tissue, increasing libido, and the list goes on... no, I’m not a licensed medical professional but literally every single one of those examples are from my own vaginal experience! (https://www.instagram.com/p/Bj8pLFrA_SB/)

Beyond social media discussions sharing their own experiences or opinions of the practice and its effect on the body and life, there was also a backlash effect among some online media outlets, particularly those linked to health, exercise, or beauty. Allure magazine, for example, published an article titled “I Am Begging You to Stop Tanning Your Taint” that enlisted medical professionals to help discourage readers from engaging in the practice (Robin & Glynn, 2022). Social media influencers like metaphysicalmeagan and gingermoon_apothecary do not rely on fact or credentials to support their suggestions and instead rely on sharing their opinions (Baker & Rojek, 2020). As such, their opinions carry weight within wellness communities because they are shared within the broader context of achieving the influencer’s lifestyle. Influencers often curate idealised images and construct narratives about their rich and fulfilling lifestyle practices, similar to how Aziz created his Zyzz persona, which are then presented as achievable by mimicking their behaviours. This reflects the neoliberal underpinnings of wellness and self-care, where the responsibility for becoming ever better, happier, or productive is down to individual choices. When key community members endorse a practice, it may become normalised, or at least tacitly accepted, as part of a wellness lifestyle in which the process (or the belief in it) is almost as valuable as

82 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

the outcome. In this case, achieving the ideally physically and spiritually balanced self is linked to the scientifically unsupported but anecdotally beneficial perineum sunning practice. Despite the lack of facts or evidence to support claims, relying on opinion also makes wellness difficult to regulate (Baker & Rojek, 2020). Women are not the only group to engage in such questionable wellness enhancing practices in online communities. The links between men, masculinity, and muscles have clear roots in testosterone. Testosterone is the sex hormone produced by the body and responsible for secondary sex characteristics in men such as facial hair, deepened voices, and increased muscle mass. As men tend to produce more testosterone than women, they often are physically stronger and capable of increasing muscle mass more efficiently. This physical difference underpins hegemonic notions of masculinity that position “real” men as muscular, dominant, and sexually virile—like the “alphas” idealised by the Zyzz fandom. Rather than rely on IPEDs, some men turn to other forms of enhancement to increase their testosterone levels. One recent phenomenon aimed at raising men’s testosterone is testicle tanning. This is a misnomer, as it involves exposing the scrotum to red light rather than sunlight, but the imagery of “testicle tanning” may lead some men to risky UV light exposure (Ottwell et al., 2022). This practice—fuelled by social media posts on Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok, and then reinforced by American right-wing talk show host Tucker Carlson—is believed by its practitioners to increase the production of testosterone in men’s bodies (Lutz, 2022). Though again there is a lack of research underpinning such testosterone boosting claims, interest on Twitter skyrocketed in the wake of Carlson touting the practice on his program (Ottwell et  al., 2022). Carlson discussed it in the context of what he sees as a masculinity crisis linked to a drop in testosterone levels among men (Wolfson, 2022). In making this link, Carlson is ascribing what he sees as social problems—a lack of nationalist-based patriotism— to an essentialising understanding of testosterone. Here, men are insufficiently masculine due to diminishing testosterone at a population level, visible on the weak bodies of contemporary men. The claims are dubious

4  Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities 

83

all around: there is a lack of peer-reviewed evidence that there is a significant decline in testosterone generally or that exposing the scrotum to any kind of light therapy raises testosterone. Instead, the evidence practitioners cite is anecdotal and based (proudly) in bro-science drawn from the individual experience of men who perform or embody a hegemonic form of masculinity, allegedly achieved through testosterone-boosting lifestyle changes (Lee, 2022). One particular aspect of this masculinity that is played up in much discussion of testicle tanning is improved sexual performance. This was exemplified in an article posted on the Men’s Health magazine website that saw the author undertake daily red light therapy on his scrotum in order to test out the claims (Greenfield, 2017). He described the effects of one session: That night was date night, and I was a rock star. I sat at dinner, horny, my penis pulsing, staring across the table at my wife and feeling as though I’d popped a couple Viagra. Later, I blew the biggest load I could recall in recent memory. (Greenfield, 2017)

Comparing the effects of testicle tanning to the sexual enhancement drug Viagra coupled with the vivid sexual imagery underscores the powerful beliefs around the benefits of manipulating testosterone to reach another physical max that are not unlike those found on steroid forums or websites extolling the virtues of Trenbolone for increased sex drive (Andreasson & Henning, 2021a). The testicle tanning phenomenon diverges from its perineum sunning and steroid counterparts in that it is linked to not only individual enhancement, aesthetics, or wellness, but to a broader need to fix or save society through individual behaviours. The “crisis” requires a critical mass of men to undertake self-care regimes in support of boosting collective levels of a particular form of masculinity. The goal is increasing testosterone to achieve a mythical masculinity that is embedded in online media discourses of nationalism, strength, and wellness via technology and biohacking. Muscles, toughness, and a pulsing penis are the requirements.

84 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Conclusions This chapter has presented insights into how IPEDs and IPED-adjacent enhancing behaviours are debated and approached by members in online doping and wellness communities. The chapter has also given a broad idea of the characteristic dynamics at work in these communities and how relationships evolve between the members, and the bodies, within. This is a social and cultural (virtual) reality. Digital IPED communities tend to be defined by a strong interest in the plastic and ever-changing body, as well as legitimising the various ways of obtaining this body and lifestyle with and in relation to IPEDs. The meanings of various body types, shapes, and performances are created, shared, and re-created almost instantly across social media and other online platforms. Online bodies are both ephemeral and permanent. Some come and go, flashing up in a social media feed or in a chat forum only long enough to be displaced by the next post, reel, or video featuring another body. But these images and messages endure in other ways, alongside verdicts about which bodies are enviable, ideal, or aspirational. The muscular male body and the drive to achieve it using IPEDs represent an intersection of reality and fantasy. Discussions of concepts like the genetic max reside alongside vivid descriptions of hyper-masculinity in action, a juxtaposition of medically underpinned theories or approaches to shaping the body and a lifestyle marked by hedonism, sexuality, and a not insignificant dose of misogyny. The Zyzz fandom and communities around perineum and “testicle tanning” each highlight the collision of the physical and the digital, of real and fantasy. In both cases, the lifestyles showcased online are made to appear attainable and real, despite the highly subjective and curated narratives and images deployed by the creators. Zyzz himself acknowledged that his online persona was a character distinct from Aziz the person, yet his thoroughly documented life and lifestyle—not least his open embrace of IPEDs in pursuit of his envied aesthetic—was presented in a way that invited mimicry. To be like Zyzz was simply to do as Zyzz did. Zyzz’s death worked to reinforce the growing mythology around him and his lifestyle; Zyzz is now frozen in time, his body is forever ageless and preserved at its peak. The discourse around Zyzz, though, is highly changeable and dynamic. Fans can adopt and adapt his practices, reinterpret and

4  Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities 

85

reinvent his narrative, and create endless discursive versions of Zyzz and his body that can change to fit diverse fantasies. Wellness communities include similar elements of attainability through self-care. Influencers and personalities deploy proactive narratives of “do as I do to be as I am.” Particularly around testicle tanning, the links to testosterone and masculinity seem to both create and prey on men’s insecurities in the context of social upheaval and present technologies as the cure-all, with a distinct underlying commercialisation. Anyone living a less than ideal life is physiologically deficient of something—energy for women; testosterone and masculinity for men—that can be enhanced with wellness practices shared with one’s followers (social media monetisation) and even more efficiently through purchasing a new device. The aim is the same: achieving a particular body by adopting a lifestyle that is simultaneously attainable and just out of reach. Linking physiology to social issues, as per Carlson, adds a layer of urgency and collective responsibility. Society is in crisis because men are low on testosterone. Facts and science are unnecessary in the face of testimonial and opinion, of which there is rarely a shortage when it comes to enhancement and especially IPEDs. The process is then never-ending, requiring a perpetual drive to enhance one’s body and life in order to achieve the ideal or to live out the fantasy. This chapter has zoomed in on three somewhat eccentric communities in which diverse digital bodies are produced and diffused. Notions of the enhanced and enhanceable body play a central role in each, though the means of enhancement and the specific motivations and aims can vary. These communities operate on different but sometimes overlapping domains within the online doping ecosystem. We turn to these ideas as they relate to gender in the next two chapters.

References Anderson, E. (2010). Inclusive masculinity: The changing nature of masculinities. Routledge. Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2021a). Performance cultures and doped bodies. Challenging categories, gender norms, and policy responses. Common Ground.

86 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2021b). Challenging hegemony through narrative: Centering women’s experiences and establishing a sis-science culture through a women-only doping forum. Communication and Sport, 10(4), 708–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795211000657 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2013). The health guru: Masculinity and fitness coaching in the blogosphere. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 21(3), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.2103.277 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2014). The global gym: Gender, health and pedagogies. Palgrave Macmillan. Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2016). Gender, fitness doping and the genetic max. The ambivalent construction of muscular masculinities in an online community. Social Sciences, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5010011 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2020). Fitness doping: Trajectories, gender, bodies and health. Palgrave Macmillan. Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2021). Welcome to “planet porno”: Masculinity, sexuality, and fitness doping. Journal of Bodies, Sexualities, and Masculinities, 2(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.3167/jbsm.2021.020103 Baker, S. A., & Rojek, C. (2020). The online wellness industry: Why it’s so difficult to regulate. The Conversation. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from http:// theconversation.com/the-­o nline-­wellness-­i ndustry-­w hy-­i ts-­s o-­d ifficult­to-­regulate-­131847 Boepple, L., Ata, R. N., Rum, R., & Thompson, J. K. (2016). Strong is the new skinny: A content analysis of fitspiration websites. Body Image, 17, 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.03.001 Braidotti, R. (2002). Metamorphoses: Towards a materialist theory of becoming. Polity Press. Broadhurst, S., & Price, S. (2017). Digital bodies: Creativity and technology in the arts and humanities. Springer. Butler, J. (2009). Frames of war: When is life grievable? Verso. Christiansen, A.  V. (2020). Gym culture, identity and performance-enhancing drugs: Tracing a typology of steroid use. Routledge. DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (2013). Male peer support and violence against women: The history and verification of a theory. Northeastern University Press. DuRant, R. H., Escobedo, L. G., & Heath, G. W. (1995). Anabolic-steroid use, strength training, and multiple drug use among adolescents in the United States. Pediatrics, 96(1), 23–28.

4  Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities 

87

Dworkin, S. L., & Wachs, F. L. (2009). Body panic: Gender, health, and the selling of fitness. NYU Press. Fair, J. D. (1999). Muscletown USA: Bob Hoffman and the manly culture of York Barbell. Penn State Press. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. Volume 1: An introduction. Pantheon Books. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Blackwell. Greenfield, B. (2017, October 26). I​ put a giant red light on my balls to triple my testosterone levels. Men’s Health. Retrieved November 09, 2022, from https://www.menshealth.com/health/a19539973/i-­p ut-­a -­g iant-­r ed-­ light-­on-­my-­balls-­to-­triple-­my-­testosterone-­levels/ Haraway, D. (1997). Modest−Witness@Second−Millennium.FemaleMan−Meets− OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. Routledge. Henning, A., & Andreasson, J. (2022). Preventing, producing, or reducing harm? Fitness doping risk and enabling environments. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 29(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968763 7.2020.1865273 Henning, A., & Dimeo, P. (2022). Doping: A sporting history. Reaktion Books. Henning, A., McLean, K., Andreasson, J., & Dimeo, P. (2021). Risk and enabling environments in sport: Systematic doping as harm reduction. International Journal of Drug Policy, 91, 102897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. drugpo.2020.102897 Jespersen, M. R. (2013). “Definitely not for women”: An online community’s reflections on women’s use of performance enhancing drugs. In J. Tolleneer, S. Sterckz, & P. Bonte (Eds.), Athletic enhancement, human nature and ethics. Threats and opportunities of doping technologies (pp. 201–218). Springer. Kimergård, A., & McVeigh, J. (2014). Environments, risk and health harms: A qualitative investigation into the illicit use of anabolic steroids among people using harm reduction services in the UK. BMJ Open, 4(6). https://doi. org/10.1136/bmjopen-­2014-­005275 Klein, A. M. (1993). Little big men: Bodybuilding subculture and gender construction. Suny Press. Knapp, B. A. (2015). Rx’d and shirtless: An examination of gender in a CrossFit box. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 23(1), 42–53. https://doi. org/10.1123/wspaj.2014-­0021 Lee, B. (2022, April 20). ‘Testicle tanning’: Is Tucker Carlson promoting this new ‘bromeotherapy’ now? Forbes. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://

88 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/04/20/testicle-­t anning-­i s-­t ucker­carlson-­promoting-­this-­new-­bromeotherapy-­now/?sh=6cb79531ca12 Liokaftos, D. (2019). Natural bodybuilding: An account of its emergence and development as competition sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 54(6), 753–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690217751439 Locks, A., & Richardson, N. (2013). Critical readings in bodybuilding. Routledge. Lupton, D. (2014). Digital sociology. Routledge. Lutz, E. (2022). Tucker Carlson: Tan your balls if you want to be a real man. Vanity Fair. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.vanityfair.com/ news/2022/04/tucker-­carlson-­consider-­testicle-­tanning-­end-­of-­men McGrath, S. A., & Chananie-Hill, R. A. (2009). ‘Big freaky-looking women’: Normalizing gender transgression through bodybuilding. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(2), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.26.2.235 McVeigh, J., Kimergård, A., Bates, G., Hope, V. D., & Ncube, F. (2016). Harm reduction interventions should encompass people who inject image and performance enhancing drugs. BMJ. Orton-Johnson, K., & Prior, N. (2013). Digital sociology: Critical perspectives. Springer. Ottwell, R., Cox, K., Dobson, T., Shah, M., & Hartwell, M. (2022). Evaluating the public’s interest in testicle tanning: Observational study. JMIR Dermatology, 5(3), e39766. https://doi.org/10.2196/39766 Ottwell, R., Hartwell, M., Beswick, T., Rogers, T. C., Ivy, H., Goodman, M., & Vassar, M. (2021). Public interest in a potentially harmful, non-evidence-­ based “wellness” practice: Cross-sectional analysis of perineum sunning. JMIR Dermatology, 4(1), e24124. https://doi.org/10.2196/24124 Pitts, V. (2003). In the flesh: The cultural politics of body modification. Palgrave Macmillan. Robin, M., & Glynn, T. (2022). I am begging you to stop tanning your taint. Allure. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.allure.com/story/ viral-­perineum-­sunning-­post-­dermatologists-­warning Simpson, C. C., & Mazzeo, S. E. (2017). Skinny is not enough: A content analysis of fitspiration on Pinterest. Health Communication, 32(5), 560–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1140273 Sverkersson, E. (2022). ‘I’m quite tired of people saying that I don’t do enough or know anything’: Male hegemony and resistance in the context of women’s online communication on doping. Sport in Society, 25(6), 1176–1192. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2022.2064107

4  Digital Doping Bodies and Diversities 

89

Sverkersson, E., Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2020). ‘Sis science’ and fitness doping: Ethnopharmacology, gender and risk. Social Sciences, 9(4). https:// doi.org/10.3390/SOCSCI9040055 Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670. https://doi. org/10.2307/2089195 Thualagant, N. (2012). The conceptualization of fitness doping and its limitations. Sport in Society, 15(3), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743043 7.2012.653209 Turkle, S. (2011). Life on the screen. Simon and Schuster. Underwood, M. (2017). Exploring the social lives of image and performance enhancing drugs: An online ethnography of the Zyzz fandom of recreational bodybuilders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 39, 78–85. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.08.012 Underwood, M., & Olson, R. (2019). ‘Manly tears exploded from my eyes, lets feel together brahs’: Emotion and masculinity within an online body building community. Journal of Sociology, 55(1), 90–107. https://doi. org/10.1177/1440783318766610 van Gennup, A. (2019). The rites of passage (2nd ed.). University of Chicago press. Wolfson, S. (2022, April 18). Tucker Carlson’s answer to masculinity’s supposed crisis? ‘Testicle tanning’. The Guardian. Retrieved October 27, 2022, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/18/tucker-­c arlson-­ masculinity-­crisis-­testicle-­tanning

5 Tales from a Women-Only Forum

Introduction The use of IPEDs in sport and fitness has largely been a story about men and muscular masculinities (Christiansen, 2020; Henning & Dimeo, 2022; Thualagant, 2012). In a wider context, muscle building has also been related historically to warfare, violence, and the building of nation-­ states (Mosse, 1999). Klein (1993), for example, conducted a classical field study examining the creation of bodybuilding as a masculine subculture and the tensions between it and mainstream social norms and conventions. Later, Christiansen (2020) developed a typology of (male) fitness dopers and discussed a range of use motivations. Although not made explicit, the types of users identified were discursively filled with competences and ideals related to normative masculinity, such as performance, power, adventure, risk-taking, knowledgeability, self-control (do-­ it-­yourself ), and more. In contrast, women’s IPED use has, both in the scholarly debate and in public discourse, been backgrounded and often approached from somewhat sensationalist and stereotypical perspectives. Women users have often been described as abnormalities and spectacles (McGrath & Chananie-Hill, 2009). The online doping environment makes no exception to this narrative. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Andreasson, A. Henning, Online Doping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30272-5_5

91

92 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

While men have had access to the online doping ecosystem for some time (Monaghan, 2012; Smith & Stewart, 2012), women have largely been excluded from the debate (Jespersen, 2013). This has been discussed by Bunsell (2013) in terms of a “veil of secrecy” and a “taboo,” through which women’s experiences have come to be understood as bound to others (mainly men) who guide them. This was also addressed by Bilgrei (2018) who labelled online community members’ interactions as the development of a “broscience” through which members (men) develop their understanding of the drugs, discuss possible (side) effects, harm reduction, and other use-related issues (Andreasson & Johansson, 2016; Monaghan, 2012; Underwood, 2017). The development of “sis-science” doping cultures has thus been limited due to rigid male-centred gender configurations (Sverkersson, 2022; Sverkersson et al., 2020), though it is well known that drug supplementation differs per gender, with women being more likely to use substances such as ephedrine, hGH, clenbuterol, or human chorionic gonadotropin, as opposed to muscle enhancing supplements (Jespersen, 2013; Van Hout & Hearne, 2016). In this chapter we focus on an online IPED forum devoted to women and their drug use experiences.1 The forum is located on the MESO-Rx website. The purpose of the chapter is twofold. First, we describe how women users (and the introduction of a women-only forum) are met and understood within the broader (male-centred) online doping community. Secondly and mainly, we explore how issues related to IPED use and gender are addressed by the women active on the women-only forum when their views and experiences are not backgrounded or silenced by potential male commenters. In doing so the chapter contributes to our understanding of how the online doping environment and its rules of engagement are highly gendered, impacting users’ experiences and the potential harms associated with the use. We argue that the women-only forum analysed is of relevance as it constitutes a rare case (Yin, 1994), of a phenomenon that has been largely conceptualised and investigated through the lens of male hegemonic patterns, both online and offline. We are interested in what happens when such  This chapter builds on material previously published in Andreasson and Henning (2022) and Henning and Andreasson (2021). The material has been complemented and revised. 1

5  Tales from a Women-Only Forum 

93

patterns and structures of domination are questioned and, at least partly, hindered and put out of play due to the introduction of a secluded doping domain for women.

 entring Women’s Experiences C and Narratives of Self As suggested, IPED use in the realm of muscle building has been largely developed in relation to a historical pattern of hegemonic conceptualisations of masculinity (Connell, 2020). Hegemony is understood here as the dynamic ways men’s dominance over women is legitimised and upheld in different social and cultural contexts, such as in the online environment. At the same time, hegemonic conceptualisations refer to a historically mobile and dynamic structure, which is connected to how we think about and theorise stability and change (Haywood et  al., 2017; Hearn, 2004). Gender designations and conceptualisations are in a constant process of being made, remade, and redefined. Explanations of how the body is socially moulded and constructed, and how power relations are inscribed on the flesh, also suggest that the body can be seen as the starting point of a discussion about how to counteract and eventually change social representations, power structures, and dynamics (Andreasson & Johansson, 2021). This line of thinking, which not only aims to dissect and analyse structures of oppression but also tries to work towards more utopian goals concerning women’s emancipation and empowerment, is eminently present in the writings of many feminist scholars, such as Donna Haraway (1991, 1997), Judith Butler (1990, 2004), Sara Ahmed (2006), and others. In somewhat different ways, each has shown how gender norms and the heterosexual gender order are social and cultural constructions or structures that can be called into question and challenged and resisted. A scholar highly relevant for this discussion, and our analysis, is Rita Felski (1995) and her thoughts on the gendering of history. This gendering is exemplified in this chapter by the cultural control that masculinity has historically held over doped bodies. In her ground-breaking work, The

94 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Gender of Modernity, Felski suggested that our understanding of history and culture is shaped by the explanatory logic of narrative, which indisputably houses the presence of power, gender norms, and structures. Felski aimed to challenge conventional and male-centred theories and understandings (of modernity), offering alternative lenses of analysis. She explained: The issue is not one of going “beyond” history, but rather one of acknowledging that the act of constructing a relationship to one’s past is always already invested with interests and prejudice (prejudgment) rather than embodying the creation of value-free science /…/ I have sought nevertheless to destabilize a periodizing category that has often been simplistically defined in the context of feminist theory in order to explore some of the varying ways in which women have been seen, and have seen themselves, as modern subjects. (Felski, 1995, pp. 207, 209)

Using these thoughts, and in contrast to historical constructions of femininity as vulnerable and weak and of women IPED users as abnormalities, we embrace the possibility of considering women’s IPED use in terms of its own explanatory logic of narrative, possibly breaking with hegemonic conceptualisations of the practice. Suggesting that building bodies through the use of IPEDs is not necessarily masculine enables an analytical approach in which women’s doping practices and a women-­ only IPED forum can be understood less in terms of gender and gender norms, and more in terms of female subjectivity. Thus it becomes an “act” through which physical accomplishments, health, women-specific harm reduction, and more are given meaning (Roth & Basow, 2004). Analysing how the introduction of a women-only forum for IPED use is understood within a broader online doping community and how women talk about IPEDs when not interfered with or directed by male commenters enables us to get closer to the ongoing socio-cultural changes in the gender dynamics of IPED use, looking at it through a lens that centres women’s (only/own) experiences. We argue that it is when new configurations and dynamics emerge, in this case within an online forum, that previously gendered practices can begin to be challenged and rethought (Butler, 2004). Following Felski (1995), these are “the alternative lenses”

5  Tales from a Women-Only Forum 

95

that we are offering through this chapter, further developing our understanding of the online doping ecosystem, its power structures, and power relationships.

Women’s Forums MESO-Rx features two forums that are devoted to women, though one of these represents an evolution of the platform: “Women & Steroids” and “Women’s Steroid Experiences.” When we first began researching women’s experiences in IPED forums, all the forums on MESO-Rx were open to comments from any registered user, including the ones aimed at women and their IPED use. Though these forums were nominally for women, they were used heavily by men (Henning & Andreasson, 2021). Women participated in ways similar to men on the general (men-centric) forums, asking questions about substances, doses, side effects, harm reduction, and more. Often women were looking for information or advice specific to female physiology. However, rather than women engaging with one another directly to share first-hand experiences, men often responded either on behalf of the women in their lives who had experiences using IPEDs, or they simply gave their own opinions about what was best for women. This had the effect of backgrounding women’s voices and experiences in favour of men’s. Even when they spoke on behalf of a woman and relayed her experiences, the information was always second hand and mediated by the experiences and views of the man who did the posting. This meant that women were subjected to interference from men and subjected to their views of what women can and should be or look like (Jespersen, 2013; Sverkersson, 2022). Further, some men treated women in aggressive and misogynistic ways, potentially driving some of them away from the forums completely. In many cases, the men on the women’s forums seemed to genuinely want to offer advice and support as best they could. Some even referred women to one another if they knew of a member with similar experiences or relevant knowledge. However, even these well-intentioned posts reinforced men as the expert voices—indeed, anointing a woman as an expert still positions the man doing this as an arbiter of expertise himself—and

96 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

added to the chorus that drowned out the women who did seek to engage with other women. It also complicates information finding, as women looking for others who have shared her experience may need to trowel through threads populated by men to find information from other women. This can make forming a community of women more difficult and potentially has implications for the development of a women’s ethnopharmacology or “sis-science” (Sverkersson et al., 2020). The moderators took these research findings on board and made a change to the women’s forums (Andreasson & Henning, 2022). “Women & Steroids” would remain open for everyone to read and comment on, though the content of discussion would still focus on women. The main change came in the forum named “Women’s Steroid Experiences” that was designated as for women only. This means that while men could read what women were discussing, only women were to post and reply in threads on this forum. This leaves women free to engage without the interference of men, particularly those who harassed women members, and to set their own narratives (Felski, 1995). Though women were still subject to the male gaze in this new forum and that could impact their posts (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). This change and the impact of bracketing out men’s voices have implications for the ways women engage on such forums. As such, in the remainder of this chapter we will focus on the women-only forum.

Advice, By and For Women Since it launched, the women’s forum has had a fair number of topics introduced by female members. The topics vary, stretching from women searching for advice regarding substances, to how to deal with side effects and different experiences with the drugs. There are also recurrent discussions that concern the relationship between IPED use and being a woman. Largely following a route similar to male-dominated online communities (Andreasson & Johansson, 2016; Bilgrei, 2018; Underwood, 2017; Underwood & Olson, 2019), discussions are usually introduced by a member searching for or giving advice, along with a comprehensive

5  Tales from a Women-Only Forum 

97

explanation regarding their point of departure regarding use. This excerpt exemplifies this pattern: Hi ladies, I recently introduced myself briefly in the New members thread. Just some quick Infos about myself, so you don’t need to jump back if you are in a rush. I’m in my mid 30s, tiny 5′2″ / 130 lbs. I have been involved in sports pretty much for my entire life (mainly gymnastics and a bit of climbing and Tae Kwon Do back in my teenage life) and fell in love with barbell training back in 2017. I did my first powerlifting meet in 2018 and since then a couple more. Last one was back in 12/2019. So far my best 1 RMs are: squat 245, bench 150 and deadlift 300. Currently I’m training 5x week and eating in a deficit, as I got a little chubby over the last months. /…/ I have read a lot in Meso and ordered some Var from a big source from here. Not sure, if I need to get it analyzed… Any opinion on that? I’m planning on starting with 2,5mg am/pm and see how I react. I might increase it up to 7,5mg am/pm during the cycle, I’ll just see how I feel. I’m not on hormonal birth Control, but injecting a TNF Alpha blocker once a week due to a chronic disease. (which is under control thanks to these meds). I get my blood work done every 6–8 weeks, including liver Enzyms [sic] etc, so if there are some changes due to the AAS, Ill [sic] post it here. Any questions or tips for a first timer are very welcome! (LadyVar)

This post, presented here in part, constitutes a comprehensive explanation of LadyVar’s physical status, her previous experiences, weight, height, and other personal information (following the doping template as discussed in previous chapters). The information provided includes the basic information (usually) requested and required to be seen as part of the ethnopharmacological (sub)culture that develops in drug communities (Monaghan, 2001). Further, this refers to a communicative culture in which knowledge about IPEDs is maintained, contested, and passed on by and through different users. What is described here, mirroring previous research conducted mainly or exclusively on men (Monaghan, 2012; Smith & Stewart, 2012), is thus a point of departure, and with the help of information about physical conditions, knowledge, and goals, advice was solicited from (in this case and in contrast to previous research) other woman members. The questions and advice in this forum do not

98 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

necessarily concern only women-specific issues. Rather, the discussions are more broadly approached in terms of IPED use and experiences. In some threads, however, the focus on women becomes explicit. One member explained her approach to possible side effects with IPEDs. I’m okay with temporary acne (I used to have heavy breakouts as Teenager, so it might come back) and faster hair grow (but not in the face). I shave anyways daily while I’m in the shower. As for voice deepening and clit enlargement: This is a bit scary to me, so once I feel my voice crack, I’ll lower the dose (if possible) or stop it. As for clit enlargement, I’m not sure how to feel it? (If that makes sense). I mean, e.g. a swelling due to increased blood circulation isn’t the same as a “growing” process. (ElitaOne)

In contrast to a fanatical obsession with muscular hypertrophy overshadowing potential health costs, which was found in Smith and Stewart’s (2012) study on a bodybuilding and powerlifting community, we can see here how a more reflexive approach to drug use emerges. ElitaOne’s anxiety highlights an ambivalence towards some possible effects. Though she accepted these may happen, she was also concerned. Soon after posting her thoughts about potential side effects of the drugs, ElitaOne received the following response from a fellow community member that points towards a more accepting perspective on side effects. Oh my, the bigger and more fuller clit is amazing. I love it. It’s scary at first but once it happens, it’s the best. It all varies on how much your strength gains can be. If your training and nutrition is on point. You can gain 10–100 pounds in your lifts. The higher dosages you take the higher your lifts can increase. Side effects can happen at any dosage. We all have different body chemistry and muscle goals. When I’m on cycle and I notice negative effects, I keep going and pushing harder as long as I have good strength and energy. Some women will do what I do. Some women will get scared and quickly drop dosages at the first sign of anything negative (most of the time the women who stop or drop dosages to soon will greatly slow down their muscle progress). (Grrrlzilla)

This post highlights a reframing of negative (often masculinising) side effects as indicators that positive change is happening elsewhere. Grrrlzilla

5  Tales from a Women-Only Forum 

99

foregrounded the strength and energy gains while encouraging acceptance of some side effects in order to maximise muscle building, and in doing so also promoted a muscular meritocracy. While this could be understood as a shift in embodied understandings of femininity that goes beyond gender norms to focus on pleasure and potential harm (McDermott, 1996), this exemplifies how the social negotiation within the community moves understanding of the body away from hegemonic conceptualisations. Here, ElitaOne is supported in her negotiation by Grrrlzilla, who provides an alternative narrative for understanding the physical change and, ultimately, the self. The women-only space provides room for this community-driven change that may not be possible when interrupted or influenced by male participants. Although there is still some ambivalence expressed around side effects, there is a clear shift towards centring positive (muscle growth) and pleasurable (clitoris enlargement) IPED experiences (Mulrooney et  al., 2019). Adding to Grogan et al. (2004), who suggested that (side) effects of concern usually are those that have a direct effect on issues such as body image and fertility, we can thus see how women socially negotiate how effects are understood to form an online ethnopharmacological (sis-)culture. Another member concludes this by posting the following: “Some women can handle only low dosages, other women like me can handle much higher dosages. What side effects are you willing to tolerate?” Although the discussions are predominantly in favour of IPED use, there are also posts that address more troublesome experiences, as in the below post centring the female body. The subject of the thread was “female problems”: Ok, so, I’ve been taking birth control pills FOREVER and now that i am over 50 continue to take them for HRT. I haven’t had a period in years because i started taking them back to back without the placebo pills that constitute the last week of the pack. Well, at 8 weeks out from my show (I’m 4 weeks out now) i stopped taking them all together. to help reduce water retention. And....this morning I was entertaining a gentleman friend (er hmmm) and all of a sudden we both realize there was blood. Like I had started my period. WTF??? It wasn’t real serious, but it was there. I guess I should go back to taking half a pill a day to see if that helps correct this problem? I have avoided this for years! Ugh!! (TheEntertainer)

100 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

In occupying this exclusive online space, the women on the forum are able to discuss and reconceptualise their use in relation to physical conditions set by a normative female body rather than in relation to male biology and hegemonic conceptualisations (see Felski, 1995). Instead of being drawn into processes of othering, similarly to how male bodies have been constructed as the norm with female bodies as a variation throughout the history of medicine (Underwood, 2017), this section thus shows how the female body, in diverse ways, becomes centred, a starting point for discussion. Further, including negative experiences works to develop the collective knowledge more fully within this community of women, no matter what their motives and ambitions are when engaging in IPED use. The development of this women-led ethnopharmacological culture, perhaps unsurprisingly, bears resemblances to male-­ dominated communities in which some male-centred negative effects are addressed and negotiated (e.g., low libido/Deca-dick, testicular atrophy, gynecomastia) (Smith & Stewart, 2012). This is usually followed by discussion on the likelihood of occurrence and harm reduction, or on what level of side effects are thought of as reasonable or acceptable (Bilgrei, 2018). Nevertheless, in the secluded space of a women-only forum, male-­ centred IPED experiences and gender norms are largely absent. This means women do not have to debate their use in terms of justifying the subversion of norms and explaining aesthetic goals in an environment where criticism is to be expected. In contrast to previous research (Havnes et al., 2021; Henning & Andreasson, 2021; McGrath & Chananie-Hill, 2009), we can thus see how the discussions have taken form on the women-only forum when not met by (male) misogynistic discourses, condemnations, and heterosexist notions of how women should be and what they should look like. In the next section, we zoom in on the possibilities that this brings and how women deploy their ethnopharmacological expertise and culture in support of other women community members.

5  Tales from a Women-Only Forum 

101

“Coaching” and Sis-Science By giving space for women to centre their own experiences and bodies, the women-only forum opens the possibility of women supporting one another through giving advice and support in a kind of coaching relationship. As suggested by Kotzé et al. (2020) “IPED coaching” can be seen as part of ethnopharmacological cultures mostly driven by men. Here, we see how women engage in this as they set and pursue new goals. For example, ElitaOne, who we met above and who worried about different side effects, explained (after a couple of months) that her ideals and goals had changed. She described how she now wants to outgrow her pant-legs (and potentially looks forward to an enlarged clitoris, which she rethought as a source of more pleasure rather than an abnormality to some extent). The supportive context and empowerment in this narrative were emphasised by another member, She-Hulk, who commented on ElitaOne’s goal by noting, “It will take lots of hard work to make your legs out grow your pants. I did it, you can do it too.” Although the majority of posts concern women searching for solid advice from other women, there are also threads in which members related their experiences as an explicit strategy to contribute to a solid foundation for a women-centred understanding of IPED use. For example, KickInKate responded to a post asking about oral versus injected Primobolan: For me oral primo was not as good as the injection primo. I had better results with injection. If you choose to use the oral form, start with half a pill per day to see how it works with you. After 1–3 weeks you can increase your dosages by half pill till you find what dosages work for you and your goals. Primo works slow. Takes about 6 weeks to fully kick in. Make sure your well hydrated. (KickInKate)

KickInKate drew on her own experience to make concrete suggestions on use modality and dose, contributing to a mutually supportive culture around use. In doing so, she presented options from which the original poster could choose, while also making these alternatives available for other women on the forum. Additionally, indicating her previous use and

102 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

experiences worked as a way of legitimising herself as qualified to give such guidance. What became clear in posts like the above is how women moved beyond just sharing experiences or offering encouragement. Women in this forum were positioning themselves as experts on IPEDs and muscle building in their own right. They often gave clear and direct advice in a coaching capacity. For example, in response to questions on using and dosing the steroid nandrolone phenylpropionate (NPP), two women drew on their expertise and experiences to make specific recommendations: Gains are awesome but hard to keep after. Sides I experienced—voice change, facial not go back to normal after btw). Never was able to retain the gains after a cycle. I’ve cycled it 3 times and will never use again. My dose was 10mg every 3 days. I will stick with Var, gh and primo now. My advice if you decide to run it, if sides are too much, drop that shit. Some sides will become irreversible. Keep that in mind. And good luck!!! (SideWatch) Females, I recommend a dose between 30mg–50mg per week split into doses taken every 3 days. Run it typically 8–12 weeks. Keep your diet super clean. (IronLady)

This type of coaching indicates not only (potential) side effects, but also how use strategies are discussed on the forum. Women are offering and receiving support for their goals as well as normalising women’s use, bodies, and muscularity. These discussions evolved into a more focused discussion on diet, goals, body ideals, and how to reach sought-for goals (Huang & Basaria, 2018). In this section we have shown how such a culture of support and coaching was driven by women’s fellowship and how women exerted their own expertise to bolster other women’s ambitions. In doing so, the women-only forum helps not only to challenge conventional and male-centred understandings of IPED use, but also creates a narrative/lens through which women’s experiences and knowledge can be presented and debated “uninterrupted.” As the women cannot and are not interested in applying ethnopharmacological knowledge created

5  Tales from a Women-Only Forum 

103

in reference to men and male bodies, they instead have initiated the formation of a women-centred ethnopharmacology. Sex-specific knowledge and experiences of the drugs and their impacts can then be diffused among the members, introducing a kind of “sis-science” (Andreasson & Henning, 2022; Sverkersson et al., 2020).

Conclusions Felski (1995) suggested that our understanding of history and culture is shaped by the explanatory logic of narrative, which houses power and gender norms. In this chapter we have shown that the women-only forum on MESO-Rx provides a communicative and narrative space in which women and their views and experiences are centred. This not only allows women to connect with one another directly—avoiding having their voices drowned out by men and heterosexist and misogynistic discourses (Henning & Andreasson, 2021)—but it also enables a new women’s doping community to form. First-hand knowledge is disseminated or diffused by women sharing their own courses, results, and ways of managing effects, all of which contribute to a foundation for a women’s ethnopharmacological culture. In such an exclusive space, women are no longer interlopers or exceptions. Instead, women become the standard and their bodies and experiences become the “unspoken” norm in debates and discussions. Women are further able to legitimise themselves as experts in this realm, asserting their knowledge in the form of direct advice to other women on dosing and use practices. By taking up such “coaching” positions, women are also staking their claims as experts on this topic and empowering other women to redefine and work towards new goals. Actively engaging as experts and sharing experience and advice also helps sever the grip masculinity has had on muscularity/doping, aided by simply bracketing men’s voices out of discussions. Men’s experiences and insights may still have value, but they are no longer the only legitimate arbiters of doping or muscle building. More importantly, and in contrast to previous research (Christiansen, 2020; Henning & Andreasson, 2021; Sverkersson et al., 2020), we can

104 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

see how women are actively creating their own narrative of IPEDs and muscle building (see Felski, 1995). Rather than being an adjunct to male-­ centred narratives of IPEDs and muscularity, women on the women-only forum are co-creating a narrative in which use and practices are debated in terms of health, harm reduction, identity, and body ideals. These narratives are also important for what they do not include, such as a focus on maintaining normative femininity or heterosexual attractiveness. This has implications for the formation and development of this community, as well as the further development of a “sis-science” based on women’s knowledge and experience. Women can speak and interact without interruption from men, allowing them to potentially halt the processes of othering women’s bodies and remake them according to women-led narratives derived from this community. Indeed, some women accepted or pushed acceptance of (initially thought to be) masculinising effects as part of being a woman who uses IPEDs. This acceptance in some ways sets a new standard for women in this community based on the lived experiences of its members that goes beyond hegemonic norms of masculinity and emphasised femininity. Of course, we cannot totally separate this forum from broader social structures and patterns of hegemonic masculinity. However, in this exclusive preserve women are challenging these—intentionally or not—while building and reinforcing women’s experiences, bodies, and expertise as the standard within this developing sis-community. Although the chapter does not analyse the women’s individual experiences or impacts of their specific characteristics and motivations, it shows the importance of moving beyond hegemonic conceptualisations of femininity in order to understand the ongoing socio-cultural changes to the gender balance of IPED use, in part by analysing women’s doping and muscle building on women’s own terms. In the next chapter we will turn our interest to men users and how they negotiate the effects of the drugs.

5  Tales from a Women-Only Forum 

105

References Ahmed, S. (2006). Queer phenomenology. Orientations, objects, others. Duke University Press. Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2022). Challenging hegemony through narrative: Centering women’s experiences and establishing a sis-science culture through a women-only doping forum. Communication & Sport, 10(4), 708–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795211000657 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2016). Online doping. The new self-help culture of ethnopharmacology. Sport in Society, 19(7), 957–972. https://doi. org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1096246 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2021). Negotiating female fitness doping: Gender, identity and transgressions. Sport in Society, 24(3), 323–339. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2019.1672152 Bilgrei, O. R. (2018). Broscience: Creating trust in online drug communities. New Media and Society, 20(8), 2712–2727. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444817730331 Bunsell, T. (2013). Strong hard women. Routledge. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. Routledge. Christiansen, A.  V. (2020). Gym culture, identity and performance-enhancing drugs: Tracing a typology of steroid use. Routledge. Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0891243205278639 Connell, R. W. (2020). Masculinities. Routledge. Felski, R. (1995). The gender of modernity. Harvard University Press. Grogan, S., Evans, R., Wright, S., & Hunter, G. (2004). Femininity and muscularity: Accounts of seven women body builders. Journal of Gender Studies, 13(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958923032000184970 Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge. Haraway, D. (1997). Modest−Witness@Second−Millennium.FemaleMan−Meets− OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. Routledge. Havnes, I. A., Jørstad, M. L., Innerdal, I., & Bjørnebekk, A. (2021). Anabolic-­ androgenic steroid use among women—A qualitative study on experiences of masculinizing, gonadal and sexual effects. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 95, 102876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102876

106 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Haywood, C., Johansson, T., Hammarén, N., Herz, M., & Ottemo, A. (2017). The conundrum of masculinity: Hegemony, homosociality, homophobia and heteronormativity. Routledge. Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. Feminist Theory, 5(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700104040813 Henning, A., & Andreasson, J. (2021). “Yay, another lady starting a log!”: Women’s fitness doping and the gendered space of an online doping forum. Communication & Sport, 9(6), 988–1007. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2167479519896326 Henning, A., & Dimeo, P. (2022). Doping: A sporting history. Reaktion Books. Huang, G., & Basaria, S. (2018). Do anabolic-androgenic steroids have performance-­enhancing effects in female athletes? Molecular and cellular endocrinology, 464, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2017.07.010 Jespersen, M. R. (2013). “Definitely not for women”: An online community’s reflections on women’s use of performance enhancing drugs. In J. Tolleneer, S. Sterckz, & P. Bonte (Eds.), Athletic enhancement, human nature and ethics. Threats and opportunities of doping technologies (pp. 201–218). Springer. Klein, A. M. (1993). Little big men: Bodybuilding subculture and gender construction. Suny Press. Kotzé, J., Richardson, A., & Antonopoulos, G. A. (2020). Looking ‘acceptably’ feminine: A single case study of a female bodybuilder’s use of steroids. Performance Enhancement and Health, 8(2–3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. peh.2020.100174 McDermott, L. (1996). Toward a feminist understanding of physicality within the context of women’s physically active and sporting lives. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.13.1.12 McGrath, S. A., & Chananie-Hill, R. A. (2009). ‘Big freaky-looking women’: Normalizing gender transgression through bodybuilding. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(2), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.26.2.235 Monaghan, L. F. (2001). Bodybuilding, drugs and risk. Health, risk and society. Routledge. Monaghan, L. F. (2012). Accounting for illicit steroid use: Bodybuilders’ justifications. In A. Locks & N. Richardson (Eds.), Critical readings in bodybuilding (pp. 73–90). Routledge. Mosse, G. (1999). The image of man. The creation of modern masculinity. Oxford University Press.

5  Tales from a Women-Only Forum 

107

Mulrooney, K.  J. D., van de Ven, K., McVeigh, J., & Collins, R. (2019). Commentary: Steroid madness—has the dark side of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) been over-stated? Performance Enhancement and Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2019.03.001 Roth, A., & Basow, S. A. (2004). Femininity, sports, and feminism: Developing a theory of physical liberation. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28(3), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723504266990 Smith, A. C. T., & Stewart, B. (2012). Body perceptions and health behaviors in an online bodybuilding community. Qualitative Health Research, 22(7), 971–985. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312443425 Sverkersson, E. (2022). ‘I’m quite tired of people saying that I don’t do enough or know anything’: Male hegemony and resistance in the context of women’s online communication on doping. Sport in Society, 25(6), 1176–1192. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2022.2064107 Sverkersson, E., Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2020). ‘Sis science’ and fitness doping: Ethnopharmacology, gender and risk. Social Sciences, 9(4), 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9040055 Thualagant, N. (2012). The conceptualization of fitness doping and its limitations. Sport in Society, 15(3), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743043 7.2012.653209 Underwood, M. (2017). Exploring the social lives of image and performance enhancing drugs: An online ethnography of the Zyzz fandom of recreational bodybuilders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 39, 78–85. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.08.012 Underwood, M., & Olson, R. (2019). ‘Manly tears exploded from my eyes, lets feel together brahs’: Emotion and masculinity within an online body building community. Journal of Sociology, 55(1), 90–107. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1440783318766610 Van Hout, M. C., & Hearne, E. (2016). Netnography of female use of the synthetic growth hormone CJC-1295: Pulses and potions. Substance Use and Misuse, 51(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2015.1082595 Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.

6 Masculinities Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling Down the Rabbit Fuck Hole”

Introduction In Testosterone Dreams, John Hoberman (2005) focused on the hormone testosterone and its derivatives, known as anabolic-androgenic steroids, to sketch a history of how hormone treatments have been used to form not only lifestyles and identities, but also as a means of producing social and cultural stability (Van de Ven et al., 2019). Hoberman suggested that image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs), through processes of medicalisation of society (Conrad, 2007), historically have served to “reinforce normality” (Hoberman, 2005, p. 16). IPEDs have aided people in enhancing or restoring human capacities in different social and cultural spheres of society, such as increasing workplace productivity, improving soldiers’ stamina, in sexual encounters, as treatment for frigidity, and more. At the same time, the idea of medically reinforcing normality also creates a paradox and an uncertainty about what is “normal” or realistic to expect and what is not. Engaging in IPED use may therefore be understood as a quest for reaching “normality,” as well as an endeavour down a rabbit hole where fantasies of promised sexual energy/ stimulation, hyper-masculinity, out-of-this-world performances, and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Andreasson, A. Henning, Online Doping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30272-5_6

109

110 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

more are sought and possibly met (Herbert, 2017; Hoberman, 2005; Waddington & Smith, 2000). Seemingly, one can never totally escape or eliminate dreams and fantasies, nor prevent them from impacting or cutting into daily life and the formation of lifestyles and cultures. This has been vividly addressed and described by writers such as Lewis Carroll, J.M. Barrie, and C.S. Lewis. Limitations or hardships in “the real” are often taken as the point of departure in literature where people enter fantasylands to escape their life predicaments, or, to some extent, to reach an imagined normality. For example, in the classic Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (1993), Young Alice was feeling bored and dreamy when she noticed a clothed white rabbit, whom she followed down the rabbit hole into a subterranean fantasy world. Initially, she could not get into this world as she first must pass through a small door. Soon she found a bottle that read “Drink me!” and when she followed the advice she shrank, went through the door, and her adventure began. Alice’s undertaking, and the interconnectedness between her dull daily life and what happens in her fantasy, symbolically resonates with how IPED use has been approached and understood: that one must change the body to experience the fantasy, engage in an adventure, and fulfilling, in the case of IPED use, “testosterone dreams.” Further, it is symbolically illustrative for how the interconnectedness between online practices and offline realities may play out in daily life. As shown in previous chapters, online communities can serve as a space where people can discuss and share their experiences of IPEDs and upload pictures of their results and inspirational images for others, contributing to the ongoing production of doped bodies and experiences (Andreasson & Henning, 2021; Andreasson & Johansson, 2016; Smith & Stewart, 2012; Underwood, 2017). Adding to this, in the online arena the separation between a temporarily shredded, hegemonically masculine, and sexualised body on the one hand and the construction of the hyper-sexual and -masculine fantasy on the other becomes anything but clear cut, as touched upon in Chap. 4. The focus of this chapter lies in the intersection of IPED using men’s internal discussions and anticipations connected to their drug use practices, and their aspirations for “external” experiences of sexual encounters

6  Masculinities Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling… 

111

and intimate relationships. More precisely, the aim of the chapter is to investigate the relationship between, on the one hand, doped and spectacular masculinities as they are presented and constructed in and through an online doping community and, on the other, community members’ experiences of side effects of the doped body, its social consequences, and “the real.” As in previous chapters, we have gathered data from the website MESO-Rx.1 We argue that anticipations of and effects from IPEDs can bring forward alternative ways of enacting doping masculinity and sexuality in the context of online communication, while also blurring the lines between fantasies and lived experiences. This includes experiencing side effects of the drugs and their impact on intimate relationships.

From Harm and Pleasure Perspectives... In the scholarly debate, fulfilling dreams through IPED use has mainly been connected to ideals of bulging muscles, masculinity, and sexual virility (Andreasson, 2015; Klein, 1993; Monaghan, 2001). Indeed, there is historical continuity in how sociologists and historians have suggested that the desire to improve one’s social status is one of the most important factors in men’s engagement in IPED use, usually meaning men aim for or fantasise about bigger muscles in line with prevailing norms of heteronormative masculinity (Christiansen, 2020; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Holt et al., 2009). Although scholars have discussed the interrelatedness of enhanced muscularity, masculinity, and sexual virility through IPED use this field of knowledge has been largely dominated by the “narrative of harm” in recent decades (Mulrooney et al., 2019). In contrast to historical explorations of how IPEDs could be used for productive purposes (i.e., combat fatigue), contemporary perspectives have thus zoomed in on and been debated within a pathology paradigm (Moore, 2008) in media and political discourses (Gorman, 2017; Soni & Nasrulla, 2018), as well as by scholars (Mullen et  al., 2020). Indeed, steroid use has often been  This chapter builds upon data previously presented in Andreasson and Henning (2022). New data has however been added and the text revised to suit the overall aims with the book.

1

112 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

discussed in terms of hyper-masculine positions and subcultural values including heterosexism and homophobia (Christiansen, 2020; Denham, 2008; Jordan-Young & Karkazis, 2019). It has also been suggested that IPEDs can lead to serious physical and mental health problems, such as increased irritability, depression, cardiovascular disease, testicular atrophy, acne, and more (Pope et al., 2014; Rasmussen et al., 2016, 2018). Following this, IPEDs and their use have been repeatedly problematised and discussed in terms of (hyper)masculinities (Andreasson & Johansson, 2016; Denham, 2008). However, and in contrast to the narrative of harm, other competing perspectives have gradually gained ground within the sociological literature on IPED use (Zahnow et al., 2018). The interdependent relationship between user experiences and their sometimes vibrant and imaginative anticipation and ways of thinking about IPEDs has been found in the scholarly debate around the narrative of harm, as well as more recently in discussions of IPEDs for pleasure and recreation. Underwood (2017), for example, focused on the thousands of recreational muscle builders who formed an online community that idolised Zyzz (see Chap. 4), who was known for his ability to combine a “shredded” body with a vibrant party lifestyle. In her study, Underwood approached IPEDs largely as a social experience (see also Whyte et al., 2002) and showed how community members talked about, idolised, and dreamed of the perfect body and lifestyle, which Zyzz both symbolised and embodied. Closing in on this dream, they hoped to gain social benefits, such as dominance over other men and women. Implicitly, this study thus addressed the fantasy of getting the coveted shredded body and how it is connected to ideas about reaping social and sexual benefits in daily life, both online and offline. In a similar vein, scholars have debated the benefits of using testosterone to treat diminished energy, muscle strength, and physical function among elder men. Situated outside the paradigm of harm, these studies indicate not only the potential benefits for older men following their increased muscle strength (Hsu et al., 2018; Sheffield-Moore et al., 2011), but also diversity found within doping demographics. Increasingly, scholars have recognised that there is substantial variability in terms of motives and experiences among IPED users and in the transformative nature of the drugs themselves. As suggested by Mulrooney

6  Masculinities Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling… 

113

et al. (2019, p. 101) there is a need to not only debate IPED use within the narrative of harm (such as in sport or as a public health issue), but also in terms of pleasure and recreation, as “pleasure is an essential part of a coherent and reasoned response to steroid consumption.” Still, scholars’ interest in the pleasures of IPEDs is limited. Further, pleasure and harm are still discussed as separate, and often conflicting, perspectives or paradigms for understanding IPEDs and their use. However, in this chapter we argue that pleasure and harm are not mutually exclusive. Rather, to begin to implode the distinction between harm and pleasure, we offer a different approach incorporating the harm/pleasure perspectives that focus on the interrelatedness of fantasy and the real. In doing so, we will to some extent bracket the hegemonic distinction between harm and pleasure, found in the scholarly debate.

...to the Interface Between the Spectacle and the Real Though scholars have discussed and analysed the relationship between IPED use and masculinity extensively, we still know little about how such gendered understandings of IPED use intersect with anticipations and even fantasies of the drugs, their effects on sexuality, and questions concerning relationships (Andreasson & Johansson, 2021). Aiming to explore the ambivalent and sometimes contradictory aspects of IPED use in relation to masculinity and sexuality, we draw on the thoughts and theories of Debord (2012) and his Situationist work on the relationship between the Spectacle and the Real as an initial and coarse-grained framework for understanding the relationship between fantasy and reality. Debord used these concepts to develop his critique of contemporary consumer culture and commodity fetishism, dealing with issues such as media representations, alienation, and mass communication. According to Debord, the Spectacle can be understood not so much as a collection of images, but rather how social relationships between people are mediated or formed by images or even imageries. Imageries of digital bodies were somewhat ever present in doping communities analysed in Chap. 4,

114 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

for example. The Spectacle represents, in a way, the unreality of life, and tends to monopolise truth. Images and imageries can become formative for how individuals think and act upon certain ideas or understandings of the potentiality of IPEDs. Accordingly, individuals, in this case IPED users, may sometimes find themselves more in tune with the spectacular and hyper-real world (found in an online community) than with the physicality of daily life. Such a condition, however, tends to produce a longing for the “real.” The Spectacle can to some extent be understood as temporal. Fantasies may be formative but often, at one point or another, they clash against a reality/physicality. Here, we are interested in the conflation of the Spectacle with the Real as IPED users discuss drugs, masculinity, sexuality, social relationships, and more in the context of online communication. To produce a more fine-grained framework, we situate the tools provided by Debord within an analytical discussion on masculinity and heteronormativity, and how stability and change have been theorised by gender scholars. There is, of course, an ongoing debate about reconfigurations and redefinitions of masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005), although largely there is agreement that there are different ways of doing masculinity (Haywood et  al., 2017). We focus on how dynamic relationships, and gendered understandings in particular, play out in the intersection between the Spectacle and the Real. These may be expressed in such forms as “accepted” and legitimate identities or alternative and even “deviant” identities (Cheng, 1999; Dahl-Michelsen & Solbrække, 2014). IPED communities may, for example, foster a form of hyper-masculinity and -sexuality, where certain stereotypical masculine (and anti-social) qualities are exaggerated, such as the emphasis on aggression, sexual virility, misogyny, and dominance over women and other subordinate men (Andreasson & Johansson, 2016; Jamison, 2006; Mosher & Sirkin, 1984; Underwood, 2017). At the same time, such identities or cultural narratives of masculinity can in fact be combined with a desire to fit into dominant gender configurations (McDowell et al., 2014). Our analysis operates on two levels. On a symbolic and cultural level, we focus on how IPED users discuss and produce images of spectacular masculinities and hyper-sexualities in the context and spatiality of the online doping ecosystem. We argue that this space facilitates the

6  Masculinities Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling… 

115

possibility of articulating ideals and desires of perfect and potent domineering masculinities, absorbing, for example, imaginaries from the porn industry (Andreasson & Johansson, 2021; Kammeyer, 2008). On a relational and subjective level, however, hypersexual and hardcore hyper-­ masculinities may lead to challenges in social life when the individual fails to achieve such imageries or follows fantasies that are unacceptable outside the doping community. This may lead to stress, anxiety, and challenges in intimate social relationships. Here, we focus on how such negotiations are played out, creating a complex web of relationships between desires, potency, and the fantasy of self-control. We analyse how IPED users present and debate their bodily surfaces and unpack their experiences, to situate these diverse masculinity configurations in the intersection between the Spectacle and the Real, and between online community ideals and offline relationships.

 yper-sexual Bodies and Spectacular H Masculinities Although most understand steroids and IPEDs in terms of muscle building, there are other effects of these drugs that have become intertwined with both muscles and masculinity that are heavily discussed on different forums. The link between steroids and sex is often understood and debated in terms of hyper-sexuality and performance-oriented masculinities: that adding steroids results in an unusually high sex drive and ability to perform (Hoberman, 2005). This belief also has roots in the experiences and anticipations reported by community members. On the MESO-Rx forums, users engaged in discussions about which substances boost sex drive. One member, HyenaSlayer, began a thread detailing his current course and how it was impacting his sex drive. He explained: Currently running 1.5ml mk677 [promotes production of growth hormone], 500 test e [testosterone enanthate] a week, 1mg arimidex ed [aromatase inhibitor], .25 caber [cabergoline, used to offset some side effects] 3 times a week and tribulus [Tribulus terrestris, supplement for improving

116 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

sex drive] sexdrive is wild. Bruh y’ll need to try it out! I could slay the ass off a raw hyena right now. (HyenaSlayer)

In response to this, other community members commented on their own experiences of steroids and sex drive. TheRock, for example, noted how a lower dose could lead to similar effects as described above, noting “damn that’s a lot of Arimidex. I’m taking .5 e every 3rd day on test e 500. Wake up every morning dick hard as a rock. Giving the old lady hell.” This description by TheRock of his erections as “hard as a rock” echoes how the built male body and musculature fuelled with IPEDs may be described. Part of this description can be situated in the realm of an ethnopharmacological subculture where different substances, their doses, effects, and more are debated (Monaghan, 2001). Through the formation of what Bilgrei (2018) describes as bro-science—a portmanteau of “brother” and “science”—ideas about IPEDs are maintained, contested, and passed on by users in discussions. Another part of this description also concerns the social construction of anticipations related to the drugs. The language used is colourful and symbolically soaked in a masculine, heteronormative, and misogynistic discourse. Achieving solid, visible muscles—a hard body—is presented as a goal in itself, but there are goals related to the sexual effects of these drugs as well, becoming “hard as rock” and “giving the old lady hell.” Within the community, it is an expanding masculinity that is being described and often sought. Descriptions of sexual experiences can become spectacles in themselves, with users describing scenarios bordering on pornographic fantasy. These are still linked directly to steroid use, further affirming the relationship between hyper-sexuality, -masculinity, and IPEDs. Indeed, some users sought out compounds or polypharmacy recommendations aimed at enhancing sexual performances thought to be out of the ordinary. This form of cultural structuration and narrative structure in discussions found on MESO-Rx was evident when one community member, Fantastic4, described an upcoming scenario, seeking information on drugs to help improve sexual stamina: I know this is a weird question. But i recently just became single and I’ve been fucking anything that moves. One of my regulars set me up with her

6  Masculinities Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling… 

117

and 3 of her friends. So we’re all gonna fuck in a pile, lol. My question is could I pin some tne [sic] before we fuck just to help keep my dick up and running strong? 4 chicks is a lot to handle at once and I wanna be able to perform, haha. (Fantastic4)

Fantastic4 highlighted the fantasy-reality divide. On one hand, he is describing a highly sexualised encounter, while on the other he is unsure and hesitant about his ability to perform or enjoy the pleasure of having sex with four women simultaneously without the aid of drugs. Besides the misogynistic discourse, Fantastic4 is acknowledging that the anticipated encounter is not the norm, while still linking IPEDs with hyper-­ sexual performance and feeding the imagery in his description. Indeed, he is seemingly also somewhat anxious about being able to live up to the fantasy in terms of his performance. He needs the substances to enter the fantasy. Another community member, NonStop, responded with a description of his experiences of TNE, short for Testosterone No Ester, an oil-based testosterone: I have used it several times and every time it was very good. Especially for porn star sex. I discovered I had to take it 4–6 hours before, so you have to plan it out a bit. I always sport the rock for 6 hrs from when it kicks in. Literally non-stop fucking. This stuff is meant for orgies and group sex and porn stars... I initially tried it for a threesome (similar situation you have, but sounds like yours is better), and holy shit it works. (NonStop)

This response distinguished between extreme sex, called “porn star sex,” and other types of presumably more routine sex. Exchanges like these on the forum further normalise the relationship between steroids and hyper-sexuality. Spectacular sex or sexual scenarios are simultaneously abnormal and common, fantasy and reality. What we see here is how sexual imaginaries, inspired by images from the porn industry, are absorbed and made part of the community narrative and drug using repertoires of the men, as well as of daily life, a process Mulholland (2013) discussed in terms of pornification. The ability to over-perform sexually is also seen as a characteristic of hyper-masculinity, which is a controlling and (over)confident gender

118 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

configuration that seems to underpin many of the shared experiences. Hyper-masculinity is represented by confidence and pride in controlling a sexual situation, setting the tone for women to follow. This, of course, underscores some of the performative nature of masculinity—no matter how one feels, they must still act in prescribed ways to maintain the façade. In this way, sex also becomes a heterosexist masculine performance and, in scenarios such as the one described above by NonStop, a spectacle in its own right. Further, by using phrases such as “hard as rock” and “porn star sex,” some of the community members inscribe themselves as part of this cultural community narrative and phenomenon. IPEDs are constructed as a vibrant ingredient in the formation of (fantasies about) spectacular hyper-masculinities and hyper-sexual, domineering bodies. In the next section, we look at how reality can remind the individual of its presence through steroid-induced dysfunction.

 oping Reality: Inability and Restored D Capacities The counterpoint to the spectacalisation of steroid-induced masculinities and sexual performances is the lived reality of being unable to perform, either at all or with some kind of limitation. Discussions of sexual dysfunction were not uncommon on the forums and there were numerous threads devoted to this steroid side effect. This inability was particularly discussed on threads by men dealing with so-called Deca-dick—not being able to get an erection as a result of using Decaduranibol—who are often looking for advice for counteracting this effect. One user, JustHanging, opened his post with “Ive gotten Deca dick” and asked about using other compounds or erectile dysfunction drugs for a quick solution. He later added a bit of context for the urgency of his situation, noting how “its just stressful like ive met this girl that I really like and she likes me and I went soft on her the first time we tried stuff like it’s that stressful just please pray for my dick to work, lol.” The anxiety around the failure to perform in this post demonstrates the importance of sexual performance both symbolically and relationally. Using Deca to improve

6  Masculinities Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling… 

119

one’s body has led to a dysfunction of that body—this is not the ideal body or lifestyle sought through enhancement drugs, neither is it the spectacular and hyper-sexual imaginary brought forward in other threads. It was also a problem for JustHanging, as he was concerned about the status of his relationship with a potential partner due to his inability to perform sexually. Like Alice in Wonderland, JustHanging sought a “drink me” solution that would change the (reality of the) body. In response to this post, some users offered advice on how to solve the problem or advised him to be upfront about the issue with his partner. Others, however, made fun of or chastised the original poster for not anticipating this well-known effect. Lmfao. The Ole Deca Dick Scenario. Sucks for You Bro. You should have had EVERYTHING needed before starting your Cycle. Some may disagree, but when I run Tren [Trenbolone] or Deca, I use Caber E3D. Never had a Problem. Now, you should try Tren, and get the Ole Tren Dick. You’ll Fuck anything in sight!!! (CaberMan)

This ethnopharmacologically informed response is really addressing the loss of control JustHanging experienced. Masculinity in this community is directly related to controlling the body and its performance through training, diet, and drugs. Loss of control here signalled that one’s masculinity is flawed or weak/soft, but also highlighted the temporality of IPED infused hyper-masculinities. CaberMan was disappointed that someone would not take the proper precautions to prevent the loss of this crucial marker of masculinity. Indeed, CaberMan presented the ability to “fuck anything” as the preferred state, underscoring the way hyper-­ sexuality as a result of these drugs underpins this version of masculinity. The interconnectedness between bro-science, masculinity, and sexuality was abundantly clear when CaberMan clarified that one should pursue a Tren-dick instead of a Deca-dick. Other issues related to drug-induced sexual performance also came up for discussion on the forums. Another community member described an issue of failing to climax during sex:

120 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

so I’m running into a problem. I can’t cum. I’d be fucking the girl for over an hour and no happy ending for me. I just finished a 6 week tren a test p cycle. Now I’m doing 250 of sust EOD [250 mg of the injectable testosterone blend Sustanon, every other day]. And also 20mg nova ed [tamoxifen, every day] for a bit to clear up some left over gyno [gynecomastia]. My boner is good. I don’t lose it. She’s cumming multiple times so I’m satisfying her which is great, I love it. What can I do for myself? (HappyEndings?)

Here, HappyEndings?’s ability to satisfy women is weighed against his inability to climax himself. Several responses noted similar issues. FeelYaBrah, for example, commented: I have had the same issue since I started running Tbol [Turanibol], Test and proviron [Mesterolone]. Not sure what the issue is. Some days are better than others but it still takes forever. (FeelYaBrah)

Both of these posts indicated contradictory feelings—and the line between the spectacle and the real. Sexual stamina, virility, and ability to satisfy partners “multiple times” are important and visible components of spectacular hyper-masculinity. However, this extreme version has become problematic, as these men were unable to achieve orgasm. Sex was described as chore-like, mechanic, something that took great effort and results in little (or greatly reduced) satisfaction. This sits in opposition to expectations of the easy and heightened sexual experiences prized and described within this community in previous section. The subversive and vulnerable nature of this discussion was captured by EnduranceMan who noted, “Just on test, I can still finish but I last way way longer and I gotta really focus. Funny thread, at least we all know we arn’t  [sic] the only ones now.” Although the discussions on MESO-Rx feed into a hegemonic cultural narrative of spectacular hyper-masculinities and -sexualities in diverse ways, this section has shown the temporality of such imaginaries. We showed how physical limitations and inabilities occurred and revealed the reality amidst the sexual spectacle among IPED using men. Consequently, what we see is an ambivalent construction of heteronormative masculinity (Garlick, 2018). A fair share of the discussions taking place on the

6  Masculinities Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling… 

121

forums is directed towards possible side effects and how these are understood. In debating the doped body and lived experiences, however, we can also see how advice given to worried individuals in this ethnopharmacological culture tends to be directed to restoring the imaginary of a hyper-sexual masculinity ready to perform. In the next section, we consider how this sexual spectacle and the sexual real are negotiated within intimate relationships.

IPEDs, Sex, and Relationships Balancing sex drive, pornographic fantasy, and lived reality can be challenging within a relationship. Men using IPEDs often must negotiate their use alongside their intimate relationships, which can lead to some problems. Some community members explain that their partners do not respond sufficiently to their increased libido due to their IPED use. Some men also seek out additional relationships or partners to satisfy their increased sexual appetites. WhatToDo noted his own struggle and wondered how others coped: Maybe I have a disorder and just don’t know it yet, but I have been on test (and other shit) for 15 years and am constantly wanting sex. My wife isn’t going to put out anymore than once-twice per week, and I don’t want to get into a long discussion about that: she’s a good woman but she’s tired as fuck. She’s fat, we have kids, it’ll get better but it’ll be a year or two. My question is have any of you turned to hookers, massage parlors, or escorts? Or is your sex drive under control? (WhatToDo)

WhatToDo seemed to understand that his heightened sex drive was the core issue, to the point of questioning if he may have a disorder, but also positioned his wife as the limiting factor who does not “put out” as often as he would like. Again, he presented conflicting masculinities. On the one hand, he was empathetic to her views and understands her reasoning, considering himself almost out of control. On the other, he considered additional partners or arrangements simply to satiate himself. This sets up pleasure (for him) leading to potential harm (for his

122 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

relationship), a difficult balance that others acknowledged. The responses to this question varied, with some disclosing strategies for finding additional partners. Several discouraged this route though, and instead encouraged WhatToDo to try to improve his sexual relationship with his partner. For example, ListMan argued for more empathy and ways to make sex more convenient and desirable for her: I’m not trying to turn the thread into a “fix your broken marriage” thing either when I say the following, this is just something that’s helped me sync up sex drives—give her a helping hand sometimes. Doing a load of laundry, or dishes, etc can make a huge difference. I’ve noticed my ladies have always had a to do list and sex is rarely at the top because they don’t think of it as often as we do. You knock some of those things off that to do list for her, sex moves up the list by default and it makes for a good emotional bond for her. (ListMan)

While this is ultimately a tactic for extracting more sex from one’s partner, ListMan was also highlighting that a caring and more gender equal masculinity can be attractive to women. This challenges the pornographic fantasy of easy sex-on-demand often linked to hyper-masculine and sexualised imaginaries but does reflect the day-to-day reality men experience within intimate relationships. Beyond physical effects of IPEDs, some forum users described social and relationship effects stemming from their use that highlight the tension between the spectacle and the real. For example, TrenDude described his feelings about a sexual experience involving his wife: Tren makes you cool with some weird shit. I convinced my wife to bang her little Asian friend together. It’s hot, but honestly not what it’s cracked up to be. Plus neither wanted to do anything together which is like half the fantasy. So, she gets the idea me and a friend should double team her. We start a group chat and sext. I’m on tren so it’s all gravy. Then you actually do it. And it’s literally just having to watch some dude get serviced by your wife while you try to stay hard enough to also service her. Once you cum it’s like pure post-fap-shame and you want to punch something, or

6  Masculinities Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling… 

123

s­ omebody. Maybe even yourself. Just... don’t do it. I feel like I need to keep taking showers. (TrenDude)

TrenDude’s description of and feelings towards sex with multiple partners was vastly different from that of NonStop above. Rather than excitement at living out a sexual fantasy, TrenDude was regretful of the decision and cautioned other men not to do the same. The fantasy had colonised the real. Now that his own sexual relationship with his wife had been pornified, the reality of his own feelings during and after the encounter was not what he imagined. What this excerpt illustrates is an example of how TrenDude is engaging in the pornification of his relationship and a sort of exoticism towards his wife’s female friend to further enhance claims of virility. It also shows how a masculine sex fantasy clashes against reality, as others have spoken about. Rather than responding to the fantasy positively or discussing it mechanically, he expressed negative feelings about the decision. Yet, despite accepting he made a bad decision, he also pointed to his use of drugs as the source of the decision itself, exemplifying how powerful IPEDs are seen in terms of fuelling the spectacle of hyper-sexual and -masculine imaginaries. Seemingly, TrenDude became more in tune with the spectacle and the unreality of life (Debord, 2012) that monopolised his thoughts and fantasies, leading him to engage in new forms of sex. Following this, however, the “awakening” when the physicality of daily life reminded him of its presence, served to produce a nostalgic longing for the real (an authentic relationship with his wife). That IPEDs can be responsible for poor sexual decisions was accepted to some extent by the other users, some who acknowledged their own or near mistakes because of the drugs and offered support for TrenDude’s feelings. One community member, CloseCall, provided the following supportive comment: “I appreciate the honesty big dog. I’m a tren whore so I can’t feel ya enough on falling down the rabbit fuck hole. Come close but never executed. Hang in there.” Again, this underscored the way sexual control is inextricably linked to hyper-masculinity. “Falling down the rabbit fuck hole” as TrendDude did is both success and failure: living out one’s fantasy is a success, part of the structure and narrative of the bro-­ science culture mediated on this forum and analysed here, but the regret represents the loss of control of one’s judgement—falling down the rabbit

124 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

hole rather than choosing to go. TrenDude became a victim of his steroid-­ induced desire, exemplifying the interrelatedness between the narrative of harm and perspectives on IPED use as pleasure.

Conclusions In this chapter, we focused on the relationship between the spectacle and the lived reality of IPEDs, specifically the tension and gap between doped masculinities as a spectacle and the lived experience of IPEDs. Although there is a degree of correspondence between how IPEDs are debated and discussed symbolically on a cultural level on the one hand, and on a subjective and relational level on the other, there is also tension between these levels. We first drew specifically on the imaginary and spectacular aspects of the drugs and the cultural structures produced through images of IPEDs, their use, and effects on MESO-Rx. Zooming in on how community members addressed IPEDs as they talked about masculinity and sexuality, it is clear that the online doping ecosystem can serve as a vibrant space for producing quite powerful imaginaries. This was highlighted in the sexualised and hyper-masculine vocabulary through which men are positioned as being in control and doped bodies are described as being “hard as rock” with “porn star” capacities. This heteronormative hyper-­ sexualisation was fully expected as part of IPED masculinity, as was the pornification of daily IPED life. Consequently, the imaginary of the IPED user was normalised within the community and made into an enjoyable contemporary spectacle. At the same time, the spectacle is temporal, and although community members tend to search for dramatised effects—dreaming testosterone dreams—it is also clear that the real does not always match or live up to the fantasy. Rather, there are quite a few narratives in which the real reminds users of its presence in the form of failed accomplishments, as when community members are unable to perform sexually or struggle to negotiate relationships when going down “the rabbit hole.” Some also described anxiety about being able to perform in hypersexual situations, again highlighting the interrelatedness between the spectacle and the real (Baudrillard, 1994; Debord, 2012). This can lead to a disconnect between

6  Masculinities Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling… 

125

the muscular bodies these men dream of and the performances those bodies are capable of—duelling spectacles of success and failure. But there is also a disconnect between what is possible in terms of performance and what decisions and behaviours are possible or acceptable within intimate relationships. This has implications for these relationships, as allowing oneself to give into IPED-fuelled sexual desires may result in fleeting pleasure but can damage authentic relationships. By interrogating this clash of the fantasy and the real—and of pleasure and harm—we showed that these are not dichotomous but are inextricably linked. As both are present in the construction and experience of each, both make up daily life for men who use IPEDs. As a result, their daily lives begin to implode these distinctions. This was revealed in the men’s discussions of what they want, expect, and fantasise about versus what they live and experience. But it also reveals a more complex masculinity taking shape in the overlap between the two: excitement, expectation, and control tempered by vulnerability, frustration, and the fear of failure and loss of control. Together, these make up an IPED masculinity that sometimes chooses to go down the rabbit hole for excitement, chasing a fantasy, and that sometimes instead falls into the very same hole but then finds it difficult to make one’s way back to the real. We continue this discussion in the next chapter as we interrogate the interconnected realities of online and offline life.

References Andreasson, J. (2015). Reconceptualising the gender of fitness doping: Performing and negotiating masculinity through drug-use practices. Social Sciences, 4(3), 546–562. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci4030546 Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2021). Challenging hegemony through narrative: Centering women’s experiences and establishing a sis-science culture through a women-only doping forum. Communication and Sport, 10(4), 708–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795211000657 Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2022). “Falling down the rabbit fuck hole”: Spectacular masculinities, hypersexuality, and the real in an online doping community. Journal of Bodies, Sexualities, and Masculinities, 3(2), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.3167/jbsm.2022.030205

126 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2016). Gender, fitness doping and the genetic max. The ambivalent construction of muscular masculinities in an online community. Social Sciences, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci5010011 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2021). Welcome to “Planet Porno”: Masculinity, sexuality, and fitness doping. Journal of Bodies, Sexualities, and Masculinities, 2(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.3167/jbsm.2021.020103 Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan press. Bilgrei, O. R. (2018). Broscience: Creating trust in online drug communities. New Media and Society, 20(8), 2712–2727. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444817730331 Carroll, L. (1993). Alice in wonderland. And ‘through the looking glass’. Macmillan Children’s Books. Cheng, C. (1999). Marginalized masculinities and hegemonic masculinity: An introduction. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 7(3), 295–315. https://doi. org/10.3149/jms.0703.295 Christiansen, A.  V. (2020). Gym culture, identity and performance-enhancing drugs: Tracing a typology of steroid use. Routledge. Connell, R.  W., & Messerschmidt, J.  W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi. org/10.1177/0891243205278639 Conrad, P. (2007). The medicalization of society. On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Dahl-Michelsen, T., & Solbrække, K.  N. (2014). When bodies matter: Significance of the body in gender constructions in physiotherapy education. Gender and Education, 26(6), 672–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954025 3.2014.946475 Debord, G. (2012). Society of the spectacle. Bread and Circuses. Denham, B.  E. (2008). Masculinities in hardcore bodybuilding. Men and Masculinities, 11(2), 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X07304809 Garlick, S. (2018). The nature of masculinity: Critical theory, new materialisms, and technologies of embodiment. University of British Columbia Press. Gorman, G. (2017, June 12). The deadly crusade to get ripped. New York Post. Retrieved 2022-10-04 at: https://nypost.com/2017/06/12/ the-­deadly-­crusade-­to-­get-­ripped/ Haywood, C., Johansson, T., Hammarén, N., Herz, M., & Ottemo, A. (2017). The conundrum of masculinity: Hegemony, homosociality, homophobia and heteronormativity. Routledge.

6  Masculinities Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling… 

127

Herbert, J. (2017). Testosterone. The molecule behind power, sex, and the will to win. Oxford University Press. Hoberman, J. (2005). Testosterone dreams: Rejuvenation, aphrodisia, doping. University of California Press. Holt, R. I., Erotokritou-Mulligan, I., & Sönksen, P. H. (2009). The history of doping and growth hormone abuse in sport. Growth Hormone & IGF Research, 19(4), 320–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ghir.2009.04.009 Hsu, B., Cumming, R. G., & Handelsman, D. J. (2018). Testosterone, frailty and physical function in older men. Expert Review of Endocrinology & Metabolism, 13(3), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/1744665 1.2018.1475227 Jamison, D. F. (2006). The relationship between African self-consciousness, cultural misorientation, hypermasculinity, and rap music preference. Journal of African American Studies, 9(4), 45–60. Jordan-Young, R., & Karkazis, K. (2019). Testosterone. An unauthorized biography. Harvard University Press. Kammeyer, K. (2008). A hypersexual society: Sexual discourse, erotica, and pornography in America today. Palgrave Macmillan. Klein, A. M. (1993). Little big men: Bodybuilding subculture and gender construction. Suny Press. McDowell, L., Rootham, E., & Hardgrove, A. (2014). Precarious work, protest masculinity and communal regulation: South Asian young men in Luton, UK. Work, Employment and Society, 28(6), 847–864. https://doi. org/10.1177/0950017013510757 Monaghan, L. F. (2001). Bodybuilding, drugs and risk. Health, risk and society. Routledge. Moore, D. (2008). Erasing pleasure from public discourse on illicit drugs: On the creation and reproduction of an absence. International Journal of Drug Policy, 19(5), 353–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.07.004 Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18(2), 150–163. https://doi. org/10.1016/0092-­6566(84)90026-­6 Mulholland, M. (2013). Young people and pornography: Negotiating pornification. Palgrave Macmillan. Mullen, C., Whalley, B. J., Schifano, F., & Baker, J. S. (2020). Anabolic androgenic steroid abuse in the United Kingdom: An update. British Journal of Pharmacology, 177(10), 2180–2198. https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.14995

128 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Mulrooney, K.  J. D., van de Ven, K., McVeigh, J., & Collins, R. (2019). Commentary: Steroid madness—has the dark side of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) been over-stated? Performance Enhancement and Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2019.03.001 Pope, H. G., Wood, R. I., Rogol, A., Nyberg, F., Bowers, L., & Bhasin, S. (2014). Adverse health consequences of performance-enhancing drugs: An Endocrine Society scientific statement. Endocrine Reviews, 35(3), 341–375. https://doi. org/10.1210/er.2013-­1058 Rasmussen, J. J., Schou, M., Madsen, P. L., Selmer, C., Johansen, M. L., Hovind, P., Ulriksen, P. S., Faber, J., Gustafsson, F., & Kistorp, C. (2018). Increased blood pressure and aortic stiffness among abusers of anabolic androgenic steroids: Potential effect of suppressed natriuretic peptides in plasma? Journal of Hypertension, 36(2), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1097/ HJH.0000000000001546 Rasmussen, J.  J., Selmer, C., Østergren, P.  B., Pedersen, K.  B., Schou, M., Gustafsson, F., Faber, J., Juul, A., & Kistorp, C. (2016). Former abusers of anabolic androgenic steroids exhibit decreased testosterone levels and hypogonadal symptoms years after cessation: A case-control study. PLoS One, 11(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161208 Sheffield-Moore, M., Dillon, E. L., Casperson, S. L., Gilkison, C. R., Paddon-­ Jones, D., Durham, W. J., Grady, J. J., & Urban, R. J. (2011). A randomized pilot study of monthly cycled testosterone replacement or continuous testosterone replacement versus placebo in older men. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 96(11), 1831–1837. https://doi.org/10.1210/ jc.2011-­1262 Smith, A. C. T., & Stewart, B. (2012). Body perceptions and health behaviors in an online bodybuilding community. Qualitative Health Research, 22(7), 971–985. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312443425 Soni, A., & Nasrulla, F. (2018). Be careful of these instant muscle builders: The Tribune India. Retrieved 2022-10-04 at: https://www.tribuneindia.com/ news/archive/features/be-­careful-­ofthese-­instant-­muscle-­builders-­631509 Underwood, M. (2017). Exploring the social lives of image and performance enhancing drugs: An online ethnography of the Zyzz fandom of recreational bodybuilders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 39, 78–85. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.08.012 Van de Ven, K., Mulrooney, K. J., & McVeigh, J. (2019). Human enhancement drugs. Routledge.

6  Masculinities Between Fantasy and the Real: “Falling… 

129

Waddington, I., & Smith, A. (2000). Sport, health and drugs: A critical sociological perspective. Routledge. Whyte, S. R., Van der Geest, S., & Hardon, A. (2002). The social lives of medicines. Cambridge University Press. Zahnow, R., McVeigh, J., Bates, G., Hope, V., Kean, J., Campbell, J., & Smith, J. (2018). Identifying a typology of men who use anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS). International Journal of Drug Policy, 55, 105–112. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.02.022

7 Transcending Online and Offline Doping

Online and offline are more interlinked than ever, giving way to a type of interconnection that in some instances may nearly erase lines between the two. We see this happen in our everyday lives: the evening email from our boss makes us grumpy during dinner; the meme our pal texts us makes us laugh loudly on the train, disturbing those in the carriage with us; the comments on the Instagram reel featuring a new recipe we posted give us a new idea for tomorrow’s lunch; in a moment of annoyance with a friend we Tweet about it, leading to an argument in the replies and cancelling our lunch date next week. Many would recognise this in how they are tethered to their smartphone or laptop, regularly uploading and downloading and checking in and out of email, electronic calendars, text messages, and social media apps throughout their day. In each instance, what happens in one environment impacts and even shapes what happens in the other to a greater or lesser extent. Some may be short lived, while others result in multiple interactions between digital and physical that continue for weeks, months, even years, forming perceptions and behaviours along the way. The temptation when looking at doping is to separate it into various contexts (i.e., sport or fitness; online or offline) and approach the populations within each as discreet and contextually bound. But the boundaries © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Andreasson, A. Henning, Online Doping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30272-5_7

131

132 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

between each are not so clear and often overlap with one another in complex ways—anti-doping policies in sport may have knock-­on effects for some national-level drug policies affecting gym-goers; an individual on a doping forum looking for advice to build muscle for aesthetic purposes might also be an amateur athlete (Andreasson & Henning, 2021). As we have shown in the preceding chapters, doping—as a practice and a phenomenon—is not limited to a single context, community, motivation, or form. Similarly, doped bodies are not limited to (male) athletes seeking a competitive edge or bodybuilders trying to achieve an ideal form (Christiansen, 2020; Mulrooney et al., 2019). Building on these insights, this chapter aims to illustrate and analyse the interconnections between offline (physical) and online (digital) doping. In this chapter we argue that doping and doped bodies transcend contextual bounds and rigidities, particularly of online and offline. Doping exists as both a physical and digital practice, simultaneously impacted by and having impact on both online and offline environments. Neither are doped bodies one or the other, they are both flesh and digital discourse. We can no longer separate doping into two, in the same way that Haraway (1988) argued the physical body has melded with technology. There are several arenas in which we can see how doping as lived experience and as a phenomenon has achieved this transcendence. The chapter is structured as follows. First, we briefly outline how we approach doping as transcendent. Then we consider the tensions between risk and enabling environments, and how interconnected milieus including online, offline, sport, and fitness support the digital doping ecosystem. Next, we consider discussions on Flashback about anti-doping laws in Sweden that show how the national policy environment impacts online discussions, which then impact both online and offline behaviours. Finally, we examine two bodies and communities we introduced in previous chapters—Arnold Schwarzenegger and Zyzz—to examine the dynamic interplay between physical and digital bodies and how individual and community narratives are impacted by both. The chapter concludes with a few conceptual takeaways.

7  Transcending Online and Offline Doping 

133

The Ontological Turn and Doping As mentioned, academics have generally approached studies of doping as an either/or proposition when it comes to environment: it is either researched as a wholly offline phenomenon, or it is a topic of online discussion. Though both approaches can give us insights into some important aspects of doping, they cannot capture a fuller picture of IPED users or of doping  as a phenomenon. Studies that approach doping as both something that occurs offline and online are much rarer (Andreasson & Henning, 2021; Turnock, 2021). This belies the fluidity of doping and doped bodies, and that both exist simultaneously in both offline and online context. Crucially, this separation also tends to prioritise one as the “real” world (usually the physical world) and the other (usually the digital/virtual) as unreal. Such a hierarchical arrangement of the “real” in terms of the physical and the digital (as oppositional) has been theorised via the ontological turn (Boellstorff, 2016). This turn, which aims to better understand differences by departing from shared reality (i.e., a cloud exists in the world no matter the different meanings any individual or culture may apply to it), can help bridge the gap between the digital and the physical, and expand contemporary social theory on the role of technology in human life. The risk of misunderstanding that one exists only in service to the other that is the more “real” is thus replaced by an understanding of both as real and interconnected. Boellstorff argued: The digital is not linked to the real because it “simulates” the physical: many forms of online practice and sociality are unconcerned with simulation. Indeed, we live in a world where it is quite common for the physical to simulate the digital, as in forms of offline social interaction that draw norms, assumptions, or even networks from the online (like a “meet up” of persons in the physical world whose primary interactions are digital). The category of the real is not a point of distinction between the digital and the physical…either can possess it. (Boellstorff, 2016, p. 397)

This clarifies doping as something (a phenomenon and practice) that transcends the online/offline divide. Doping cannot be pinned down to

134 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

any single context, as may have been possible in the pre-digital past. Doping is real in both the physical (e.g., substances put into the body) and digital worlds (e.g., finding and ordering a substance from an online dealer) and what happens in one also happens in the other. The behaviours, effects, impacts, responses, and so on are all real and they are all interlinked and intertwined across and between online and offline. Thus, “we live in a digital age where the relations between online and offline impacts on everything” (ibid.). Taken together, these then help shape and uphold the digital doping ecosystem. Departing from the idea of an ontological turn we illustrate the transcendent “nature” of online/offline doping in the following sections.

Risk and Enabling, Online and Off Anti-doping policies are often associated directly with sport, particularly given the role of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) that governs anti-doping globally (Evans-Brown et  al., 2012; WADA, 2021). But anti-doping strategies have been adopted by countries as well, leading to a difference in laws that apply outside of sport about which IPEDs and related behaviours are legal. These differences can also set up  varying types and levels of risk, impacting the overall risk environment (Rhodes, 2002, 2009). Many countries have policies regulating how IPEDs may be accessed (i.e., prescription only, over the counter) and several countries have national laws that prohibit doping specifically. Often, these policies are based on the WADA Code. Sweden is one country that has criminalised doping, including sale, purchase, possession, and even use (Andreasson & Henning, 2019; Swedish National Institute of Public Health, 2011). This criminalised policy context—which is similar to the prohibitive policy context overseen by WADA in sport—has created a risk environment that puts individuals who use IPEDs at risk of physical, social, economic, and political harms (Henning & Andreasson, 2022; Henning et al., 2021). In response, athletes and others who use IPEDs have found ways around such prohibitions to enable their own and other community members’ use.

7  Transcending Online and Offline Doping 

135

No matter the policy context, users, both novice and experienced, will need to decide on the most appropriate substances and doses to meet their particular goals, as well as learn how to handle different modes of use (i.e., injecting vs. oral) and how to navigate or prevent side effects. There are several potential sources of lay expertise in offline social networks, including from peers, trainers, or managers at local gyms (Harvey et  al., 2020; Kimergård & McVeigh, 2014; Rowe et  al., 2017). Criminalised contexts present challenges for this kind of offline social support, as individuals likely cannot discuss their use publicly, even in fitness settings (Andreasson & Johansson, 2016). This makes DIY harm reduction necessary, and online forums are one place where users may get such information and support (Harvey et al., 2019). Such interventions can then allow online forums to become enabling environments, in which safer use is enabled through the reduction of various forms of risk. In some ways this seems to suggest regarding the offline context as the risk environment and the online as the enabling. However, as Duff (2010) argued, these environments should be considered together as they co-­ exist and are constantly co-producing one another. Together, these then produce doping behaviours and practices. Prohibitive or criminalised anti-doping environments produce a range of risks for people who use these substances. Apart from physical risks associated with use, these are largely related to use being discovered and may include social isolation from family and friends, economic sanctions in terms of a fine or loss of employment, or engagement with the criminal justice system. Such systems may also prevent harm reduction, either formally or informally, which may lead people using IPEDs to go online for this support. Policy environments that are less restrictive may allow for more offline harm reduction, but any remaining prohibitions or stigma still carry risk. In both environments, IPED users may turn to online communities that often centre on the dual goals of reducing harm and enabling use, including providing anonymity and protection from their use being linked back to them. As part of enabling, these may also function as markets for sale and purchase of IPEDs (Antonopoulos & Hall, 2016; Turnock, 2021). Actual physical use of these substances is still risky in any policy context and online forums may contribute to normalisation of those risks (Andreasson & Johansson, 2016). Further blurring the line

136 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

between online and offline is the cyclical pattern of offline use coming back online through further posting of results of use and engagement with other users. In short, online experiences inform offline, which then re-informs the online. Given the direct connection and relationship between the two contexts, it becomes difficult to disentangle them as they do indeed co-­ produce doping and community narratives of doping through their seesawing tension. As we discuss in the next section, this dynamic can lead to a type of pragmatism for managing risk that builds community and extends across doping (online and offline) environments.

Offline Realities, Online Responses One key aspect of IPED use involves obtaining substances. It is not unusual for this process to be carried out in the online marketplace with the aid of discussion forums and peer support (Turnock, 2021). As we discussed in Chap. 3, one of the key functions of online forums can be harm reduction through threads and posts showing IPED testing results and rating the reliability of various online distributors. Risk reduction around accessing and possessing substances can be even more crucial in a criminalised context, such as Sweden, as strategies beyond simply securing a reliable supply are necessary to avoid detection by authorities. In these cases, it is necessary to also mitigate the risks related to being a doped body. Almost as important is avoiding the social consequences that can result from friends, family, co-workers, and so on finding out about an individual’s IPED use. In contrast to the most often supportive attitudes found on Flashback, attitudes of the Swedish public towards IPEDs are characterised by distrust and dislike. This is further incentive for Swedish IPED users to hide their habits to avoid the stigma attached to use. This requirement highlights the interaction and connection between online and offline lives and lifestyles, as well as the interrelatedness between prevention and harm reduction strategies related to IPED use. Members of Flashback understand the criminalised policy environment situation and often support one another in their pursuit of IPEDs

7  Transcending Online and Offline Doping 

137

online. This legitimises and enables use in an otherwise hostile environment in which prevention is constructed as paramount. Although some of the threads deal with the contradictory emotions involved in this activity, using IPEDs is not significantly problematised on the forum. This is possibly surprising, given choices of steroids, doses, and more certainly are critiqued and debated. Instead, the discussions seem to be characterised mainly by a pragmatic approach focused more on harm reduction and the process of doing rather than philosophising about the feelings behind the choice. This pragmatism is part of the legitimising process and reduces the effectiveness of the social control wielded by the government and other authorities. In this way, learning the trade and the community trajectory to drug use that is taking form follows a familiar path to that found in the deviant careers literature (Becker, 1953; Monaghan, 2012; Myers, 1992). Community members first formulate arguments that seek to limit the threats from authorities, followed by establishing an interdependence among community members to ensure supplies can be distributed. As with many such careers, particularly in a criminalised context, challenges arise that might kickstart these processes. One community member expressed his worries about a situation the previous day: Yesterday I was at this bar. When I was leaving I happened to bump into this guy who fell to the ground. Then two guards jumped on me from behind. Two police officers arrive and take me in custody, and drove me to a cell to sober up. I have to do a piss test. When I’m released some six hours later one of the officers asked me about the pink pills in my snuffbox. I tell them I have no idea. It was two dianabol btw. Is there someone who knows what will happen now? Two pieces of dianabol, can that render in a search in my home? (NowWhat)

Another community member responded: That can happen for sure, that they will do a search. These are harsh times, it’s hard for all dopers. Why did the guards jump you? What did you do? (HarshReality)

138 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Through these and other posts, Flashback members are establishing a sense of a community identity. They are formulating a joint understanding of what is taking place within the forum, as well as within the offline environment. For HarshReality the guards attacking a fellow doper is part of a larger picture where dopers are always suspicious and may sometimes be attacked. NowWhat continued to contextualise his situation further in another post: Okay, so this is what happened. It has now been explained to me by others. I was at this place in a small town. I am quite big. I was there with some friends who have talked too much. They talked a lot about me. Small town, people didn’t know me. The word spread. The guards, who hardly are clean themselves, basically wanted to give me a good beat up. I left the bar around two. And when I left they jumped me from behind. Not any small fellas either. (NowWhat)

Despite the common knowledge and acceptance that steroids are illegal in Sweden and the lack of clarity around whether the guards had a legitimate motivation for their actions—which might be the case given they involved the police—these are not in question. This discussion instead seems to focus on the ways dopers are exposed to discrimination and negative profiling (Christiansen, 2020; Monaghan, 2002). Again, this works to coalesce the online community around this shared cause, pitting them against the offline authorities and their methods. Taking a more general view, other members questioned by the police are interested in stopping dopers in the first place: There’s something fishy going on. That’s clear. Results that you could get from AAS within a year now take 3–5 years instead. Why? Is it a conspiracy against ripped guys? There aren’t many people who have the patience to get there, and if there were a short-cut, surely loads of people would train to get in shape. (NoPolice)

In this thread and others, there is a certain degree of understanding of the necessity of the legislation against IPEDs. Pro-legislation comments

7  Transcending Online and Offline Doping 

139

revolve mainly around potential negative side effects and the social costs that the substances may lead to. Some members also emphasise the potency of these drugs and the harm they may bring to uninformed users, particularly younger members and sometimes women. These arguments are most often countered with posts that call prohibitions and negative profiling into question, which are positioned as the result of “media propaganda,” the decision-making of “ignorant politicians and policy makers,” or people’s “envy of those with ripped bodies.” Responses like these can be compared to what Sykes and Matza (1957) called the techniques of neutralisation. Here, community members try to shift the focus of attention and deflect the negative sanctions attached to IPED use by condemning the condemners. This is similar to Monaghan’s (2012) findings that showed that one of the strategies used by steroid users to justify doping is to bolster condemnation of what is thought to be other people’s unfounded and unreflective criticism seeking to limit or prevent users from reaching their bodily goals. What is also visible in such threads is the dynamic relationship between online and offline. The offline environment presents a series of constraints on doping (prevention), while the online environment provides support for pursuing it (including harm reduction). These then structure behaviour that stretches across both online and offline environments. For example, despite Sweden’s prohibition of IPEDs, Flashback members still pursue them with support from peers on the forums. The actual use of the drugs happens in the offline, physical world, but it is transmitted back online in the form of cycle logs, answering posted queries, or sharing experiences as NowWhat did. Other members then take and interpret this information, impacting their own online and offline behaviors and bodies. This cycle of dynamic interrelatedness continues, with events in one environment shaping the response in the other. This is the idea we continue in the next section as we look at how doped bodies and the narratives around them move back and forth between online and offline, simultaneously impacting both.

140 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Bodies, Dynamic and Stable The dynamic interplay and interconnections between online and offline can also have long lasting implications for doped bodies, both digital and physical. Generally, it seems that physical bodies are slower to shift— physiology provides limits and moulding the fleshy body takes time and often much effort. Indeed, IPED use is often intended to speed up these processes and cut down on the time between the before and after. Digital bodies (seemingly) may be altered more easily and with a range of methods: a Photoshop intervention here, a photo editing filter there, a text accompaniment to an image that exaggerates the change visible in the photo or that obscures the time or effort involved. Given the pace of change and the immediacy of it that is possible online, it is easy to view the digital as the more dynamic and rapid of the two and the physical as its more static counterpart. However, this view belies the deep connections between flesh and pixel, and how doping transcends both. It also misunderstands how preservation and reinterpretation can lead to change, long after the bodies in question have ceased to exist in their exalted forms. Here we use two examples of well-known bodies—Arnold Schwarzenegger and Zyzz—to discuss the interrelatedness between the physical and the digital. As noted in Chap. 2, Schwarzenegger became a bodybuilding icon in the 1970s and 80s when he won multiple world bodybuilding titles, including winning the coveted Mr. Olympia contest multiple times. This was the Golden Era of bodybuilding and Schwarzenegger went on to a hugely successful acting career, including a run of action films that highlighted his muscularity. Since his heyday, he has been fairly open about his use of steroids to achieve his famous form (Schwarzenegger & Petre, 2012). And famous might be an understatement, as even researchers have shed much ink examining and interpreting both his body and career (Butter et al., 2011; Donnar, 2016; Gergely, 2019; Mansfield & McGinn, 1993; Vartanian et  al., 2001). Beyond remaining highly recognisable owing to his celebrity, the long-lasting impact of his Mr. Olympia form on various online communities is unparalleled, as his image is still regularly shared as inspiration or used as an aspirational image across social

7  Transcending Online and Offline Doping 

141

media. Each year at Arnold Sports Festival events (www.arnoldsports. com) fans and athletes hope for a glimpse of and selfie with Arnold. IPED forums, including MESO-Rx, regularly see  discussions on Schwarzenegger and his Golden Era training. Threads focused on his training and IPED regimen often debate if his and his cohort’s methods were the best, despite the results: Is it true that old school bodybuilders like Arnold used to train between 3 and 6 hours a day lol? Isn’t that over training? (Whaaaaat)

The responses varied, but there was some pushback on the idea of this high-volume training load from the time: Maybe true We’ve also learned a shit ton in the 50yrs since 1970. That’s why “the old school guys did it” isn’t a valid defense of any training, nutrition, or AAS concept. (NotOldSchool)

The notion that bodybuilding and IPED knowledge has moved on from the “old school guys” seems to conflict with how his body and practices from that era are continuously referenced in threads. For example, a thread on barbell rows included this response to a discussion on the most effective form: “Arnold did that. Personally hate stand with such a narrow stance. Good variation havent seen in a decade or more.” Even though this user notes he personally hates doing this, he still relates it back to Schwarzenegger’s training. His Mr. Olympia body is symbolic of both a time and period in IPED use, as well as an enduring idealised form and style of training. One thread titled “Did Arnold have the ‘perfect’ physique” opened a debate by pointing out how he had inspired many to take up weight training: In my humble opinion, Arnold had the ‘perfect’ physique. That V taper, that fucking insane chest. I am pretty sure that most of us here got our first interest in bodybuilding by seeing Arnold in pumping iron and/or the Terminator movies etc. he was definitely my first inspiration. (ArnieFan)

142 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Though there was some dissent in this thread, there was little disagreement that in his time he was the standard setter. This is true of both his body and his IPED use, which is also still regularly discussed within IPED communities, particularly those focused on AAS.  Speculation about what he actually used and if it would produce the same results sometimes leads to what might be considered lay replication studies: I’ve decided to test the theory that all Arnold ran was primo and Dbol. I’m gonna use those exact dosages. 15mg Dbol per day and 1cc primo per week just to see what happens. You guys got any thought (or hate) about this? (WannaBeLikeArnold)

The responses to WannaBeLikeArnold’s plan ranged from supportive to denigrating, with a fair few swipes at Arnold’s own recollections and openness regarding his use: Seeing how Arnold tends to lie when it comes to his past use i doubt that was all he was doing. Pause for the superior alien genetics and work ethic crowd to comment, but...When someone that trained with a ridiculous volume routine 6–7 days per week says that he only used steroids during his prep phase you can read between the lines and see that his math of 2 PLUS_SPI 2=potatoe just doesn’t add up. (MathsMajor)

The ongoing fascination with Schwarzenegger, specifically with his doped Mr. Olympia body, highlights both the dynamic and static aspects of digital images. Photos from the 1970s, 80s, and 90s have been digitised and (re-)disseminated to groups who may not have been alive during the height of either his bodybuilding or acting career. Though the images are outdated and that body only exists digitally, the continuous reinterpretation and consumption of it keep it “alive” in the contemporary moment. Via such images, Schwarzenegger’s body has been preserved in its idealised state. As his physical body ages and continuously changes in response, his digital body remains fixed, challenging the notion that digital is more dynamic. What does change, of course, is the audience ascribing meaning to the images of his Mr. Olympia body as it recirculates online. To some, his is a body to strive for using many of his

7  Transcending Online and Offline Doping 

143

same techniques, including IPEDs; to others, it is an unattainable ideal for the same reason. Even those who do not wish to look as Schwarzenegger did are impacted by his body, as it symbolises hard work and set a standard that other muscular bodies continue to be held against. What is rather remarkable is that his popularity in body and muscle  building communities shows little sign of slowing, despite Schwarzenegger no longer looking as he did in the 70s and 80s. This fact was even played up in a recent film franchise, The Expendables, that starred several ageing action stars and highlighted the tension between the they’ve-still-got-it and way-past-their-prime narratives (Donnar, 2016). The reality of his current physical body cannot be ignored. Schwarzenegger is not simply a discursive digital body; he is still physically alive. He is still present in various forms of media, including his own social media accounts where he is no stranger to sharing videos, though these are often more politically oriented owing to his latter career as a high-level politician. But his body is no longer the body captured in Golden Era photos and videos—it has visibly aged, with grey hair and an obviously slighter form on display. But these two bodies—the ideal, discursive, digital version and the current, fleshy one—are of the same coin. They both existed and exist, online and offline, and both are real. Indeed, both have realities inscribed on them by others and realities experienced by Arnold himself. We can contrast this with Zyzz and how his digital body has been reinterpreted, as discussed in Chap. 4. Zyzz is no longer a physical body, meaning the reality of his body is only what has been captured and preserved in videos and images. Crucially, Zyzz also cannot speak. Schwarzenegger can, and sometimes does, publicly discuss his bodybuilding career and his drug use. If he chooses, he can challenge interpretations of his body and correct reports of his drug use. Again, this engagement keeps both versions of his body contemporaneous and alive. Without such an ability, Zyzz is in some ways the static of the two. His body will never change the way Schwarzenegger’s has and he has no control over its narrative or the narrative around his IPED use. Those narratives now belong to the communities who continue to follow him. In both Schwarzenegger and Zyzz’s cases, their doped bodies have transcended online and offline. The digital and flesh were necessary for the creation of both in their current forms, making them inseparable

144 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

even as their narratives diverge. They both existed and exist, they are both reproduced, reimagined, and reinterpreted. Whatever version of their bodily realities an individual subscribes to, they both continue to impact the perceptions, decisions, and behaviours of IPED communities both online and offline.

Conclusion Traditional approaches to doping have largely tried to separate them into neat categories, particularly online and offline. Once we look a bit more broadly at doping, we see the interconnections between environments, policies, and bodies. They can work together or against each other, but they cannot really be separated as a change in one often necessitates or leads to a change in the other. Taking an ontological approach allows us to understand how these two realities simultaneously exist and impact one another. At the macro or systems level, we see tension between risk and enabling that is the result of the policy context. Sweden’s criminalised approach to doping and IPEDs creates a circumstance in which IPED users face a range of risks. These are potentially exacerbated by the lack of offline harm reduction services available under the national policy. This clashes with the approach taken on Flashback, where members are often pro- or accepting of IPED use but also very much concerned with reducing potential risks. This risk reduction of course includes physical risks, but this community understands that the social, economic, and political risks are just as important and potentially harmful. Without necessarily understanding it as such, the online community responds to an offline risk environment with harm reduction strategies. These two environments, risk and enabling, exist in relation to one another. Both can pattern behaviours and decisions, but each have developed as it has due to the existence of the other. We see this play out on Flashback, as members engage in debate and strategising the best ways to use with the lowest risk of any form of harm. All are aware of the policy context in which they live that includes police, criminal penalties, and social stigma. This informs how the digital space is used—it is anonymous to protect identities, tips are given to new users

7  Transcending Online and Offline Doping 

145

for where to find information about safer use, and strategies are shared for ensuring a safe and secure acquisition process. Users then put these strategies into practice offline as they acquire and use, and sometimes face those environmental risks head on. As in the discussion above, these are then brought back online through posts relating experiences with substances and with others, further informing the online debate and then offline practices. Running through and across it all is doping. Doping is happening online and offline, all the time, all at once. Neither reality stops nor environment changes without the other. This becomes further highlighted when we consider how doped bodies transcend the digital/physical divide. Well-known bodies, such as Schwarzenegger and Zyzz, have multiple realities. Schwarzenegger’s digital Mr Olympia body coexists with his current physical and aged body. It would be simple to assume that the two bodies are separate and that the current only exists in reference to its prior massively muscular build. But this view ignores the dynamic interconnectedness of digital and physical realities. Mr Olympia and the current Arnold Schwarzenegger are not isolated from one another. Rather, they are one in the same. His current body remains a doped body, as his current form is no doubt in part a result of his steroid fuelled bodybuilding career. His discursive digital body may be captured in time, but the inevitable ageing and changing physiology that body underwent are no less real. Further, the meaning of that Mr Olympia body changes—what was once the standard and the “perfect” are now held against current standards and developments in bodybuilding, as well as against new ideal forms. One of these idealised and idolised forms belongs to the late Zyzz. His situation differs from Schwarzenegger, who is currently alive. Yet, the reality of his physical death does not mean Zyzz is dead—he is very much alive digitally. Though his physical body is no longer ageing and his own voice is silent, his discursive body continues to dance and “live” via social media videos and his fans’ narratives. It is through his death that his digital body can be reimagined and reinterpreted by others. What we have shown in this chapter is that we can no longer rely on a narrow, two-dimensional view of doping if we are to understand it and how it has and continues to develop. Doping is both online and offline, doped bodies are both physical and digital. Crucially, doping online and

146 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

doping offline are both real and these coexisting realities work together— both in complement and in tension—to form and uphold the digital doping ecosystem. This ecosystem is full of interconnections that mean we cannot really separate physical from digital if our goal is to fully understand doping. Instead, doping as a concept must be approached as something else. We revisit this in the concluding chapter, as we argue for a new way of understanding doping and doped bodies that is not bound to either context and takes the categorical transcendence of doping into account.

References Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2019). Glocal fitness doping: Policy, practice and prevention in the United States and Sweden. Performance Enhancement and Health, 6(3–4), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2018.11.001 Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2021). Performance cultures and doped bodies. Challenging categories, gender norms, and policy responses. Common Ground. Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2016). Online doping. The new self-help culture of ethnopharmacology. Sport in Society, 19(7), 957–972. https://doi. org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1096246 Antonopoulos, G.  A., & Hall, A. (2016). ‘Gain with no pain’: Anabolic-­ androgenic steroids trafficking in the UK. European Journal of Criminology, 13(6), 696–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370816633261 Becker, H. S. (1953). Becoming a marihuana user. American Journal of Sociology, 59(3), 235–242. Boellstorff, T. (2016). For whom the ontology turns: Theorizing the digital real. Current Anthropology, 57(4), 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1086/687362 Butter, M., Keller, P., & Wendt, S. (Eds.). (2011). Arnold Schwarzenegger: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Body and Image. Universitätsverlag Winter. Christiansen, A.  V. (2020). Gym culture, identity and performance-enhancing drugs: Tracing a typology of steroid use. Routledge. Donnar, G. (2016). Narratives of cultural and professional redundancy: Ageing action stardom and the ‘geri-action’ film. Communication, Politics & Culture, 49(1), 1–18.

7  Transcending Online and Offline Doping 

147

Duff, C. (2010). Enabling places and enabling resources: New directions for harm reduction research and practice. Drug and Alcohol Review, 29(3), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-­3362.2010.00187.x Evans-Brown, M., McVeigh, J., Perkins, C., & Bellis, M.  A. (2012). Human enhancement drugs: The emerging challenges to public health. North West Public Health Observatory. Gergely, G. (2019). Sonority, difference and the Schwarzenegger star body. Film-Philosophy, 23(2), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.3366/film.2019.0106 Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066 Harvey, O., Keen, S., Parrish, M., & van Teijlingen, E. (2019). Support for people who use anabolic androgenic steroids: a systematic scoping review into what they want and what they access. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1024. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-­019-­7288-­x Harvey, O., Parrish, M., van Teijlingen, E., & Trenoweth, S. (2020). Support for non-prescribed anabolic androgenic steroids users: A qualitative exploration of their needs. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 27(5), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2019.1705763 Henning, A., & Andreasson, J. (2022). Preventing, producing, or reducing harm? Fitness doping risk and enabling environments. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 29(1), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968763 7.2020.1865273 Henning, A., McLean, K., Andreasson, J., & Dimeo, P. (2021). Risk and enabling environments in sport: Systematic doping as harm reduction. International Journal of Drug Policy, 91, 102897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. drugpo.2020.102897 Kimergård, A., & McVeigh, J. (2014). Variability and dilemmas in harm reduction for anabolic steroid users in the UK: A multi-area interview study. Harm Reduction Journal, 11(19). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-­7517-­11-­19 Mansfield, A., & McGinn, B. (1993). Pumping irony: The muscular and the feminine. In S. Scott & D. Morgan (Eds.), Body matters. Essays on the sociology of the body (pp. 49–68). Falmer Press London. Monaghan, L.  F. (2002). Vocabularies of motive for illicit steroid use among bodybuilders. Social Science and Medicine, 55(5), 695–708. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0277-­9536(01)00195-­2

148 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Monaghan, L. F. (2012). Accounting for illicit steroid use: Bodybuilders’ justifications. In A. Locks & N. Richardson (Eds.), Critical readings in bodybuilding (pp. 73–90). Routledge. Mulrooney, K.  J. D., van de Ven, K., McVeigh, J., & Collins, R. (2019). Commentary: Steroid madness—has the dark side of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) been over-stated? Performance Enhancement and Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2019.03.001 Myers, J. (1992). Nonmainstream body modification: Genital piercing, branding, burning, and cutting. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 21(3), 267–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124192021003001 Rhodes, T. (2002). The ‘risk environment’: A framework for understanding and reducing drug-related harm. International Journal of Drug Policy, 13(2), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0955-­3959(02)00007-­5 Rhodes, T. (2009). Risk environments and drug harms: A social science for harm reduction approach. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20(3), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2008.10.003 Rowe, R., Berger, I., & Copeland, J. (2017). “No pain, no gainz”? Performance and image-enhancing drugs, health effects and information seeking. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 24(5), 400–408. https://doi.org/10.108 0/09687637.2016.1207752 Schwarzenegger, A., & Petre, P. (2012). Total recall: My unbelievably true-life story. Simon and Schuster. Swedish National Institute of Public Health. (2011). Dopning i Samhället [Doping in society]. Statens Folkhälsoinstitut. Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670. https://doi. org/10.2307/2089195 Turnock, L. A. (2021). Supplying Steroids Online: The cultural and market contexts of enhancement drug supply on one of the World’s largest fitness & bodybuilding forums. Plymouth Policy Research Press. Vartanian, L.  R., Giant, C.  L., & Passino, R.  M. (2001). Mass Media, Interpersonal Feedback, and Gender as Predictors of Body Satisfaction. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 29(7), 711–723. https:// doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2001.29.7.711 WADA. (2021). The world anti-doping code, 2021. World Anti-Doping Agency. https://www.wada-­a ma.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/2021_ wada_code.pdf

8 Conclusions: The “Cyborgification” of the Doping Phenomenon

Introduction Historically, in research and in public discourse, IPEDs and their use have been connected to offline spaces and contexts; something occurring (or worrying about) in elite sport or in different gym and fitness facilities (Andreasson & Henning, 2021). The introduction of the internet, of course, changed all this. Roughly since the turn of century, and because of technological pushes and developments, the conditions for organisation of human life, social communication, and connectivity have changed profoundly. Ambitions and accomplishments, political views, bodies, lifestyles, and friendships are formed and diffused through our connectivity with computers, smart phones, activity monitoring wrist bands, and other forms of social technology. Indeed, the digital has brought new ways of knowing and conducting social life (Marres, 2017). As human life becomes digitised, social life and our understanding of it changes, which in turn brings new challenges for social research and knowledge production. Research on (online) doping makes no exception. As suggested by Schwarz:

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Andreasson, A. Henning, Online Doping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30272-5_8

149

150 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Digital representations of social life play a crucial role in its algorithmic mediation and governance; in shaping the new, post-situational organization of time-space; and in the transformation of labour. Different theories require different revisions to retain their relevance in digital society, but all of them require paying attention to the material world and to the particular characteristics of digital technologies and digital representations of the social. (Schwarz, 2021, p. 186)

These technological developments and their impacts on human life have brought new forms of communities, markets, body cultures, and power relations to the fore (Turnock, 2021), demanding new tools for analysis. In this book we have tried to meet this challenge, zooming in on the doping phenomenon in general and on online doping in particular. The aim of this book was to examine the bodies, communities, and cultures that evolve in the online doping space, as well as critically examine and discuss the interrelationship between online doping and offline doped realities and social life. Departing from the premise that we need new ways of thinking and theorising doping, this chapter brings together some of the central analytical concepts developed and used throughout the book in a theoretically informed discussion of the (online) doping phenomenon. This chapter consists of two parts. First, we bring the conceptual tools deployed in our analysis to the fore. In doing so we theoretically position the book in relation to the scholarly debate on doped bodies, communities, and cultures. Here we map out how our findings fit into the idea of an online doping ecosystem and how members and communities are stratified in relation to gendered ideals, practices, and notions of doped digital bodies. We also discuss how harm, risk, and prevention can be understood, moving between online and offline realities, and between physical bodies and fantasies about doped bodies. This part also explains why hegemonic perspectives on doping applied in sport and fitness do not always travel into the online domain. Second, we redirect the view towards the development of this field of research and address the question of the study implications. This book’s contribution to the academic debate is presented in an argument for the “cyborgification” of the whole doping phenomenon. We then use this conceptualisation to link back to

8  Conclusions: The “Cyborgification” of the Doping Phenomenon 

151

what has been presented in the different chapters, illustrating how it can expand the frame of research on the topic.

The Ecosystem of Online Doping In the social sciences, doping has a long history of being approached in terms of criminalisation, harm, and subcultural affiliations (Fincoeur et  al., 2015; Klein, 1993; Monaghan, 2001; Mulrooney et  al., 2019). Fuelled and cheered by public discourse, scholars have debated how users, their bodies, lifestyles, and cultures clash against public health ideals and more general values of mainstream society. In sport, users have been constructed as morally corrupt cheaters and menaces to highly held ideals of fair play, and in fitness they are debated in terms of marginalisation and as representing the extreme, risky, and unhealthy (Hanley Santos & Coomber, 2017; Henning et  al., 2021; Locks & Richardson, 2013; McGrath & Chananie-Hill, 2009). The hegemonic divide between what is considered mainstream or common culture and what is “sub” has not always been clear and has increasingly been called into question (Johansson et  al., 2017). Following the fitness revolution and mainstreaming of gym and fitness culture, the interrelatedness rather than polarity between “common/mainstream” and “sub” has been addressed (see Chaps. 4 and 7) (Andreasson & Johansson, 2014). Still, we argue that the uses of subcultural theory and of this theoretical branch are limited, as the online environment tends to blur such distinctions beyond recognition. Instead, online spaces facilitate possibilities for movement between and across cultural content, spaces, and communities with a simple click. In the scholarly debate, the metaphor of the online doping environment as a sort of bazaar has sometimes been applied, describing how people can enter different online stores or sites, to be informed about, discuss, and potentially buy products (IPEDs). In this book we largely dismiss that conceptualisation, though we agree it has relevance for the supply side of IPEDs (Turnock, 2021). To capture the complexity of dynamic relationships and communities that evolve in the online environment, mainly from the user perspective, we instead argue for the lens

152 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

of the digital doping ecosystem. This conceptualisation enables an analysis of the interrelatedness between individuals (users, enablers, etc.), communities (groups of individuals forming ideals and cultures), and their environment (the digital infrastructure and how the online context is organised and mediated in itself and in relation to offline realities). Across the interrelatedness between these (individuals, communities, environment) we can also engage in an analysis of power and power relations. Engaging in doping practices online also means becoming part of processes where use is legitimised and ideals and cultural values are formed. We will return to how these processes are stratified among members, but first we consider the more general trends that have been illustrated concerning the species component—individuals—within the digital doping ecosystem. As discussed, users can “move” across a wide variety of online sites, claiming membership in diverse communities and taking on different roles in these. Community discussions evolve and take form in relation to users’ knowledge, motives for engagement and use, bodily and performance ambitions, gender, and their national contexts (offline realities). Individuals are pragmatic. In Sweden, where use is prohibited, individuals may enter communities in which prohibitions are debated alongside substances, bodies, suppliers, and more. They may also be part of networks or communities in which certain body ideals are debated. Depending on the motives expressed by users, communities may further form and re-form on a variety of platforms. In this book, we have only provided a glimpse of some of these sites and communities, describing how they play out in different settings, including those stretching between loosely organised communities (Zyzz fandom) and demarcated ones (women-only forum, Swedish Flashback, etc.). Therefore, the description of communities and how they operate in relation to one another and the online environment is necessarily incomplete. Inspiration, advice, and motivation may be taken from unpredictable places, within as well as outside the particular doping context. This is part of the cherry-picking possibility that the online environment facilitates through its instantaneity. Sometimes doping may be the obvious point of departure for members and discussions, and other times it may very well be just one part of a lifestyle where wellness, health, and beauty are debated (e.g., wellness and influencer communities). We have thus shown only a piece of this

8  Conclusions: The “Cyborgification” of the Doping Phenomenon 

153

ecosystem. As it is complex and sustained by dynamic relationships and processes, it requires more research. Nonetheless, through our conceptualisation of the online doping space as a digital doping ecosystem, we begin to see the complexity of communities and relationships that evolve online and how digital bodies, individuals, and their motives for use take form within such a system. Approaching online doping as a digital ecosystem further facilitates moving beyond contextual rigidities, such as the sport and fitness divide often found in doping research. Online, the social dimensions of doping are not bound to such stark categorisations that tend to oppress not only users’ motives but also individual’s abilities for mobility and potentially multiple affiliations (Andreasson & Henning, 2021). The digital doping ecosystem instead puts the focus on the interrelatedness of the online environment and the individuals that operate within it, regardless of their potential situatedness in an offline context. To this end, our focus is not on what to think about motives for use in sport or fitness, but rather how we can think and approach the relationship between users, user communities, and doping cultures and contexts.

 ultural Manspreading: Upholding, C Challenging, and Evolving In describing the digital ecosystem of online doping, it is inevitable that we must also look at how individuals and bodies within that system are stratified. As always, there are big fish and small fish. Following this, some narratives about bodies, motives, courses, and more are held in high regard among users, while others are not. One of the more explicit patterns that is foundational to the doping ecosystem concerns gender. The very premise of doping as an experience, a phenomenon, and a discursive idea has been heavily influenced by notions of masculinity and male bodies and competencies (Andreasson & Henning, 2022; Christiansen, 2020; Hoberman, 2005; Klein, 1993). Even though women have continued to enter and share their experiences and thoughts on doping online, the space for opinion is not equally

154 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

shared. Men and masculinity continue to dominate virtual doping spaces, even those focused on women. As discussed in Chap. 5, this sometimes forces women to the side to accommodate men’s voices, experiences, and expertise. Whereas the idea of the ecosystem facilitates a way to think about the relationship between individuals and their environment, hegemonic masculinity can serve to envision how power and power relations manifest, particularly how the system is dominated by certain individuals and cultural ideals (men and masculinity). Though one might assume that the online environment would facilitate the endless expression and storage of opinion, seemingly when one group dominates, others are left with less space and forced to “shrink” to fit into what remains. This mechanism, occurring within hegemonic masculinity, can be described as a form of cultural and digital manspreading (Henning & Andreasson, 2022). Digital manspreading occurs in terms of virtual space (online forums), but also within social and sexual spaces, visible in how discussion and debate take form and whose experiences/fantasies are set as the norm or default in the debate (see Chaps. 5 and 6). The ecosystem is underpinned by hegemonic masculinity and the values and norms around gender within doping cultures are reflected, challenged, and reinforced in and through it. As such, it is crucial to understand how these dynamics work across digital spaces. As a conceptual tool, digital manspreading allows us to understand how these are variably reinforced and contested in digital space (Henning & Andreasson, 2021). The masculinity that pervades doping cultures is at the hyper end of the spectrum, idealising strength, aggression, sexual prowess, and massive muscularity (Andreasson, 2015; Christiansen, 2020; Hoberman, 2005). Women, and some men, do challenge these complex patterns with some success, though they are at times complicit in maintaining them. Simply taking up these spaces challenges the status quo that prioritises men in some instances, but lasting change often requires more. Policies that demarcate spaces for women can prevent manspreading, though this can lead to a type of ghettoising of women in these communities (Henning & Andreasson, 2022; Sassatelli, 2010). As illustrated in Chap. 5, providing women an exclusive space—physical or virtual—may empower them to reimagine and redefine what it means to be a doped woman or even a

8  Conclusions: The “Cyborgification” of the Doping Phenomenon 

155

doped body. It allows women to set their own bodies and realities as the norm, upsetting and reforming expectations and values. This may further support the development of sis-science, an ethnopharmacology based on female physiology (Sverkersson, 2022). At the same time, men and masculinity still  dominate the digital doping ecosystem and there is often backlash with change. This interrelatedness between system stratification and domination of certain ideals and bodies on the one hand and resistance and ghettoisation of women and their experiences on the other hand exemplifies how the culture underpinning the doping ecosystem is maintained, yet the system is flexible enough to evolve. This is central to its adaptability and durability.

 arm, Risk, and Possibilities: Doping H and Transcendence Questions of prevention and the utilisation of a harm focused approach have been prominent in doping research (Mulrooney et al., 2019). The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has long aimed to exclude doping and doping users from sport by any means possible. Sometimes risks and potential harms of use have been emphasised in this mission to protect users/athletes’ health and well-being. Similarly, in gym and fitness culture, bodybuilders have sometimes been more or less expelled from different facilities due to them being associated with IPEDs (Andreasson & Johansson, 2020; Locks & Richardson, 2013). In Sweden and Denmark, for example, preventative measures have been implemented through negative profiling. In the online environment, debate on prevention is largely absent, and questions about harm and risk to some extent operate along other axes than in the offline context where WADA, as well as national laws and public opinion (in their variability), seems to rule. To address harm, prevention, and risks associated with IPED use as it plays out in the digital, we also need to reframe the debate conceptually. Taking the user perspective in this book, we have drawn on reality versus fantasy, which we have suggested operates both online and offline.

156 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Discussions about the interconnectedness of reality and fantasy have a long history in sociological thinking and social theory. Even in the 1980s, Jean Baudrillard (1994) described how what he called simulacra—a mediatised image of reality—contributed to dissolve the distinction between the real and imaginary images of reality (Debord, 2012). He argued that we live in an aesthetic hallucination of reality that consists of ideal bodies and aesthetics, which circulate in a medial and global market. In simulacra it is possible to model and shape bodies, and to create different types of syntheses between bodies. The idea of the “plantastic” (plastic and fantasy driven) and digital body—the body that is stretchable, changeable, and possible to influence with the help of IPEDs—fits well with such a description. In the context of online communication, plantastic bodies are formed through the consumption of images and ideals rather than through the practicalities of daily life. Adding to this, the technology of image enhancement, through digital retouch and IPED use, further blurs the lines between what is possible to achieve, what is likely to occur, and what risks associated with whatever decisions are made. Propelled by predecessors, gradually the idea of the cyborgian doped body arises. This body is nomadic, it operates across and between fantasy/real, physical/digital (Braidotti, 2002). And in the online doping context fantasies and physical realities seemingly inform one another. Put differently, the fantasy/real divide of the cyborgian body is not the equivalent of what goes on in the online versus the offline environments (Haraway, 1991, 2006). Quite the contrary, we argue that online and offline cannot really be separated with regard to doping. Online experiences and digital realities are real life. Authentic experiences can be had online and the relationships evolving in the different communities discussed in this book are no less real than those in offline communities. Different, perhaps, but real and still woven into everyday life and (offline) social reality. In online communities, fantasies can overtake reality, somewhat colonising perceptions. The vibrancy of online doping cultures and communities runs the risk of having harmful psychological, emotional, relational, and social impacts when the line between the two becomes “too” blurred. This can make the differences between possible/probable and impossible/

8  Conclusions: The “Cyborgification” of the Doping Phenomenon 

157

improbable hard to distinguish and understand. As illustrated throughout in this book, digital bodies and experiences are often immediate and ubiquitous when debated within the communities addressed. As part of a broader narrative and ideal of human/body enhancement it may be easy to forget that just because something appears one way online that does not mean it is the full truth. Online risk may or may not transform into offline harm. The possibility of instant digital mobility and transcendence further fuels this interrelatedness, as one can move in and out from doping communities, navigating wellness sites as well as politically driven sites where conspiracy theories about digital bodies thrive (as discussed in Chap. 4). Indeed, the instant access to communities and narratives on enhancement, IPEDs, and the politics of doped bodies create a fertile environment for a self-cult in which the cyborgian doped body can be pursued in life or in fantasy, and despite or because of the associated risks.

 he “Cyborgification” of the Doping T Phenomenon When initiating this book we used the concept and idea of the cyborg to theorise the interrelatedness between technical developments and doping experiences and bodies (see Chaps. 1 and 2). The cyborg metaphor was a way of setting the doped body in motion towards, among other things, technical aids used during training and the diffusion of doping experiences, ideals, and cultures via the internet. This conceptualisation has grown and expanded as we have worked through our various chapters. Following this, we propose that doping as a phenomenon needs to be partly rethought and approached in terms of cyborgification. By arguing for the cyborgification of doping, we invite scholars to break with the contextual bounds of doping, to stop treating it as either a sport or fitness/societal issue, or as something that should be prevented through governance by WADA, by national law enforcement, or dealt with within doping communities and their efforts for harm reduction. The cyborgification of the doping phenomenon creates opportunities to provide

158 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

analyses that reach across cultural and contextual categories. Even though the title of this book is Online Doping, which may be interpreted as a contextual boundary, we argue that the idea of contextual boundaries in the digital era is flawed. The cyborgification of the doping phenomenon not only concerns individuals’ bodies and doping communities. Rather, doping itself is a kind of cyborg concept. It is a set of technologies that are formed, re-formed, and reconstructed through further technologies. Doping no longer exists without technology because our online and offline narratives and perceptions of doped bodies cannot really be separated. So, what does the cyborgification of doping bring in terms of expanding our understanding of doping? Like other dualistic positions and relationships, concepts such as fantasy/real, online/offline, and pleasure/harm are often compatible with certain values. The belief that what happens offline is more genuine that what happens online is strong in our culture. Through the idea of the cyborgification, such an approach to doping can be flipped and interrelatedness rather than dualism illustrated. This was the ontological turn we endeavoured to take, as discussed in Chap. 7. For example, rethinking the doping phenomenon also has implications for how harm reduction and prevention can be addressed. These approaches to doping have usually been treated more or less completely separately. Online equals harm reduction, offline equals prevention. Through cyborgification we can bracket these perspectives and the morals attached to them when initiating a discussion on how online risk may travel into offline harm and vice versa. This then forces researchers and policymakers to take both online and offline into account when identifying risks and developing harm reduction or prevention strategies. Primarily, we argue that doping requires not an either/or approach, it requires one that is both/and. Both online and offline are real, what happens in each can and does have effects in both. To take three examples: an online IPED retailer is trashed on a forum by members who have tried their products, that business then fails both online and offline; a woman is bullied about her muscular appearance in the gym, that then impacts how she narrates her doped body to other women in a forum and how she dresses for work; a forum member takes community advice on how to purchase IPEDs, then is caught by the postal service and given a fine. In

8  Conclusions: The “Cyborgification” of the Doping Phenomenon 

159

each of these examples, of which there are countless others, the realities of offline and online are interlinked. We simply cannot separate online and offline if we want to understand the lived reality of doping and if we want to understand how and why doping persists. Of course, this makes the digital doping ecosystem necessarily intertwined with offline systems— one couldn’t exist without the other—as communities, bodies, gender, policies, and experiences all transcend the online/offline divide. Because doping is a hybrid concept, it requires hybrid understanding from researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders. Policies must account for the dual realities of online and offline, in the same way that doping communities already have in their efforts to use online platforms to circumvent offline barriers to use. To that end, we must stop assigning simplistic explanations and motives to use, stop making assumptions about doped bodies and communities, and stop applying sweeping yet moot policies to the issue. Crucially, we also need to account for the nuance and complexity brought about by the synthesis of online and offline rather than attempting to split it into neatly ordered and easily labelled categories. We must look at doping as it is, not how it is convenient to study.

References Andreasson, J. (2015). Reconceptualising the gender of fitness doping: Performing and negotiating masculinity through drug-use practices. Social Sciences, 4(3), 546–562. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci4030546 Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2021). Performance cultures and doped bodies. Challenging categories, gender norms, and policy responses. Common Ground. Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2022). Challenging hegemony through narrative: Centering women’s experiences and establishing a sis-science culture through a women-only doping forum. Communication & Sport, 10(4), 708–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795211000657 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2014). The global gym: Gender, health and pedagogies. Palgrave Macmillan. Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2020). Fitness doping: Trajectories, gender, bodies and health. Palgrave Macmillan. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan press.

160 

J. Andreasson and A. Henning

Braidotti, R. (2002). Metamorphoses: Towards a materialist theory of becoming. Polity Press. Christiansen, A.  V. (2020). Gym culture, identity and performance-enhancing drugs: Tracing a typology of steroid use. Routledge. Debord, G. (2012). Society of the spectacle. Bread and Circuses. Fincoeur, B., van de Ven, K., & Mulrooney, K.  J. D. (2015). The symbiotic evolution of anti-doping and supply chains of doping substances: How criminal networks may benefit from anti-doping policy. Trends in Organized Crime, 18(3), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12117-­014-­9235-­7 Hanley Santos, G., & Coomber, R. (2017). The risk environment of anabolic– androgenic steroid users in the UK: Examining motivations, practices and accounts of use. International Journal of Drug Policy, 40, 35–43. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.11.005 Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge. Haraway, D. (2006). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-­ feminism in the late 20th century. In J.  Weiss, J.  Nolan, J.  Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 117–158). Springer. Henning, A., & Andreasson, J. (2021). “Yay, another lady starting a log!”: Women’s fitness doping and the gendered space of an online doping forum. Communication & Sport, 9(6), 988–1007. https://doi. org/10.1177/2167479519896326 Henning, A., & Andreasson, J. (2022). Doping in sport and fitness. Emerald. Henning, A., McLean, K., Andreasson, J., & Dimeo, P. (2021). Risk and enabling environments in sport: Systematic doping as harm reduction. International Journal of Drug Policy, 91, 102897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. drugpo.2020.102897 Hoberman, J. (2005). Testosterone dreams: Rejuvenation, aphrodisia, doping. University of California Press. Johansson, T., Andreasson, J., & Mattsson, C. (2017). From subcultures to common culture: Bodybuilders, skinheads, and the normalization of the marginal. SAGE Open, 7(2), 2158244017706596. https://doi. org/10.1177/2158244017706596 Klein, A. M. (1993). Little big men: Bodybuilding subculture and gender construction. Suny Press. Locks, A., & Richardson, N. (2013). Critical readings in bodybuilding. Routledge. Marres, N. (2017). Digital sociology: The reinvention of social research. Wiley.

8  Conclusions: The “Cyborgification” of the Doping Phenomenon 

161

McGrath, S. A., & Chananie-Hill, R. A. (2009). ‘Big freaky-looking women’: Normalizing gender transgression through bodybuilding. Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(2), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.26.2.235 Monaghan, L. F. (2001). Bodybuilding, drugs and risk. Health, risk and society. Routledge. Mulrooney, K.  J. D., van de Ven, K., McVeigh, J., & Collins, R. (2019). Commentary: Steroid madness—has the dark side of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) been over-stated? Performance Enhancement and Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2019.03.001 Sassatelli, R. (2010). Fitness culture: Gyms and the commercialisation of discipline and fun. Springer. Schwarz, O. (2021). Sociological theory for digital society: The codes that bind us together. Polity Press. Sverkersson, E. (2022). ‘I’m quite tired of people saying that I don’t do enough or know anything’: Male hegemony and resistance in the context of women’s online communication on doping. Sport in Society, 25(6), 1176–1192. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2022.2064107 Turnock, L. A. (2021). Supplying Steroids Online: The cultural and market contexts of enhancement drug supply on one of the World’s largest fitness & bodybuilding forums. Plymouth Policy Research Press.

Appendix: Digital Methodology and Methods

Introduction Technological developments in recent decades have not only profoundly impacted and brought new possibilities for social life and ways of communication, they have also pushed forward new ways of approaching, collecting, and analysing data. Traditional means of data collection such as interviews, observations, different surveys, and more have been adapted to the online environment. A rich variety of online methods has been developed over the years as well. This process has revitalised questions of the role of data, social methods, and knowledge technologies in digital societies. As suggested by Marres: We may be living through a renewed ‘crisis of representation’ today, as the expanded interactivity between technology, social life and knowledge enabled by the digital calls into question the capacity of science to represent society—both methodologically, ethically and politically. /.../ Today’s crisis is not about the collapse of epistemic ideals—we are today not mourning the loss of belief in universal knowledge, the passing of ­epistemic

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Andreasson, A. Henning, Online Doping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30272-5

163

164 

Appendix: Digital Methodology and Methods

ideals. Rather, ways of knowing society have emerged as important, practical topics of contestation in digital societies, and these controversies need to be taken, at least initially, at face value: what should and shouldn’t data be used for? who should have access to knowledge technologies? What responsibility does research confer towards the researched? (Marres, 2017, pp. 193–194)

Though these questions were discussed within the philosophy of science long before the introduction of the internet, the digital transformation of society has revitalised their relevance. Following this, increasingly diverse methodological techniques and tools have been developed and debated in the social sciences and particularly within digital sociology (Lupton, 2014; Orton-Johnson & Prior, 2013). The idea of reinventing methods and research approaches also resonates with the idea of “live methods” brought forward by Les Back (2012). He argued that researchers face the challenge of dealing with a new form of coordinated social reality where relations exist across time and space, in the digital. But he also drew attention to the unprecedented opportunity to use digital communication and multimedia to reimagine social research. Though it might be challenging, engaging in digital sociology and online research creates an opportunity to move beyond traditional methodological concerns, pursuing research interests that cannot be captured solely through interviews and surveys (Selwyn, 2019). Though this book makes no claims of developing or reinventing the methods and methodology of social research, it does contribute to the debate. It illustrates how new possibilities for social life and ways of communication manifest in the digital and in relation to doping. Indeed, through arguing for the cyborgification of the doping phenomena, we have problematised, twisted, and flipped the interrelatedness of online/offline, fantasy/real, physical/digital, and more. This has also brought methodological and ethical considerations. In this chapter, we describe and reflect upon the methodology and methods used to gather data presented in this book. The chapter contains a description of how and “where” data was obtained, how it was analysed, and ethical considerations. We also address the question of research positionality and its impact on the findings presented throughout.

  Appendix: Digital Methodology and Methods 

165

Methodology and Method This book builds on an in-depth investigation of ongoing online discussions found on and across different forums on the internet. In general, we have applied a qualitative, case study-based, and ethnographic/netnographic approach to data (Hine, 2008; Kozinets, 2019; Yin, 2013). We have aimed to produce empirically close descriptions of online communications and how doping users in diverse online communities debate doping, bodies, risks, gender, and more. Regarding epistemology, as we see it, the study of different forums and online communities can provide rich portraits of rare cases and communities. This book can be read as an archaeology of online doping and how users’ discussions of IPEDs evolve in relation to the online environment as part of the broader digital doping ecosystem. As explained in the introduction, we have not primarily focused on what individuals express. Instead, we have viewed groups of users and communities, and their discussions on bodies, ideals, and more, as the main object of study. This was done with the intent to pay attention to the cultural formation and textuality of online doping; that is, the digital doping ecosystem rather than the individual identity positions found within. Contextualising narratives and community discussion have been at the heart of analysis (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Undoubtedly, online methods such as netnography (Hooley et  al., 2012; Kozinets, 2009, 2019; Sheehan, 2002) differ from conventional qualitative methods. For example, narratives told in an online context cannot be clearly positioned in geographic places or physical communities. Online material also provides limited ability to gather information from offline events and realities, and generally excludes face-to-face interaction (Hooley et al., 2012; Underwood, 2017). However, online research also has similarities to traditional qualitative and empirically close methodologies (Sheehan, 2002). Diverse online communities and websites are usually thematised to target and attract specific audiences and lifestyle groups (Lupton, 2014; Orgad, 2006). Therefore, they may be embedded in a particular socio-cultural and/or national context. Social practices online have also continued to blur boundaries between public and private and between online discussions and offline experience. Engaging in

166 

Appendix: Digital Methodology and Methods

studies of online communication has also made collecting personal information more easily accessible than ever, creating new intimacies and opportunities for interaction (Dutton, 2013), which have been widely recognised in doping research (Andreasson & Henning, 2022; Underwood, 2017). Kozinets (2009) concluded: With our ideas and actions, we choose technologies, we adapt and shape them. To this realisation it is also critical to add that our culture does not entirely control the technologies that we use, either. The way that technology and culture interact is a complex dance, an interweaving and intertwining. This element of technocultural change is present in our public spaces, our workplaces, our homes, our relationships and our bodies—each institutional element intermixed with every other one. Technology constantly shapes and reshapes our bodies, our places, and our identities, and is shaped to our needs as well. (p. 22)

Emphasising the importance of including technology in efforts to understand people’s everyday lives, Kozinets and others have shown that online narratives, experiences, and communities are excellent sources for studying the construction of cultural meaning within digital sociology. In this book we have taken the perspective that online communications, in one way or another, are cultural manifestations (Kozinets, 2009). We analysed how IPEDs are understood, mainly from user and community perspectives, and how online doping spaces contribute to define users’ perceptions of IPEDs in the(ir) (online and offline) world. The main online platforms we have focused on are MESO-Rx and Flashback. Though there are a range of other similar sites that allow users to engage with one another and discuss IPEDs and their use (e.g., Steroid. com, Musclegurus.to, Anabolicsteroidforums.com), we have concentrated on these two for several reasons. Separately, they represent two distinct cases: an international and a nationally situated discussion forum, respectively. MESO-Rx (sometimes also referred to as ThinkSteroids) is an English-­ language website with a broad international reach. It includes sub-sites for specific geographic areas, but the main sites appeal to an international audience. In contrast, Flashback is primarily a Swedish-language website and much more geographically bound to Sweden. Flashback itself is a

  Appendix: Digital Methodology and Methods 

167

broad, general interest website with forums dedicated to specific topics, including doping and IPED use. The discussions tend to be more localised and influenced by the geographic location of most users, which becomes clear when related to how use is debated in relation to the Swedish doping law (see Chap. 7). MESO-Rx in some ways is the reverse: it is a dedicated IPED website that hosts user-generated forums on a range of topics that include broader topics such as politics, news, and so on. On both sites, the forums are then split further into threads on specific topics, in which users post and reply to one another. There is no requirement to register in order to read posts on either site, but an account is necessary to post and reply. Accounts may be made anonymously and most users adopt a username unrelated to their legal name. In raw numbers, Flashback has the greater number of users, despite MESO-Rx being international (1.46 million to 81,000, respectively). However, the Flashback membership reflects users visiting any forum, of which there are relatively few dedicated to IPEDs and doping. All of MESO-Rx members, however, are there specifically for the IPED and doping forums. There are also differences in the experience of visiting and engaging on each site. Flashback looks like what one might have expected to find on the internet in the late 1990s or early 2000s. The forums are quite basic, presented in greyscale apart from the user avatars, and there are few advertisements. Users can donate money for the maintenance of the forums, underscoring its grassroots appeal. MESO-Rx has a more updated, commercialised look, accentuated by the full colour advertisements on the top and sidebars of pages. In addition to forums for IPEDs and doping, MESO-Rx also includes contributed columns (disclosure: we have contributed posts based on our research to MESO-Rx) and informational resources, including links to harm reduction services and steroid testing labs. In the sampling and data analysis process we initially read the ongoing discussions on the sites and forums selected for the different chapters. The threads obviously varied greatly in length and number of comment posts, which is why we limited our focus of attention to a group of specific forums, as presented in the different chapters. Initially, selected threads were copied to a word document and saved on a secured disk. These were then read repeatedly and organised in relation to the

168 

Appendix: Digital Methodology and Methods

theoretically informed aims of the book and its thematic focus. In this process we made theoretically informed notes so that we could contextualise data. Moving between our empirical data and the theoretical framework, we looked for excerpts that could provide nuanced insights into the cultural communities of online doping. Analytically, we opted to construct a creative research environment, by experimenting with writing, collecting data, and theoretical influences early on in the process (Back, 2012).

Internet Ethics As has been shown throughout the book, the internet provides a unique possibility for (potential) doping users to find relevant use information and share their personal accounts and experiences. This can be done in a variety of ways and formats: in community discussions, blogs, through YouTube clips, and so on. Given the ubiquity of technology it can also be done instantly, in the here and now (Mazanderani & Powell, 2013). Indeed, diverse narratives voluntarily presented online in forums such as Flashback and MESO-Rx provide access to authentic portrayals of social life and experiences that generate in-depth understandings of the doping phenomenon. Because online accounts are produced for reasons other than research purposes, they offer significant insights to experiences prioritised by the users themselves (Seale et al., 2010). Following this, we have aimed to illustrate the potential of using online accounts as a source of qualitative research data. Due to its openness, research around online communication has also been occupied by ongoing ethical debates about what is considered acceptable or not (Burles & Bally, 2018). Though guidelines and recommendations concerning inclusion, confidentiality, consent, and more have been developed (Eysenbach & Till, 2001; King, 1996; Markham et  al., 2012), variation in research practices remains. Whereas some have tried to specify ethical conduct in online research through very specific rules, others have taken somewhat broader, principal-­based approaches. Markham et  al. (2012), for example, suggested that researchers should reflect on the ethics of their research context and the nature of data gathered throughout, as well as on possible

  Appendix: Digital Methodology and Methods 

169

harms and/or benefits for those being researched. In this process, ethical decision-making is made continuously and broadly. Nonetheless, operating in ever-expanding digital contexts calls for continued discussions on ethical stances and research positionality. This has and continues to inform our approach to research. Given the evolving nature of online communication and variations in individual and cultural understandings of privacy, ethical decision-­ making is complex, contingent, and processual (Burles & Bally, 2018). For example, using this kind of material may blur distinctions between public/private and sensitive/non-sensitive information, as well as the vulnerability of those being researched. This brings forward central questions concerning confidentiality and participants’ ability to decide whether to participate in a study or not (formal consent). Forums on MESO-Rx and Flashback, as well as YouTube clips and other forms of media—which are the data that have been analysed in this book—share a commonality in that they are not password protected. This means that the data we have obtained is available to anyone with an internet connection. Based on this, we have concluded that those included in the course of data collection and/or quoted in our presentation have no reasonable expectation of their personal privacy needing to be normatively protected (Grodzinsky & Tavani, 2010). Adding to this, with only one exception, those quoted and the material used do not track back to individual users and their real names. Consequently, we do not know who the person behind an online username is, and (if not explicitly addressed) we cannot not even discern any identifying characteristics including age, ethnicity/ race, sexuality, or others. This anonymity does not give us free rein to use this online data as we please, of course. Therefore, to further protect those quoted, we have made sure not to include any potentially personally identifiable information, even if offered by the individual posting the content (Franzke et al., 2020). We have also chosen to invent new usernames unrelated to the handles used by the individual and restricted our use of quotations to those that promote relevant analysis in our presentation (Andreasson & Johansson, 2016). Further, data from Flashback forums has been translated from Swedish to English, which further obscures it from being found through available search engine technology. And taking into

170 

Appendix: Digital Methodology and Methods

account the potential for psychological harm, inconvenience, or hazard to particular individuals, on a few occasions we have chosen not to quote directly from conversations and instead to use indirect excerpts where the content (a situation, etc.) is described in running text. This offers a further degree of anonymity while preserving the essential meaning of the material (Franzke et al., 2020; King, 1996). In Chap. 3, one participant was named using his real name. Millard Baker moderates the MESO-Rx platform and generously shared his views about the platform and its development. Millard gave formal consent to participate in an interview to describe his understanding of the site and its users. He was given the opportunity to read the section in which his case was presented. He commented on this case and after some clarifications and a second read, he consented to our use of the case study. As Millard uses his name on the site, we saw no reason to use a pseudonym in the case study presented. In the interview, and the written case, we focused on his work with MESO-Rx rather than his personal life. Formal ethical approval to carry out this study was secured from the Regional Ethical Review Board of Linköping University, Sweden (Ref. No. 2017/469-31).

 tudy Positionality: Pursuing the Role S the Trickster In this book we have been inspired by Donna Haraway’s theoretical perspectives and contributions to understanding the relationship between bodies, social life, and technology (Haraway, 1997, 2006). These ultimately led to one of our main arguments for the book: proposing the cyborgification of the whole doping phenomenon (see Chap. 8). This inspiration has also had epistemological implications in terms of how we have situated the study within a larger philosophical frame. In her classic text “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” Harawaydeveloped her thoughts on partial and situated knowledge (Haraway, 1988, 2020). She argued that science is often described in an idealistic and picturesque

  Appendix: Digital Methodology and Methods 

171

way, debating the question of objectivity. She suggested that the idea that it is possible to produce objective and universal knowledge about society and social life is unreasonable. At the same time, she did not take a relativistic position, nor do we. Haraway argued that feminist objectivity is about situated knowledge rather than about complete transcendence and the splitting of subject and object (Haraway, 2020). The alternative to relativism is thus not objectivism but rather partial, situated, critical knowledges, and shared conversations in epistemology. The ideal is thus to produce situated knowledge and focus on positionality and bodily practices. Following this, we have contextualised and placed our study subjects/objects in a clear bodily, social, and cultural milieu and space. We have addressed diverse (bodily/community) practices in the context of online doping. Like Haraway, we have not sought to demarcate this context for greater knowledge claims of objectivity, however. Quite the contrary, we have continuously tried to unpack, analyse, and debate online doping in relation to offline realities, to sports and fitness doping contexts, and so on. This understanding of situatedness is also mirrored in Haraway’s changing vision of cyborgs, moving from a metaphor for transgressive and imaginative images of future gender relations towards a more post-materialist perspective on the body, gender, and materiality. Finally, in her writings Haraway likes to bring out the trickster as a metaphor for how we can position ourselves and create research that is reflexive, political, and situated. A trickster is a mythological figure who does not pursue or even respect any kind of normal state but takes the right to exceed what is considered normal or expected. The trickster tries to challenge the establishment in an elusive and often humorous way. Through this, hegemonic understandings can be refined and possibly even collapse. In the adventure compiling this book we found inspiration in the trickster position when moving from situated knowledge about the digital doping ecosystemtowards the cyborgification of the whole doping phenomenon.

References

Andreasson, J., & Henning, A. (2022). Challenging hegemony through narrative: Centering women’s experiences and establishing a sis-science culture through a women-only doping forum. Communication & Sport, 10(4), 708–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/21674795211000657 Andreasson, J., & Johansson, T. (2016). Online doping. The new self-help culture of ethnopharmacology. Sport in Society, 19(7), 957–972. https://doi. org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1096246 Back, L. (2012). Live sociology: Social research and its futures. The Sociological Review, 60(S1), 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­954X.2012.02115.x Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L.  J. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago press. Burles, M. C., & Bally, J. M. G. (2018). Ethical, practical, and methodological considerations for unobtrusive qualitative research about personal narratives shared on the internet. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1609406918788203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918788203 Dutton, W. H. (2013). The Oxford handbook of internet studies. OUP Oxford. Eysenbach, G., & Till, J.  E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ, 323(7321), 1103–1105.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Andreasson, A. Henning, Online Doping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30272-5

173

174 References

Franzke, A.  S., Bechmann, A., Zimmer, M., Ess, C., & The Association of Internet Researchers. (2020). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf Grodzinsky, F., & Tavani, H.  T. (2010). Applying the “contextual integrity” model of privacy to personal blogs in the blogosphere. Computer Science & Information Technology Faculty Publications, 2. http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/computersci_fac/2 Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The Science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066 Haraway, D. (1997). Modest−Witness@Second−Millennium.FemaleMan−Meets− OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. Routledge. Haraway, D. (2006). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-­ feminism in the late 20th century. In The international handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 117–158). Springer. Haraway, D. (2020). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Feminist theory reader (5th ed.). Routledge. Hine, C. (2008). Virtual ethnography: Modes, varieties, affordances. In N. Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp.  257–270). SAGE. https://doi. org/10.4135/9780857020055 Hooley, T., Wellens, J., & Marriott, J. (2012). What is online research?: Using the internet for social science research. A&C Black. King, S. A. (1996). Researching Internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results. The Information Society, 12(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/713856145 Kozinets, R. V. (2009). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. SAGE. Kozinets, R. V. (2019). Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research. Sage. Lupton, D. (2014). Digital sociology. Routledge. Markham, A., Buchanan, E., & with Contributions from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee. (2012). Ethical decisionmaking and Internet research 2.0: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee. Retrieved from http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf Marres, N. (2017). Digital sociology: The reinvention of social research. Wiley. Mazanderani, F., & Powell, J. (2013). Using the Internet as a source of information about patients’ experiences. In S. Ziebland, A. Coulter, J. D. Calabrese,

 References 

175

& L.  Locock (Eds.), Understanding and using health experiences: Improving patient care. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780199665372.003.0010 Orgad, S. (2006). The cultural dimensions of online communication: A study of breast cancer patients’ internet spaces. New Media & Society, 8(6), 877–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806069643 Orton-Johnson, K., & Prior, N. (2013). Digital sociology: Critical perspectives. Springer. Seale, C., Charteris-Black, J., MacFarlane, A., & McPherson, A. (2010). Interviews and internet forums: A comparison of two sources of qualitative data. Qualitative Health Research, 20(5), 595–606. https://doi. org/10.1177/1049732309354094 Selwyn, N. (2019). What is digital sociology? Wiley. Sheehan, K. B. (2002). Online research methodology: Reflections and speculations. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3(1), 56–61. https://doi.org/10.108 0/15252019.2002.10722068 Underwood, M. (2017). Exploring the social lives of image and performance enhancing drugs: An online ethnography of the Zyzz fandom of recreational bodybuilders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 39, 78–85. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.08.012 Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.

Index

A

C

Alice in Wonderland (Carroll), 110 Arpanet, 22

Carlson, Tucker, 82, 85 Community of practice, 6, 59 Connell, Raewyn, 79, 93, 96, 111, 114 Contextual separation, 5 Cultural sociology, 8 Cyborg, 1, 27, 28, 68, 157, 158 Cyborgification, 11, 149–159, 164, 170, 171 Cycling Festina, 21 Tour de France, 21

B

Baker, Millard, vi, 49, 50, 170 Bodies and commercialisation, 79 discursive, 32, 143, 145 and goals, 6, 25, 57, 76, 79, 98, 102, 116 and plastic surgery, 67 and technology, 1–3, 9, 24–26, 35, 67, 132, 170 Bodybuilding and genetic max, 69, 76, 77 natural/natty, 72, 73 and women, 19

D

Darknet, 24 Debord, Guy, 2, 3, 28, 113, 114, 123, 124, 156

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Andreasson, A. Henning, Online Doping, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30272-5

177

178 Index

Debord, Guy (cont.) the Real, 113, 114 the Spectacle, 113, 114 Digital body/bodies, 10, 24–26, 35, 69, 74, 85, 113, 132, 140, 142, 143, 145, 150, 153, 156, 157 and projects, 2, 57 Digital corporealities, 29, 30 Digital doping ecosystem and domains, 44, 47, 49, 85 and environment, 47, 132, 151, 153 and gender, 159 and hierarchy, 46, 47, 57 and species, 152 Digital sociology, 8–9, 17, 26, 34, 68, 164, 166 Digital space(s), 5, 6, 17, 23–25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 46–49, 144, 154 Doping and bodybuilding, 4, 18, 20, 67, 71, 76 community, 24–26, 30, 32, 47, 62, 76, 92, 94, 103, 111, 113, 115, 157–159 and culture, v, 6–8, 10, 16, 25, 34, 35, 62, 92, 150, 154, 156 and demographics, 6, 53, 112 and identity, 30, 165 and motivation, 33, 55, 132 as phenomenon, 4, 5, 7, 15, 16, 33, 132, 133, 149–159, 168 as practice, v, 4, 5, 7, 9, 15, 17, 32, 33, 48, 54, 132, 133, 135, 150, 152 and sport, 4, 5, 7, 16, 18–21, 24, 53, 71, 131, 132, 150, 153, 155, 157, 171

E

Ecosystem, v, 9, 24–26, 33–35, 44–47, 49, 57, 61, 62, 146, 151–154 doping ecosystem, vi, 9, 10, 17, 25–35, 43–62, 76, 85, 92, 95, 114, 124, 132, 134, 146, 150, 152, 153, 155, 159, 165, 171 See also Digital doping ecosystem Emphasised femininity, 104 Environment enabling environment, 9, 132, 135 risk environment, 134, 135, 144 Erowid, 23 Ethnography, 9 Ethnopharmacology and broscience, 92 and culture, 10, 31, 32, 34, 35, 48, 62, 97, 99–101, 103, 121 and sis-science, 10, 96, 155 F

Felski, Rita, 93, 94, 96, 100, 103, 104 Feminism, 170 Flashback, 6, 46–49, 54, 57, 59, 61, 71, 73, 74, 132, 136, 138, 139, 144, 152, 166–169 G

Gender and identity, 7 and performance, 29, 152 performativity, 118 and power, 7, 94, 103

 Index 

Gendering, 7, 31, 93 and online forums, 94 Gym and fitness culture, 5, 16, 151, 155 H

Haraway, Donna, 1, 2, 27–30, 68, 93, 132, 156, 170, 171 Harm harm reduction, 24, 49–53, 57–61, 92, 94, 95, 100, 104, 135–137, 139, 144, 157, 158, 167 narrative of harm, 111–113, 124 paradigm of harm, 112 and risk, 3, 53, 57, 134, 144, 150, 155–158 Hegemony hegemonic masculinity, 69, 104, 154 hegemonic patterns, 92 Heterosexism, 112 Homophobia, 4, 112 Hyper-masculinity, 109, 112, 114, 115, 117–120, 123 I

Image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs) amphetamines, 18 IPED coaching, 101 International Olympic Committee (IOC), 18, 21 Medical Commission, 18 Internet ethics, 168–170

179

J

Johnson, Ben, 20 K

Klein, Allan, 4, 7, 19, 20, 24, 70, 91, 151, 153 M

Manspreading cultural manspreading, 153–155 digital manspreading, 154 Masculinity and fantasy, 72, 109–125 fragile, 20 hyper, 4, 10, 70, 71, 84, 109, 110, 112, 114–124, 154 and muscles, 69, 83, 91, 93, 111 myths of, 83 normative, 70, 91 Masculinizing, 98, 104 Matrix, The, 2, 79 Medicalisation of society, 109 MESO-Rx, vi, 6, 9, 45–51, 54, 57, 59–61, 92, 95, 103, 111, 115, 116, 120, 124, 141, 166–170 Misogyny, 4, 78, 84, 114 Monaghan, Lee, 4 N

Narratives and gender, 103 of self, 7, 8, 30–31, 35, 93–95 Netnography, 9, 165

180 Index

Normalisation of bodies, 102 of gender, 102 of masculinity, 117

R

Reality vs. fantasy, 10, 29, 31, 75, 84, 113, 121, 155, 156 hybrid, 11

O

Offline and geography, 48 interrelationship with online, 2, 3, 6–8, 10, 11, 17, 33, 35, 48, 51, 92, 110, 115, 125, 131–146, 150, 155, 156, 158, 159, 164–166 and reality, 2, 5, 6, 24, 25, 30, 32, 34, 35, 46–48, 110, 125, 136–139, 146, 150, 152, 155, 156, 159, 165, 171 Online bazaar, 24–26, 59, 151 doping culture, v, 25, 156 pharmacies, 24, 25, 43, 44, 59 space, 6–8, 10, 35, 51, 53, 77, 100, 110, 124, 149–151, 153, 154, 166 Ontological turn, 133–134, 158

S

Schwarzenegger, Arnold, 1, 2, 19, 132, 140–143, 145 Sexuality, 10, 84, 111, 113, 114, 119, 120, 124, 169 hyper, 114–117, 119 Simulacra, 156 Social drug use, 18 marijuana/cannabis, 22, 48 Social media, 23, 27, 43, 68, 70, 74–77, 80–82, 84, 85, 131, 140–141, 143, 145 Steroids Anavar, 58 Arimidex, 115, 116 and lab testing, 49 and side effects, 118 Stigma, 22, 46, 51, 135, 136, 144 taboo, 92 T

P

Pathology paradigm, 111 Philosophy of science, 17, 28, 164 Pleasure, 99, 101, 111–113, 117, 121, 124, 125, 158 Pornification, 117, 123, 124

Terminator, 1, 2 Testicle tanning, 69, 82–85 perineum sunning, 83 Testosterone, 18, 69, 71, 82, 83, 85, 109, 112, 115, 117, 120 boosting, 82, 83

 Index 

dreams, 10, 110, 124 Testosterone Dreams, 109 ThinkSteroids, see MESO-Rx Trajectory, 44, 56, 62 community, 43–62, 137 Transcendence, 132, 146, 155–157, 171 Turnock, Luke, 5, 22, 24, 25, 34, 43, 44, 57, 133, 135, 136, 150, 151 Typology, 91

W

U

Z

Underwood, Mair, 5–7, 24, 30–32, 34, 43, 46, 76–78, 92, 96, 100, 110, 112, 114, 165, 166 Usenet, 22, 23

181

Wellness, 10, 32, 69, 70, 81–85, 152, 157 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and Code, 7, 134 and prohibited substances, 15 Y

YouTube, 19, 76, 77, 168, 169

Zyzz and aesthetics, 69, 75–80 fandom, 69, 75–80, 82, 84, 152 Shavershian, Aziz, 75