They view as “safe” and part of normal training despite their own continuous selfsurveillance. This paper commences with a discussion of the literature on discipline and surveillance, beginning with the work of Michel Foucault (1979, 1990, 2004), which demonstrates the ways discipline and surveillance are deployed to manage entire populations, followed by Nikolas Rose’s (1999) discussion of how regulatory expertise is deployed as a way to guide responsibilized neoliberal citizens’ decision-making process to meet social health goals. These arguments are followed by a brief description on doping in the sport of running and of the rise of the current anti-doping approaches. This paper argues the current elite surveillance-based systems of anti-doping can work against the health promotion goals of anti-doping agencies by leading non-elites to self-surveil only to the extent that they are following the rules as they understand them. This process leads to a blind spot in the internalized anti-doping gaze that allows non-elite runners to simultaneously engage in selfsurveillance while taking for granted the safety and perceived benefits of unregulated and non-banned nutritional supplements. I examine various ways these (mis)understandings inform how non-elite runners engage in self-surveillance to ensure they remain within the normative bounds of their sport when making decisions as to which products to use in their own training.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptSurveillance and SportOne way to view anti-doping efforts is as a result of external control exercised on athletes by forcing them to yield to a repressive form of surveillance and power. However, Michel Foucault’s work, subsequently built upon by Nikolas Rose and others, provides a framework through which to understand the ways non-elite athletes come to self-surveil, even in the ML390 web absence of external testing at their competitive level, and the impact these processes can have on negative health outcomes. Foucault described the role of disciplining institutions, including schools, prisons, and the military, in exposing individuals to normalizing rules,1The National Institute of Health (NIH) defines dietary supplements using a four-part definition developed by Congress in the Dietary Health and Supplement Education Act. According to the NIH, a dietary supplement “is intended to supplement the diet; contains one or more dietary ingredients (including vitamins; minerals: herbs or other botanicals; amino acids; and other substances) or their constituents; is intended to be taken by mouth as a pill, capsule, tablet, or liquid; and is get PNPP labeled on the front panel as being a dietary supplement” (NIH 2007).Surveill Soc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 04.HenningPageauthorities, and habits. These techniques, applied continually on and around individuals to enhance discipline bodies and produce “docile bodies” (Foucault 1979). Foucault argued these disciplining forces are enhanced by surveillance, famously using Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon design to encourage self-discipline amongst prisoners by creating an illusion of ubiquitous surveillance and control according to prescribed standards (Foucault 1979). Through such processes of normalization, disciplinary power does not necessarily repress but invests disciplined bodies with strongly internalized norms (Rail and Harvey 1995). Within the sporting context, athletic bodies are subject to the.They view as “safe” and part of normal training despite their own continuous selfsurveillance. This paper commences with a discussion of the literature on discipline and surveillance, beginning with the work of Michel Foucault (1979, 1990, 2004), which demonstrates the ways discipline and surveillance are deployed to manage entire populations, followed by Nikolas Rose’s (1999) discussion of how regulatory expertise is deployed as a way to guide responsibilized neoliberal citizens’ decision-making process to meet social health goals. These arguments are followed by a brief description on doping in the sport of running and of the rise of the current anti-doping approaches. This paper argues the current elite surveillance-based systems of anti-doping can work against the health promotion goals of anti-doping agencies by leading non-elites to self-surveil only to the extent that they are following the rules as they understand them. This process leads to a blind spot in the internalized anti-doping gaze that allows non-elite runners to simultaneously engage in selfsurveillance while taking for granted the safety and perceived benefits of unregulated and non-banned nutritional supplements. I examine various ways these (mis)understandings inform how non-elite runners engage in self-surveillance to ensure they remain within the normative bounds of their sport when making decisions as to which products to use in their own training.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptSurveillance and SportOne way to view anti-doping efforts is as a result of external control exercised on athletes by forcing them to yield to a repressive form of surveillance and power. However, Michel Foucault’s work, subsequently built upon by Nikolas Rose and others, provides a framework through which to understand the ways non-elite athletes come to self-surveil, even in the absence of external testing at their competitive level, and the impact these processes can have on negative health outcomes. Foucault described the role of disciplining institutions, including schools, prisons, and the military, in exposing individuals to normalizing rules,1The National Institute of Health (NIH) defines dietary supplements using a four-part definition developed by Congress in the Dietary Health and Supplement Education Act. According to the NIH, a dietary supplement “is intended to supplement the diet; contains one or more dietary ingredients (including vitamins; minerals: herbs or other botanicals; amino acids; and other substances) or their constituents; is intended to be taken by mouth as a pill, capsule, tablet, or liquid; and is labeled on the front panel as being a dietary supplement” (NIH 2007).Surveill Soc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 November 04.HenningPageauthorities, and habits. These techniques, applied continually on and around individuals to enhance discipline bodies and produce “docile bodies” (Foucault 1979). Foucault argued these disciplining forces are enhanced by surveillance, famously using Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon design to encourage self-discipline amongst prisoners by creating an illusion of ubiquitous surveillance and control according to prescribed standards (Foucault 1979). Through such processes of normalization, disciplinary power does not necessarily repress but invests disciplined bodies with strongly internalized norms (Rail and Harvey 1995). Within the sporting context, athletic bodies are subject to the.