American Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences

This commentary responds to critiques of the authors' earlier work on raising awareness of epistemic racism in anti-doping research. The response is organized into three reflective sections addressing method, racism, and context. The first section outlines the deliberative process behind the original commentary and details the authors lived experiences, addressing critiques of method. The second section reflects on racism: epistemic racism is not a novel concept but one acknowledged across disciplines, making it relevant to anti-doping scholarship; the authors challenge its dismissal as irrelevant and note that systemic racial biases in knowledge production have long shaped science and policy, supporting the recommendation that scholars be racially aware and that claims of tokenism regarding editorial board representation be reconsidered. The third section addresses context — a term the authors argue is heavily relied upon but inconsistently and questionably used by their critics. The commentary notes how an original framing of athletes from developing countries as lacking choice, values, and morality was obscured by a reframing presented as positive and critiques the concept of self-selection bias as a form of blame-shifting that ignores the historical context and consequences of colonialism. Through this structure, the authors aim not only to respond to their critics but also to encourage a more inclusive and equitable approach to anti-doping research.

Keywords: Colonial Legacies; Decolonizing Methodologies; Athlete Representation; Implicit Bias; Cultural Contextualization; Qualitative Methods; Positionality.