The list's logic: mechanism, not effect
A common misreading: "if it's banned, it must work". Anti-doping logic runs differently. Substances enter the list when they affect — or potentially affect — protected systems: muscle growth, oxygen transport, recovery. Proven efficacy isn't required: class S2 covers peptide hormones, their releasing factors, and analogues wholesale.
That's why the list holds drugs with powerful clinical records next to research compounds without a single controlled human trial. The list doesn't care. An honest conversation about evidence does — and we always spell that difference out.
The classic storyline: the growth hormone axis
The most instructive case is growth hormone and its secretagogues. Baumann's review in Endocrine Reviews covers both GH's history in sport and the detection arms race. Secretagogues — molecules that nudge the body's own GH secretion — are closed off by the same mechanistic logic, regardless of what studies did or didn't show.
Detection, by the way, caught up: modern methods find the molecules themselves, their metabolites, and indirect biomarkers. The era of "they can't see it" ended long ago.
Strict liability: the rule with no discounts
Anti-doping runs on strict liability: the athlete answers for whatever is found in their sample. "Didn't know", "it was a supplement", "the seller said it was clean" — not arguments. A positive test is a positive test.
Our position follows automatically: our catalogue materials are for laboratories, not athletes. If you compete under anti-doping rules, the responsibility is yours, the list is public, and research compounds are closed off in it by class. That's not legal advice — that's reading an open document.
References
- Growth hormone doping in sports: a critical review of use and detection strategies — Endocrine Reviews, 33(2), 155–186 (DOI 10.1210/er.2011-1035), 2012.
- The Prohibited List — World Anti-Doping Agency, 2026. (source queued for editorial verification)