Scholarlink

<p>The current anti-doping framework, particularly the absolute prohibition of substances like Clostebol without any threshold, raises serious concerns about fairness, scientific integrity, and the practical enforcement of regulations. This letter presents a comprehensive argument against the inconsistent treatment of substances with high contamination potential, such as Clostebol, which are penalized at trace levels, while other substances that may have greater performance-enhancing effects are permitted within set thresholds. The current zero-tolerance approach to Clostebol, despite its significant risk of inadvertent exposure, is both scientifically unsound and ethically unjust. It creates disparities in anti-doping policies, unfairly punishes athletes for unintentional contamination, and fails to&#xa0;adequately&#xa0;address substances with a stronger potential for performance enhancement. By establishing reasonable thresholds for high-risk substances, continuously updating the prohibited list based on emerging scientific evidence, and adopting a risk-based strategy, anti-doping agencies can foster a more just and effective system, one that upholds the integrity of sport while recognizing the realities of inadvertent exposure.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The case for revisiting anti-doping policies on substances with high contamination risk (e.g., Clostebol)

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月6日

查看全文
  • Alberto Boretti

摘要

The current anti-doping framework, particularly the absolute prohibition of substances like Clostebol without any threshold, raises serious concerns about fairness, scientific integrity, and the practical enforcement of regulations. This letter presents a comprehensive argument against the inconsistent treatment of substances with high contamination potential, such as Clostebol, which are penalized at trace levels, while other substances that may have greater performance-enhancing effects are permitted within set thresholds. The current zero-tolerance approach to Clostebol, despite its significant risk of inadvertent exposure, is both scientifically unsound and ethically unjust. It creates disparities in anti-doping policies, unfairly punishes athletes for unintentional contamination, and fails to adequately address substances with a stronger potential for performance enhancement. By establishing reasonable thresholds for high-risk substances, continuously updating the prohibited list based on emerging scientific evidence, and adopting a risk-based strategy, anti-doping agencies can foster a more just and effective system, one that upholds the integrity of sport while recognizing the realities of inadvertent exposure.