Limited testing can weaken confidence in fair competition, particularly when an event prohibits PEDs but does little to enforce that rule. However, an athlete’s appearance or performance alone does not establish drug use, and the event’s actual testing policy should be verified before making accusations.
One concern is competitive pressure. If athletes believe their rivals are gaining a pharmaceutical advantage without consequences, they may feel pushed toward risks they would otherwise avoid. Allowing everyone to use PEDs does not necessarily create equal conditions: access, medical support, individual responses, and willingness to accept harm differ.
Health risks also remain regardless of the competition’s rules. Anabolic steroid misuse can affect blood pressure, cholesterol, fertility, mood, and organ health. Permission to compete while using a substance does not establish its safety. NHS
Testing is one part of an effective anti-doping programme. USADA explains that unpredictable testing outside competition helps improve deterrence. Clear rules, consistent enforcement, education, and independent oversight also matter. U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
Anti-doping testing and medical monitoring serve different purposes. Testing checks compliance with competition rules; medical assessment addresses health. Neither guarantees that an athlete is free from risk.
My view is that organizers should clearly disclose their policies and provide credible enforcement and athlete safeguards. The World Anti-Doping Code identifies health, fairness, and equality as central goals. Impressive performances should not excuse misleading claims about those protections.