The independent international body that writes the World Anti-Doping Code (the rulebook all signatory sports adopt), publishes and updates the Prohibited List at least once a year, accredits the testing laboratories and sets the testing standards. A substance is added to the List if it meets any two of three criteria: it enhances performance, it poses a health risk, or it violates the spirit of sport.

What is sport Integrity Australia?

Australia's national anti-doping organisation. It was established on 1 July 2020 and took over the anti-doping functions of the former Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), bringing anti-doping together with broader sport-integrity work (match-fixing, safeguarding). It conducts the actual testing of Australian athletes (in- and out-of-competition), runs education, manages results and investigates.

§-Syllabus dot point

NSWHealth and Movement ScienceSyllabus dot point

What are performance-enhancing drugs, what risks do they pose, and how is doping detected and regulated?

Investigate performance-enhancing drugs and doping in sport, including the main drug classes and their effects, the risks to athlete health and to the integrity of sport, detection and testing, the anti-doping regulatory framework (WADA, Sport Integrity Australia, the Prohibited List, sanctions) and the ethics of doping

A focused HSC Health and Movement Science answer on doping: the main performance-enhancing drug classes (anabolic steroids, peptide/growth hormones, stimulants, EPO and blood doping, beta-blockers, diuretics) and their effects, the health and integrity risks, detection and testing, the WADA and Sport Integrity Australia framework, sanctions and the ethics of doping.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.810 min answerUpdated 2026-06-02

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Quick answer

Doping = using a banned substance or method for unfair advantage. Know six classes by effect: anabolic steroids (strength/power), peptide hormones/hGH (growth/recovery), stimulants (mask fatigue), EPO and blood doping (oxygen/endurance), beta-blockers (steady aim), diuretics/masking agents (make weight, hide drugs). It is banned because it harms athlete HEALTH (clots, heart, liver, arrhythmia) and the INTEGRITY of sport (unfairness, coercion, lost trust). WADA writes the Code and the annually updated Prohibited List (added if it meets two of: enhances performance, harms health, breaches the spirit of sport); Sport Integrity Australia (which absorbed ASADA in 2020) does the testing in Australia. Detection uses in- and out-of-competition (no-notice) testing, whereabouts filing, A and B samples and the Athlete Biological Passport. Athletes face strict liability; a deliberate first violation means up to four years' ineligibility plus disqualified results.

What this dot point is asking

NESA wants you to know the main classes of performance-enhancing drug and what each does, the risks doping poses to athlete health and to the integrity of sport, how doping is detected and tested for, the regulatory framework that governs it (WADA, the Prohibited List, Sport Integrity Australia, the athlete's responsibilities and the sanctions), and the ethics of doping. This page is about ILLEGAL/banned drugs and doping methods only - the lawful side of technology and equipment is covered in the technology, performance enhancement, ethics and equity page.

In plain English

"Doping" just means cheating with chemistry: taking a banned drug, or using a banned trick like a blood transfusion, to perform better than your real training would allow. Different drugs cheat in different ways. Some (steroids) build muscle so you get stronger; one (EPO) makes extra red blood cells so your blood carries more oxygen and you can run or ride for longer; some (stimulants) just switch off the feeling of being tired; some (beta-blockers) steady your hands for shooting; some (diuretics) flush water out fast to make a weight class or to dilute a test.

Think of sport as an exam with a strict no-cheat-sheet rule. The referee is a worldwide body called WADA, which writes the "banned list" and the rulebook. In Australia, the people who actually show up to test athletes are Sport Integrity Australia. The catch for athletes is "strict liability": just like a banned phone in your exam, it does not matter if you "didn't know" it was there - if a banned substance is in your sample, that counts. And because the cleverest cheats dope in training and stop before competition day, testers turn up with no warning at any time of year. The big reasons we ban all this: the drugs can seriously hurt or kill you, and if some cheat, everyone else is forced to choose between cheating too or losing.

The answer

Doping is the use of a prohibited substance or method to gain an unfair advantage. The syllabus expects you to handle FOUR things together: (1) the drug classes and their effects, (2) the risks to health and to the integrity of sport, (3) detection and testing, and (4) the regulatory framework and ethics. Treat them as a chain - a drug class produces an effect, which carries a risk, which the testing system tries to catch, under rules set by WADA and enforced in Australia by Sport Integrity Australia.

The main drug classes and what they do

Anabolic-androgenic steroids (e.g. testosterone, stanozolol, nandrolone). Synthetic versions of testosterone. They raise muscle protein synthesis, so an athlete gains muscle mass, strength and power and recovers faster between hard sessions (so they can train harder). The most abused class in strength/power sports.
Peptide hormones and growth factors (e.g. human growth hormone (hGH), insulin-like growth factor IGF-1). Promote tissue growth, recovery and fat loss. Abused for lean mass and recovery, although the direct performance evidence is weaker than for steroids. Also hard to detect, which is part of the appeal.
Stimulants (e.g. amphetamines, cocaine, ephedrine). Raise alertness and aggression, reduce the perceived effort of exercise and mask fatigue, and raise heart rate. Used in-competition for a short, sharp lift.
Erythropoietin (EPO) and blood doping. EPO is a hormone that drives red blood cell production. Blood doping more broadly means any method that raises red cell mass: synthetic EPO, blood transfusion (autologous = the athlete's own stored blood; homologous = a donor's), or artificial oxygen carriers. All raise the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood and so aerobic endurance.
Beta-blockers. Slow the heart rate and reduce tremor and anxiety. Banned only in precision sports (shooting, archery, some golf and billiards events) because a steadier hand and slower heart improve aim.
Diuretics and masking agents. Diuretics cause rapid fluid loss. Athletes misuse them to make a weight category quickly, and as masking agents - diluting the urine and flushing other prohibited drugs out faster so a test is more likely to come back clean.

The risks: to health and to the integrity of sport

Integrity matters as much as health in HMS. A doped result is not just dangerous to the doper - it pressures every honest competitor toward the same risk, distorts selection and funding, and erodes public faith in sport. WADA grounds the ban in this dual concern.

Detection, testing and the regulatory framework

The framework is layered: an international rule-maker (WADA), a national enforcer (Sport Integrity Australia in Australia), a list of what is banned (the Prohibited List), and the testing and sanctions machinery that enforces it.

WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency): The independent international body that writes the World Anti-Doping Code (the rulebook all signatory sports adopt), publishes and updates the Prohibited List at least once a year, accredits the testing laboratories and sets the testing standards. A substance is added to the List if it meets any two of three criteria: it enhances performance, it poses a health risk, or it violates the spirit of sport.
Sport Integrity Australia: Australia's national anti-doping organisation. It was established on 1 July 2020 and took over the anti-doping functions of the former Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA), bringing anti-doping together with broader sport-integrity work (match-fixing, safeguarding). It conducts the actual testing of Australian athletes (in- and out-of-competition), runs education, manages results and investigates.
Testing and detection methods

In-competition testing at events, plus out-of-competition no-notice testing in the training period - essential because steroids, EPO and hGH are used in training and cleared before competition.
Whereabouts filing: elite athletes in a registered testing pool must lodge where they will be so testers can find them; three missed tests/filing failures in 12 months is itself a violation.
A and B samples: a urine or blood sample is split; if the A sample is an adverse analytical finding, the athlete can have the B sample tested to confirm.
Athlete Biological Passport (ABP): tracks the athlete's own blood and steroid markers over time, catching doping (microdosed EPO, transfusions) indirectly through abnormal variation, even when no drug is detectable.

Athlete responsibilities and sanctions.

Strict liability: the athlete is responsible for whatever is in their sample, intent or not. This is why a contaminated supplement can still mean a violation - athletes must check everything they take.
Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE): legitimate medical use of an otherwise-banned substance can be approved in advance.
Sanctions: a first deliberate (non-specified-substance) violation carries up to four years ineligibility plus disqualification of results; repeat or aggravated cases can mean a lifetime ban. Sanctions are reducible for no significant fault (e.g. proven contamination) or for substantial assistance to investigators.

Worked exam answers

Worked example 1 - short answer (4 marks)

Question. Outline how erythropoietin (EPO) enhances endurance performance and explain why its use is a serious health risk.

Model answer. EPO is a hormone that stimulates the bone marrow to make more red blood cells. This raises the haematocrit and the blood's oxygen-carrying capacity, so more oxygen is delivered to working muscle per minute. Because endurance performance is limited by oxygen delivery (VO2max), the athlete can sustain a higher aerobic work rate, which is why EPO has been so abused in cycling and distance running. The same change is dangerous: the extra red cells thicken the blood and raise its viscosity, making it harder to pump and more likely to clot, which sharply increases the risk of stroke, heart attack and pulmonary embolism, especially overnight when heart rate falls.

Marker's note: full marks need the mechanism (more red cells -> more oxygen -> endurance) AND the matched risk mechanism (thicker blood -> clots/stroke). Naming haematocrit/viscosity and linking to VO2max signals precision; "it makes you fitter but is unhealthy" with no mechanism caps low.

Worked example 2 - the framework (5 marks)

Question. Explain how the anti-doping framework attempts to catch athletes who dope in training but compete clean.

Model answer. Steroids, EPO and growth hormone build chronic adaptations over weeks of training and are then stopped so they clear the body before a competition test. In-competition testing alone therefore misses them. The framework closes this gap three ways. First, no-notice out-of-competition testing samples athletes during the training phase when the drugs are actually present. Second, whereabouts filing requires elite athletes to tell testers where they are so out-of-competition tests can happen at any time, with three failures in 12 months counting as a violation. Third, the Athlete Biological Passport tracks each athlete's own blood and steroid markers over time, so doping that leaves no detectable drug, such as microdosed EPO or transfusions, still shows up as abnormal variation. Strict liability then removes the "I didn't know" defence.

Marker's note: markers reward naming the specific mechanisms (out-of-competition testing, whereabouts, the ABP) and linking each to WHY training-phase doping evades ordinary in-competition tests. A general "they test athletes" answer with no mechanisms caps at 2.

Common traps

Matching a drug to the wrong effect: Steroids build muscle (strength/power); EPO raises oxygen (endurance); beta-blockers steady the hands (precision sports). Swapping these (e.g. "steroids for endurance") loses the mark instantly. Learn class -> effect pairs cold.
Saying ASADA when you mean Sport Integrity Australia: ASADA was absorbed into Sport Integrity Australia on 1 July 2020. For anything current, name Sport Integrity Australia; you can note it took over ASADA's role.
Confusing WADA and the national body: WADA is the international rule-maker and List-keeper; it does not personally test Australian athletes day to day - Sport Integrity Australia does. Keep "sets the rules" separate from "does the testing".
Forgetting the integrity-of-sport harm: Many students only write about health. Doping also destroys fair competition, coerces clean athletes, and damages trust - integrity harm is half the answer and half the ethical case.
Misstating strict liability: Strict liability does not mean intent is ignored entirely - intent affects the LENGTH of the sanction. It means a violation occurs regardless of intent.

Exam technique

Read the command word. "Outline a drug's effect" wants mechanism in a sentence or two; "explain a risk" wants the cause-and-effect chain (e.g. EPO -> thick blood -> clot -> stroke); "assess the extent" or "evaluate" wants a judgement weighing strengths against limitations, not a list. For ethics/extended responses, name the spirit of sport and use the coercion point (one athlete's doping forces everyone else to choose to dope or lose) - it defeats the "athlete autonomy" argument cleanly. Name real bodies and dates: WADA (Prohibited List), Sport Integrity Australia (from 1 July 2020, absorbed ASADA), the Athlete Biological Passport, strict liability. Anchor with a real example: the Lance Armstrong cycling case, or the 2015 to 2019 Russian state-sponsored doping findings, both show how detection lags evasion. For data items, show the calculation, give units, then interpret - never just say "it went up".

Practice questions

Original practice questions graded from foundation to exam level, each with a full worked solution. Try them before revealing the solution.

foundation3 marksIdentify three different classes of performance-enhancing drug and state the main effect each is used for.

Show worked solution →

Any three classes, each with its primary performance effect:

Anabolic-androgenic steroids - increase muscle protein synthesis, so strength, power and recovery rise.
Erythropoietin (EPO) / blood doping - raise red cell mass and oxygen-carrying capacity, so aerobic endurance rises.
Stimulants (e.g. amphetamines) - raise alertness and reduce perceived fatigue.
Beta-blockers - steady heart rate and reduce tremor for precision/aiming sports.
Peptide hormones (e.g. human growth hormone) - promote tissue growth, recovery and fat loss.
Diuretics - rapid weight loss to make a category, and masking other drugs.

Marking criteria: 1 mark for each correctly named class paired with its correct main effect (max 3). Naming a class with the wrong effect (e.g. "steroids for endurance") earns nothing for that line.

foundation4 marksOutline the role of WADA and of Sport Integrity Australia in anti-doping. Distinguish their responsibilities.

Show worked solution →

WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) is the international body. It writes and maintains the World Anti-Doping Code, publishes and annually updates the Prohibited List, accredits testing laboratories and sets the global standards that signatory sports must follow.

Sport Integrity Australia is the national anti-doping organisation. Established on 1 July 2020 (absorbing ASADA), it implements the Code in Australia: it conducts in-competition and out-of-competition testing of Australian athletes, manages results and the national education program, and investigates violations.

Distinction. WADA sets the rules and the List globally; Sport Integrity Australia enforces and delivers anti-doping on the ground in Australia under those rules. WADA does not itself test athletes day to day; national bodies like Sport Integrity Australia do.

Marking criteria: 1 mark WADA's standard-setting/Prohibited List role; 1 mark Sport Integrity Australia's national testing/enforcement role; 1 mark the explicit distinction (international rule-maker vs national enforcer); 1 mark for accuracy (correct names, the 2020 ASADA transition).

core4 marksExplain why erythropoietin (EPO) improves endurance performance, and why it poses a serious health risk to the athlete.

Show worked solution →

Performance. EPO is a hormone that stimulates the bone marrow to produce more red blood cells, raising the haematocrit (the red-cell fraction of blood). More red cells means more haemoglobin and a greater oxygen-carrying capacity, so more oxygen reaches working muscle per minute. Because endurance performance is limited by oxygen delivery (VO2max), a higher red cell mass lifts the sustainable aerobic work rate - the reason EPO has been so heavily abused in cycling and distance running.

Health risk. The same thickening of the blood that delivers more oxygen also raises its viscosity. Thicker, more sluggish blood is harder for the heart to pump and clots more readily, which sharply increases the risk of stroke, heart attack and pulmonary embolism, especially at rest or overnight when heart rate and blood pressure fall. Several endurance athletes have died from clotting events linked to red-cell manipulation.

Marking criteria: 1 mark for EPO raising red cell mass; 1 mark for linking oxygen-carrying capacity to endurance/VO2max; 1 mark for the rise in blood viscosity; 1 mark for the specific clotting risk (stroke/heart attack/embolism). A bare "it is bad for you" without the viscosity mechanism caps at 2.

core5 marksA national anti-doping program reports the following test data for one year. In-competition tests: 5800, with 41 adverse findings. Out-of-competition tests: 3200, with 58 adverse findings. (a) Calculate the adverse-finding rate (percent) for each testing type. (b) The program runs more in-competition than out-of-competition tests, yet out-of-competition testing returns more adverse findings. Explain why, with reference to how the main drug classes are used.

Show worked solution →

(a) Rates.

In-competition: 41 / 5800 = 0.71 percent (about 0.7 percent).
Out-of-competition: 58 / 3200 = 1.81 percent (about 1.8 percent).

So the out-of-competition adverse-finding rate is roughly 2.5 times the in-competition rate, even though fewer tests were done out-of-competition.

(b) Explanation. Many of the most powerful doping agents - anabolic steroids, EPO and human growth hormone - are taken during training, not on competition day. They build chronic adaptations (muscle, red cell mass) over weeks, and athletes deliberately stop using them in time for the drug to clear the body before a scheduled in-competition test. In-competition testing therefore mostly catches stimulants and in-competition agents and misses the training-phase dopers. No-notice out-of-competition testing, by contrast, samples athletes in the training period when these substances are actually present, so it returns proportionally more adverse findings. This is exactly why the WADA system requires whereabouts filing and out-of-competition testing.

Marking criteria: (a) 1 mark each correct rate (0.7 percent and 1.8 percent) with working shown. (b) 1 mark for steroids/EPO/hGH being used in training and cleared before competition; 1 mark for out-of-competition testing sampling the training phase; 1 mark for explicitly linking this to the higher out-of-competition rate. Calculations with no units or no working lose the data marks.

core5 marksExplain the principle of strict liability and the role of the Athlete Biological Passport in the anti-doping system. Why are both needed alongside ordinary drug testing?

Show worked solution →

Strict liability: Under the WADA Code, an athlete is responsible for any prohibited substance found in their sample, regardless of how it got there or whether they intended to cheat. A positive test is a violation even if it came from a contaminated supplement or a medication; intent affects the sanction length, not whether a violation occurred. This places the duty of care squarely on the athlete to check everything they ingest.
Athlete Biological Passport (ABP): Rather than detecting a drug directly, the ABP tracks an athlete's own biological markers (blood markers such as haemoglobin and reticulocytes, and steroid markers) over time. Doping that leaves no detectable drug - microdosed EPO, blood transfusions - still disturbs these markers, so abnormal longitudinal variation flags doping indirectly.
Why both are needed: Ordinary testing only catches a drug that is present in the sample at the moment of testing, which sophisticated dopers avoid by timing, microdosing and masking. Strict liability removes the "I didn't know" defence so athletes cannot escape on intent, and the ABP catches the effects of doping even when the drug itself has cleared. Together they close the gaps that single snapshot tests leave open.

Marking criteria: 1 mark strict-liability definition (responsible regardless of intent); 1 mark that intent affects sanction not the violation; 1 mark ABP tracks the athlete's own markers over time; 1 mark ABP detects doping indirectly via abnormal variation; 1 mark for explaining why the two complement ordinary testing. A definition-only answer with no "why both are needed" caps at 3.

exam12 marksAssess the extent to which the current anti-doping framework (WADA, the Prohibited List, testing and sanctions) protects the health of athletes and the integrity of sport.

Show worked solution →

This is a 12-mark extended response. "Assess the extent" requires a judgement supported by both strengths and limitations, sustained against the two stated goals (athlete health AND integrity of sport), not a one-sided list.

Band 6 PLAN.

Thesis: the framework substantially protects health and integrity through a coordinated international system, but its protection is partial because detection always lags evasion and enforcement is uneven, so the system deters and constrains doping more than it eliminates it.
Strengths (integrity): a single global Code and Prohibited List (WADA) gives consistent rules across sports and nations; strict liability removes the intent loophole; out-of-competition no-notice testing and whereabouts filing target the training phase where steroids/EPO/hGH are used; the Athlete Biological Passport catches the effects of doping even when the drug has cleared; sanctions (up to four years, disqualification of results) and result management restore fair placings.
Strengths (health): banning agents with serious risks (EPO clotting, steroid cardiovascular and liver harm, stimulant arrhythmia) and educating athletes reduces exposure; the three-criteria test for the List explicitly weighs health risk.
Limitations (integrity): detection is reactive - new designer drugs and microdosing outpace assays; gene doping is hard to detect; coverage and funding vary by nation and sport, and state-sponsored programs (the 2015 to 2019 Russian doping findings) showed the system can be subverted at scale; some athletes still evade for years (the Lance Armstrong era).
Limitations (health): TUEs can be exploited; the existence of a ban drives some use underground with no medical supervision, arguably worsening health outcomes for those who still dope.
Judgement: the extent of protection is high but incomplete - strong on rules, deterrence and indirect detection, weaker wherever detection lags new methods or governance is captured. The framework is necessary and largely effective, but it manages rather than eradicates doping.

Model paragraph (a limitation, weighed). The framework's greatest weakness is that detection is inherently reactive. A laboratory can only test for what it knows to look for, so designer steroids, microdosed EPO and emerging methods such as gene doping can stay ahead of the assays for years - the Lance Armstrong cycling era and the institutionalised 2015 to 2019 Russian program both show clean-looking athletes and even whole national systems defeating testing for extended periods. This matters for the assessment because it shows the system cannot guarantee a level field by testing alone. However, the same cases also show the framework's resilience: both were ultimately exposed, and largely through the indirect tools the system added precisely for this gap - the Athlete Biological Passport, whereabouts-enabled out-of-competition testing, investigations and whistle-blower evidence rather than a single positive test. So the limitation is real but partly self-correcting, which is why the honest judgement is "substantial but incomplete" protection rather than either "fully effective" or "failed".

Marker's note: top-band answers (1) keep both goals (health and integrity) in view throughout, (2) reach an explicit, defended judgement on the EXTENT (not just "it is good and bad"), (3) anchor claims with named real examples and a year (Russia 2015 to 2019, Armstrong, Sport Integrity Australia from 2020), and (4) name the specific mechanisms (strict liability, ABP, out-of-competition testing, the three-criteria List test) rather than talking about "rules" in general. Weighing a strength against a matched limitation, then judging, is what separates Band 6 from a two-sided list.

exam8 marksEvaluate the ethical arguments for and against permitting performance-enhancing drugs in elite sport.

Show worked solution →

This is an 8-mark extended response. "Evaluate" requires arguments on both sides AND a reasoned judgement, ideally framed through the "spirit of sport".

Band 6 PLAN.

Thesis: although some libertarian and fairness arguments favour permitting drugs, the weight of ethical reasoning - athlete welfare, genuine fairness and the spirit of sport - supports the ban.
For permitting: athlete autonomy (informed adults choosing their own risks); a "level field" argument that regulated, supervised use could be safer and fairer than a covert arms race; doping is hard to police, so legalising it removes hypocrisy and the cost of testing.
Against permitting (the stronger case): health - many agents carry severe risks (EPO clotting, steroid cardiovascular/liver/psychiatric harm), and a permissive regime coerces clean athletes into risking their health to stay competitive, so "autonomy" is illusory; fairness - access to advanced pharmacology favours rich nations and programs, widening inequity; spirit of sport - the WADA Code grounds the ban in values of health, fair play, character and respect for rules, which drug-driven results undermine; role-modelling - elite sport shapes youth behaviour.
Judgement: the autonomy and "level field" arguments fail because permitting drugs coerces the unwilling and rewards pharmacology over training; the ban better serves health, real fairness and the spirit of sport, so on balance the ethical case favours prohibition, while acknowledging enforcement must stay proportionate (e.g. fair handling of contamination cases).

Model paragraph. The strongest argument for permitting drugs is athlete autonomy: informed adults, it is said, should be free to choose the risks they take with their own bodies. The decisive reply is that elite sport is a competition, so one athlete's "choice" to dope is not private - it changes what every rival must do to stay competitive. If doping were allowed, clean athletes would face a stark choice between matching the risk or losing, which means the freedom of the doper removes the freedom of everyone else. That coercion, combined with the documented severity of the health risks, is why the supposed autonomy gain collapses, and why the WADA Code's appeal to the "spirit of sport" - health, fairness and respect for the rules - carries more ethical weight than a free-market view of the body.

Marker's note: an "evaluate" must judge, not just list two sides. Top answers name the spirit-of-sport framework, use the coercion point to defeat the autonomy argument rather than leaving both sides equal, and reach a clear, reasoned conclusion. Mentioning health risks and equity of access with a concrete example lifts the response.