BANNED.
BUT WHY?
The rule tells you the status. It does not tell you everything about the science.
The criteria, carefully.
Under Article 4.3.1 of the currently applicable Code, inclusion considers at least two of three criteria: actual or potential performance enhancement; actual or potential health risk; and WADA’s determination that use violates the spirit of sport. Article 4.3.2 separately addresses masking potential.
Three questions worth keeping separate.
What does the rule say?
Read the edition, scope, class language and exceptions. The regulatory source answers this question.
What did a study demonstrate?
Look at participants, controls, outcomes, route and limitations. An effect in a cell culture, patient group or older population is not automatically a sport-performance effect.
What judgment is being made?
Policy balances more than efficacy alone. Our analysis must distinguish interpretation from WADA’s documented rationale.
Uncertainty belongs in the reference.
“Prohibited” is a regulatory classification. “Effective,” “dangerous,” “approved,” and “well studied” are separate claims. None should be generated automatically from the others.
Our intended evidence summaries will record study design, sample size, population, endpoints, effect estimates, limitations, conflicts and the date of the search. We will not compress those dimensions into a decorative confidence percentage.