Introduction: The prescription and consumption of steroids and performance-enhancing supplements in professional and semi-professional sports in Iran, in addition to medical and ethical consequences, entail significant legal, particularly criminal, implications. The proliferation of anabolic steroids and other prohibited substances, driven by competitive pressures, economic interests, and inadequate market oversight of supplements, has created grounds for potential liability for physicians, coaches, club administrators, and even sports legal entities. This study, adopting a descriptive–analytical approach based on library research, elucidates the theoretical and legal foundations of criminal liability arising from the prescription of such substances under Iranian law and examines its relationship with anti-doping regulations and international standards. Material & Methods: The research methodology was a review, with data retrieved from Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and PubMed. Results: The findings indicate that, although the Islamic Penal Code does not explicitly define an independent offense titled “doping,” criminal prosecution of prescribers is feasible through the general principles of criminal liability (legal, material, and mental elements), specific anti-doping provisions, and laws related to intentional or unintentional bodily harm. Moreover, Iran’s accession to the International Convention Against Doping and adherence to the standards of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have allowed international criminal policy to influence the domestic legal framework. Nonetheless, a fundamental distinction remains between sports disciplinary liability (based on strict liability) and criminal liability (requiring proof of intent or negligence). Conclusion: According to the results of this study, the athlete’s consent, particularly when given without full awareness of the health risks and legal prohibitions, generally does not exempt the prescriber from criminal liability. In cases where general or specific intent, or professional negligence contributing to harm, is established, liability can be attributed. At the same time, the absence of explicit criminalization of unauthorized steroid prescription, weak deterrent measures against informal distribution networks, and ambiguity regarding the liability of legal entities constitute major challenges for Iran’s criminal policy in this domain. Accordingly, legislative reform, strengthened oversight of the supplement market, and coordination among the health system, sports authorities, and judiciary are proposed as corrective measures. However, an important observation is that in Iran, there is no clearly defined legal authority governing the issue of doping. Rather, cases are typically examined on an individual basis, guided by specific administrative considerations and specialized sports-related discussions. In reality, the absence of a comprehensive legal framework to serve as a roadmap for issuing judicial rulings in Iranian sports remains a subject of debate and concern.
Ghezelbash et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: