SARMs in Sport: The “Safer Steroid” Myth, the Real Performance Appeal, and the Heavy Costs

SARMs in Sport: The “Safer Steroid” Myth, the Real Performance Appeal, and the Heavy Costs

Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs) are often marketed online as a cleaner, more “targeted” alternative to anabolic steroids—something that can build muscle without the stereotypical downsides. That story is exactly why SARMs keep showing up in gyms and in drug-testing labs. But in sport, SARMs sit at the intersection of three realities: (1) they might offer performance-relevant effects, (2) they are banned in virtually all tested competition, and (3) the health, legal, and personal risks are bigger and messier than the marketing suggests.

Below is a clear look at the potential benefits people chase, and the dangers—medical, sporting, and personal—especially if you compete under anti-doping rules.

What SARMs are (and why athletes care)

SARMs are synthetic compounds designed to bind to androgen receptors in a more “selective” way than traditional steroids—aiming for anabolic effects in muscle and bone while reducing androgenic effects elsewhere. That “selectivity” is incomplete in real-world use, and none of the popular performance SARMs are approved for bodybuilding purposes. Medical researchers have explored them for conditions like muscle wasting and osteoporosis, but approval for general human use is a different story. (NCBI)

In anti-doping terms, SARMs fall under anabolic agents and are prohibited in sport. WADA’s Prohibited List explicitly names SARMs like ostarine (enobosarm), ligandrol (LGD-4033), andarine, and others. (World Anti Doping Agency)

The potential benefits (why some take the gamble)

Let’s be honest about what drives use—because hand-waving it doesn’t help prevention.

Athletes (and recreational competitors) pursue SARMs mainly for:

  • Lean mass gains (more muscle with less water retention than some steroid cycles, at least anecdotally)

  • Strength increases and improved training capacity

  • Improved recovery between sessions

  • Bone-related effects (theoretical appeal in impact sports or during heavy training blocks)

Some of these aims align with SARMs’ intended pharmacology—anabolic signaling in muscle and bone. USADA also notes their anabolic potential and why that makes them attractive for performance enhancement. (NPC Hello)

But “potential” is doing a lot of work here—because what you might gain is paired with what you can definitely lose.

The sporting reality: banned, detectable, and “strict liability” applies

1) SARMs are banned in tested sport

If you compete in a WADA-code environment (most federations, many national bodies, many pro leagues), SARMs are prohibited in- and out-of-competition. (World Anti Doping Agency)

WADA (Prohibited List):

2) You’re responsible even if it was “in a supplement”

Anti-doping operates under strict liability: if it’s in your sample, you’re on the hook—intent matters mostly for sanction length, not for whether there’s a violation. This is where SARMs are especially brutal, because they’re frequently found in questionable “research chemicals,” fat burners, pre-workouts, or products that are mislabeled.

3) Real athletes really do get banned for SARMs

A few examples that show how this plays out publicly:

  • Thiago Braz (Olympic pole vault champion) received a ban after a positive test for ostarine (reported by Reuters). (Reuters)

  • Amir Khan (boxing) was banned after testing positive for ostarine, with the case widely covered in mainstream sport media. (The Guardian)

  • Tristan Thompson (NBA) was suspended after testing positive for LGD-4033 (ligandrol) among other substances (reported in major outlets). (Business Insider)

  • Anti-doping authorities also publish SARMs sanctions directly, such as ITA cases involving ostarine and LGD-4033. (International Testing Agency)

  • UKAD has publicly listed bans involving prohibited substances (useful if you compete in the UK system). (UK Anti-Doping)

These aren’t obscure “gotcha” cases—SARMs are a routine finding now.

Health risks: what the marketing downplays

1) Liver injury (yes, even though they’re “not steroids”)

Case reports and reviews have linked SARM use to drug-induced liver injury. A 2025 LiverTox summary notes concerns and the lack of approved human use. (NCBI)
A 2023 systematic review also highlights safety signals including liver injury and other serious adverse events. (MDPI)

2) Cardiovascular risk (lipids, blood pressure, long-term unknowns)

Anabolic signaling can affect cholesterol profiles and cardiovascular strain. Even if a compound is more selective, that doesn’t mean “heart-safe,” especially when stacked, dosed aggressively, or used with other agents (common in real-world cycles).

3) Hormonal suppression and fertility consequences

Many users experience suppression of natural testosterone production. In practice that can mean:

  • low libido, erectile dysfunction

  • mood changes

  • fatigue, loss of motivation

  • fertility impacts (potentially reversible, sometimes not clearly so)

And because “post-cycle therapy” is often self-prescribed from forums, people can compound endocrine disruption with additional drugs.

4) Mental health and cognition

People report anxiety, irritability, sleep disruption, or feeling psychologically “flat” when coming off. Even if severe psychiatric outcomes are uncommon, the combination of hormonal swings + competition pressure + secrecy is a real mental load.

5) Product quality and contamination: you may not be taking what you think

This is a huge, underappreciated risk. Many “SARMs” are sold as “research use only,” are misdosed, or contain other unlisted substances. FDA warns about SARMs being associated with adverse event reports and being promoted in dangerous ways online. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)
In the US, FDA has also emphasized that these are unapproved drugs and are not legally marketed as dietary supplements. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)

FDA (consumer warning):

Personal and career issues: what SARMs can cost beyond your health

Even if you dodge acute side effects, athletes get hit elsewhere:

  • Bans and disqualifications: lost results, lost ranking points, missed selections.

  • Financial damage: sponsorship loss, contract termination clauses, legal fees, and the opportunity cost of time out of sport.

  • Reputation and trust: teammates, coaches, and future employers may treat you differently permanently.

  • Constant fear of testing: living around a secret changes your relationship with training and competition.

  • Identity fallout: if sport is a core part of who you are, a sanction can trigger anxiety, depression, or spiraling behavior.

This is why SARMs aren’t just a “substance choice” in sport—they’re a life-choice with downstream consequences.

If you compete: the safest “performance plan” is boring (and it works)

If you’re in tested sport, the practical takeaway is simple: avoid SARMs. The performance upside is uncertain, but the downside is clear: bans, health risks, and product unreliability.

Safer, legal performance levers that actually move the needle:

  • structured periodized training + deloads

  • sleep quantity/quality

  • evidence-based nutrition (protein targets, total energy, carbs around training)

  • recovery management (stress, load monitoring)

  • only using supplements that are third-party tested (reduces—doesn’t eliminate—risk)

Key resources

Back to blog