Reduces risk
Batch testing and manufacturing audits provide a useful additional layer of control, especially against accidental contamination.
Informed Sport certification can reduce the risk of prohibited substances being present, particularly in cases of accidental cross-contamination. However, the logo on the packaging does not mean zero risk and cannot replace high-quality manufacturing, supplier control or the athlete’s own responsibility.
Not 100% certain
The result applies to the specific sample tested, the method used and the scope of the analytical panel.
Does not remove responsibility
Athletes are subject to the principle of strict liability and should therefore select even certified products with care.
Important clarification: this article does not criticise laboratory analysis itself. It explains the difference between a useful risk-reduction tool and an absolute guarantee, which no sampling procedure or limited analytical panel can provide.
What the Informed Sport programme checks
Informed Sport is a commercial certification programme focused on testing sports supplements for substances prohibited in sport. The programme typically includes an assessment of the manufacturing environment, process controls and analytical testing of production batches according to an established protocol.
Sample testing
The laboratory analyses the submitted product sample for a group of known prohibited or high-risk substances.
Manufacturing controls
Audits and documentation can reveal weaknesses in raw-material segregation, equipment cleaning, traceability and quality management.
Ongoing monitoring
Regular checks and purchases of products from the market increase the likelihood of detecting issues beyond the sample originally submitted.
How doping substances can get into supplements
Prohibited substances can enter a supplement deliberately, accidentally during manufacturing, through a contaminated raw material or as a result of a mix-up. The level of risk varies considerably depending on the product category, market and manufacturing facility.
Illustrative breakdown of contamination sources
The chart is intended solely to explain the individual mechanisms. It is not a universal statistic for the entire market.
Deliberate addition of an undeclared substance60 %
Cross-contamination during manufacturing20 %
Contaminated raw materials10 %
Labelling errors or mix-ups7 %
New or off-panel substances3 %
Interpretation note: the percentages shown are an illustrative synthesis of risk scenarios, not the result of a single representative study. High contamination rates generally relate mainly to high-risk categories, such as certain pre-workouts, fat burners, prohormones or products claiming rapid muscle growth. Ordinary carbohydrate gels, electrolyte drinks, vitamins and minerals usually have a different risk profile.
How many supplements may contain undeclared substances
The results of five frequently cited investigations are summarised below. The individual studies used different product selections, analytical methods and definitions of a positive finding, so their percentages cannot simply be applied to the entire market.
| Study or investigation | Sample selection | Positive findings | Reported rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Geyer et al. (2004) | 634 products from 13 countries | 94 | 14.8% |
| Martello et al. (2007) | 64 samples from EU retail outlets | 8 | 12.5% |
| Duiven et al. (2021) | 66 sports supplements from a high-risk selection | 25 | 38.0% |
| NVWA (2013–2018) | 416 samples from the Dutch market | 264 | 64.0% |
| Kamber et al. (2001) | 75 samples purchased online | 9 | 12.0% |
Why the figures can be so high
Some research deliberately targets products with a higher probability of a positive finding. Results from pre-workouts, fat burners, prohormones or online “muscle-building” products therefore cannot automatically be applied to basic vitamins, minerals, protein products or endurance nutrition.
What certification can address—and where its limits lie
The most accurate way to understand Informed Sport is as a risk-reduction system. The programme is strongest where an issue can be identified through a process audit or a laboratory test of a specific sample.
Cross-contaminationResidues from previous production, shared equipment or inadequate cleaning.
Primary benefit
Manufacturing audits, cleaning validation and batch testing can significantly reduce this risk, but cannot mathematically rule it out in every individual package.
Contaminated raw materialAn impurity introduced by the supplier or at an earlier stage of the supply chain.
Partially
Supplier approval, documentation and finished-product testing can help. However, the result depends on how representative the sample is and on the analytical panel used.
Error or mix-upIncorrect identification of a raw material, label or production order.
Partially
A traceability system may reveal the error. A laboratory test will detect it only if the substituted substance is included in the screening method used.
Deliberate adulterationAn intentionally added undeclared active substance.
Limited
A test may detect the substance if it is present in the sample analysed and included in the method. Certification itself cannot prevent someone outside the controlled process from placing a different or altered batch on the market.
New or off-panel substancesDesigner compounds, analogues and substances for which no reference standard is available.
Limited
No routine screening method can cover an unlimited number of compounds. Methods must be continuously updated in response to market developments and changes to the prohibited list.
Why one sample does not represent every individual unit
Laboratory analysis is performed on a sample taken from a production batch. If the batch is homogeneous and the sampling procedure is carried out correctly, the result can be highly representative. Even so, testing one or several samples does not physically verify every sachet, capsule or container.
What the result actually means
- The sample taken is tested, not every individual unit of the product.
- The result applies to the method used and its detection limits.
- A negative finding does not mean the unlimited absence of every substance, but rather that the target substances were not detected above the specified limit.
- Correct sampling and batch homogeneity are just as important as the laboratory analysis itself.
Transparency of results and detection limits
A professional assessment of a testing programme requires information about which substances are included in the screening, the applicable detection limits, the sampling procedure and how non-compliant results are handled. A simple “pass” designation is easy for customers to understand, but it does not provide all of the technical information required for an independent evaluation.
Greater transparency could include anonymised statistics on non-compliant samples, a description of the analytical panel, the scope of the methods and a clear explanation of what the certification does and does not guarantee.
Paid certification model
Informed Sport operates as a paid service for manufacturers and brands. This does not in itself mean that laboratory results are biased. It is nevertheless important to distinguish between commercial certification and public oversight by an independent regulatory authority.
Manufacturer or brand
Commissions the audit, certification and laboratory testing.
Certification programme
Provides the control framework, testing and the right to use the certification mark.
Value for the brand
Risk reduction, credibility and marketing value in the sports market.
Indicative cost items
| Item | Possible indicative range | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Initial process and audit | tens of thousands of CZK | The scope may vary depending on the facility and number of products. |
| Annual programme fees | high tens to hundreds of thousands of CZK | The amount depends on the agreement, portfolio and services provided. |
| Production-batch analysis | thousands to tens of thousands of CZK | The cost is affected by the matrix type, substance panel and number of tests. |
Notice: the amounts are indicative only and are not an official Informed Sport price list. Before publishing specific figures, an up-to-date written quotation from the provider should be used.
A false sense of absolute safety
The greatest communication problem does not arise from the testing itself, but from how the logo may be interpreted. An athlete may understand certification as an absolute guarantee, even though it is actually a tool for reducing the probability of risk.
The logo is neither an alibi nor a zero-risk guarantee
A certified product is generally a more cautious choice than an anonymous product with no traceable manufacturing history. However, athletes must still check the specific product, batch, origin, date and any warnings issued by anti-doping authorities.
More effective protection begins in manufacturing
The strongest system combines high-quality manufacturing, raw-material controls, transparency and independent testing. A certification logo is only one layer of protection.
Dedicated food-only facilities
Separation from the production of medicines, prohormones, SARMs and “hardcore” products significantly reduces the risk of accidental carry-over.
- physical segregation of production,
- validated cleaning procedures,
- clearly identified raw materials and equipment.
Strict supplier control
The most effective approach is to stop contamination at the point of entry, before production begins.
- an approved supplier list,
- verification of certificates of analysis,
- random independent testing of raw materials.
Traceability of every batch
The manufacturer should be able to trace the origin of raw materials, production line, operators, sanitation records and distributed units.
Informed product selection by the athlete
Choosing a well-established brand with transparent manufacturing reduces risk more effectively than relying blindly on a logo alone.
Conclusion: a useful filter, not an absolute guarantee
Informed Sport can be a useful tool for reducing the risk of doping contamination. Batch testing, audits of the manufacturing site and ongoing monitoring give certified products an additional layer of control, particularly against accidental errors and cross-contamination.
At the same time, no programme based on sampling and a defined analytical panel can guarantee zero risk for every individual unit or detect an unlimited number of new substances. It is therefore more accurate to say that certification reduces risk, rather than eliminating it.
Reduces accidental risks
Audits and testing are most effective against cross-contamination and process errors.
A sample is not every unit
The result applies to the material sampled and depends on the validity of the sampling plan.
The panel is not unlimited
New, unknown or off-panel substances may require a different analytical method.
The logo does not mean zero risk
Certification should be understood as a filter that reduces the probability of a problem.
Multiple layers of control
A clean facility, verified suppliers, traceability and independent testing complement one another.
References
The studies differ in sample selection and methodology. When citing their results, the original context must be preserved and findings from a high-risk selection should not be applied to the entire supplement market.
Geyer H. et al. (2004): Analysis of non-hormonal nutritional supplements for anabolic-androgenic steroids. Clinical Chemistry 50(1), 200–211. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2003.022178
Martello S. et al. (2007): Analysis of illicit anabolic steroids in dietary supplements. Food Additives & Contaminants 24(6), 614–620. DOI: 10.1080/02652030601183387
Duiven E. et al. (2021): Prevalence of doping substances in dietary supplements. British Journal of Sports Medicine 55(11), 602–607. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102569
NVWA: Public market-surveillance reports concerning sports supplements in the Netherlands. Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority
Kamber M. et al. (2001): Nutritional supplements as a source for positive doping cases? International Journal of Sports Medicine 22(7), 472–477. DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-17605