Anabolic steroid and SARM matters differ from ordinary prescribing cases because the therapy usually had no legitimate indication to begin with. The dispute is rarely whether guidelines were followed — none endorse these protocols — but what a physician who chose to prescribe anyway owed the patient: baseline screening, honest disclosure of the endocrine and cardiovascular costs, and monitoring capable of catching the harm these agents predictably cause.
As an endocrinologist, the gonadal axis these drugs suppress is the system I treat every day. I can explain to a court how nandrolone or ostarine acts on it, what injury was foreseeable at the dose in the record, and where the line runs between supervised therapy and performance supply — the question on which most of these cases turn.