Sport Integrity Australia — peptides on the WADA-aligned prohibited list
Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) is the national anti-doping agency for Australia, replacing the former ASADA in 2020. SIA implements the WADA Code in Australia and administers the SIA Anti-Doping Policy aligned with the WADA Prohibited List. For Australian athletes in tested sports — AFL, NRL, cricket, tennis, swimming, athletics, cycling — research peptides fall under WADA S0 (non-approved substances) and are prohibited at all times. Sanctions follow the WADA framework: 2-year ban for first offence under S0.
Sport Integrity Australia was established by the Sport Integrity Australia Act 2020 to consolidate Australia's anti-doping, sport-integrity, and athlete-welfare functions into a single agency. SIA replaced the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and absorbed responsibilities from the Australian Sports Commission integrity unit. SIA implements the World Anti-Doping Code in Australia and administers the SIA Anti-Doping Policy aligned with the WADA Prohibited List 2026.
For Australian athletes in WADA-aligned sports, the rules are identical to USADA and other national anti-doping organisations. Research peptides fall under WADA S0 — "Non-approved substances" — and are prohibited at all times, in-competition and out-of-competition. BPC-157 was specified by name in the 2022 WADA list update; other research peptides (TB-500, Epithalon, Selank, Semax, GHK-Cu injectable) fall under the S0 catch-all language.
AFL, NRL, and cricket integrity units have all sanctioned peptide-positive players in recent years. The 2013 Essendon supplements scandal — in which 34 AFL players were sanctioned for peptide use — remains the high-water mark of peptide enforcement in Australia and changed how AFL clubs source supplements. NRL has had multiple individual cases. Cricket Australia has had isolated cases. Sport Integrity Australia's investigations focus on established sports with regular testing programs; lower-tier sports have less consistent enforcement.
For athletes in tested sports, the practical posture is: do not use research peptides while subject to anti-doping testing. The Whereabouts requirements for tested athletes mean ABF interception of an inbound peptide shipment can also surface in SIA records — the agencies share intelligence. An athlete with a recent peptide order in their package history and a positive test would face a stronger case in their hearing.
For non-tested athletes — recreational, amateur, weekend warrior — SIA does not test you and WADA rules do not apply. The TGA / ABF framework still applies regardless of sport status. Most Australian biohacker and amateur-athlete peptide use happens in this category.
SIA also operates the Match-Fixing Code and the Australian National Athlete Education Program. Research-peptide use is one of multiple integrity issues athletes are educated about at registration; athletes typically receive mandatory anti-doping education that explicitly addresses research-chemical compounds. Ignorance is rarely accepted as a defence.
On Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs), SIA accepts TUEs for substances that have a legitimate medical use in cases where alternatives are not available. Research peptides almost never qualify because they are not approved therapeutic substances elsewhere — there is no recognised medical use to grant exemption against. TUEs are common for pharmaceuticals; rare to non-existent for research peptides.
15-amino-acid peptide derived from a protective protein in gastric juice. Most-researched peptide in the vendor market.
Synthetic fragment of thymosin beta-4. Actively researched for soft-tissue repair.
Russian heptapeptide derived from tuftsin. Anxiolytic/nootropic research.
ACTH(4-10) analog. Investigated for cognitive and neuroprotective effects.
Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly tetrapeptide. Researched for circadian and telomere biology.
Gly-His-Lys copper complex. Researched for skin repair and mitochondrial function.
✓Pros
- SIA framework is well-documented; testing policies and consequences are predictable
- TUE process exists for legitimate medical exemption (rare for research peptides)
- Athlete education is mandatory at registration — no informational gaps
×Cons
- BPC-157 named explicitly since 2022 — was the most-traded peptide pre-listing
- S0 catch-all covers other research peptides without listing
- SIA / ABF intelligence-sharing means customs interception can compound into anti-doping records
- 2-year ban for first S0 offence regardless of intent or substance amount
Who does Sport Integrity Australia test?
Athletes in WADA-aligned sports — AFL, NRL, cricket, tennis, swimming, athletics, cycling, and others. Major leagues conduct year-round in-competition and out-of-competition testing. Lower-tier sports have less consistent programs but are not exempt.
What sanctions apply for a research peptide positive?
For athletes in WADA-aligned sports: 2-year ban for first offence under S0 (Non-approved substances); up to 4 years for aggravated cases. The athlete forfeits results, prizes, and rankings from the test date. SIA / WADA framework applies.
Did SIA sanction the 2013 Essendon AFL players?
ASADA (SIA's predecessor) sanctioned 34 Essendon AFL players in 2016 for peptide use. The case took 3 years to resolve and changed how AFL clubs source and manage supplements. The case remains the largest peptide-related anti-doping action in Australian sport history.
Can I get a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for BPC-157?
Almost certainly not. TUEs require the substance to have a legitimate medical use — meaning approval as a therapeutic good somewhere with established clinical guidelines. Research peptides like BPC-157 are not approved as therapeutic goods anywhere, so there is no recognised medical use to grant exemption against. TUEs are rare to non-existent for research peptides.
Does SIA share data with ABF?
Yes — under inter-agency arrangements. An ABF interception of a research peptide order does not automatically trigger an SIA investigation, but it can surface in anti-doping cases as evidence if the athlete subsequently tests positive. The Whereabouts data SIA collects on tested athletes makes such cross-references straightforward.
What if I am a non-tested amateur — does SIA care?
SIA does not test or have jurisdiction over non-tested athletes. WADA rules do not apply to you. The TGA / ABF framework still applies regardless of sport status — that is the relevant regulatory framework for non-tested users.