Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) are used for performance and image enhancement, yet their non-medical use in Australia is heavily criminalized and framed by sociocultural narratives that emphasize risk, deviance and harm. This study aimed to critically examine how people who use AAS experience these narratives, focusing on challenging their role in perpetuating stigma and reinforcing punitive responses. The study employed a peer-led approach to explore the lived-living experiences of people who use AAS in Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants recruited through purposive sampling, leveraging the lead author's peer networks. The interview guide was designed to address sensitive topics, including law enforcement, health systems, and sociocultural attitudes. Data were analyzed using iterative categorization, followed by theoretical refinement of the developed categories. This process ensured the integration of participant accounts within broader sociopolitical discourses, recognizing the political dimensions of research. The analysis centred on a sample of 22 participants from Australia (Median age = 30 years, range: 19–49), with 91% identifying as men and 9% as women. It highlighted how media narratives portraying AAS use as linked to crime and deviance maintain stigma and contribute to their experiences of symbolic violence. These portrayals shape social perceptions of AAS consumption, reinforce self-stigma among consumers, and discourage open dialogue. Participants described how societal judgment can complicate AAS use, pushing people into informal, risky avenues. Despite a preference for legal and legitimate access, people face barriers rooted in punitive laws and healthcare resistance. This cycle marginalizes people who use AAS, denying them agency and support, while amplifying epistemic injustice and structural exclusion. We conclude by arguing against punitive narratives surrounding AAS use in Australia, advocating for inclusive, health-oriented approaches to policy. We call for peer-led approaches which may serve to dismantle symbolic violence and fostering respectful dialogue to support informed choices and wellbeing.

Keywords

anabolic-androgenic steroids drug policy harm reduction media stigma

Introduction

Anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) are synthetic derivatives of testosterone (Handelsman, 2013). While therapeutic use of AAS is permitted under strict medical supervision, non-medical use remains illegal in Australia and is met with stringent penalties, particularly in states like Queensland where AAS are classified as Schedule 1 drugs alongside substances like heroin and methamphetamine (Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission, 2021). Legislative changes over the past decade have increasingly criminalized AAS possession, contributing to a 218% rise in arrests between 2010 and 2020, with most arrests targeting consumers (Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission [ACIC], 2024). Despite these punitive measures, AAS use persists, driven by diverse motivations, including body enhancement, strength improvement, and identity-making practices (Dowsett et al., 2023; Fomiatti et al., 2019, 2020; James & Wynn, 2022; Kimergård & McVeigh, 2014; Latham et al., 2019). The dominant sociocultural narrative surrounding AAS, shaped by and reflected in media discourse, tends to focus on harm, risk, and deviance, often associating AAS use with violence, organized crime, and outlaw motorcycle clubs (van de Ven & Fomiatti, 2024). These narratives overshadow the lived-living experiences of AAS consumption, including the reported benefits such as improved confidence, enhanced body image, and a sense of belonging (Monaghan, 2002; Piatkowski & Cox, 2024; Santos & Coomber, 2017; Underwood, 2017). Simultaneously, stigma and criminalization marginalize people who use AAS, affecting their access to healthcare and harm reduction services (Cox et al., 2024; McVeigh & Bates, 2022; Zahnow et al., 2017). This dynamic underscores the need for research that critically examines the sociocultural constructions of AAS use, challenges punitive discourses, and explores alternative approaches to understanding and responding to AAS consumption. Therefore, this study aimed to critically examine how people who use AAS experience dominant sociocultural narratives surrounding AAS consumption in Australia. It focuses on challenging the ways these narratives perpetuate stigma and reinforce punitive responses.

Background

The use of AAS in Australia has been prohibited since 1986, except when prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner for legitimate therapeutic purposes (Handelsman, 2013). However, prior to legislative changes in New South Wales and Queensland in 2013 to 2014, certain types of AAS were listed under Schedule 4 of the Poisons List, resulting in limited prosecution for possession (James & Wynn, 2022; van de Ven & Zahnow, 2017). Since that time, some Australian jurisdictions have enacted legislation aligning these drugs with higher scheduling, carrying penalties of 15 to 25 years in prison for possession (James & Wynn, 2022; Piatkowski et al., 2024a; Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission, 2021). The medical literature frequently emphasizes the potential physiological risks associated with AAS use, including cardiovascular complications and blood-borne virus transmission (Corona et al., 2022; Linhares et al., 2022; van de Ven et al., 2018), as well as potential psychosocial harms such as depression (Nelson et al., 2022). However, this focus often overlooks the positive associations that many people who use AAS report, such as increased confidence, enhanced body image, and a sense of community (Gibbs et al., 2022; Monaghan, 2002; Underwood, 2017) which have produced a substantial growth in use those punitive responses struggle to curtail. While these accounts highlight the complex and multifaceted nature of AAS use, policies tend to focus solely on the potential harms, creating a dynamic where people who use AAS face stigma (Cox et al., 2024) and limited access to harm reduction services (Piatkowski et al., 2024b; Turnock & Mulrooney, 2023). This article critiques this internally inconsistent policy approach, which prioritizes punitive responses over health, despite the acknowledgment of risks that demand accessible, non-stigmatizing support systems. AAS consumers who seek medical advice frequently encounter significant barriers to receiving quality care and accurate information about these substances (Bates et al., 2021; Coomber-Moore et al., 2023; Cox et al., 2024; McVeigh & Bates, 2022; Piatkowski et al., 2023, 2025). These challenges stem from widespread gaps in medical and public health knowledge about AAS use (Dunn et al., 2023; Richardson & Antonopoulos, 2019; Zahnow et al., 2017) and varying levels of willingness among healthcare professionals to engage in education around AAS practices (Piatkowski et al., 2024b). In Australia, this reluctance has been linked to punitive legal frameworks surrounding AAS (Piatkowski et al., 2024a), which are often shaped by media-driven narratives about the risks and societal impacts of AAS use.

van de Ven and Fomiatti (2024) recently examined how the Australian news media problematizes AAS use. Based on a sample of 151 news articles from 2022, they concluded that these representations work to normalize criminalization and pathologization, overshadowing alternative policy responses like harm reduction and decriminalization (van de Ven & Fomiatti, 2024). Their findings chime with the simplistic media representations in Australia linking the use of AAS to violence and outlaw motorcycle clubs (OMCs, or ‘bikies’) such as the Bandidos. These narratives are further amplified through articles emphasizing police ‘crackdowns’ on bikies allegedly involved in AAS distribution (Huxley, 2016; Kyriacou & Stolz, 2013; Meers, 2014). Such media representations reinforce cultural perceptions that associate AAS use with violence, organized crime, and deviance. This cyclical relationship between media narratives and public perception not only perpetuates stigmatizing stereotypes but also feeds into societal and policy responses to AAS use, often framing it as a criminal justice issue rather than a public health concern. For instance, in response to violent incidents, both Queensland and New South Wales (NSW) adopted aggressive legislative measures targeting AAS, which were justified by linking them to violence and ‘bikie’ gangs. Using Queensland as an example, after a violent incident in a Gold Coast suburb and subsequent events in the wider Gold Coast region, the government introduced the Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment (VLAD) Act in 2013, whereby the name of the act itself displays an unusual level of symbolic intent. The Queensland Police Service advocated for these new laws, claiming that most OMC members were involved in criminal activities and that OMCs were responsible for a significant portion of organized crime in Australia (Kyriacou & Stolz, 2013; Meers, 2014). Although the laws aimed to curb public violence and criminal activities associated with OMCs, then Premier Campbell Newman emphasized their intent to dismantle these groups entirely (Kyriacou & Stolz, 2013). In tandem with legislative responses to organized crime, Queensland's approach to AAS shifted significantly. This shift, for Goldsworthy and McGillivray (2015, 2017) can be attributed to the persistent entanglements between bikies and AAS as depicted in popular and media narratives, as well as for Meers (2014) the enactment of Queensland's VLAD legislation. Since 2014, Queensland has introduced stringent measures categorizing AAS as Schedule 1 drugs, equating them with illicit substances such as heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine (Piatkowski et al., 2024a). These policy shifts illustrate how media-driven sociocultural narratives, combined with reactive legislative responses, have shaped the regulatory landscape surrounding AAS use.

For Australia as a whole, the current legislative approaches have seen some interesting outcomes for AAS specifically. Firstly, the weight of AAS seized in Australia increased 1,372%, from 33.7 kilograms in 2011–12 to a record 496.8 kilograms in 2020–21 (Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission [ACIC], 2024). Secondly, the number of national AAS arrests increased 267% over the last decade, from 365 in 2010–11 to 1365 in 2021 (ACIC, 2024). Thirdly, consumer arrests continue to account for the greatest proportion of arrests, accounting for 82% of national AAS arrests in 2020–21 (ACIC, 2024). What this demonstrates is that there is little impact of these disciplinary measures deterring end-consumers of AAS from continuing to use these drugs. Instead, we argue that this reflects a punitive approach based on exaggerated fears and misconceptions, leading to ineffective and harmful outcomes. Therefore, it is pertinent to find ways to map these misconceptions and offer new ways of representing and understanding AAS consumption which might reshape the sociocultural attitudes that seemingly underpin the current responses to it.

Approach

As Coomber (2014) argues, AAS policy is meaningfully framed by drug myths and fear-driven discourses that have long influenced broader drug policies. These approaches frame drugs and those who use them as inherently dangerous and morally corrupt, perpetuating myths—such as the belief that AAS are unequivocally harmful or that their use signifies moral failure. Such myths underpin “symbolic policymaking” (Coomber et al., 2019), which prioritizes performative actions—like punitive measures—over meaningful harm reduction. This performativity signals a tough stance on drugs and plays down genuine public health goals. One consequence of this approach is what Parkin and Coomber (2009), drawing on Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence, describes as the criminalization and stigmatization of AAS consumers. This symbolic violence extends beyond legal penalties, creating a discursive environment that marginalizes people who use AAS and renders them less visible in public health frameworks, often leaving them as targets of control or moral panic (see van de Ven & Fomiatti, 2024). Such framing tends toward a pathologizing of this group (Nourse et al., 2024a), perpetuates stereotypes, undermines evidence-based approaches, and obscures the complex realities of AAS consumption.

The media plays a central role in sustaining and amplifying these myths, feeding into and reinforcing symbolic violence. As Parkin and Coomber (2009) highlight, media and policy are intertwined in a feedback loop: policy shapes media narratives, and media representations in turn legitimize policy directions. In the context of AAS, media depictions often sensationalize the risks associated with use, exaggerating health dangers and societal harms while framing ‘users’ as deviant or morally suspect. These depictions align with broader narratives positioning drug use as inherently dangerous (see Fraser & Moore, 2011), further entrenching punitive responses. Simultaneously, such representations diminish the cultural and social contexts of AAS use, particularly in environments where it is normalized as part of practices like body modification and identity-making (Fomiatti et al., 2019; James & Wynn, 2022; Latham et al., 2019).

kylie valentine et al. (2020) invite us to consider the way that lived-living experience is presented and framed in current discourses around illicit substance consumption. That is, the realities of people who use drugs are, in part, shaped by prevailing narrative frames, especially those of stigma, trauma, and deficit, which dominate the discourse around drug use (valentine et al., 2020). These ‘realities’ are also framed around expectations which settle on abstinence-based and recovery-centred stories as being those worthy of elevation in public discourse (see Farrugia et al., 2022). There are, however, many other ways to represent the diverse stories of people who use drugs, which do not force upon them a pre-defined and culturally acceptable frame of reference related to their experiences (see Fraser et al., 2022). Although alternative narratives do exist, stories about drug use or adversity are often constrained by these limited tropes (Seear & Mulcahy, 2022). valentine et al. (2020) have suggested that our responsibilities as researchers are ‘to represent the stories of our participants as they choose to tell them, and to frame their stories with analysis that contextualises their accounts and deepens our understanding’ (p. 203). It is with this responsibility in mind that we present analyses of the perspectives of people who use AAS in relation to the dominant social and cultural attitudes that surround AAS consumption in Australia.

Acknowledging the work of Suzanne Fraser (2020), we explicitly consider the research methods being used and the way they shape realities, rather than documenting singular or pre-existing realities. Adopting an ontopolitically-oriented perspective that prioritizes the active shaping of reality and challenges dominant power structures, allowed us to challenge these sociocultural narratives and carefully consider the realities we wish to research into being. This approach affords us the opportunity to recognize and elevate the lived-living experience that peer researchers bring, unconstrained by untenable aspirations to neutrality. By centring the focus of this work on recognizing the agency of people who use AAS we are seeking to make worlds which co-constitute responses to AAS that reflect the lived realities of people who use these drugs. Doing so is an attempt to challenge the prevailing punitive narrative and advocate for a discourse that provides new ways of knowing AAS consumption and, as such, may invite us all to consider new ways of responding to it. This change in thinking catalyzes a shift in social attitudes and cultural responses to AAS use in our communities and, by extension, may reduce the hostile environment which people who use AAS navigate in many parts of Australia.

Methods

Sampling and Recruitment

We recruited people aged 18 and over who were using AAS and were residents of Australia. Recruitment took place between October and December 2023 using purposive sampling techniques. The lead author leveraged his personal and professional networks within the AAS-using community, fostering trust and credibility essential for engaging this hard-to-reach population. Recruitment was conducted through multiple channels including direct outreach via professional networks, consultations with community peers, and broader promotion through social media platforms and face-to-face interactions at gyms. Potentially interested parties reached out to the lead author or were contacted via email to arrange the interview. Ethical approval was granted from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval: 2023/248).

To address ethical concerns, the research adhered to rigorous protocols designed to protect participants from risks such as police targeting, stigma, or legal repercussions. Recruitment and data collection were conducted in a way that preserved participants’ confidentiality, with all identifying details removed from transcripts, and any video and/or audio deleted immediately after transcription had been checked by the lead author. The lead author has a longstanding history in collaborative research with this community which prioritizes safety, confidentiality, and maintains the spirit of solidarity and authenticity between him and his community.

Data Collection

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were the carefully chosen method to navigate the sensitive nature of AAS use and to foster an open and empathetic dialogue. A single interviewer carried out all interviews using a semi-structured guide developed collaboratively with AAS-using community members, incorporating insights from existing literature and the lead author's lived-living experience with AAS. This approach ensured that the questions were not only academically grounded but also deeply resonant with the realities and challenges faced by people who use AAS. This perspective influenced the framing and sequencing of questions to ensure sensitivity to participants’ lived realities, particularly regarding their interactions with law enforcement, health systems, and the social and cultural attitudes of people more generally toward AAS. Firstly, participants were asked for demographic information, such as their geographical location, age, and gender. They were then asked questions regarding their experiences with AAS, law and governing policy, as well as social and cultural attitudes. Example questions included: Did your steroid use ever result in any issues with police? Did you ever have to go to court as a result? What do you think of the relationship between steroids and crime? Does it have anything to do with aggression/violence? Does the fact that they are illegal cause you to change how you go about your use of them? Is there anything you would like to see done differently to support steroid consumers better? These interviews took a mean length of 40 minutes (range: 20–78 minutes) to complete and were conducted on the MS Teams platform, where audio recordings were transcribed automatically. These transcripts were then checked for errors and corrected, and subsequently imported into NVivo (QSR, v12) for further analysis. Participants were reimbursed for their time with an AUD$50 gift card.

Data Analysis

This project and its analysis were informed by a peer-led approach (Piatkowski et al., 2024c, 2025), drawing on the lead author's lived-living experience with AAS and his status as a peer researcher embedded within AAS-using communities. This innovative approach transformed both the methodology and content of the research. This lived-living experience assisted to bridge narrative worlds and helped in the interpretation of meaning that might otherwise be missed. Data were analyzed using iterative categorization (Neale, 2016, 2021), an approach that complemented the peer-led framework of the research. Initially, the lead author generated detailed notes to discern interconnections between participant accounts, prioritizing and categorizing codes through iterative engagement with the transcripts. These codes were then organized into overarching theme-categories that captured coherent narratives, setting the stage for deeper interpretive work (Neale, 2021).

The analysis specifically examined how participants’ experiences were influenced by dominant sociocultural narratives, which frequently perpetuate symbolic violence through stigma and criminalization. Reflexive engagement with the author's own AAS consumption practices and experiences within these systems during his use, enriched this process. This process was further enriched through collaboration with the research team, who undertook theoretical testing and refinement of the developed categories. Their contributions offered deeper reflection on participants’ experiences and helped situate these within the broader systems and structures shaping stigma, symbolic violence, and marginalization. The deeper theoretical work then allowed for a positioning of the participant accounts within the broader discourse on the multiple forces (e.g., law, policy) and actors (e.g., media, health care providers, policymakers) and, subsequently, challenging those discourses. These processes reflect our broader commitments to ‘bringing worlds into being’, ensuring that the research actively works to shape more inclusive and person-centred responses (see Fraser, 2020). Through this approach, two dominant theme-categories emerged. These categories provide the organizational framework for presenting the findings.

Results and Discussion

A sample of 22 people who used AAS (Mean age = 34.8, SD = 7.6; median age = 30, range 19–49) were interviewed. The sample predominantly identified as men (n = 20) with two participants identifying as women.

Media and Sociocultural Narratives

The media's portrayal of AAS use often links it to organized crime and violence, which participants identified as influencing cultural attitudes. Most respondents felt similarly about how the media positioned AAS and the ‘AAS user’. James provides what might be considered a typical response:

James [27, Male]: Like, the media thing, they’re just trying to, like, make steroid users look worse than they are because, “ohh, some bikies sell them” kind of thing. Most people are on steroids and they’re not out fucking, you know, bashing people or stabbing people [or] robbing people and shit […] You’re not really a danger to anyone if you’re on steroids.

Perceived sensationalist converage such as this was considered to contribute to the stigma surrounding AAS consumption, reinforcing the negative stereotypes that shape public perceptions. The portrayal of people who use AAS as inherently deviant not only influences individual self-perception but also serves to simplify complex issues into binary notions of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’, a notion which tends to surround people who use drugs frequently (see Fraser & Moore, 2011). James went on to highlight how these media portrayals and broader sociocultural attitudes influence the way people talk about their AAS use:

James [27, Male]: I think that stuff makes people change the way they talk about it [AAS use]. They are doing a bit, a [bit] better job of it these days where like people are talking about it [steroids] more but they’re replacing it saying supplements and stuff like that. And I’m included in that, like, I take steroids, but I don’t like to fully discuss it because you’ll get looked at weird or you’ll get in shit.

He observed that the stigma generated by sensationalist narratives often pressures people who use AAS, including himself, to reframe their use to avoid judgment or scrutiny. He reflected on how this comes together to create a broader cultural dynamic where fear of stigma or legal repercussions shapes how people navigate conversations about AAS, contributing to an environment where open dialogue is discouraged.

Ian reflected on the disconnect between these media-driven narratives and the lived-living experiences of people who use AAS:

Ian [27, Male]: I would say that's all media propaganda. I used to hang out with like proper, proper crims [criminals] and like maybe like one or two of them were on the steroids, but like, they’re doing other shit I don’t think they give a fuck about steroids.

Ian's account challenges the dominant media narrative that links AAS use with organized crime, pointing out, in his experience, such portrayals overlook the realities of AAS consumption for most people. This disconnection between media narratives and lived-living experience illustrates the symbolic violence embedded in cultural representations, where the imposition of dominant discourses diminishes the nuances of everyday practices (see Fraser et al., 2017). Symbolic violence operates by rendering certain experiences invisible or illegitimate, further entrenching stigma and marginalization (Parkin & Coomber, 2009). Ian's perspective highlighted how these narratives, while shaping public attitudes and reinforcing stigma, often fail to align with the experiences of those they target. Building on this, other participants reinforced the idea that such narratives are not just misleading but actively harmful, mischaracterizing the vast majority of people who use AAS as dealers or criminals when, in reality, most engage in personal use.

Matthew [29, Male]: The way people see us [AAS consumers], see it [AAS use] […] I think it’s all heavily media fuelled. I think you’ll find the large majority of users do not deal or do not distribute, they acquire for personal use.

These observations underscore the reductive and sensationalist framing propagated by the media, which prioritizes stories of deviance and criminality over the lived-living experiences of AAS consumption. This framing not only skews public understanding but also legitimizes punitive policies by conflating personal use with illicit distribution. The criminalization of AAS, combined with the amplification of these misrepresentations, compounds stigma, creating barriers for people seeking to access support or even speak openly about their practices.

Negotiating the Lived Reality of Symbolic Violence

We argue that, at the centre of Australia's sociocultural narratives around AAS lies an undercurrent of symbolic violence, where social and cultural influence has led to the creation of a hostile environment that stigmatizes people who use AAS. These sociocultural narratives maintain power by making certain experiences—like AAS use—seem naturally deviant or morally suspect. This dynamic operates through the internalization of stigma, compounding the external structural and cultural barriers people face. Most respondents felt similarly to Adrian, who linked the external stigma imposed by societal narratives to the internal experience of self-stigma, highlighting the isolating and criminalizing effects of such perceptions:

Adrian [28, Male]: It does make it harder, like to be able to like just use them [steroids] in general, And then like it is because of the stigma. I mean it is illegal. Like I feel like “ohh, I have to get steroids and shit”. It kind of like makes you feel like you are like a criminal.

For Adrian, the intersection of stigma and illegality not only shaped his self-perception but also complicated his ability to negotiate his own consumption. This creates a dual burden: people who use AAS must manage not only the practical challenges of accessing AAS but also the emotional weight of societal judgment. The framing of AAS use as a criminal act reinforces a broader sociocultural narrative that equates consumption with deviance, positioning people who use these drugs as ‘criminals’ regardless of their practices or intentions. The interplay between punitive laws and cultural attitudes served to reinforce self-stigma, further isolating people and complicating their access to support or open conversations about use. Charlie highlighted how these factors came together to create challenges when navigating his own AAS use:

Charlie [37, Male]: It [laws] does make it [AAS use] more challenging because you’ve got the two choices—you’re getting shit from the black market or you have to jump through all the hoops to get it through a legitimate source through a doctor or endocrinologist and anything like that. And there's a lot of people missing out because they’re right on the cusp of clinically low testosterone. But the doctor turns around and says: no, you’re fine. You’re sweet. You’re in the range. And it's like clearly not because they’re struggling and they hate their life.

This tension underscores how cultural and legal frameworks position AAS use as inherently suspect, shaping not just public perceptions but also the medical system's approach. Scholars have demonstrated how stigma within healthcare systems often both shapes peoples’ expectations but also prevents individuals from accessing appropriate care, particularly when their needs fall outside conventional medical frameworks (Farrugia et al., 2021; Fraser et al., 2020). In the context of AAS use, stigma affects medical practitioners’ reluctance to prescribe, compounded by fears of legal repercussions or professional scrutiny (Dunn et al., 2023; Piatkowski et al., 2022). Globally, the regulation of AAS presents challenges to the health of people who use AAS (McVeigh & Begley, 2017), but in Australia, the barriers appear particularly pronounced (Piatkowski et al., 2024a). Stringent regulations, limited access, and a lack of professional willingness to prescribe due to fears of professional repercussions compound the difficulties for individuals seeking enhancement or therapeutic use.

Zed [47, Male]: Yeah, it makes it harder to get and it makes it harder to get good stuff. Good quality stuff. I mean, there's a lot of online sources now where you can buy stuff and it gets delivered to your doorstep, which is good.

Yet, as Charlie's narrative indicated, there remains a latent desire among many to legitimize their practices through legal and medical avenues. This aspiration speaks to a broader need for recognition, agency, and legal safety—one that remains stymied by sociocultural narratives and structural barriers that perpetuate stigma. George's account underscores how these dynamics play out in the lived-living experiences of people who use AAS:

George [26, Male]: You know, it's very big legal implications. For example, like, it's always in the back of my mind if I’m carrying steroids, I’ve brought it on planes before, I’ve travelled with it because I have competitions. I don’t want to leave it at home because you need it for performance. You’ve committed to [using] it […] I can’t get it legally, so I don’t. But if I could I would. Man, do you wanna know, if there was a way for me to get it legally I 100% would get it legally because, well, then I’m safe from getting in legal trouble for something I don’t think I’m doing wrong.

For George, the inability to access AAS legally forced him into a precarious position where the practical realities of use—necessitated by competition and performance—are shadowed by the constant fear of legal repercussions. His narrative reflects the double burden placed on individuals: the stigma of societal and legal perceptions, and the personal toll of navigating a system that criminalizes what he perceives as a legitimate practice. George's willingness to seek legal avenues if they were available reflects a desire not only for safety but also for recognition—that his practices could be acknowledged as legitimate and free from the moralizing lens often cast on AAS use.

Such narratives illustrate how the broader sociocultural and legal context reinforces a cycle of marginalization. The criminalization of AAS use and the structural barriers to legal access perpetuate a sense of deviance, forcing individuals into informal, and often risky, channels. At the same time, the stigma embedded in these structures denies people who use AAS the legitimacy and agency they seek, amplifying their experiences of precarity and exclusion. This denial of agency can be understood as a form of epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007), where peoples lived-living experiences are dismissed or invalidated by dominant cultural and institutional narratives. The current narratives, however, underscore the broader implications of this dynamic: the need for a system that does not equate use with criminality, where people can engage openly and seek assistance without fear of legal or social repercussions. However, the continued entrenchment of cultural narratives and the hostile environment that reinforces them ensures that this aspiration remains out of reach for many, perpetuating a cycle of stigma and symbolic violence.

Conclusions

This analysis sought to critically examine how people who use AAS experience prevailing sociocultural narratives surrounding AAS consumption in Australia. We have explored the intersections of these narratives and the lived-living experience of people who use AAS, in the hope of challenging entrenched assumptions. The traditional punitive approaches to AAS consumption, shaped by myths, moral panic, and symbolic violence, have contributed to the criminalization and marginalization of people who use AAS. As van de Ven and Fomiatti (2024) suggest, these discourses not only perpetuate harmful stereotypes but also obscure the realities of AAS use, preventing the implementation of effective, evidence-based approaches and forms of care. The role of the media in amplifying these punitive narratives is clearly the key. By sensationalizing the risks associated with AAS use and framing people who use these drugs as violent criminals, the media reinforces a public discourse that prioritizes fear and control over care. Yet, as scholars (Dowsett et al., 2023; Fomiatti et al., 2019, 2020; Latham et al., 2019; Piatkowski et al., 2020; Underwood, 2017) point out, AAS use is also often situated within social and cultural contexts, such as body modification and enhancement practices, that challenge these oversimplified portrayals. When we do not elevate the reality of these complexities they are diminished or even erased; then media representations gain a stronger hold and contribute to social perceptions that remain hostile and uninviting to those who use AAS.

We have drawn on valentine et al.’s (2020) prompts, actioning them in such a way as to argue that lived-living experiences, particularly those of people using AAS, must be re-presented in ways that go beyond the dominant sociocultural narratives. This is not only about giving voice to people who use drugs but about actively engaging with their agency and subjectivity (Fraser, 2020). The agency of people who use AAS must be recognized, not as passive subjects of policy but as active agents capable of using their own experiences and responses to meaningfully inform and contribute to the framing of AAS consumption and policy surrounding it. In doing so, we challenge the prevailing punitive discourse and open the door to alternative ways of knowing and responding to AAS consumption—ways that are rooted in care, respect, and recognition of the full humanity of those involved.

By disrupting the hostile, marginalizing environment that commonly frames AAS use in Australia, we advocate for creating a more inclusive, health-oriented discourse. In doing so, we move closer to dismantling the symbolic violence that continues to stigmatize people who use AAS, fostering more supportive environments where they can make informed choices about their bodies and health. However, the work of transforming the cultural attitudes related to AAS requires both a reimagining of the narratives surrounding drug use and a fundamental shift in how we engage with people who use AAS. By prioritizing lived-living experiences and elevating the agency of people who use AAS we open up new possibilities for policy, moving beyond the limitations of punitive frameworks toward ones that reflect the experiences of people who use AAS and provide a more just, informed, and compassionate response to their needs.

By extension, this means a shift from reactive harm reduction to proactive approaches which position people who use AAS at the centre of the discourse concerning them. We believe that initiating dialogue between law enforcement, policymakers, and AAS consumers is essential for developing effective and efficient approaches to addressing AAS-related issues. Dialogue with vulnerable groups, particularly those who are perceived as ‘victims,’ has become an increasingly accepted practice in policy and intervention development. This is evident in the growing inclusion of lived-living experience in areas such as policing and public health strategies. For example, in the UK, lived experience is now incorporated into efforts to design interventions and inform policy responses (Grenfell et al., 2023; Speakman et al., 2023). Similar trends can also be observed in other regions globally (Daowd et al., 2024; Forchuk et al., 2023), where the voices of vulnerable groups are increasingly recognized as critical to the success of harm reduction and public health initiatives. However, despite this shift, people who use AAS are often excluded from such frameworks (Piatkowski & Dunn, 2024). This exclusion is deeply tied to enduring myths and stereotypes about AAS use, as well as the symbolic violence perpetuated through their criminalization. While other groups are positioned as victims whose voices demand to be heard, people who use AAS are frequently denied the same legitimacy, leaving them marginalized in discussions that shape harm reduction and health policy. This article argues that, in many ways, AAS consumers are victims of symbolic violence and, as such, their voices must be equally recognized in developing health enhancing and harm reducing interventions. However, such dialogues are challenging to implement unless AAS consumers can engage in a safe and anonymous manner. Creating less-hostile environments for open communication or ensuring community representation is crucial for meaningful and productive interactions. While education (Bates et al., 2021) and access to harm reduction services (Bates et al., 2022) are crucial for mitigating potential risks associated with AAS use, these approaches are currently not sufficient in Australia (Piatkowski et al., 2024a, 2024b). Drawing on recent work from Nourse et al. (2024b) we may look toward positioning people who use AAS as ‘co-experts’. However, this shift requires a comprehensive and evidence-based AAS policy strategy, co-designed with people who use these substances, informed by their lived-living experiences, and centring on a health enhancing approach. While challenging stereotypes and reducing stigma are critical, we recognize that policy change is a complex, multifaceted process. It requires coordinated efforts across sectors, stakeholder engagement, and sustained political will. A nuanced strategy must account for the intricacies of policymaking, ensuring that any changes are both realistic and achievable, while still prioritizing the needs and wellbeing of people who use AAS.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the communities of people who use anabolic steroids for sharing their time and expertise. This research would not be possible without them.

Data Availability Statement

This data is confidential given the nature of the research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Statements

Participants provided informed verbal consent prior to conducting the interview. Ethical approval was granted from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval: 2023/248).

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by a Griffith University New Researcher Grant.

ORCID iDs

Timothy Piatkowski

Monica J. Barratt

Author biographies

Timothy Piatkowski is a nationally recognized peer researcher at Griffith University and Vice President of the Queensland Injectors Voice for Advocacy and Action (QuIVAA). His research bridges academic research and lived-living expertise,driving systemic change in healthcare engagement for IPED consumers.

Monica J. Barratt is an Associate Professor at the Criminology and Justice Studies School at RMIT University,Melbourne. She has a long-held commitment to ensuring that her research has an impact outside academia. She has built an internationally recognized research profile over her 20-year career,focusing on understanding emerging drug use trends,especially related to the use of new and emerging psychoactive substances,drug checking or testing drugs for harm reduction,cannabis cultivation and digitally facilitated drug markets.

Ross Coomber is and Emeritus Professor at the University of Liverpool. He has more than 30 years research experience in the drug and alcohol field and has written extensively and broadly in this area—particularly on the machinations of illicit drug markets,nationally and internationally,and across different cultural and environmental spaces. His research is strongly inter/multidisciplinary and boasts ongoing collaborations with forensic chemists/scientists,medics,public health practitioners and researchers,as well as,perhaps more predictably,disciplines across the humanities and social sciences.

Nick Gibbs is a Lecturer in Criminology at Northumbria University. Broadly,his work can be situated within the schools of ultra-realism and deviant leisure,and encompasses the intersecting topics of IPEDs,illicit markets,masculinity,harm reduction,and gym culture.

David L. Neumann completed a PhD at The University of Queensland and then a post-doctoral fellowship at The University of Western Australia before joining Griffith University. He has held several leadership roles at the university,including First Year Advisor,Program Director,Deputy Head of School (Learning & Teaching),Deputy Head of School (Research),Head,School of Applied Psychology,and Acting Dean (Academic) Health. He is currently engaged in research projects related to his expertise in learning and performance and supervising PhD candidates.

Matthew Dunn is an Associate Professor in the School of Health and Social Development (HSD) and a member of the Institute for Health Transformation (IHT). He is an internationally recognized expert in the field of human enhancement drugs,with a specific focus on performance and image enhancing drugs (PIEDs) such as anabolic-androgenic steroids. His research interests include the use of,and harms/benefits associated with the use of,PIEDs;drug markets,including price,purity,and availability of substances;and how the social determinants of health impact and are impacted by substance use.

References

Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. (2024). Illicit drug data report—2021-2022.

Bates

Ralphs

Bond

V. W.

Boardley

Hope

Van Hout

M.-C.

McVeigh

(2022). Systems mapping to understand complexity in the association between image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs) and harm. International Journal of Drug Policy, 107, 103801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103801

Bates

Shepherd

McVeigh

(2021). Harm reduction strategies for androgen users: Providing appropriate support and improving engagement with healthcare. Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes and Obesity, 28(6), 630–635. https://doi.org/10.1097/MED.0000000000000676

Coomber-Moore

South

Coomber

Moyle

(2023). ‘Steroid holidays’ as drug tourism and deviant leisure. In Understanding drug dealing and illicit drug markets (pp. 188–207). Routledge.

Coomber

(2014). How social fear of drugs in the non-sporting world creates a framework for doping policy in the sporting world. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 6(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2012.756824

Coomber

Moyle

Mahoney

M. K.

(2019). Symbolic policing: Situating targeted police operations/‘crackdowns’ on street-level drug markets. Policing and Society, 29(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2017.1323893

Corona

Rastrelli

Marchiani

Filippi

Morelli

Sarchielli

Sforza

Vignozzi

Maggi

(2022). Consequences of anabolic-androgenic steroid abuse in males; sexual and reproductive perspective. The World Journal of Men’s Health, 40(2), 165. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.210021

Cox

Piatkowski

McVeigh

(2024). I would never go to the doctor and speak about steroids”: Anabolic androgenic steroids, stigma and harm. Drugs: Education, Prevention, Policy, 0(0), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2024.2373056

Daowd

Lock

Danaei

Burmeister

Choisil

Haywood

Buxton

J. A.

(2024). This is PEEP’participatory qualitative study: Learning from a provincial consultation and advisory group of people with lived and living experience of substance use in British Columbia, Canada. BMJ open, 14(11), e085183. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085183

10.

Dowsett

G. W.

Duncan

Waling

Angelides

Nourse

(2023). Men, bodywork, health and the potentiality of performance and image-enhancing drugs. Health Sociology Review, 32(3), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2022.2148959

11.

Dunn

Piatkowski

Whiteside

(2023). Exploring the experiences of general practitioners working with patients who use performance and image enhancing drugs. Performance Enhancement & Health, 11(2), 100247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2023.100247

12.

Farrugia

Pienaar

Fraser

Edwards

Madden

(2021). Basic care as exceptional care: Addiction stigma and consumer accounts of quality healthcare in Australia. Health Sociology Review, 30(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2020.1789485

13.

Farrugia

Treloar

Fraser

(2022). Overdoselifesavers. org: A mixed-method evaluation of a public information website on experiences of overdose and using take-home naloxone to save lives. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 29(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2020.1858758

14.

Fomiatti

Latham

Fraser

Moore

Seear

Aitken

(2019). A ‘messenger of sex’? Making testosterone matter in motivations for anabolic-androgenic steroid injecting. Health Sociology Review, 28(3), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2019.1678398

15.

Fomiatti

Lenton

Latham

J. R.

Fraser

Moore

Seear

Aitken

(2020). Maintaining the healthy body: Blood management and hepatitis C prevention among men who inject performance and image-enhancing drugs. International Journal of Drug Policy, 75, 102592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.10.016

16.

Forchuk

Serrato

Scott

(2023). People with lived and living experience of methamphetamine use and admission to hospital: What harm reduction do they suggest needs to be addressed? Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada: Research, Policy and Practice, 43(7), 338. https://doi.org/10.24095/hpcdp.43.7.04

17.

Fraser

(2020). Doing ontopolitically-oriented research: Synthesising concepts from the ontological turn for alcohol and other drug research and other social sciences. International Journal of Drug Policy, 82, 102610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.102610

18.

Fraser

Moore

(2011). Introduction: Constructing drugs and addiction. In The drug effect: Health, crime and society (pp. 1–16). Cambridge University Press.

19.

Fraser

Moore

Farrugia

Edwards

Madden

(2020). Exclusion and hospitality: The subtle dynamics of stigma in healthcare access for people emerging from alcohol and other drug treatment. Sociology of Health & Illness, 42(8), 1801–1820. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13180

20.

Fraser

Moore

Farrugia

Fomiatti

(2022). Passion, reason and the politics of intoxication: Ontopolitically-oriented approaches to alcohol and other drug intoxication. In Routledge handbook of intoxicants and intoxication (pp. 342–357). Routledge.

21.

Fraser

Pienaar

Dilkes-Frayne

Moore

Kokanovic

Treloar

Dunlop

(2017). Addiction stigma and the biopolitics of liberal modernity: A qualitative analysis. International Journal of Drug Policy, 44, 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.02.005

22.

Fricker

(2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

23.

Gibbs

Cox

Turnock

(2022). Anabolics coaching: Emic harm reduction or a public health concern? Performance Enhancement & Health, 10(3), 100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2022.100227

24.

Goldsworthy

McGillivray

(2015). Submission to the Queensland Organised Crime Commission of Inquiry. https://pure.bond.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/168491187/Submission_to_the_Commission_of_Inquiry_into_Queensland_Police_Service.pdf

25.

Goldsworthy

McGillivray

(2017). An examination of outlaw motorcycle gangs and their involvement in the illicit drug market and the effectiveness of anti-association legislative responses. International Journal of Drug Policy, 41, 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.12.009

26.

Grenfell

Stuart

Eastham

Gallagher

Elmes

Platt

O’Neill

(2023). Policing and public health interventions into sex workers’ lives: Necropolitical assemblages and alternative visions of social justice. Critical Public Health, 33(3), 282–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2022.2096428

27.

Handelsman

D. J.

(2013). Global trends in testosterone prescribing, 2000–2011: Expanding the spectrum of prescription drug misuse. Medical Journal of Australia, 199(8), 548–551. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja13.10111

28.

Huxley

(2016). Coast cop tells of bikies using female drugs to minimise side effects of steroids . Gold Coast Bulletin. https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/coast-cop-tells-of-bikies-using-female-drugs-to-minimise-side-effects-of-steroids/news-story/b82c92c5f70ff67d3b9ed8d7eddd3857

29.

James

Wynn

(2022). Testosterone vs. steroids: Comparing the disciplined bodywork projects of performance and image enhancing drug users in Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy, 107, 103776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2022.103776

30.

Kimergård

McVeigh

(2014). Environments, risk and health harms: A qualitative investigation into the illicit use of anabolic steroids among people using harm reduction services in the UK. BMJ open, 4(6), e005275. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005275

31.

Kyriacou

Stolz

(2013). Newman Government crackdown on bikies sends gangs running for cover, as Mongols make move into Australia . News.com. https://www.news.com.au/national/newman-government-crackdown-on-bikies-sends-gangs-running-for-cover-as-mongols-make-move-into-australia/news-story/01c0a8db04a30384340f4d0a096dcd2a

32.

Latham

J. R.

Fraser

Fomiatti

Moore

Seear

Aitken

(2019). Men’s performance and image-enhancing drug use as self-transformation: Working out in makeover culture. Australian Feminist Studies, 34(100), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2019.1644952

33.

Linhares

B. L.

Miranda

E. P.

Cintra

A. R.

Reges

Torres

L. O.

(2022). Use, misuse and abuse of testosterone and other androgens. Sexual Medicine Reviews, 10(4), 583–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2021.10.002

34.

McVeigh

Bates

(2022). Stigma and the use of anabolic androgenic steroids by men in the United Kingdom. In Addison

McGovern

(Eds.), Drugs, identity and stigma (pp. 121–146). Springer.

35.

McVeigh

Begley

(2017). Anabolic steroids in the UK: An increasing issue for public health. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 24(3), 278–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2016.1245713

36.

Meers

(2014). Police claim paroled bikies on Gold Coast testing positive to steroids points to their prolific use within criminal motorcycle gangs . News.com. https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/police-claim-paroled-bikies-on-gold-coast-testing-positive-to-steroids-points-to-their-prolific-use-within-criminal-motorcycle-gangs/news-story/ef478fb81e9560b10f9a00b8741bbf59

37.

Monaghan

L. F.

(2002). Vocabularies of motive for illicit steroid use among bodybuilders. Social Science & Medicine, 55(5), 695–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00195-2

38.

Neale

(2016). Iterative categorization (IC): A systematic technique for analysing qualitative data. Addiction, 111(6), 1096–1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13314

39.

Neale

(2021). Iterative categorisation (IC)(part 2): Interpreting qualitative data. Addiction, 116(3), 668–676. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15259

40.

Nelson

B. S.

Hildebrandt

Wallisch

(2022). Anabolic–androgenic steroid use is associated with psychopathy, risk-taking, anger, and physical problems. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13048-w

41.

Nourse

Fraser

Moore

(2024a). Masculine enhancement as health or pathology: Gender and optimisation discourses in health promotion materials on performance and image-enhancing drugs (PIEDs). Health Sociology Review, 33(3), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2023.2297046

42.

Nourse

Moore

Fraser

(2024b). Who veridicts health? Health professional discourses on Performance and Image-Enhancing Drugs (PIEDs). Health, and Masculinity. Contemporary Drug Problems, 51(4), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2023.2297046

43.

Parkin

Coomber

(2009). Public injecting and symbolic violence. Addiction Research & Theory, 17(4), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066350802518247

44.

Piatkowski

Benn

Ayurzana

King

McMillan

Hattingh

(2024b). Exploring the role of community pharmacies as a harm reduction environment for anabolic–androgenic steroid consumers: Triangulating the perspectives of consumers and pharmacists. Harm Reduction Journal, 21(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-024-00972-5

45.

Piatkowski

Coomber

Francis

Kill

Davey

Cresswell

White

Blakey

Reeve

Puljevic

Ferris

Barratt

(2025). The world’s first anabolic-androgenic steroid testing trial: A two-phase pilot combining chemical analysis, results dissemination, and community feedback. Addiction, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70009

46.

Piatkowski

Cox

L. T. J.

(2024). Insulin is super dangerous if you don't know what you're doing’: Situating the risks of insulin within the image and performance enhancing drug community. Drug and Alcohol Review, 43(7), 1976–1984. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13857

47.

Piatkowski

Dunn

(2024). Navigating risks and reducing harm: A gendered analysis of anabolic–androgenic steroid users within the risk environment framework. Contemporary Drug Problems, 51(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509241249292

48.

Piatkowski

Gibbs

Dunn

(2024a). Beyond the law: Exploring the impact of criminalising anabolic–androgenic steroid use on help-seeking and health outcomes in Australia. Journal of Criminology, 57(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/26338076231209044

49.

Piatkowski

T. M.

Hides

L. M.

White

K. M.

Obst

P. L.

Dunn

(2022). Understanding harm reduction perspectives of performance and image enhancing drug consumers and health care providers. Performance Enhancement & Health, 10, 100223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2022.100223

50.

Piatkowski

Puljevic

Ferris

Francis

Dunn

(2023). They sent it away for testing and it was all bunk”: Exploring perspectives on drug checking among steroid consumers in Queensland, Australia. International Journal of Drug Policy, 119, 104139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104139

51.

Piatkowski

Seear

Reeve

Kill

(2024c). How do relational practices co-constitute care for people who use drugs? The social and political dimensions of peer-led harm reduction. International Journal of Drug Policy, 133, 104614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104614

52.

Piatkowski

T. M.

White

K. M.

Hides

L. M.

Obst

P. L.

(2020). Australia’s Adonis: Understanding what motivates young men’s lifestyle choices for enhancing their appearance. Australian Psychologist, 55(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12451

53.

Queensland, Crime and Corruption Commission. (2021). Illicit drug markets in Queensland: 2019–2020 intelligence assessment. https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/publications/ccc-annual-report-2020-21

54.

Richardson

Antonopoulos

G. A.

(2019). Anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) users on AAS use: Negative effects, ‘code of silence’, and implications for forensic and medical professionals. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 68, 101871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2019.101871

55.

Santos

G. H.

Coomber

(2017). The risk environment of anabolic–androgenic steroid users in the UK: Examining motivations, practices and accounts of use. International Journal of Drug Policy, 40, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.11.005

56.

Seear

Mulcahy

(2022). Making rights and realities: How Australian human rights make gender, alcohol and other drugs. Australian Feminist Studies, 37(113), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2023.2179971

57.

Speakman

E. M.

Hillen

Heyman

Murray

Dougall

Aston

E. V.

McAuley

(2023). I’m not going to leave someone to die’: Carriage of naloxone by police in Scotland within a public health framework: A qualitative study of acceptability and experiences. Harm Reduction Journal, 20(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-023-00750-9

58.

Turnock

L. A.

Mulrooney

K. J.

(2023). Exploring the impacts of rurality on service access and harm among image and performance enhancing drug (IPED) users in a remote English region. Contemporary Drug Problems, 50(2), 232–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509231155487

59.

Underwood

(2017). Exploring the social lives of image and performance enhancing drugs: An online ethnography of the zyzz fandom of recreational bodybuilders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 39, 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.08.012

60.

valentine

Persson

Newman

C. E.

Hamilton

Bryant

Wallace

(2020). Experience as evidence: The prospects for biographical narratives in drug policy. Contemporary Drug Problems, 47(3), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091450920916244

61.

van de Ven

Fomiatti

(2024). Problematising anabolic-androgenic steroids in Australian media: Violence, crime and disordered masculinity. Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/17416590241281712

62.

van de Ven

Maher

Wand

Memedovic

Jackson

Iversen

(2018). Health risk and health seeking behaviours among people who inject performance and image enhancing drugs who access needle syringe programs in Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review, 37(7), 837–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12831

63.

van de Ven

Zahnow

(May, 2017)). Australia should stop beefing up its steroid laws-that won’t help users . The Conversation. https://rune.une.edu.au/web/bitstream/1959.11/28812/2/openpublished/AustraliaVanDeVen2017JournalArticle.pdf

64.

Zahnow

McVeigh

Ferris

Winstock

(2017). Adverse effects, health service engagement, and service satisfaction among anabolic androgenic steroid users. Contemporary Drug Problems, 44(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091450917694268

Tracing the Impact of Media,Cultural Narratives,and Social Perceptions on Australia's Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Communities

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background

Approach

Methods

Sampling and Recruitment

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Results and Discussion

Media and Sociocultural Narratives

Negotiating the Lived Reality of Symbolic Violence

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Data Availability Statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Statements

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author biographies

References