I think the question with drugs is slightly different. Nobody cares how much vitamin C you take, because although making sure you're not vitamin C deficient ha

I think the question with drugs is slightly different. Nobody cares how much vitamin C you take, because although making sure you're not vitamin C deficient has an advantage, at some point taking more doesn't help you at all; and if you take the maximum amount that your body will absorb, there are no health detriments. Same thing with creatine: taking creatine isn't "natural" in the sense that you'll end up with 2-3x as much in your system as you would "naturally"; but after a point, your body just stops using more; and if you take that amount, you won't have any health issues. With anabolic steroids however, if there is a "maximum amount that your body will absorb", it's far beyond what causes long-term health problems. This leads to a Prisoner's Dilemma type situation, where if most competitors are taking dose X, and one person takes dose X+1, that one person get an advantage; but if all competitors take does X+1, nobody has an advantage, but they all suffer health consequences. I don't inherently see a problem with any particular sport openly advertising that competitors may use up to dose X of any particular drug or steroid, where X has been reasonably shown to be a safe amount. The problem is, is it possible to test that only X has been taken, rather than X+1? If it's only possible to test that 0 (or a negligible amount) has been taken, then the only enforceable limit is 0; and an unenforced limit is effectively no limit at all.