The Arslan Ash Doping Ban and the Oncoming Battle Over Competing Anti-Doping Frameworks

The esports world was recently hit with a bewildering announcement: Pakistani Tekken legend Arslan Siddique (Arslan Ash) had been retroactively banned for two years by the International Esports Federation (IeSF) for testing positive for anabolic steroids in 2022. The announcement, made in June 2025, comes nearly three years after the alleged violation and notably after the ban had already ended in April 2025.

In addition to being banned from competition, Arslan Siddique’s awards and prize money were withheld from multiple IESF-sanctioned tournaments between December 10th, 2022 and April 26th, 2023, including the 2022 World Esports Championship. Arslan Siddique has issued a response on X.com (which you can read here). The question being raised is whether applying traditional sports doping regulations to competitive esports gaming is even appropriate.

This controversy exposes a fundamental legal and regulatory gap in esports: the inappropriate marriage of frameworks designed for physical sports and the unique requirements of competitive gaming. As esports continues its quest toward mainstream recognition, this case serves as a critical test for how the industry should approach anti-doping regulations.

The Traditional Sports Framework v. Esports Reality

The IeSF’s decision to adopt the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) framework represents a common approach among esports organizations seeking legitimacy through alignment with traditional sports governance. However this one-size-fits-all approach may be fundamentally flawed (as discussed in our Doping wiki).

Steroids like those Arslan tested positive for do not enhance the skills needed in competitive gaming like reaction time, mental focus, precision, or strategic decision-making. The substances detected—19-norandrosterone, stanozolol metabolites, and metandienone metabolites—are anabolic-androgenic steroids typically used to build muscle mass. Their presence in a Tekken player’s system begs the question: what competitive advantage could they possibly provide in a game that relies entirely on button mashing and quick thinking?

In response to IeSF’s decision, Esports Integrity Commission (ESIC) was unmistakably clear in its criticism. In a statement, Commissioner Ian Smith argued that steroids don’t interfere esports as they would in traditional sports and that ESIC members have “no obligation to support, recognize, or enforce” the IeSF’s ruling. This institutional pushback highlights a growing recognition that esports doping requires its own tailored approach.

The Legal Implications of Retroactive Sanctions

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the IeSF’s handling is the retroactive nature and delayed announcement of the sanctions. The ruling applied retroactively from April 26, 2023, to April 25, 2025, and essentially invalidated Arslan’s placement and prize money at numerous major tournaments.

From a legal perspective, this raises serious due process concerns. The delayed notification meant that tournament organizers, sponsors, and competitors operated for years without knowledge of the alleged violation. This creates a web of legal complications: Can prize money be clawed back years after distribution? What about sponsorship agreements entered into during the ban period? The lack of transparency and timely communication undermines the fundamental principle of fairness that should govern any disciplinary system.

Moreover, as Commissioner Smith noted in his response, no esports organization outside of IeSF was informed of the “ban” throughout this period. This communication failure not only damages the athlete’s reputation but also calls into question the legitimacy of tournament results across the entire competitive ecosystem. Something that reeks of corruption (which should be at the forefront of recent allegations “plaguing” the esports industry).

The Knowledge and Intent Question

Arslan’s defense centers on a claim that resonates with many anti-doping cases: he was unaware he was consuming banned substances. “A trainer there offered me what he called ‘supplements’ that would help speed up the process. Trusting his advice, I paid around PKR 60,000 unaware that what I was given contained banned substances,” Arslan explained.

This raises critical questions about the application of strict liability principles in esports doping cases. In traditional sports, athletes are held responsible for any substance in their system regardless of intent or knowledge. However, given that these substances provide no competitive advantage in esports, should the same standard apply? The imperative of anti-doping programs in esports must be balanced against the unique context of competitive gaming.

Industry Response and Alternative Frameworks

The esports industry’s response to this controversy has been telling. Major tournament organizers have largely ignored the IeSF sanctions, with Arslan continuing to compete and win at premier events throughout the supposed ban period. His sponsor, Twisted Minds, publicly declared the IeSF’s framework “outdated” and not designed for esports.

ESIC’s alternative approach offers a compelling model. Since 2016, their Anti-Doping Program has focused on substances that could actually provide competitive advantages in gaming—stimulants and reaction-time enhancers rather than muscle-building steroids. With over 500 esports athletes tested and a 90% approval rating from players, this targeted approach demonstrates that effective anti-doping regulation in esports is possible without blindly copying traditional sports models.

The Path Forward: Legal and Regulatory Reform

The Arslan Ash controversy, much like recent cheating scandals, highlights the urgent need for regulatory frameworks adapted or made specifically for esports. The industry faces a choice: continue borrowing ill-fitting regulations from traditional sports or develop purpose-built systems that address the unique challenges of competitive gaming.

Several key reforms emerge from this case:

• First, anti-doping regulations must be scientifically grounded in substances that actually affect gaming performance. Testing for anabolic steroids in esports makes as much sense as testing chess players for performance-enhancing running shoes.
• Second, procedural fairness must be paramount. Any sanctions should be communicated promptly to all relevant stakeholders, with clear appeal processes and proportionate penalties.
• Third, education and prevention should take precedence over punishment, especially given the global nature of esports and varying levels of regulatory awareness across different regions.
• Finally, harmonization across different esports bodies is essential. The current patchwork of regulations, where IeSF follows WADA while ESIC maintains its own bespoke framework, creates confusion for competitors and undermines competitive integrity.

Conclusion: A Crossroad for Anti-Doping Practices

The Arslan Ash case represents more than just an individual controversy—it should serve as a inflection point. As the industry continues to expand, it must resist the temptation to achieve legitimacy through wholesale adoption of traditional sports frameworks. Instead, esports needs customized regulations that reflect its unique nature.

Will the industry continue to accept the square peg of WADA regulations in the round hole of competitive gaming? Or will organizations like ESIC lead the way toward a more rational, evidence-based approach?

Arslan Ash’s case serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of regulatory misalignment and the urgent need for reform. Getting these fundamental governance questions right isn’t just important—it’s essential for the integrity and future of competitive gaming.