Do you get what you see? The illicit doping market in Denmark—An analysis of performance and image enhancing drugs seized by the police over a 1‐year period

This study examines doping products seized by the police in three regional police districts in Denmark from December 2019 to December 2020. The products, often referred to as performance and image‐enhancing drugs (PIEDs), are described in relation to the country of origin, manufacturing company, and the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) stated on the packaging versus the one identified by subsequent chemical analysis. The study also includes a description of the degree of professionalism by which the products appear according to EU requirements. A total of 764 products were seized during the study period. The products originate from 37 countries, mainly located in Asia (37%), Europe (23%), and North America (13%). One hundred ninety‐three different manufacturing companies could be identified from the product packaging. The most frequent compound class was the androgenic anabolic steroids, found in 60% of the products. In 25%–34% of the products, either no or an incorrect API relative to the one stated on the product was found. However, only 7%–10% contain either no API or a compound from a different compound class than the one stated. Most products had a professional appearance fulfilling most EU requirements for packaging information. The study shows that many different companies supply PIEDs to the Danish market and that counterfeit and substandard products are widespread. Many products do, however, appear professional to the user giving an impression of a high‐quality product. Although many products are substandard, they most often contain an API from the same compound class as the one labeled. All seizures of suspected performance and image‐enhancing drugs (PIEDs) from three police districts in Denmark were collected over a 1‐year period. (1) Product information was registered in a database with respect to manufacturing company, country of origin, and required product labeling information. (2) Identification of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) was performed for 660 products using GC‐MS. (3) Finally, a comparison between the API stated on the product labeling and the API found by analysis was performed.