-Suryansh Sadhwani*
ABSTRACT
The rise of e-sports as a globally competitive industry has heightened concerns about doping, yet regulations remain fragmented. Unlike traditional sports, e-sports lacks a unified framework to address performance-enhancing drugs, such as Adderall for cognitive enhancement, as well as e-doping, which involves software-based cheating like aimbots and wallhacks. This paper critically examines these issues, underscoring the regulatory gaps in India's National Anti-Doping Act of 2022 and the inconsistencies among international governing bodies.
The study identifies several key concerns, including the absence of standardized penalties, inconsistent enforcement of rules across tournaments, and privacy risks posed by intrusive anti-cheat software. To address these challenges, the paper proposes amending India's anti-doping laws, establishing a dedicated regulatory body for e-sports, and implementing AI-driven anti-cheat systems. It also advocates for the creation of an international doping ban registry, licensing for professional players, and transparent data protection policies.
With e-sports set to debut in the 2026 Asian Games and the 2025 E-sports Olympic Games, a robust regulatory framework is essential to uphold fairness and integrity within the industry.
INTRODUCTION
Nikhil ‘Forsaken’ Kumawat, a professional CS: GO player competing in the 2018 ZOWIE eXTREMESLAND Asia Finals, was caught red-handed by the game’s administrator for using illegal software to gain an advantage. This incident tarnished his reputation and raised questions about fairness and ethics in competitive gaming. This example highlights a deeper issue in e-sports: the lengths players can go to win.
Doping scandals, though more commonly associated with physical sports, are also surprisingly prevalent in e-sports. However, unlike in conventional sports – where news of athletes such as Lance Armstrong, Diego Maradona, Maria Sharapova, etc., being caught doping makes headlines – doping in e-sports goes relatively unnoticed.
E-sports can be defined as ‘video games that are played in a highly organised competitive environment.’ With its rapid and continuous expansion over the past few years, the e-sports industry has become a global phenomenon. Players worldwide compete, each vying to win enormous amounts of prize money. With the e-sports industry projected to reach a staggering $12.10 billion of projected revenue globally by 2030, the potential and the growing interest in competitive gaming are fascinating.
Many studies have focused on traditional doping and e-doping, as well as gaming performance enhancers. However, research on e-sports governance tends to address broader integrity issues rather than specific doping regulations, and there is a lack of legal analysis on how India should address doping in e-sports. Notably with its inclusion in the 2026 Asian Games and the 2025 E-sports Olympic Games, this paper discusses doping concerns, including performance-enhancing drugs and software cheating, while highlighting regulatory gaps within India's National Anti-Doping Act of 2022 and the absence of a global framework. The paper concludes with recommendations for stricter regulations to promote fairness and integrity in the e-sports community.
DOPING IN E-SPORTS
‘Doping’ is defined as the presence of prohibited substances or methods to improve sporting performance unfairly and to gain an advantage over competitors. Doping is strictly forbidden in the sports industry. Athletes caught can face punishments ranging from disqualification from competitions to multi-year bans. The most severe consequence could be a lifetime ban.
E-sports combine elements from both the physical and virtual worlds, which opens the door to doping in both realms. In the physical world, players may use substances like Adderall, known for its ability to induce intense focus (“traditional doping”). In the virtual world, these athletes might employ software or hardware that gives them an unfair advantage over their opponents (“e-doping”).
A) TRADITIONAL DOPING
The term ‘traditional doping’ stems from the doping done in physical sports. In physical sports, athletes use drugs such as stimulants — such as amphetamines and cocaine, and diuretics — such as acetazolamide, and hallucinogens — such as LSD and magic mushrooms, to enhance their physical capabilities and gain an advantage over others.
Likewise, in e-sports, players use drugs such as Adderall, Ritalin, Vyvanse, etc., to increase their performances in gaming. Unlike physical sports, traditional doping in e-sports improves players’ focus, attention and reflexes during gameplay and keeps them awake for hours. Famous examples of professional players using performance-enhancing drugs include Korey "Sephis" Friesen, who brought attention to the issue of doping in e-sports. In an interview, he said, "We are all on Adderall ... I don't even care. It was pretty obvious if you listened to the communications". Several individuals, including Sonic Fox and the Team OG, have been accused of taking Adderall. Taking performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) is often an open secret in the e-sports community. Former Call of Duty World Champion Adam “KiLLa” Sloss said, “No one talks about Adderall because everyone uses it.” This culture of silence allows the problem to persist unchecked.
B) E-DOPING
E-doping is doping that enhances performance digitally. It is a type of doping wherein the user is involved in manipulating or fixing either software or hardware for beneficial results or to gain an unfair advantage within a game. The most prominent forms of cheating software include:
"Aimbots," which provide players with automatic targeting of their opponents;
"Wallhacks," which allow players to manipulate properties of in-game walls and other opaque environmental elements to locate their opponents or other objects of interest quickly; and
"Extrasensory Perception", or ESP, allows players to receive information beyond what is permitted by the developer, such as information on player health and the location and status of opponents or objects of interest.
Professional e-sports players often use customized hardware, such as modified mice or keyboards, to enhance their performance based on their needs and comfort. However, these modifications can sometimes be manipulated to provide an unfair advantage in the game. Other forms of e-doping include exploiting in-game bugs, glitches, and server attacks, such as Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS), where an overwhelming amount of traffic is directed at opponents' servers, disrupting their access.
EXISTING REGULATORY CHALLENGES
The primary challenge in regulating e-sports is the fragmentation of the e-sports industry. Unlike physical sports, which have a single governing body—such as FIFA for football—e-sports lacks a unified organisation to oversee the entire sector. Many countries do not yet recognize e-sports as a sport, making regulation more challenging. In e-sports, different tournament organisers and associations provide their own rules and guidelines, subject to the control of game developers, creating a disjointed regulatory environment.
EXISTING BODIES AND THEIR PROBLEMS
Some organisations, such as the World E-sports Association, the E-sports Integrity Commission, and the International E-sports Federation, have been established to regulate the e-sports industry and are promoting fair competition by establishing rules against cheating. However, their efforts mainly impact the players associated with them and the events they oversee. This limited reach leads to fragmented regulations and enforcement across the industry. Each organisation has authority over its events and players, representing only a tiny portion of the e-sports landscape.
Another problem is that these organisations punish cheating violations differently. IESF’s e-doping prohibition names different e-doping methods than ESIC's, reflecting the inconsistency in the regulatory landscape. Even within the same organization, punishments for cheating vary, sometimes leading to concerns about consistency. For instance, ESIC banned Emil 'Emilshe ln' Mamedovv from all ESIC tournaments for seven months, whereas Forsaken received a five-year ban for a more severe offence. However, the lack of a standardized framework across organizations allows players banned by one body to compete in another, undermining the effectiveness of anti-cheating measures. Furthermore, these bodies do not enforce each other’s ban. Thus, a player banned by ESIC can still play in IESF’s tournaments.
NO PROPER ADJUDICATORY BODY
One essential requirement for an adjudicatory body is that it comprises experts not associated with the organisation establishing the same. This requirement is critical as it ensures one of the fundamental principles of natural justice, i.e., freedom from bias.
The definition clause includes provisions for an ESIC Panel that comprises experts independent of ESIC; however, these members are appointed by the ESIC Executive Board. According to the ESIC Definitions Code, the Disciplinary Panel responsible for hearing and deciding on charges in an anti-doping dispute consists of three members, all appointed by the Chairman of the ESIC Panel. Furthermore, ESIC determines the jurisdiction regarding the matters that the ESIC Panel is authorised to hear. The body responsible for adjudication is indirectly controlled by ESIC, which raises concerns about its independence and impartiality. This indirect control creates a risk of conflicts of interest, as ESIC supervises both the regulatory and adjudicatory functions. This dual oversight could undermine fair and unbiased decision-making in anti-doping disputes.
Another problem is that in some of the above associations, there is no appeal process for the players to appeal against the decisions made by the adjudicatory bodies. Taking ESIC as an example, Article 10 provides for appeal as per the Disciplinary Procedure, and Article 3 of the Disciplinary Procedure allows appeal in most cases but still states that certain types of offences cannot be appealed. The absence of a comprehensive appeal mechanism raises due process issues, limiting players' ability to challenge potentially flawed or unjust decisions and undermining both fairness and accountability in the adjudicatory process.
PRIVACY CONCERNS
The right to privacy is recognised in almost all countries today. Though traditional doping tests are essential for maintaining fair play, concerns exist regarding the confidentiality of the regulatory bodies conducting these tests and handling athletes' sensitive data. A drug test involves significant medical history and personal data.
Privacy concerns also emerge in another context. Game publishers have developed anti-cheat software designed to detect and prevent the use of external programs that provide an unfair competitive advantage. While such measures may enhance competitive integrity, they also raise significant concerns. In recent years, publishers have increasingly implemented kernel-based anti-cheat software, which operates at the core level of a computer’s operating system, potentially posing substantial risks to user privacy and security.
The kernel is the essential component of an operating system, managing system resources like the CPU, memory, and devices to ensure efficient operation. Kernel-level anti-cheat systems function as the backbone of a computer’s operating system. This means they can access more of the system’s hardware and software than most other applications. Riot Games’ “Vanguard” for Valorant and Epic Games, with their anti-cheat systems for Fortnite, are examples of developers implementing these systems to combat cheating effectively. Access to the system's core allows them to monitor all computer activities, including running programs, file systems, and possibly even keyboard inputs. This raises significant privacy concerns due to its deep integration with operating systems. Operating at this level grants extensive control over system processes, file access, and input monitoring, which can lead to invasive data collection. Many developers do not disclose what data is collected or whether it is shared with third parties, raising transparency issues. Such software also increases the risk of security breaches, as vulnerabilities can be exploited by malicious actors. There have been instances of misuse, like the ESEA scandal, where the software was covertly used for Bitcoin mining without user consent. Additionally, some systems, including Riot Games' Vanguard, run continuously in the background, leading to concerns about ongoing surveillance. As a result, users and privacy advocates argue for exploring alternative security measures that can ensure fair play without compromising privacy or security. The developer's lack of clarity regarding the collected data heightens fears about how this information may be used or misused.
INDIA AND DOPING IN E-SPORTS
In India, doping is regulated by the National Anti-Doping Agency (“NADA”). It is responsible for promoting, coordinating, and monitoring the doping control program in physical sports in all its forms. NADA was set up under the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India - with a mandate for Dope Free Sports in India. The primary objective was to implement the anti-doping rules as per WADA.
The Government of India enacted the National Anti-Doping Act of 2022 to implement the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization International Convention against Doping in Sport India had ratified on November 7, 2007. The National Anti-Doping Act 2022 is a comprehensive statute consisting of 34 sections that address various aspects of doping in physical sports. Section 4 of the Act outlines what constitutes Anti-Doping Rule Violations, while Section 6 details the consequences of such violations. Additionally, Section 7 establishes a National Board for Anti-Doping in Sports, and Section 14 provides for creating the National Anti-Doping Agency.
The Anti-Doping Act, despite being a recent enactment, does not mention anything regarding e-sports or its associated doping activities. Through a gazette, India officially recognised online gaming and e-sports, and the Department of Sports and Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports became the nodal agency to regulate e-sports in the country. However, there is still no regulation in the country to regulate the world of e-sports, even though it is rising in popularity and more and more people are joining it.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Esports has gained immense popularity in India, transforming from a niche hobby into a thriving industry that captivates millions of gamers and spectators. The revenue of the Indian esports market is projected to reach $139.3 million by 2025, with an expected annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.78% from 2025 to 2029. This growth could lead to a market volume of $174.4 million by 2029. By that year, the number of esports users in India is anticipated to rise to 147.9 million.
People in India are increasingly embracing esports both as a form of entertainment and as a legitimate sport. Major esports events now draw large crowds and significant media attention, much like traditional sporting events, rather than being relegated to gaming conventions. Annual competitions such as the ESL India Premiership, Indian Gaming League, and the PUBG Mobile India Series have become popular festivals, attracting thousands of participants and audiences from across the country.
The rapid growth of esports in India necessitates that the government take the initiative to establish a strong regulatory framework. By creating clear guidelines and policies, India can ensure fair competition, protect players' rights, and promote sustainable growth within the industry. As esports gains increasing recognition, India has the opportunity to become a leading nation in regulating and shaping the future of this dynamic sector.
The first thing required is amending the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022, covering all aspects of doping in E-sports. India must establish a dedicated federation to address the needs and issues that arise, particularly in e-sports. This new body should function similarly to the Korean E-sports Association, the official regulatory agency for e-sports in South Korea.
It must collaborate with the National Anti-Doping Agency to develop a list of prohibited substances due to their potential use for enhancing performance and attention during matches. Additionally, inspired by the E-sports Integrity Commission, the federation should create a specific ethics code that clearly outlines acceptable and unacceptable practices in the industry. With the help of NADA, traditional doping tests can be checked in laboratories that have already been established for analysing the doping tests of traditional athletes. This would save time and be financially feasible. Regulations should be established for conducting doping tests on professional e-sports athletes. A comprehensive list of these athletes should be maintained and subject to random doping tests like those enforced by the WADA. Just as a Formula 1 driver must obtain a super license from the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) to compete, a licensing system for e-sports players must also be introduced. This license could be revoked in the event of a doping violation, resulting in a competition ban.
In addition to random testing, the federation should mandate doping tests before and after competitions to keep athletes vigilant and deter doping attempts. These testing protocols must be requirements for all event organisers, regardless of whether the organisers are domestic or international. Furthermore, all international players coming to India should be required to adhere to these regulations.
India's dedicated e-sports federation should collaborate closely with game developers to integrate automated anti-doping flags within the gaming ecosystem. This partnership can help detect and deter the use of performance-enhancing drugs in real time. Some methods that can be adopted include implementing automated performance monitoring systems, AI-powered cheating and doping detection, and real-time doping flag systems in tournaments.
The body should follow the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) as a model for its E-doping regulations. UCI has different mechanisms for each cycling discipline, such as road racing, BMX, etc. Cycling is a multigenre sport that confronts mechanical doping issues. UCI regulations include separate sections for each genre of cycling with rules that address the specific genre’s needs. For example, the road race section contains particular provisions for one-day and stage races, while the cyclo-cross section does not have separate guidelines. A uniform governing body for e-sports could have different sections within its regulations to accommodate each genre of games played at competitions, such as one section for first-person shooter games and another for fighting games. Then, those regulations could encompass all e-sports games and govern across disciplines.
Hardware concerns in e-sports can be managed like the League of Legends Championship Series rules. All player or team equipment must be submitted to League Officials for prior approval. The equipment will remain on-site and can be accessed only before the match or when permitted by the referee. Any unapproved equipment or items that could provide a player or team with an unfair advantage are strictly prohibited. Teams must summarise their hardware specifications and adhere to the established technical regulations.
A thorough inspection must occur before and after each match to verify that the hardware complies with these regulations, akin to the protocols in Formula 1. Additionally, AI-based tools should be integrated to monitor reaction times, movement precision, and aiming consistency to identify any unnatural patterns. Anti-cheat software must also be incorporated into the game. Devices like Cronus Zen, XIM Apex, modded controllers, or mouse scripting software, which may grant unfair advantages, should not be allowed during tournaments. Random checks should be conducted on peripherals before and after matches.
Penalties and bans for violations must be reinforced: for a first offence, a 6-month suspension plus mandatory anti-doping education; for a second offence, a 2-year ban from competitive play; and for a third offence, a permanent ban from Indian e-sports competitions along with the cancellation of the offender's license. A global ban registry should be established, with offender data shared among international e-sports federations to enhance regulatory effectiveness. To facilitate reporting, an anonymous system should be created for players, referees, or coaches to report suspected e-doping. Whistleblower rewards should be offered for verified reports that result in successful convictions.
To balance fair play and privacy in esports, developers should ensure transparency by disclosing what data kernel-level anti-cheat software collects and how it is used. Alternative methods, such as server-side monitoring and AI-driven behavioural analysis, can reduce intrusive system access. Users should have the option to opt-out, with tiered security measures based on competition levels. Independent audits by cybersecurity experts and regulatory oversight can prevent misuse. Legal safeguards should set data protection standards, and anti-cheat software should be designed to limit system access. These measures can maintain integrity without compromising user privacy.
CONCLUSION
The E-sports industry is currently on its meteoric rise. It has been officially recognised as a medal event in Asian Games 2026. Even the E-sports Olympic Games is being organised for the first time in Saudi Arabia in 2025. The growing global recognition of e-sports signifies that it is no longer just a recreational activity but has evolved into a serious competitive field comparable to physical sports. However, this rapid rise presents a significant challenge: the issue of doping, which remains largely unregulated.
The integrity of e-sports competitions is increasingly at risk due to various forms of doping, including performance-enhancing drugs and sophisticated cheating methods like software-based doping. Unlike physical sports, which have well-established anti-doping regulations overseen by the WADA, e-sports currently lack a universal framework to address these violations. The absence of specific provisions under the National Anti-Doping Act of 2022 highlights India's urgent need for legislative intervention.
To preserve fair competition and protect the credibility of e-sports, it is essential for stakeholders—governments, gaming organisations, and regulatory bodies—to collaborate on comprehensive anti-doping measures. Implementing standardised drug testing protocols, enforcing strict penalties, and integrating e-sports into existing sports governance structures can help mitigate the risks associated with doping. As e-sports continues to evolve, ensuring a level playing field will be crucial in establishing its status as a legitimate sport on the global stage.
*The Author is a First year B.A. LLB. (Hons.) student at the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University, Lucknow.
Comments