Informed choice vs informed sport: which is better?

Two policies against one risk: what the two programmes share, the one thing that differs, and why the difference reads as an excess rather than as a better or worse test

Informed Choice versus Informed Sport, which is better, is a question that treats two programmes from the same organisation as rivals, and they are better read as two insurance policies sold against the same risk by the same insurer with different terms. The risk is the one strict liability creates: a product that contains a substance on the anti-doping prohibited list, undeclared, so that the person who took it fails a test they could not have avoided by reading the label. Both programmes screen for that risk, and on everything that makes a screen good they are the same: the same prohibited list is the menu of analytes, the same accredited laboratory runs the analysis, the same methods and detection limits apply, and the same database publishes the result. Neither is better on what it looks for or how well it looks. A buyer who asks which laboratory is more rigorous has asked a question with no difference in the answer.

The one thing that differs is the sampling regime, and it is the whole difference. The sport programme tests every batch of a certified product before that batch is released for sale, and lists the lots it has tested, so that a buyer who matches the lot on their tub to the database holds a tub whose own batch was screened. The choice programme certifies the product and then tests it by blind sampling, buying it from the market at intervals under a set regime and screening what it bought, so that the product has a continuing record of clean samples and a given lot the buyer holds is covered by that record rather than by a test of itself. The product's manufacturing site is audited under both, which is the part of the insurance that reduces the risk at source rather than detecting it at the end.

Read as insurance, the difference is an excess. A policy with no excess pays out on the thing itself: under the sport programme, the buyer's lot was screened, and the protection attaches to the tub in hand. A policy with an excess leaves a gap the insured carries: under the choice programme, the protection attaches to the product's record, and the gap between the record and the specific lot in hand, which is small for a well-run site with a clean record and not zero, is carried by the buyer. The excess is what makes the choice programme cheaper for the brand and the product cheaper for the buyer, because testing every batch costs more than sampling the market, and a brand selling to recreational lifters passes a smaller premium on than a brand selling to tested athletes. Neither policy is better in the abstract; a policy is better or worse for the person insured and the thing insured, which is the next section.

Two policies set out with their shared terms and their one difference read as an excess, with who is insured, the lot check that applies to one programme only, the premium each adds, the worked example enrolled in neither and the verdict in the next section.

Who is insured decides which is better: the tested athlete's career and the recreational lifter's peace of mind; the lot check that only one programme offers; the premium each adds; the worked example enrolled in neither; and the verdict

The tested athlete is insuring a career, and a career cannot bear an excess. An athlete subject to testing under strict liability, for whom a positive result means a ban regardless of intent, needs the protection to attach to the tub in hand, because the question an anti-doping tribunal asks is about the specific lot the athlete took, and the sport programme answers it: that lot was screened, and here is the database entry. The choice programme's answer, that the product has a clean sampling record, is weaker evidence about the specific lot and is not what the programme was designed to supply; the insurer itself says the sport programme is the one for tested athletes, and the tribunals' treatment of certified products reflects the same distinction. For the tested athlete, better is the sport programme, and the premium it adds to a tub is the cost of insuring a career, which is small against the thing insured.

The recreational lifter is insuring peace of mind, and peace of mind can bear an excess. A lifter who is never tested faces no tribunal, and the risk that strict liability creates does not apply to them; what they may reasonably want is a product from an audited site with a record of clean screening, so that the undeclared stimulant or steroid that contaminates the worst corners of the market is unlikely to be in their tub, and the choice programme supplies exactly that at a lower premium. For the recreational lifter, better is the choice programme, or neither for the commodity products in which contamination is rare, and paying the sport programme's premium is paying for an excess-free policy on a risk that for them has no payout.

The lot check is the operational difference that follows: under the sport programme a buyer can and does match the lot on the tub to a tested lot in the database before each purchase, and a lot not listed is an unscreened lot; under the choice programme there is no lot to match, the database lists the product as certified, and the buyer checks that the product and flavour are listed and that the certification is current. A buyer who tries to lot-check a choice-programme product is asking for a document the policy never issued, and a buyer who skips the lot check on a sport-programme product has bought the policy and not read the terms. The premium differs accordingly, with the sport programme's per-batch testing adding more per unit than the choice programme's sampling, and the brand's choice of programme telling the buyer who the brand thinks its customer is.

The worked example is enrolled in neither programme and is sold in a category where the insured risk does not arise, which is said plainly: {FL}, 1500mg magnesium bisglycinate stated as 300mg elemental at 80% NRV, two capsules with the evening meal, is a plain mineral with three ingredients, no stimulant, hormone, botanical or blend, from the category the contamination surveys find cleanest; it carries a different document, a four-metal batch certificate by lot from an accredited UK lab, is UK made under GMP and BRC, and costs 180 capsules for £19.99 at 22p a day. A tested athlete who wants a magnesium chooses one with a sport-programme listing, and this page says so rather than implying a policy the product does not hold. The full label breakdown is here.

The verdict: Informed Choice and Informed Sport are two insurance policies against one risk, sold by one insurer, screening the same list at the same laboratory, and differing only in the sampling regime, every batch before release against blind sampling from the market, which reads as a policy with no excess against a cheaper policy with one. Better is read from who is insured: the tested athlete, whose career cannot bear an excess, is better served by the sport programme and its lot check; the recreational lifter, whose peace of mind can, is better served by the choice programme or by neither on the commodity products. The logos do not answer the question; the person holding the tub does.

What to check on the label

Questions people also ask

What is the difference between Informed Choice and Informed Sport?

One thing, the sampling regime, because both programmes come from the same organisation, screen for the same anti-doping prohibited list at the same accredited laboratory with the same methods and audit the manufacturing site in the same way: the sport programme tests every batch of a certified product before release and lists the lots tested, so a buyer's own lot was screened, while the choice programme certifies the product and then blind-samples it from the market at intervals, so a buyer's lot is covered by the product's record rather than by a test of itself; read as insurance, the first is a policy with no excess and the second a cheaper policy with one.

Which certification is better for athletes?

The sport programme, because a tested athlete is insuring a career under strict liability and the question a tribunal asks is about the specific lot the athlete took, which the sport programme answers with a database entry showing that lot was screened before release; the choice programme's answer, that the product has a clean sampling record, is weaker evidence about a specific lot and is not what it was designed to supply, and the programme's own guidance directs tested athletes to the sport programme; the athlete matches the lot on every tub to the database before each purchase, and treats an unlisted lot as unscreened.

Is Informed Choice good enough for a recreational lifter?

Yes, and often more than enough: a lifter who is never tested faces no tribunal, so the excess the choice programme leaves, the gap between a product's clean sampling record and the specific lot in hand, has no payout for them, and what they reasonably want, a product from an audited site with a continuing record of clean screening so that the undeclared stimulant or steroid found in the worst corners of the market is unlikely to be in their tub, is exactly what the programme supplies at a lower premium; for the commodity products, plain vitamins, minerals, creatine and protein, in which contamination is rare, neither programme is needed.

Can you check the batch number on an Informed Choice product?

No, and asking for it misreads the policy: the choice programme certifies the product and screens it by blind sampling from the market, so its database lists the product and flavour as certified and current and issues no per-lot record, whereas the sport programme tests every batch before release and lists the lots, so its database is where a lot number is matched; a buyer of a choice-programme product checks that the exact product and flavour are listed and that the certification is current, and a buyer of a sport-programme product matches the lot on the tub before each purchase, which is the operational difference between a policy with an excess and one without.

Is this site's magnesium Informed Choice or Informed Sport certified?

Neither, and it says so plainly: it is a plain mineral with three ingredients, magnesium bisglycinate, the HPMC capsule shell and rice flour, with no stimulant, hormone, botanical or blend, from the category the contamination surveys find cleanest, and it carries a different document, a batch certificate of analysis for lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium by ICP-MS from an accredited UK laboratory available by lot on request; it is 300mg elemental at 80% NRV in two capsules, UK made under GMP and BRC, 180 for £19.99 at 22p a day, and a tested athlete who wants a magnesium chooses one with a sport-programme listing instead.

Sources

1. The sports supplement certification programmes: Informed Sport, Informed Choice, BSCG and NSF Certified for Sport test products or batches for banned substances, the assurance competing athletes rely on. https://sport.wetestyoutrust.com/
2. UK Anti-Doping guidance on supplements: strict liability means an athlete is responsible for any prohibited substance in their sample regardless of how it got there, contaminated supplements have produced UK anti-doping violations, and batch testing under a recognised programme is the risk-reduction step the agency describes while stating no supplement can be guaranteed free of prohibited substances. https://www.ukad.org.uk/athletes/supplements
3. The independent supplement testing services: subscription laboratories that purchase products at retail and test them for label accuracy, contaminants and disintegration, publishing pass and fail results by product, the one kind of review that reports what was in the tub rather than how it felt. PubMed record
4. Maughan RJ, et al. IOC consensus statement: dietary supplements and the high-performance athlete. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2018;52(7):439-455: the performance supplements with good evidence are caffeine, creatine, nitrate, beta-alanine and sodium bicarbonate, with most other products lacking support. PubMed record

Related answers

• Is there a difference between informed choice and Informed Sport?
• What should you look for in informed sport UK?
• What is the best informed sport brands in the UK?
• Which supplements are approved by Informed Sport?
• What is the best informed choice certification cost in the UK?
• Which supplements are Informed Sport certified?