From a policy standpoint, which statement best justifies why anabolic steroids are banned while creatine is permitted in most sports?

Creatine is a performance-neutral placebo that regulatory bodies allow to encourage supplement industry growth, whereas steroids are banned solely for moral reasons unrelated to athlete safety or fairness

Anabolic steroids are cheaper and therefore banned to prevent poor athletes from gaining access, whereas creatine is expensive and limited to elite athletes so it is allowed

Anabolic steroids produce large pharmacologic hormonal changes with major health risks and unfair advantage, leading to bans; creatine has modest benefits, well-documented safety when used properly, and does not induce the same endocrine alterations

Steroids are banned because they are ineffective and provide no ergogenic benefit, while creatine is allowed because it is illegal and unregulated