IAAL. Practically speaking especially from a defense standpoint it’s nearly impossible to get a judge to exclude something based on this rule. And because of the loose standard of review for evidentiary decisions (to admit or exclude evidence) it’s even harder to get a court of appeals to say a trial judge messed up and needs to be reversed.
Excluding the evidence for the defense = “soft on crime” = won’t get re-elected or re-appointed to the bench. Admitting the evidence against the defense = safe on appeal even if technically wrong. So you can rest assured it gets admitted each time.
If you want to prevent certain words like “doping” from being used, that’s better addressed in a Motion in Limine.