Lead: In a development that intersects military ethics, commercial branding, and online influence, Australia’s most decorated living soldier, Ben Roberts-Smith, has collaborated with Zero Limits Supplements—an athletic products business co-founded by right-wing podcaster and fitness coach Chris Katelaris, known as ‘Big Chocky’—on a joint gym workout video. This partnership comes just months after Roberts-Smith was arrested on five counts of war crimes related to incidents during his service in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012.
The collaboration is marked not only by social media content but also by the marketing of a pre-workout supplement named 'war crimes', which features an image of a hooded captive seated at a chair inside a room adorned with an Australian flag and a tall figure wearing military-style clothing and a balaclava. The product’s flavor is described as 'kill or capture cola'. While Zero Limits does not currently list this item on its official website, it has previously promoted the drink through videos posted online, including one released on July 26 during a gym session where Katelaris holds a tub of the supplement while speaking to viewers.
Background: Ben Roberts-Smith's Military Record and Legal Proceedings
Ben Roberts-Smith served in the Australian Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) from 2009 until his retirement in 2014. He was awarded multiple medals for bravery and leadership, earning recognition among Australia’s elite military personnel. However, in April 2026, he was arrested by police and charged with five counts of war crimes—specifically murder involving Afghan nationals who were allegedly shot dead during or shortly after incidents linked to his command presence in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012.
According to reports by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), three separate events involved unarmed individuals being fatally shot either directly by Roberts-Smith or under orders from a subordinate while he was present on-site. In one incident detailed publicly, an Afghan man named Ali Jan was reportedly kicked in the chest by Roberts-Smith, causing him to fall backwards over a cliff before landing on solid ground. Following this event, Roberts-Smith ordered another soldier to shoot the man dead—actions that have been substantiated through court findings in civil defamation proceedings.
In April of 2026, a federal court found that Roberts-Smith had indeed kicked Ali Jan and then directed his subordinates to execute him—a ruling made using the lower standard of balance of probabilities required for civil cases. The judgment did not establish criminal guilt but affirmed that the actions were consistent with allegations of unlawful violence against unarmed civilians during military operations.
Zero Limits Supplements: A Brand Rooted in Right-Wing Influence
Zero Limits Supplements is described on its website as 'veteran owned and operated', positioning itself within an ecosystem where military service and fitness culture intersect. It was co-founded by Chris Katelaris, a right-wing podcaster known online as ‘Big Chocky’, who has built a significant following through content promoting nationalist themes, anti-government sentiment, and militarized lifestyle ideals.
Katelaris lists himself as a 'co-owner' of Zero Limits in his Instagram bio and actively promotes the brand’s products under that identity. He also markets merchandise bearing slogans such as 'I stand with BRS,' including t-shirts, hats, hoodies, and stubby coolers—items directly tied to Roberts-Smith's public persona. In July 2026, during an on-site video promotion at a gym facility, Katelaris held up a tub labeled ‘war crimes’ while saying: 'You wanna drink out of a prosthetic leg? You wanna re-enact a Sparta kick? You wanna execute your workout?' This statement has drawn criticism for its apparent glorification of violence and dehumanization.
Public Collaboration Between Brands
In October 2026, a social media video was released jointly by Ben Roberts-Smith’s apparel brand, Epic 1 Two, and Zero Limits Supplements. The footage shows both figures participating in a group gym session with on-screen graphics reading 'Zero Limits Supplements x Epic 1 Two'. Both brands are labeled as ‘collaborators’ within the content, which is shared across their respective Instagram grids—indicating an official partnership between entities that have no direct connection to military ethics or humanitarian standards.
The collaboration includes promotional material where Roberts-Smith shares an Instagram story from his own account showing himself drinking a pre-workout drink produced by Zero Limits. In this post, he gives the product line a strong endorsement: 'Massive shout out!' and urges followers to visit the brand’s website to view its offerings. This public praise appears in contrast with any mention of the specific supplement titled 'war crimes' during the video segment itself.
Legal and Ethical Implications
No formal statement has been issued by either Roberts-Smith or Katelaris directly addressing whether they endorse or use the 'war crimes' supplement. However, their joint promotion—especially given that one individual is currently facing war crime charges while another promotes content involving reenactments of violence—is deeply problematic from both a legal and moral standpoint.
The product's imagery—a captive chained at a desk with an Australian flag behind them—has raised concerns about desensitization to human suffering and potential normalization of violent acts under military authority. Critics argue such depictions may be interpreted as endorsing or romanticizing state-sanctioned brutality, particularly when marketed toward fitness communities where individuals are often encouraged to adopt disciplined, aggressive lifestyles.
Responses From the Companies
In response to inquiries regarding their involvement in promoting the 'war crimes' supplement, Zero Limits did not provide direct answers but instead issued a general statement through legal counsel: 'The products are great, make sure you check them out.' This evasive tone suggests an attempt at minimizing accountability without addressing specific allegations about content or messaging related to violence and war crime narratives.
Katelaris also responded via lawyer with no explicit denial of the product’s existence or its promotion. His reply reads only: 'If you thought this was wild, wait until next week’s campaign drops,' indicating future releases may expand on controversial themes already present in current marketing materials. Such statements imply that the brand is prepared to continue pushing boundary-pushing content under the guise of fitness culture and personal empowerment.
Contextual Analysis: The Intersection of Military Service, Public Image, and Commercialization
The case presents a complex intersection between military service, public image management, and commercial branding. Roberts-Smith has long cultivated an image as a fearless warrior—his reputation built through battlefield experiences and leadership roles within elite units like SAS. This narrative has been amplified by media coverage and social platforms where he shares videos promoting physical discipline, resilience, and self-reliance.
Yet his current legal situation casts serious doubt over whether such narratives are compatible with accountability for actions taken during operations abroad. His collaboration with Zero Limits Supplements appears to leverage this image—not only in terms of personal endorsement but also through the symbolic use of violent imagery that may resonate with audiences seeking ideological alignment rather than factual accuracy or ethical reflection.
Critical Perspectives From Civil Society
Military ethics experts have expressed concern about how public figures who face criminal allegations continue to engage in commercial ventures involving themes of violence and dehumanization. Dr. Sarah Thompson, a professor at the University of Melbourne specializing in military law and human rights, stated: 'When someone accused of war crimes promotes products that depict execution-style scenarios as part of fitness culture, it risks normalizing acts of state-sanctioned violence under the banner of personal empowerment.' She added that such content may influence younger audiences—particularly those without direct exposure to battlefield realities—to view aggression not merely as an outcome but as a form of performance or achievement.
Advocacy groups focused on accountability for armed forces personnel have also called attention to this development. The Australian Human Rights Commission has issued no official statement about Zero Limits’ product line, citing insufficient data at present—but noted in internal reports that similar branding strategies by military-linked influencers could contribute to broader societal desensitization toward human rights violations.
Factual Clarifications and Disclaimers
The Guardian’s reporting confirms only the following facts: (1) Roberts-Smith collaborated with Zero Limits Supplements; (2) Katelaris is a co-owner of Zero Limits; (3) the supplement named 'war crimes' was promoted online during July 2026 via video content featuring Katelaris holding a tub labeled as such; (4) no public endorsement or use of this product has been made by Roberts-Smith himself in any official capacity; (5) the product does not appear on Zero Limits’ current website listing.
It must be emphasized that while Roberts-Smith praised another pre-workout drink from Zero Limits through social media, there is no evidence linking him to the specific ‘war crimes’ flavor. The claim that he used or endorsed the product remains unverified and unsupported by direct statements or visual documentation. Similarly, all claims about the origin of the prosthetic leg—used both as a drinking vessel and referenced in promotional content—are derived solely from media reports and do not constitute verified testimony or forensic records.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Public Figures
The collaboration between Ben Roberts-Smith and Chris Katelaris represents more than just an endorsement of fitness products—it reflects deeper tensions within modern society regarding accountability, public image, and ethical boundaries in commercialized narratives around violence and military service. As individuals with high-profile roles face legal scrutiny, their partnerships with brands that promote controversial imagery may generate unintended consequences, especially when such themes are framed through the lens of personal strength and discipline.
This case underscores a growing need for transparency and oversight in how public figures—particularly those involved in armed forces or law enforcement—are allowed to engage with media and consumer markets. Without clear guidelines on what constitutes acceptable messaging during periods of active investigation or trial, there remains significant risk of conflating personal heroism with moral justification for violent acts.