The United Kingdom intends to expand its anabolic steroid laws in preparation for the 2012 London Olympics in response to pressure from the International Olympic Committee and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The steroid law revision is largely a symbolic move by the United Kingdom. It is an attempt to appease WADA by showing their commitment anti-doping in sports; however, the personal use of anabolic steroids and the importation of anabolic steroids for personal use will continue to be permitted under UK steroid law. The proposed legislation is unlikely to have any effect on steroid use in the United Kingdom.
The new proposal seeks to make British steroid law consistent with the WADA prohibited substance list. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) recommended adding an additional 24 anabolic steroids (mostly marginally effective prohormones) and 2 non-steroidal agents to the existing list of 54 anabolic steroid and 5 growth hormones currently classified as Schedule 4 (IV) controlled substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Suggestions by the media that the proposed changes to UK steroid law are intended to protect the children are disingenuous. The driving forces behind the new steroid laws are IOC/WADA and the 2012 London Olympics (”Proposed control of 1-benzylpiperazine (BZP) and a group of substituted piperazines, as well as an additional 24 anabolic steroids and 2 non-steroidal agents,” May 21).
The original group of steroids were identified by reference to the International Olympic Commission Prohibited List. It is therefore appropriate for us to update our controls by reference to its successor, the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List. It will provide consistency in our approach and is fully in line with the Government’s commitment to prevent the misuse of these substances both by the general public but also by elite athletes, particularly in the lead up to the London Olympics in 2012. [...]
The measure to control 24 additional anabolic steroid substances and 2 non-steroidal products under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 will support the Government’s commitment to strengthening the mechanisms to tackle doping in sport, targeting those facilitating doping and tackle trafficking, supply and manufacture of doping substances and those involved in such activities.
The IOC has long pressured the United Kingdom to criminalize personal use of steroids. Without changes to steroid possession laws, the IOC and WADA are unlikely to be satisfied by the Home Office’s latest recommendations. The United Kingdom’s permissive steroid possession laws will likely become increasingly problematic as the 2012 London Olympics approach. We expect the IOC to continue to lobby the U.K. government to adopt legislation that criminalizes mere use and possession of anabolic steroids.
The personal use of anabolic steroids and the importation of anabolic steroids for personal use remains explicitly permitted in the United Kingdom when in the form of a medicinal product under the new proposals. Read more
The 2009 NABBA Belgium Nationals Bodybuilding Championships were cancelled yesterday after three anti-doping official arrived unannounced to conduct steroid testing. The NABBA Belgium sanctioned bodybuilding championship was to be held at Arsenaal Theater in Vlissingen, Netherlands on Sunday, May 17, 2009. The 20 bodybuilding competitors were reported to have “fled” the auditorium when the steroid testers arrived (”Bodybuilders op de vlucht voor dopingartsen,” May 18).
“I have never seen anything like it and hope never to see anything like it again,” said anti-doping official Hans Cooman… “In the bodybuilding world doping control is necessary because we know that there is a lot of doping going on. The results prove this again and again.”
Cooman said he had no choice but to conclude that all the competitors were using steroids based on their abrupt departure from the venue. Read more
Dr. Richard Rydze is a vocal advocate of the use of recombinant human growth hormone (rHGH) for the treatment of tendon and ligament injuries. Dr. Rydze found HGH to be highly effective for this purpose based on the clinical results from his human growth hormone research project involving over 200 patients over the course of 5 years. Unfortunately, Dr. Rydze, as a 22-year member of the Pittsburgh Steelers medical staff and an internal medicine specialist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) was not in the best position to conduct such controversial HGH research in his private practice.
The societal stigma associated with performance-enhancing drugs and the legal restrictions on legitimate medical research by anti-steroid crusaders and the anti-doping movement quickly resulted in Dr. Rydze resignation from both the Pittsburgh Steelers organization and the UPMC after it was publicly disclosed that Rydze had purchased $150,000 worth of HGH and anabolic steroids from Signature Pharmacy with his credit card (”Former Steelers doctor embraced HGH,” January 15).
“I know it has caused me a lot of grief, simply because I believe in it and I know what it does,” Rydze said. “And to deny people the effect to heal better — that is the art of medicine, to make people heal. And using something off-label, which we use for many, many drugs … I don’t see how someone can single out one thing and say you can’t use it for off-label use. And you show me there is one side effect, and I’d be a believer. But I have never seen a side effect. And I just think it is just ignorance of people who don’t know. They just hear about it, and they assume it is bad.”
The use of human growth hormone was approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) for a limited number of conditions**; the use of HGH for tendon and ligament injuries was not one of the FDA-approved indications. Any use of HGH for this purpose was considered “off-label.” An “off-label prescription” for a drug refers to its use by medical professionals to treat additional medical conditions and/or indications that were not originally approved by the FDA.
It is legal for physicians to use all FDA-approved pharmaceutical drugs for off-label purposes EXCEPT for HGH. The off-label use of human growth hormone (HGH) to accelerate healing in the treatment of tendon and ligament injuries remains illegal. Read more
The manufacturers of the Whizzinator, a male prosthetic urinary device used to pass anti-doping steroid testing and employer drug testing, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to sell drug paraphernalia. United States Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan prosecuted Gerald Wills and Robert D. Catalano of Puck Technology as part of Operation True Test that targeted companies who manufacturer products intended to “mask” illegal drug use and/or anabolic steroid use in athletes (”Men who sold ‘Whizzinator’ admit to federal charges,” November 26).
Mary Beth Buchanan is the “porn and bongs” prosecutor who spent $12 million to put Tommy Chong in prison for nine months for selling pipes and bongs as part of Operation Pipe Dreams and Operation Head Hunter, has turned her attention to anti-doping detection devices even though federal law does not explicitly prohibit the use of such “masking products.”
The federal anti-doping law entitled Drug Testing Integrity Act of 2005 was introduced in response to Minnesota Vikings running back Onterrio Smith’s detention by airport police due to the discovery of the Whizzinator. The bill specifically criminalized the use of such items but failed to gather momentum (”Whitfield, Engel Introduce National Drug Testing Integrity Act,” May 9, 2006).
The devastating effects of drug and steroid use are well known and we should not allow companies to sell products like the Whizzinator to falsify their tests with impunity. These devices should not be sold legally in the United States and this legislation will make our nation a safer place to live.
Even though the legislation did not pass, Mary Beth Buchanan, the aggressive obscenity prosecutor and vice hunter, nonetheless decided to pursue Puck Technology and Whizzinator under the rarely enforced federal drug paraphernalia laws much as she did with the case against Tomy Chong and Nice Dream Enterprises; many critics (and federal prosecutors) regard the pursuit of obscenity and paraphernalia cases as a waste of money that diverts significant resources away from other more serious crimes. Read more
Sir Alex Ferguson, Manchester United boss and hall of fame football (soccer) manager, has criticized the implementation of new steroid testing rules in the Premier League as a “real nuisance.” Barclay’s Premier League is the world’s most lucrative professional football league. The implementation of more vigilant steroid testing protocols comes as UK Sports, the United Kingdom’s anti-doping agency, incorporates “in-competition” anti-doping testing that is more consistent with that of World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code (”Fergie Slams Drug Testing Reforms,” November 14).
“The procedures are becoming a real nuisance to us.”
Sir Alex Ferguson is particularly critical of the “whereabouts ruling.” The “whereabouts ruling” requires tested players to provide anti-doping officials with advance notification of their whereabouts for a particular hour each day year round. Read more
The International Olympic Committe (IOC) is pressuring the United Kingdom (UK) to criminalize the personal use of anabolic steroids prior to the 2012 London Olympics. The mere possession of anabolic steroids and/or the importation of steroids for personal use is not an offense under UK law. Consequently, athletes (and bodybuilders) in the United Kingdom can technically use anabolic steroids and performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) without violating UK law. But this may soon change in the next few years if the IOC has their way (”IOC pressure Great Britain to change doping laws ahead of London Olympics 2012,” November 8).
The IOC are growing increasingly frustrated at Britain’s refusal to introduce legislation to outlaw the possession, supply and distribution of performance-enhancing drugs.
Their stance leaves them out of step with other European countries such as Sweden, France, Italy, Greece and Germany where anti-doping laws mean athletes and their suppliers can go to jail.
Great Britain’s refusal to blindly follow the trend towards the internationalization of steroid law taking hold in the rest of the European Union presents a significant threat to the moral authority of the IOC. The IOC has promoted the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code as the guide for certain moral offenses that should be criminalized. Read more
The passage of a new anti-doping law will criminalize the manufacture, importation, exportation, storage and distribution of anabolic steroids in the Czech Republic. Offenders who violate the anti-doping laws face one to three years imprisonment. The actual consumption of anabolic steroids will not become illegal, but the possession of steroids for non-medical use could lead to criminal investigation.
The purchase of anabolic steroids have long required a medical prescription within the Czech Republic. However, prior to the current steroid legislation, Czech drug laws did not regulate the import, export or distribution in the Czech Republic. These loopholes permitted an underground steroid marketplace worth hundreds of millions of Czech crowns to thrive virtually unimpeded. Czech Customs could only intervene and seize anabolic steroids imported from other countries if the sender failed to declare the merchandise as “anabolic steroids.” As a result Czech bodybuilders and athletes could previously import and use steroids without any legal consequences.
Czech Police are preparing to crack down hard on steroid use as soon as the legislation criminalizing the non-medical use of steroids takes effect Read more
The lack of sensitivity exhibited by the companies and organizations that administer doping and steroid testing is upsetting a lot of people. I understand certain protocol must be followed but the invasive nature of such procedures will inevitably have a negative backlash. The latest instance of drug testers invading events of personal significance comes from Cuero High School in Texas (”Steroid testing interrupts award ceremony,” May 12).
Thirty random student-athletes were tested at Cuero on Thursday for the first time since the UIL adopted the testing program. The testing was scheduled from 8-11:30 a.m. and interfered with the awards which started at 9 a.m. The time conflict forced student-athletes to miss parts of the ceremony.
The UIL refused to change the testing times when requested by school officials.
“We talked to the UIL about changing the time, but they would not change it,” Reeve said. “The school doesn’t have any control over when we’re going to be tested. This is the first year for testing and we were chosen by lottery. We couldn’t let anybody know about the testing.”
While it may not seem like a big deal to most people. The family of students affected are quite upset. Grandmother Mary Kahlich shared her frustration about the incidence in her recent comments on steroid testing in high schools at the MESO-Rx Blog.
As a result of this, my grandson missed his award presentations. just because he could not pee in and fill a cup. This child has worked very hard and achieved a lot. He has finished High School in 3 years and will be going to Texas A&M this fall in the ROTC progran with paid scholarship. He received many awards of which he was not present to accept. He now has on pictures to put in his school album to show his hard work. His other grandparents and aunt and uncle drove from elsewhere to support him but never got to see him reeive not one award. I believe the testing could have taken place just after the ceremony. They knew which kids that they were going to test. They could have done this after the ceremony. Where were the kids going to go? They were all marched into the gymn y class with all teachers, principles, aides, etc. I am writing so that no other child will have to go thru this. No wonder good kids go bad. All sports activities were over with. This should have been done earlier in the year.
Kahlich’s comments highlight another problem with steroid testing in Texas high schools. Why would steroid testing be conducted on graduating seniors when all of their high school extracurricular sporting activities have been concluded?
While this is not quite as bad as the cyclist who was ordered to submit a sample for a doping test while he was arranging for the funeral of his infant son who died shortly after birth, it is still troubling.
Belgian cyclist Kevin Van Impe was taken for a routine drugs test just as he was at the crematorium filling in papers following the death of his baby son, media reported Saturday.
The Quick Step rider was at Lochristi crematorium when a drugs tester turned up and demanded he provide a sample, warning that otherwise he could face a two-year suspension.
“He wouldn’t even come back later in the day. It was either do it right on the spot or it would be taken as if I had refused,” Van Impe told Web site www.sport.be.
Van Impe was arranging the funeral of son Jayden, born prematurely on Monday and who died just six hours later.
After all, in some instances, doping testers allow some flexibility in exactly when athletes can submit their sample. For example, it seems that allowing two hours for an athlete to conclude a sexual liaison with his girlfriend before submitting a doping sample is permissible.
Florian Busch remains eligible to play for Germany at the IIHF World Hockey Championship.
The World Anti-Doping Agency had requested that he be suspended from the event after refusing a doping test two months ago but the IIHF decided Wednesday that it would not take that action.
The German Ice Hockey Association cleared Busch to play before the start of the world championship and the IIHF says it is not in a position to interfere with decisions made by its member nations.
The 1984 Olympic cycling gold medalist Alexi Grewal wrote an essay that has created quite a stir in the world of professional cycling. Grewal essentially implies that practically all the elite U.S. cyclists in the 1980s “stepped over the line” and doped in some fashion; this would implicate American cycling greats like Greg Lemond, Andy Hampsten and Bob Roll. Bill Hue of Trust But Verify calls Grewal the “Jose Canseco of the 1980s cycling era.”
Grewal feels that athletes who cheat should be put in prison for several years since it is such a serious crime.
When will it end? When Floyd Landis or Tyler Hamilton or any one of the many other “all prisoners are innocent,” fallen stars finally and ultimately does hard time. Don’t think they won’t, they will. Who are we kidding? Prisons and jails are filled with men whose transgressions are much less.
Really? Which criminals are in prison for less severe crimes than doping in a professional sporting event? Maybe so-called criminals who use steroids for non-medical purposes but do not compete in competitive sports? Has our world gone a little crazy regarding steroids and doping such that we have inflated the seriousness of doping over REAL crimes against person and property?
Rant Your Head Off discusses the unintended consequences of putting dopers in prison for a signifcant portion of their lives.
Of course, if it’s approached as a crime and real jail time is involved, that would move the prosecution of doping cases out of the hands of the anti-doping agencies and into the hands of the justice system. This could have some unintended consequences, like forcing the practices of the anti-doping system into greater public view. And that would not be a bad thing, by the way, because the challenges to the system that would certainly happen (imagine the Landis case, but played out in a regular court, instead) would certainly force the whole anti-doping system to change. There would be a greater scrutiny of the testing methods involved, and that would ultimately serve to make those methods more robust.
Each sport has its own set of rules. Why should we consider throwing athletes in prison who violate one arbitrary rule (e.g. steroid use) but not other arbitrary rules? What makes steroid use so evil that we would consider imprisoning an athlete for doping but not the violation of other rules that may offer unfair advantages?
The testosterone:epitestosterone ratio (T:E ratio) test is a commonly used test designed to catch athletes who artificially manipulate their testosterone levels (usually with exogenous testosterone). The T:E ratio is routinely used in doping protocols around the world at all levels of sport.
Unfortunately, the T:E ratio is not very effective. This has been common knowledge among drug tested athletes for some time. Dan Duchaine first alerted athletes decades ago with Victor Conte concurring more recently. Anti-doping experts such as Charles Yesalis and Don Catlin have reluctantly acknowledged that this is true.
It is not very reliable. It is flawed. The T:E ratio test results in a lot of false negatives (athletes use testosterone but don’t get caught) as well as false positives (innocent athletes test positive for steroid use).
A recent study that we learned about on Trust But Verify and reported on at Steroid Report explains why the test is unreliable and ineffective.
It appears that certain genotypes are more likely to have false negatives (athletes use testosterone but don’t get caught)and other genotypes are more likely to have false positives (innocent athletes test positive for steroid use) (”Doping Test in Sports Confounded by Common Genetic Trait,” March 21).
If you’re a genetically gifted athlete (i.e. you lack the gene that produces the enzyme UGT2B17), you can take an whopping injection of at least 360 milligrams of testosterone without getting caught by the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio test (T:E ratio). This testosterone loophole in drug testing has been known by athletes for decades (anecdotally). It is nice to have solid scientific evidence to confirm it.
The 360 mg corresponds to a 500 mg intramuscular injection of testosterone enanthate. Yes, many athletes can take this quantity of the anabolic-androgenic steroid testosterone and still pass current WADA doping controls.
The T:E ratio test discriminates based on the ethnicity of the athlete subjected to the doping protocol. This little bit of information is impossible to overlook.
So, which ethnic groups are most likely to have false negatives on the T:E ratio test?
The latest study suggests as many as 40% of athletes with UGT2B17 homozygous deletion/deletion genotype can take at least 500 mg of testosterone enanthate and still maintain a 4:1 T:E ratio. The following lists various ethnic groups with the estimated percentage that possess the “doping friendly” genotype (data extracted from here and here).
-
78.0% – Mulatto (Brazilian)
-
66.7% – Eastern Asian (Korean)
-
57.3% – Cape Colored (Cape Town, South Africa)
-
37.6% – Mexican Mestizo
-
30.4% – Asian Pacific (Southeast Asian/Southern Chinese, Asian Indian, Japanese)
-
29.1% – Black (African Americans, African Blacks, South/Central American Blacks)
-
9.3% – White Caucasian (Swedish)
-
3.5% – White Caucasian (primarily European)
Yes, athletes with UGT2B17 homozygous deletion/deletion genotype are much more likely to pass a doping test if they choose to cheat (false negative). And yes, certain ethnic groups are much more likely to possess this genotype.
What should WADA do about this? Is this a problem for professional sports or high school districts that routinely use the T:E ratio test?
