The French government, in an effort to crack down on cyclists at the 2008 Tour de France who use performance-enhancing drugs, passed a new law last month that provides severe criminal penalties for the personal use and/or possession of doping products like anabolic steroids. Performance enhancing drugs like anabolic steroids, EPO and human growth hormone are considered “poisonous substances” under the French public health code Read more
Patrick Arnold of Ergopharm tells me that he is angered by the conviction of cyclist Tammy Thomas today. She was convicted of three counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. In his email, Pat tells MESO-Rx:
I feel saddened and disgusted by Tammy’s conviction. Its been almost FIVE YEARS since Balco. Why are we still going after athletes? How can a wound ever heal if we keep sticking our fingers in it? They say its for the kids. Well how does keeping steroids in the news over and over again do anything except arouse their curiousity? This is not about the kids. Its about the careers and egos of federal politicians, prosecutors, and law enforcement agents.
When the jury read the conviction in court today, Tammy Thomas addressed the prosecution and jury that convicted her (”Cyclist Tammy Thomas convicted in steroids case,” April 4). Read more
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?
Daniel Rosen of the Rant Your Head Off blog has written a new book on the history of anabolic steroids and doping in sports. The book Dope: A History of Performance Enhancement in Sports from the Nineteenth Century to Today
While the attention that is currently paid to the subject makes it often appear as if the problem is of relatively recent vintage, you’ll learn about a scandal in the 1950s that rocked the world of track and field in much the same way as the Festina scandal and other scandals have rocked cycling over the past 10 years. At the center of the story was a doctor who claimed that many of the athletes who broke the four-minute mile mark in the 1950s did so through the use of amphetamines. His character and behavior are eerily reminiscent of other, more recent figures. An interesting outgrowth of that scandal: One of the first scientific studies aimed at determining the real benefit of a performance-enhancing drug.
But most of all, what I hope you’ll get out of the book is an appreciation and understanding that doping is not a problem that just magically appeared over the last twenty years (despite how the many in the mainstream media seem to cast the story). The desire to boost human performance, and to find ways of pushing the boundaries of what we’re capable of, has existed for a very, very long time. And at one point in time, “the human experiments” that doping athletes perform were once even considered merely using technology in man’s quest to be better, faster and stronger. The perfectability of man/woman, if you will.
I really look forward to reading this book. And I really hope contemporary sportswriters take the time to read it as well to place the current doping scandals in their proper historical context.
Steroid chemist Patrick Arnold of Ergopharm testified in San Francisco federal court today in the perjury case against cyclist Tammy Thomas. Pat Arnold said under oath that THG was explicitly created to avoid detection by athletes subject to doping controls. He admitted to selling tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) to Victor Conte of BALCO and directly by mail to Tammy Thomas. (”Chemist testifies he created steroid at the heart of BALCO scandal,” March 25)
THG was also known as “the clear” because it was not detectable at the time Arnold developed it in about 2001.
Under questioning by prosecutor Jeff Nedrow, Arnold said, “That’s the primary reason why THG was developed.”
Arnold also said, “I believe that Miss Thomas understood full well it was undetectable and that that was its purpose.”
He said he believed the cyclist understood the drug had “steroid-like qualities.”
Tammy Thomas denied ever receiving any products from Pat Arnold other than Ergopharm 1-AD; she denied receiving anabolic steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs from Pat Arnold or anyone else; she denied using anabolic steroids.
Could you imagine a pharmaceutical company (whose top-selling drugs are anabolic steroids) becoming the title sponsor of a professional bodybuilding contest? What is Unimed, whose top selling drug products are Anadrol-50 (oxymetholone) and AndroGel (testosterone), sponsored the Mr. Olympia Bodybuilding contest resulting in the “Unimed Pharmaceuticals IFBB Mr. Olympia Bodybuilding Championships”?!! Or how about Savient, whose top-selling drug product is Oxandrin (oxandrolone), sponsoring the Arnold Classic resulting in the Savient Pharmaceuticals IFBB Arnold Schwarzenegger Classic Bodybuilding Championships?!! Observers would comment on the irony given that professional bodybuilding is practically synonymous with the use of anabolic steroids.
Interestingly, in the sport of professional cycling, such an unlikely sponsorship has been taking place since 2006 when the biotechnology company Amgen became the title sponsor of professional cycling’s Amgen Tour of California. One prominent cycling commentator called it the “death of irony.” You see, Amgen’s most successful product to date is Epogen (recombinant erythropoietin); it’s second best-selling drug is a long-acting version of Epogen called Aranesp (darbepoietin). Epogen is the most notorious performance-enhancing drug in cycling; Epogen is to professional cycling what anabolic steroids are to professional bodybuilding!
If the controversial title sponsorship was not enough, Tour of California organizers accidentally forgot to drug test riders for Epogen during the inaugural 2006 Amgen Tour of California. They tested for all other banned drugs but simply forgot to test for Epogen!
And why is Amgen spending $35 million sponsorship over a 5-year commitment on professional cycling? Is it because professional cyclist represent proof of the miraculous performance-enhancing effects of their products? Not exactly. Amgen’s scientific director Dr. Steven Elliott explains:
Our opportunity is to educate cyclists that there is an appropriate way to use a drug, and doping in sport is not it… Our medicines were made because we want to treat grievous illnesses. They’re not for enhancing performance in sport.
I think the sport of professional bodybuilding could use a $35 million infusion by a giant pharmaceutical company who manufacturers anabolic steroids and/or human growth hormone who could use the sponsorship as an opportunity to promote the therapeutic benefits of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.
But then again, along with the Amgen sponsorship of the Tour of California came pressure to expand anti-doping testing and improve anti-doping procedures.
The upcoming 2008 Amgen Tour of California cycling road race will adopt the most comprehensive anti-doping protocol in cycling history it was announced by Andrew Messick, president, AEG Sports, presenter of the race, at a press conference today.
This is something that professional bodybuilding probably does not want.
