Attempts to eliminate anabolic steroid from sports in an effort to preserve athletes as role models for our children is a failed strategy. The real problem lies with a society that worships athletes as role models. Manufacturing a moral issue out of steroid use in professional sports is hypocritical when other “immoral” behavior by athletes is not subject to the same media scrutiny, Congressional hearings, and multi-million dollar federal investigations.
Yet performance-enhancing drugs and the “culture of steroids” is seen as evil and immoral. The demonization of steroids in sports is absurd in the face of such hypocrisy.
Following the revelation of an international doping scandal centered in Austria, the Austrian government has announced legislation that will criminalize mere possession of anabolic steroid and/or other performance enhancing drugs. Previously, there was no punishment for possession of steroids (”Austria to tighten anti-doping law,” April 18).
Legislation to tighten Austria’s anti-doping laws by criminalising possession of performance-enhancing substances are to be unveiled this summer, the government announced on Friday.
According to proposals to be unveiled in early July, it will be a criminal offence to be found in possession of doping substances above a certain quantity, said Roland Achatz, spokesperson for sports secretary Reinhold Lopatka.
Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis pledged yesterday to tighten the country’s anti-doping laws in a bid to stamp out illegal substance abuse among athletes.
”A special committee was formed… to consider more stringent administrative and criminal sanctions against those who use, provide and market banned substances,” Karamanlis told Parliament.
The “internationalization of steroid law” predicted by Philip Sweitzer is becoming a reality.
The internationalized, fascistic nature of current steroid law enforcement policy thus emerges. Hegemony is its stated goal, that U.S. policy must be tantamount to international policy: all nations must conform to the legal standard of the United States. We must all think alike… The “internationalization” of steroid law, however, is also troubling for its politicization and heavy-handed reliance on dishonest notions of morality, cheating, and “protecting our children,” rather than science…
A full analysis of the internationalization of steroid law by Sweitzer can be found in “AAS Across the Atlantic: The “Americanization” and Politicization of International Steroid Law” (appearing on MESO-Rx this month).
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.
“I already had one career taken away from me,” she yelled. “Look me in the eye. You can’t do it.”
Thomas then turned to a prosecutor and shouted, “Look me in the eye …. You like to destroy people’s lives.”
Tammy made considerable sacrifices to be one of the top sprint cyclist in the world. She received a lifetime ban several years ago as a result of doping. Now the government has shamed her in court and destroyed a second career as an attorney that she pursued diligently at the University of Oklahoma law school.
Tammy Thomas never harmed anyone by riding a bicycle; she never should have been subpoenaed before a grand jury. But the government is intent on making an example of athletes who use steroids, especially female athletes whose anabolic steroid use is further demonized in our society.
When the researchers looked at the subjects’ muscles through a microscope, they made a surprising discovery: Rather than returning to their original proportions, the muscles of the steroid users who’d stopped taking the drug looked remarkably similar to those of the subjects who were still using. They also had larger muscle fibers and more growth-inducing “myonuclei” in their muscle cells than the nonsteroid users.
The main findings were that: a) Muscle fiber hypertrophy by strength training is further increased by anabolic steroids. b) The number of nuclei per muscle fiber is higher in power lifters using anabolic steroids compared to non-steroids using lifters. c) Among power lifters who have withdrawn from anabolic steroid usage and training for several years, the number of myonuclei, both subsarcolemmal and internal, remains high. d) In active power lifters, anabolic steroids have no further effect on the number of satellite cells per fiber. e) Power lifters have a high proportion of split fibers.
High intensity resistance training increases muscle strength and banned substances such as testosterone and anabolic steroids can enhance the training effects. The studies on muscle cell morphology presented in this thesis reveals that anabolic steroids and testosterone increases muscle fiber size and adds more nuclei to the muscle cell.
Based on the morphological appearance of muscle sections from doped and nondoped power lifters, we conclude that testosterone and anabolic steroids enhances the hypertrophic effects of training without adding new features. The addition of myonuclei by training and doping appears to be longer lasting in some muscles than in others. The high proportion of split fibers in power lifter is probably due to high mechanical stress. The findings and conclusions in this thesis raise questions regarding relevant suspension times for athletes caught with banned substances in the body.
The thesis confirms what many bodybuilders have long suspected based on anecdotal evidence. Even noted steroid researcher Charles Yesalis is convinced of the permanent muscle-enhancing effects of anabolic steroids based on his assessment of 30 years of anecdotal evidence.
Charles Yesalis, a former strength coach and professor emeritus of health policy and administration at Pennsylvania State University, says athletes who continue to train can retain as much as 85% of their gains from using drugs. This isn’t based on muscle biopsies or peer-reviewed research, he says, but on 30 years of experience with athletes. He says he has talked privately with hundreds of dopers, some of them champions, and has seen the permanent benefits of performance-enhancing drugs. “These things are like rocket fuel,” he says.
The little known doctoral thesis has already influenced doping penalties even though it was not peer-reviewed and not published in any medical or scientific journal.
At a meeting in Madrid in November, WADA’s Foundation Board voted to change its code to allow for a maximum four-year ban for first-time offenders caught using performance-enhancing drugs. The new ban, which goes into effect in all sanctioned Olympic events in 2009, is a severe penalty for athletes — whose careers tend to be short. Bengt Eriksson, the vice-chairman of the Swedish Sport Confederation’s doping commission, who attended the Madrid conference, says he thinks the study was “one of the main reasons” WADA raised the maximum penalty. David Howman, WADA’s director general, says the Swedish study played only a minor role in the decision.
Scientific support for the notion that three or four cycles of anabolic steroids could lead to permanent muscle enhancement is big news in bodybuilding circles.
But if true, this could lead to lifetime bans for first time doping offenses by WADA and other anti-doping agencies. This is also big news in the doping world too.
WADA’s [director general] Mr. Howman says that if science continues to confirm the findings of the Swedish study, a lifetime ban is not out of the question. “Never say never,” he says.
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.
Tammy Thomas is being prosecuted for perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements - including denials that she used anabolic steroids. IMO, this is an offshoot of the steroid hysteria and federal war on steroids where prosecutors want to make an example of athletes who they suspect have used steroids.
The Anabolic Steroid Control Act (which made anabolic steroids a controlled substance) has proved virtually useless in prosecuting athletes who use anabolic steroids. Instead, federal prosecutors have perverted the perjury laws to target athletes who dope. Tammy Thomas’ case is the first test of the effectiveness of the government’s strategy of using perjury laws to target athletes and a preview of the Barry Bonds perjury case.
Ironically, THG was not legally classified as an anabolic steroid at the time that Patrick Arnold claims to have sold it to Tammy Thomas. This fact will apparently was highlighted in the defense’s opening statement. The defense strategy appears to maintain that “technically” Thomas told the truth because (1) THG was not legally an anabolic steroid at the time; (2) she did not think THG was banned at the time; (3) she obtained THG from Kelsey Dalton (Arnold’s former girlfriend) and not Pat. We’ll see how the case plays out.
The New York Times reports that IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitsky is making inquiries about several fitness professionals in the Houston area in an effort to substantiate the use of anabolic steroids and growth hormone by Roger Clemens in a possible federal perjury case. They have asked a former employee about Houston fitness guru Shaun K. Kelley, the owner of Shaun Kelley Weight Control.
Novitzky, who has spent the past five and a half years investigating the distribution of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports, maintains a lead role in the perjury investigation, the lawyers said, and is interested in questioning a number of people in Houston, including Kelley.
As a result of the New York Times story and Kelley’s implied association with Clemens and performance enhancing drugs, the blogosphere has already started digging up dirt on Shaun Kelley.
Kelley told the New York Post last night on the phone that he never sold performancing enhancing drugs.
“Roger Clemens has never been in my store,” Kelley told The Post in a phone interview last night. “I’ve never sold steroids or growth hormone.” […]
“That’s all the information these clowns from The Times have,” he said. “That is the weakest report I’ve ever seen printed. If all that they can come up with, they need to find new reporters.
“I will give the FBI a polygraph. I do not deal drugs. I’ve never done anything with Roger Clemens except shake his hand.”
Recently, Kelly Blair, another Houston fitness professional, made national headlines due to his association with MLB baseball player Andy Pettitte and alleged distribution of growth hormone and steroids; the media tried unsuccessfully to find links between Blair and Clemens but settled on trying to link him with a former pro bodybuilder awaiting trial on murder charges.
Obviously, the unwanted attention, unsubstantiated allegations, and government leaks by lawyers close to the investigation are bad for business in Houston fitness industry.
MESO-Rx had the opportunity to visit the “Anabolic Network” internet television studio today and see a sneak preview of the upcoming “Anabolic Review” webcast hosted by Anthony Roberts. I was impressed. The production quality exceeds other internet video programming I’ve seen to date in the bodybuilding industry.
The CEO and founder of Steroid.com has made a major initial investment in the future of internet video which places the Anabolic Network in a prime position to capitalize on the convergence of the PC, television and mobile phone. Best of all, the first series will be devoted to the discussion of anabolic steroids and performance enhancing drugs.
While the Anabolic Review webcast will be the first bodybuilding internet show to be broadcast on the Anabolic Network, there are future plans for additional shows in the future, including some innovative sitcoms.
There are a few other companies that can afford such an investment in internet television, but for now they are mostly content to to release low budget internet videos. Certainly, there are some really good internet bodybuilding videos shows out there, but the established players with deep pockets seem reluctant to make the big investments.
In the meantime, the launch of the Anabolic Network is only days away.
Tercica announced that they just started a Phase II clinical trial examining the efficacy of IGF-1 stacked with human growth hormone (GH). Unfortunately for bodybuilders and athletes, the outcome measure in this study is not performance enhancement, increases in lean muscle mass, or loss in body fat.
The objective is to measure “height velocity” and safety in the treatment of short stature in children. The trial will examing the efficacy of three different stacks of GH + IFG-1 and compare them with GH alone (GH monotherapy).
Potential of GH/IGF-1 Combination Product: The combination product will be studied in children with short stature not associated with growth hormone deficiency, who also have low IGF-1 levels. A potential cause of short stature in this group of patients could be a suboptimal IGF-1 secretion in response to growth hormone stimulation alone. Pre-clinical studies suggest that co-administration of GH and IGF-1 may increase specific growth responses greater than growth hormone alone. Therefore, Tercica believes that treatment with a combination of both GH and IGF-1 may be superior to monotherapy of growth hormone alone in a subpopulation of children with low IGF-1 and short stature not associated with growth hormone deficiency.
Tercica is the biotechnology company that is the first to bring FDA-approved recombinant insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) to the marketplace. The brand name for IGF-1 is Increlex and the generic name is mecasermin.
Tercica reached an agreement in July 2007 with Genentech to use Genentech recombinant human growth hormone Nutropin AQ (somatropin) in a stack with IGF-1. Genentech bought 708,591 shares of Tercica stock for about $4 million as part of agreement.
It is interesting that discussion of the use of growth hormone and IGF-1 in athletes for performance enhancing purposes revolves around the extremely dangerous side effects of these drugs; efforts to prevent GH use in sports is often based on the dangers of the drugs and potential public health crisis they may cause.
Yet a news story about the therapeutic use of growth hormone and IGF-1 in children gets buried in the news.
The video of the debate is available at Steroid Report. The unedited audio of the debate over anabolic steroid use by athletes that we reported earlier is now available from NPR. The steroid debate was hosted by Intelligence
Squared and featured
Radley Balko,
Norman Fost, and
Julian
Savulescu arguing for the motion “We should accept performance-enhancing
drugs in competitive sports.” There is also an
edited download available but I recommend the
unedited audio for the completed steroid debate.
Radley Balko - senior editor and investigative journalist for Reason magazine,
Norman Fost, M.D., M.P.H. - professor of pediatrics and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin, and director of the Bioethics Program which he founded in 1973;
Julian Savulescu - Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, Director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and of the Program on Ethics and Biosciences in the James Martin 21st Century School.
I highly recommend that you download and read the transcript of the entire debate. Here are some excerpts with compelling arguments from Norm Fost why we should change the “rules of the game” to permit anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances:
1. Steroids Give an Unfair Advantage to Athletes
…advantages are only unfair if they’re unequally distributed. The usual solution is to expand access. When Bob Seagren showed up at the ’72 Olympics in-, with a fiberglass pole, it was not banned, but, a-, uh, there was a time to allow others to practice with it, and it was incorporated. When Kenyan runners were found to enhance their performance by raising their hemoglobin by training at altitude, the reaction was not to ban abnormally high hemoglobins, or to prohibit others from training at altitude, but to encourage everyone to do it.
2. Steroids are Harmful to Athletes
Two, critics say these drugs are harmful, but they rely on information that’s wiley-, wildly exaggerated or just fabricated. We are told repeatedly that these drugs use heart disease, cancer, and stroke, while human growth hormone has been given to almost a million children for fifty years, and there’s still no real serious side effects that have been discovered… I ask you in the audience to quickly name, in your own minds, a single elite athlete who’s had a stroke or a heart attack while playing sports… But sport itself is far more dangerous, and we don’t prohibit it. The number of deaths from playing professional football and college football are fifty to a hundred times higher than even the wild exaggerations about steroids. More people have died playing baseball than have died of steroid use.
3. Athletes are Coerced into Using Steroids
Three critics say that allowing their use is coercive, that you’re forced to use them… Coercion is the use or threat of force that’s never occurred in this country to the best of my knowledge. There is no entitlement to play professional sports; it’s a privilege requiring an enormous sacrifice and taking on enormous risks, with or without steroids. Many walk away from it and choose not to do it, and no one is forced to take it on.
4. Steroids Undermine Fan Interest
Four, critics claim that steroids undermine fan interest, and this is simply empirically false, baseball attendance has ridden steadily in the steroid era, professional football is even more popular, and Barry Bonds, widely assumed to be a steroid user, is the biggest draw in sports, adding ten thousand fannies in the seats everywhere he goes. Chicks love the long ball, guys love the long ball, they don’t care what they’re using.
5. Steroids Undermine Integrity of Records
This is naïve, the records are not comparable with or without steroids or growth hormone. Baseball fences are shorter, the mound is lower, the ball is livelier, and Coors Field is a mile above sea level. By one estimate, Babe Ruth playing in today’s ball parks would hit a thousand home runs, not the mere seven hundred and fifty that Hank Aaron and Bonds have hit. The only valid comparison is with peers playing in the same arenas with the same equipment against the same opponents, and Ruth hit more home runs in one season than any other team. He is in a league of his own, and no one has come close.
6. Steroid Use by Athletes Bad for Children
Finally, critics claim that steroids present bad role modeling for children - Everyone agrees these drugs should be banned for children. The adverse effects are different, they stunt growth, they are not competent to make informed choices. I support testing in schools, not to punish the kids, but to catch the peddlers. Anyone caught selling drugs to children should be hung, followed by a fair trial. In closing, when you go out to dinner tonight, enjoy the wine that relaxes you, or start your day tomorrow with a double mocha latte that gets you going, but please be less critical of others who, like you, try to enhance their performance in a variety of ways. Thank you.
