Senator Hillary Clinton supports federal efforts to eliminate steroids from professional sports:
Senator Clinton sees our sports leagues as public trusts and our sports heroes as key public role models for our children, and believes in the importance of promoting clean, drug-free professional sports. In her view, leagues should take the lead in vigorously enforcing their own strict drug policies, but if we were to see frequent and flagrant continued abuse of performance-enhancing drugs by professional athletes, she would certainly speak out against it as president and consider appropriate federal action.
Senator Barack Obama supports spending additional federal funds to enforce existing steroid laws:
As a father and an avid sports fan, I understand the dangers that performance enhancing drugs pose for athletes, as well as the teenagers who seek to emulate them, not to mention the effect that these drugs have on the integrity of sports. As president, I would use the bully pulpit of my office to warn Americans about the dangers of performance enhancing drugs, and I would put greater resources into enforcement of existing drug laws. I would also convene a summit of the commissioners of the professional sports leagues, as well as university presidents, to explore options for decreasing the use of these drugs.
Since the beginning of the steroids scandals John McCain has consistently said that the important aspect of the issue is not the well-being of the multi-milliondollar professional athletes who choose to use banned substances to cheat themselves and their sport, but rather the effects these substances are having on our youth. In a simple point and click, our children today are able to obtain illegal performance-enhancing substances on the Internet in just a few days. The use of these substances among adolescents in the U.S. has reached epidemic proportions and the health effects of usage are devastating — leading to depression, suicide, stunted growth, and the deterioration of the liver, kidneys, bones, and reproductive organs. We have every reason to believe that what kids are doing indubitably will show up in doctor’s offices 15 years from now, so John McCain believes it is imperative that we act now.
A McCain administration would continue an aggressive prosecutorial approach, and will focus more on educating our youth about the destructive effects of these substances. And it’s not just performance-enhancing drugs. Our kids are obtaining prescription drugs over the Internet at an alarming rate. His administration would encourage schools to include lessons concerning the adverse health effects of these substances as part of physical education, and disseminate these educational messages at the grassroots level. In addition, my administration would ensure that dietary supplement manufacturers are in compliance with the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA) and not seeking shelter for substances that were never intended to be protected under the Act. A McCain administration would continue to pressure professional sports leagues to adopt zero-tolerance doping policies, and ensure that the Olympic athletes that represent our Nation do so with honor. Also, A McCain administration will provide the necessary support to research laboratories that are working to outpace the science developed by those who seek substances undetectable to testing.
USA Today did not ask the campaign of Representative Ron Paul for his position on anabolic steroids in sports, but his campaign has unapologetically gone on record as being completely against the war on drugs which would logically include the war on steroids:
For the first 140 years of our history, we had essentially no Federal war on drugs, and far fewer problems with drug addiction and related crimes was a consequence. In the past 30 years, even with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the drug war, little good has come of it. We have vacillated from efforts to stop the drugs at the source to severely punishing the users, yet nothing has improved. This war has been behind most big government policy powers of the last 30 years, with continual undermining of our civil liberties and personal privacy.
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?
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 Sports Illustrated version of the history of anabolic steroids in sports is now available online in its entirety with the launch of SI Vault.
Sports Illustrated on March 20 plans to unveil SI Vault, a new section within SI.com that will feature digitized archives of the magazine’s complete collection of content throughout its 54-year history. At launch, the online archive will feature 150,000 articles, 500,000 images and 2,800 covers…
Sports Illustrated has documented the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports for several decades. Now, every steroid article, every growth hormone article, every doping article is available to read for free at the SI Vault.
Charles “Modi” Modiano of Cosellout has begun the process of indexing several anabolic steroid articles that we feel MESO-Rx will find particularly interesting (”SI Vault: Sports Illustrated’s 40 Years of Steroids Coverage,” April 2). Of course, Sports Illustrated, from the beginning and throughout its historic coverage of anabolic steroids, has been instrumental in encouraging a climate of steroid hysteria that made the dispassionate, scientific discussion of anabolic steroids almost impossible.
To our knowledge Bil Gilbert’s extensive three part series in 1969 is SI’s first substantial foray into the subject of PEDS with it’s second part on baseball a must-read for historical context. The next 15 years marked many steroid/PED discoveries in sports like Olympics track & field, cycling, and body-building, but wouldn’t receive major attention or cover treatement (see Brian Bosworth) until the NCAA and NFL football became exposed in the latter 1980s. In the 1998, the Olympics took center stage as Ben Johnson was “busted” on SI’s cover. One year later SI printed another article that contained allegations against Carl Lewis and Florence Griffith-Joyner but few heard of the story. In 1991, former NFL star Lyle Alzado personally blamed his impending death on steroid abuse, but doctors could not corroborate such a claim. However, this SI cover story’s set a tone of “steroids scare” that would make it almost difficult to have reasonable discussions on the health risks of Steroids/PEDs for another 20 years.
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/deletiongenotype 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/deletiongenotype 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?
Our vote for the worst reporting on steroid testing in Texas high schools goes to Alex Sanz of the CBS television affiliate in Houston. KHOU-TV needs to teach their reporters a few things about fact-checking before airing their reports. Practically every aspect of Sanz’ report on steroid testing in Texas high schools was wrong (”HISD steroid testing may start after break,” March 17).
The state signed off on the testing in recent months, and though it hasn’t started yet, there are signs it may sometime after spring break.
Twenty-three percent of high school athletes are expected to be tested statewide.
The UIL Anabolic Steroid Testing Program isn’t testing anywhere near 23% of high school athletes. It is closer to 5% of athletes over the next three semesters (end of 2008-2009 academic year); only 40,000-50,000 athletes out of approximately 800,000 will be subject to steroid testing.
Then there is the money quote:
Administrators point to stories of high school athletes, in other cities, who have died after using steroids. They said that’s why this random testing is so important…
We’ve all heard the one tragic story of a high school athlete that died after using steroids. But just because that story has been repeated numerous times does transform it into a plurality of stories about high school athletes who died from steroid use.
The district said the test is worth it — even if all you save is one life.
It’s impossible to place a monetary value on the life of a teenager. But there is no evidence that steroid testing saves lives. If the goal is to save the lives of high school athletes, perhaps the $5.6 million would be better spent on another program - perhaps an alcohol abuse prevention program. This would clearly have a more pronounced impact the number of lives saved.
Even the title of the report gives Houston ISD athletes at least a week advance notice of testing enough time to “cycle off” some fast-acting and/or oral anabolic steroids. Clearly, very few bureaucrats and reporters understand the concept and purpose of surprise testing. Thank you Mr. Alex Sanz.
Catching high school athletes who used anabolic steroids was apparently never the primary goal of the Texas steroid testing program. According to a published report, state legislators say the main goal of the $3 million per year investment was to serve as a strong deterrent.
Linn Goldberg, a national drug-testing expert and the head of the division of health promotion and sports medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, said “drug testing, as yet, is not a deterrent to use. There’s no evidence that it is.”
He called the Texas steroids program “a knee-jerk reflex so they can say they’re doing something.”
His Oregon Health and Science University research team recently completed a study that arrived at these conclusions. (See Goldberg, L., et al. (2007) Outcomes of a Prospective Trial of Student-Athlete Drug Testing: The Student Athlete Testing Using Random Notification (SATURN) Study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(5):421-429.)
Goldberg has been an outspoken opponent of steroid testing for some time now and has mounted a campaign against steroid testing in schools:
The big thing that people say is you got to give kids a reason not to use drugs, and drug testing is a reason… That’s not what we found. You can look at testing as a way to catch an early addiction, but as a deterrent, which this study was looking at, we didn’t find any evidence that testing was a deterrent.
Diane Elliot, M.D., co-investigator and doping control officer with United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) backs up Goldberg and takes direct aim at the trendy high school steroid testing programs:
This was a state-of-the-art collection and testing program that exceeded those of typical school testing programs. If this did not show significant deterrent effects, less-sophisticated programs are not likely to be more successful.
Linn Goldberg explains to the New York Times that steroid testing doesn’t work as a deterrent because so many people test positive:
If drug testing was so great, if it was so wonderful, we wouldn’t have anybody test positive… People would be scared of testing positive and being thrown out; you have a lot of people who test positive.
Linn Goldberg, in same New York Times interview, explains that steroid testing doesn’t work when no one tests positive either:
They had a ton of drug users; they’re just not catching them. They’re happy as can be that they think they’ve got just a wonderful program. In reality, kids are using just as many drugs and the administrators are walking around in their dream world.
So, if steroid testing catches a lot of high school steroid users, it is not an effective deterrent. And if it catches few steroids users, it is still not an effective deterrent. According to Goldberg, steroid testing does not work regardless of the outcome.
What really bothers Linn Goldberg is that if all the federal and state funds are squandered on steroid testing, then there won’t be any money left to fund steroid education programs (like maybe his ATLAS and ATHENA steroid education programs that have been the primary beneficiary of federal funds earmarked for ’steroid education’ after the passage of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004!)
Here’s what I see is the big problem: If you put in drug testing and you think it works, then you’re not going to put anything else in. You’re not going to care about anything else because you probably feel, ‘We’ve taken care of it.’
The truth comes out. Things are not always what they seem. Linn Goldberg has a clear conflict of interest since federal and state funds for “steroid education” and “steroid testing” are limited and tend to compete against each other.
I don’t understand why journalists are not more critical of Dr. Goldberg, his conflict of interest, the appearance of bias, and history of pandering for federals funds for his “steroid education” programs.
I tend to agree with Linn Goldberg’s assessment of state steroid testing programs. But I am also critical of steroid education programs too.
The New York Times wonders if the “focus on testing at the high school level is a deterrent or a burgeoning cottage industry.” The NY Times then concludes we should just give money to everyone and hope something works:
What the study makes clear is that there is a need for education and detection. This is not an either/or proposition.
I’m fundamentally against the use of state or federal taxpayer funds to finance drug testing for private sports leagues or to finance steroid testing for high school athletes. I am not necessarily against the idea of drug testing for high school athletes. But I am against the type of “feel-good” drug-testing policies that do little to eliminate the use of performance enhancing drugs by teenage athletes.
The Texas University Interscholastic League (UIL) selected the National Center for Drug Free Sport as the private company to administer the UIL Anabolic Steroid Testing Program mandated by Texas State Senate Bill 8. Texas is paying Drug Free Sport $5.6 million to administer steroid tests 40,000-50,000 high school athletes. According the UIL website:
The UIL has been directed to test a statistically significant number of student-athletes in grades 9-12 at approximately 30% of UIL member high schools. The selection process of schools and student-athletes will be random, and approximately 40,000-50,000 student athletes will be tested for anabolic steroids between this spring and the end of the 2008-09 school year.
UIL Assistant Director and Director of Athletics Charles Breithaupt believes Texas massive testing program should be a model for other states!
We look forward to working closely with Drug Free Sport in implementing a first-class steroid testing program that we feel will be a model for other states and organizations to follow.
Why don’t I think this will be effective?
(1) An average of only 3% of student-athletes will be tested each academic year. In 2006-2007 school year, 764,581 students participated in athletics which would be subject to steroid testing. While it may be statistically significant, will it significantly deter or reduce steroid use.
(2) Student-athletes in grades 9-12 are affected “regardless of sport, gender or participation level.” Performance enhancing drug use does not occur equally in all sports, all grades, all genders, and all levels. The likelihood of anabolic steroid use is overwhelmingly more likely in male, varsity level football and baseball. I’m sure there is steroid use by teenage girls and in sports Team Tennis, Cross Country, Volleyball, Swimming & Diving, Basketball, Soccer, Tennis, Golf, Track & Field, Softball. But by diluting the pool subject to testing to include both genders, all sports and freshman, junior varsity, and varsity athletes, it decreases the likelihood that male varsity football and baseball players will be tested, doing little to deter steroid use on the teams where it is most likely to occur.
(3) Less than 400 of the 1300 Texas high schools will be subject to steroid testing. In other words, 900 high schools or 70% of high school athletes will not be subject at all to random testing for anabolic steroids. It seems probable that information about schools that are tested and schools that are not tested will be readily disseminated.
(4) UIL officials are incompetent; they do not understand the concept of “surprise testing.” UIL spokeswoman Kim Rogers told the media:
In keeping with the element of surprise and random nature of the testing program, we are not announcing a starting date. If we did, then a student could know when to cycle off steroids or when to begin a new cycle.
Smart. Logical. But practically in the same breath, she revealed that steroid testing would begin:
…within the coming weeks.
And Patti Ohlendorf, vice president of legal affairs at the University of Texas, told the media that testing would begin in February. The media did their job and reported in newspapers across the state and across the country that testing would begin in a matter of days, weeks, and or in February, effectively telling high school athletes in Texas to “cycle off steroids” right now just in case.
(5) UIL is only testing for “anabolic steroids.” There is no drug testing program for amphetamines, ephedrine, and/or other stimulants, growth hormone, peptides, or other performance-enhancing drugs.
(6) It appears steroid testing will only occur during the academic school year. In other words, no testing in summer off-season.
Basically, the probabilities that this steroid testing program will be effective are low. This has nothing to do with the efficacy of the tests or the Center for Drug Free Sports (which I’m sure will competently administer the program and outlined in their contract).
At least it is better than New Jersey’s steroid testing program for high school athletes. New Jersey only tests athletes whose teams make it to “post-season” competition. Steroid tests are administered randomly to “athletes who have qualified for team or individual state championships.”
Talk about advance notice on when to cycle off anabolic steroids! And to think New Jersey wanted their steroid testing program to be a “model” for the country.
Steroid use by teenagers is a problem. But simply throwing money at the steroid problem will not fix it.
The current cast of the American Gladiators television show agreed to be tested for anabolic steroids at any time by the shows producers at NBC. According to the Broadcast & Cable website, they were required to sign a statement that they did not use steroids as part of their employment contract. The anti-steroid clause was included in contracts for all 12 new American Gladiators: Justice (Jesse Smith), Mayhem (William Romeo), Militia (Alex Castro), Titan (Mike O’Hearn), Wolf (Don Yates), Toa (Tanoai Reed), Crush (Gina Carano), Fury (Jaime Kovac), Hellga (Robin Coleman), Siren (Valerie Waugaman), Stealth (Tanji Johnson), and Venom (Beth Horn).
Details of the steroid-testing program have not been revealed. Will results be publicly reported? Will American Gladiators who fail the steroid test be kicked off the show?
The original cast of American Gladiators was also tested for steroids. According to Dan ‘Nitro’ Clark:
They tested us for steroids one year, I think just to say that they’d done it. But nobody ever told us what those results were.
According to Raye Hollitt aka Zap, the steroid testing did nothing to prevent widespread drug use among cast members (particularly painkillers):
There was a lot of drugs. It was a free-for-all: Vicodin, Percocet. Half the Gladiators were on something for pain. You had to perform, especially on tour. And then you end up sleeping around. I had to go to rehab to get off the Vicodin.
Most likely the intent of the steroid-testing clause included in the contracts of the current cast members is public relations purposes. NBC is desperately in need of a huge hit in face of the loss of Sunday Night Football and the Writer’s Guild of America strike. And in spite of harshly negative reviews from insiders, American Gladiators had huge debut exceeding all internal projections for audience viewership and has already been renewed for a second season!
