by Jack Darkes,
Ph.D. -- Muscularity (mesomorphy)
has a long-time alleged association
with negative characteristics such
as assertiveness or even criminality
(e.g., Sheldon, 1942). The modern
pursuit of muscle has also been
demonized via allegations of
association with undesirable
behaviors; condemnations that seem
destined to produce a more formal
muscle profiling.
Modern "muscle
profiling" finds support from
Harrison Pope, a psychiatrist with
widely-known positions on what he
considers pathologies related to
inappropriate desire for muscle,
dedication to working out, and AAS
use. His assertion that "…if a man
is fairly lean, has an FFMI greater
than about 25, and claims that he
has achieved this physical condition
without the use of steroids, he is
almost certainly lying" casts the
veneer of science over muscle
profiling, presaging the advent of
muscularity as suggestive of AAS use.
In a climate of condemnation of both
muscle and AAS use, such assertions
demand scrutiny.
by John Williams,
J.D. -- n the United States,
anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS)
have always been considered drugs.
Contrary to what today's young
athletes may believe, these
substances were never stocked on the
shelves of the corner grocery store.
However, only within the last decade
have these drugs been classified as
"controlled substances," thereby
placing them in the same general
category as more infamous drugs,
including heroin, cocaine, LSD, and
methamphetamine. The purpose of this
article is to examine some of the
social, medical and legal forces
which have driven these changes and
which continue to influence the use,
abuse, and prohibition of
anabolic-androgenic steroids.
by Rick Collins,
J.D. -- According to the body
of common knowledge, anabolic steroids
are dangerous and deadly drugs. The
mainstream media have thoroughly vilified
these hormones for several decades.
The use by mature adults of any amount
of anabolic hormones to enhance physical
appearance is invariably labeled anabolic
steroid "abuse" and, consequently, the
average American lumps the athletic
steroid user into the same depraved
category as the heroin or cocaine user.
Law enforcement agents and prosecutors
readily proceed accordingly in furtherance
of our national "War on Drugs." Only
the most progressive physicians accept
the legitimacy of anabolic steroid use
for any but the most limited medical
purposes. Understandably then, the proposition
that our current approach to the non-medical
use of anabolic steroids is flawed,
failing and in need of reform is provocative
to many.
by Jack Darkes,
Ph.D. -- In events like the Chris
Benoit family tragedy the alleged perpetrator’s
characteristics inevitably suggest hypotheses
and the search for confirming evidence
begins. Anabolic steroids or anabolic-androgenic
steroids (AAS) were blamed before prescription
steroids were found, as researchers
and commentators alike called forth
the popular roid rage connection. If
anabolic steroids are blamed and the
richness of these lives ignored, then
the opportunity to prevent such rare
events goes unrealized. Singling out
a drug to blame leads to fiery rhetoric,
congressional hearings, prohibition
and scare tactics; none of these have
succeeded in curbing drug use, especially
among those at greatest risk for harm.
Most steroid users do not experience
negative effects and hence distrust
the message and the messengers, perhaps
most notably among those who should
listen. Research has shown this many
times.
by Jack Darkes,
Ph.D. -- Discussions of the potential
role of anabolic-androgenic steroids
(AAS) in suicide surfaced recently when
AAS and their use among professional
athletes were blamed for several suicides
of young adult males. These allegations
inspired a congressional investigation
and renewed anti-steroid rhetoric, but
little dispassionate evaluation. The
testimony of experts and grieving parents
notwithstanding, the role of AAS in
suicide is not clear. The recent tragedies
of Taylor Hooton and Rob Garibaldi that
spurred these investigations involved
late adolescent males, yet provoked
widespread condemnations of AAS. Problems
among adolescent drug users cannot inform
issues of adult use (or vice-versa);
adolescents are not simply younger adults.
Efforts to ascribe such events to a
single cause can distract attention
from other important indicators that
need to be noted.
by Michael Scally,
M.D. -- The appeal process is
reaching a critical point. The
appeal is now at the Appellate
level. The Texas State Board of
Medical Examiners is using an
imaginary science to find
conclusions to revoke the license.
At issue is the therapy administered
to the patients directed to
restoring the HPTA. These treatments
were supported by reading into
testimony from over 200
peer-reviewed scientific articles.
The Board admits they know of no
literature that refutes the
literature depended upon for the
treatments. As most of you know, I
have published the treatment to
restore the HPTA after stopping AAS.
In those situations where a patient
HPTA restoration is not maintained,
I successfully developed a treatment
based on a short duration AAS
administration followed by therapy
to avoid steroid-induced
hypogonadism.
by Philip
Sweitzer, J.D. -- The selective
prosecution of police officers for
steroid use and selective parading
out of beefed-up baseball players
share several features with the
topic this article will explore,
i.e., the professional
decertification of Dr. Michael C.
Scally by the Texas State Board of
Medical Examiners. My interest
in Dr. Scally’s case is a natural
extension of my interest in the
topic of politicized steroid
“prosecutions” generally. The
imposition of the sanction of
professional decertification
functions in much the same way as
the imposition of sentence in a
criminal proceeding: its purported
design is to protect public safety.
It also, however, makes the
sanctioned person a social and
professional pariah.
In the author’s
view, Dr. Scally – like police
officers – is being selectively
targeted for professional
discipline, because he challenges
the foundational policy upon which
current therapeutic, legislative and
enforcement practice is shakily
built: that anabolic steroids are
unqualifiedly “bad” drugs without
legitimate therapeutic application.
Put more bluntly, his research and
work does not conform to the
doctrinaire mindlessness of current
dogma. His professional disciplinary
proceeding also served specific
political ends for the Texas State
Board of Medical Examiners,
political ends that portend to pose
a tyranny of a highly misinformed
majority, guided by an unchecked
executive, upon the discretionary,
professional practice of medicine,
the kind of autocratic authority
bicameral representative government
and an independent judiciary is
supposed to prevent. .
