What if the government targeted prominent Christians and asked them about infidelity under oath? What if they prosecuted those Christians who would inevitably lie to protect their community standing and their families? After all, they did break they law – they committed perjury. Would that have been a good use of taxpayer money?

Why is it any different than the witch-hunt targeting celebrity athletes who use steroids?

Imagine if United States vs. Barry Lamar Bonds set a far-reaching precedent for the use of perjury laws to prosecute so-called role models in our society who were guilty of other “moral crimes”?

Let’s don’t stop with the selective targeting of celebrity athletes. Why don’t we subpoena identifiable minority groups like top Hollywood actors/actresses, musical superstars, politicians, business leaders, religious leaders, etc? We’ll give them immunity and ask them questions about their moral behavior…

Have they used drugs? Have they cheated on their spouses? Have they downloaded illegal porn?

Then, let’s spend million of additional dollars trying to prove some of them lied in order to build federal cases against them and ask their former friends, colleagues and mistresses to testify against them.

We can smugly say this is justified (after all, they broke the law and perjury is a serious crime) while self-righteously enjoying their humiliation and shame as the government makes an example of their immoral behavior in a court of law.

I agree that no one is above the law and that Barry Bonds should be treated like anyone else. The problem is that Bonds was NOT treated like everyone else engaged in morally-objectionable behaviors.

Photo credit: guano / flickr

The United States Government recently mandated that a sports nutrition company comply with aspects of the WADA Prohibited List as part of a criminal plea agreement.

The government did not simply require that the company produce dietary supplements compliant with the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), the Anabolic Steroid Control Acts or any other relevant local, state and federal laws affecting the dietary supplement industry. The United States felt it necessary to incorporate a moral agenda above and beyond existing law into the plea agreement.

WADA supposedly exists to keep athletes in sports from doping. However, WADA’s dangerous influence threatens to influence laws that will affect tens of millions of ordinary people around the world who are not competitive athletes and have no aspirations of sports competition. They are simply individuals who are looking to feel better, to look better and to perform better with the help of supplements.

The requirement that any dietary supplement company follow the WADA code represents a disturbing trend in which WADA (and national anti-doping agencies operating under its directive) have aggressively sought to change international laws related to dietary supplements, anabolic steroids and performance-enhancing substances.

WADA has failed miserably at keeping steroids out of sports but they could have considerable success in influencing legislation affecting choice and freedom of ordinary consumers.

WADA has explicitly stated their desire for ALL national governments to criminalize the personal use of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs as defined in the WADA code – for athletes and non-athletes alike.

The UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport has a stated objective of criminalizing personal non-medical steroid use by applying the force of international law behind the anti-doping WADA code. The Convention also calls for increased regulation of dietary supplement (ideally to be compliant with the WADA Prohibited List).

The biggest problems caused by using the WADA code as the basis for international law is the fact that the overwhelming majority of dietary/sports nutrition supplement users and non-medical steroid users are NOT athletes. They are simply ordinary responsible, law-abiding adults who use these substances as a tool to feel better, to increase muscle size and strength, to reduce bodyfat, and/or to enhance physical attractiveness.

If WADA succeeds in the moralization of international laws related to dietary supplements and performance-enhancing substances, we may soon see laws that mirror the moralistic WADA Code. Non-athletes will be they ones that suffer while doping in sport continues unfettered.

“Doping is always a response to a void, a need – whether it’s for money, or success, or love, or something else. That’s why it’s a mistake to fight the war on doping in terms of health – because, if you actually analyse it, doping responds to a need there too, because you can be healthier doing the Tour de France on drugs than without anything. [...]

“Everyone has their own sense of legitimate and illegitimate, which is different from what is licit and illicit. For example, I might think it’s legitimate to drive my car at 90kph in an 80kph zone, if me being late means that my son will walk out into the school playground and not see his dad. For Richard Virenque, doping was legitimate because, for some reason, he needed the love and admiration of the public. For some riders from Eastern Europe it’s legitimate because they need money for their families – which is hard to condemn. Or a teenager might take steroids and go to the gym to pump iron because he’s uncomfortable with his body. In that case, doping serves his need – it perpetuates it too, but as far as the kid is concerned it solves his particular problem…”

The perspective described by Bassons is one that is usually absent from media discussions on doping. Some academics recognize the value of looking at the big picture in which doping occurs.

For example, Dr. Jay Coakley, Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs and author of “Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies“, feels it is crucial to use what he calls “sociological imagination” to understand why athletes use steroids and performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) by recognizing how individual biographies interact with current social and cultural factors.

Christophe Basson is well-known for being outspoken on the topic of doping in pro cycling. He was one of the first cyclists to be ostracized by the peloton after speaking out publicly about the widespread use of various drug in the sport in the aftermath of the Festina scandal at the 1998 Tour de France.

Basson is recognized by his peers as one of the few cyclists who did not participate in the doping subculture unlike other doping whistleblowers such as Floyd Landis. He was one of the first athletes to be subject to the wrath of Lance Armstrong for uncovering the subculture of doping in cycling.

Bassons said Armstrong rode up alongside on the Alpe d’Huez stage to tell him “it was a mistake to speak out the way I do and he asked why I was doing it. I told him that I’m thinking of the next generation of riders. Then he said ‘Why don’t you leave, then?’”

Lance Armstrong expressed comments in an interview reacting to Bassons’ departure from the sports and his outspoken statments on doping.

“If it’s the rider that I think it is,” Armstrong said yesterday morning, in reference to the departure of Bassons, “the one who’s always speaking about problems in cycling and doping, then I told him during the stage to Sestrières that I respected what he was saying but that I thought there was a professional and a correct way to do it. What he’s said is not good for him or his team, his sponsor and cycling. I understand his position, but if that’s what he thinks, maybe he’s better to go home. I don’t think declarations in newspapers are in his best interests. If he wants to ride professionally, he can’t speak like that, because sponsors will walk away from the sport.”

However, Christophe Bassons’ latest comments regarding his current philosophy of doping may be more likely to outrage several people in the anti-doping movement who don’t see the issue in such broad, relativistic terms.

Photo Credit: Millard Baker / MESO-Rx

It represents the height of hypocrisy for the founder of Anti-Doping Research to attack Amazon.com for “trafficking steroids” and selling “Schedule III controlled substances” via merchants in the Amazon Seller program when he is guilty of doing something similar.

The criticism of Catlin’s hypocrisy is justified given Catlin’s recent criticism of Amazon.com.

The problem with inappropriate matches with the contextual advertising service offered by Google is well-documented. I have written about this for several years. Tech Crunch has written about it. Other anti-doping websites are aware of the problem with contextual ads. Anyone on top of the steroid issue should be aware of this.

Catlin identifies the problem at Amazon (“Amazon sellers trafficking steroids, some classified as Schedule III Controlled Substances,” January 19, 2011):

Today at Amazon.com you will find Competitive Edge Labs P-Plex. P-Plex was also included in the FDA action against Bodybuilding.com, yet it remains in stock and available through two Amazon Sellers as of Jan. 17. The marketing headline for P-Plex on Amazon.com reads, “P-Plex-Anabolic Muscle Building Formula 10mg, 90ct (Compare To Phera-Plex).” We purchased the product on Jan. 6 through Amazon.com in an order fulfilled by Amazon Seller MMMPower and have identified Madol in the product.

Isn’t there a similar problem at The Catlin Perspective:

Today at The Catlin Perspective blog, you will find an advertisement for Superdrol. Superdrol was an ingredient in products included in the FDA action against Bodybuilding.com, yet it remains in stock and available through two advertisers appearing on The Catlin Perspective as of February 1, 2011. The marketing headlines for two merchants advertising Superdrol on thecatlinperspective.wordpress.com read, “Buy Superdrol Now: Gain Bulk & Build Mass ASAP! Get Big at a Great Price” and “Strong SuperDrol: Strong Superdol Explosive gains hardcore Bodybuilding supplement”.

Catlin finds it objectionable when third-party merchants sell these products on Amazon via the Amazon Sellers program:

Competitive Edge Labs M-Drol was purchased through Amazon.com on Nov. 15 in an order fulfilled by Amazon Seller Surplus-Supplements. We analyzed it in our ISO 17025-accredited lab and compared it to a reference standard of methasterone, or Superdrol, and in fact M-Drol does still contain methasterone. The sale of methasterone or a drug like it would likely qualify as sale of an unapproved new drug, according to the FDA’s recent letter to industry from Dec. 15: “These products are illegal because they are unapproved new drugs under 21 U.S.C. §§ 321(p) and 355(a) and/or adulterated dietary supplements under 21 U.S.C. § 342.”

Isn’t is similarly objectionable when third-party merchants sell these products through links on The Catlin Perspective via the Google Adsense program?

Competitive Edge Labs M-Drol could be purchased through a link on thecatlinperspective.wordpress.com and be fulfilled by factorysupplements.co.uk. Maybe someone will buy it and analyze it in their ISO 17025-accredited lab and compare it to a reference standard of methasterone, or Superdrol, to see if, in fact, M-Drol does still contain methasterone. The sale of methasterone or a drug like it would likely qualify as sale of an unapproved new drug, according to the FDA’s recent letter to industry from Dec. 15: “These products are illegal because they are unapproved new drugs under 21 U.S.C. §§ 321(p) and 355(a) and/or adulterated dietary supplements under 21 U.S.C. § 342.”

The only problem is that if someone purchased Competitive Edge Labs M-Drol through that Google Adsense link appearing on The Catlin Perspective, that means that Don Catlin and/or Anti-Doping Research would profit as a result of a customer clicking the advertisement to buy this unapproved new drug. Certainly, that would be just a little hypocritical after Catlin attacked Amazon.com.

Catlin doesn’t think ignorance is an excuse when it comes to Amazon.

Knowingly or not, Amazon does appear to be providing a marketplace for selling steroids, some classified as controlled substances. Amazon was willing to withdraw the pedophile’s guide in three weeks, as we pointed out in our blog post Nov. 12. Hopefully, Amazon will hear the FDA on this matter and also voluntarily withdraw these steroid products from their website, sooner rather than later. We stand ready to help Amazon or other retailers in maintaining a safe marketplace for dietary supplements in the future.

Will Catlin be willing to accept full responsibility for his role in advertising anabolic steroids for sale on his website?

Knowingly or not, Don Catlin does appear to be providing a marketplace for selling unapproved new drugs, SARMs, testosterone and steroids. Hopefully, Don Catlin will hear the FDA on this matter and also voluntarily withdraw these steroid product advertisements from his website, sooner rather than later. I stand ready to help Don Catlin and other anti-steroid organizations in maintaining a safe marketplace for dietary supplements in the future by discontinuing the advertisement of steroids on their website(s).

Who knows? Maybe Catlin will even tear up those Google checks?

Muscle profiling isn’t the only type of profiling that has been used in the war on steroids in sports.  Some sportswriters use acne as irrefutable evidence of steroid use. For example, Murray Chass has maintained for years that Mike Piazza used anabolic steroids because he observed acne on Piazza’s back. Since (back) acne is a common side effect of steroids, steroid users are more likely to experience acne. However, not all steroid users experience back acne and most people with back acne don’t use steroids.

Back acne is experienced by 10-20 percent of adults in the same age bracket as Piazza. It is much more common in individuals who are physically active and perspire a lot which can make them more susceptible to clogged pores. Consequently, back acne is more common in athletes than the general population. Dermatologists interviewed by Howard Megdal for New York Baseball Digest agreed that acne was a poor predictor of steroid use.

But would Piazza, a man in his 20s and 30s during his playing career, be as susceptible to back acne as a teenager? According to these dermatologists, he is a prime candidate for the symptoms Chass described without steroid use.

“One of the major causes of [back acne] is if someone sweats a lot, wears heavy equipment, wears, as Piazza did, heavy uniforms,” Dr. Ira Davis, a Staten Island dermatologist, said in a telephone interview.

Profiling steroid users based on physical characteristics is problematic for several reasons and should always be scrutinized.

Read more at Steroids.Info: Mike Piazza Used Steroids Based on Back Acne According to Sportswriter

Read more at New York Baseball Digest: Three Out of Three Doctors Agree

Anabolic steroids are unlikely to be a scapegoat. Dr. Richard Auchus, an expert on steroid biosynthesis at UT Southwestern Medical School, summarily dismissed the connection between the muscle disorder and performance-enhancer drugs such as anabolic steroids and human growth hormone while suggesting recreational drugs as one possible culprit. “You don’t see rhabdomyolysis with anabolic steroid use or growth hormones. You can see rhabdo with GHB. It’s is one of those recreational drugs that can cause this,” according to the consultant to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

At the moment, Chris Doyle, the University of Iowa head strength and conditioning coach, is in the hot seat.  However, Doyle’s colleagues are skeptical that he is to blame. Additionally, even in the aftermath of the rhabdomyolysis scandal, Iowa recruits are reconfirming their commitments to Iowa precisely because of the strength and conditioning program. Doyle has been credited with paving the way for 68 of 78 senior starters at Iowa to go on to play football in the NFL.

Mark Philippi, of the Philippi Sports Institute in Las Vegas:

“[T]he people at Iowa are pretty cutting-edge as far as training and testing and rehabilitation. It’s ironic this happened at a place so respected across the country, a place known for being very, very knowledgeable and proactive.

“Iowa is known for taking good players and making them into great ones. A big part of that is the strength and conditioning program, and maybe this time they tried things they haven’t done before to shake it up or get an edge.”

Matt McGettigan, the strength and conditioning coach for Air Force football

“There’s not been a trend of this happening at Iowa, and it’s not like Chris Doyle to all of a sudden throw everything successful that he’s done over the years out the window. We all know the body of successful work he’s done at Iowa. They’ve had great success with what he’s done over the years.

“Given Chris’ proven track record, it makes no sense to me what happened. Why would Chris all of a sudden change what he’s been successful at? He’s been there and he’s done that.”

Paul Arndorfer, the assistant strength and conditioning coordinator at the University of Tulsa:

“I know Doyle well, and I can say that he is probably one of the most knowledgeable coaches in the business.

“I truly believe that he would never knowingly put an athlete in harm’s way. He also doesn’t ask the players to do anything he has never done before — so I guarantee he’s done that workout himself.

“He might be the most researched guy, most well-read guy out there. It’s not his nature to make a workout to kill a guy, so to speak. His workouts have a purpose.”

Many experts feel it is premature to assign blame because the full story behind the Hawkeye rhabdomyolysis cluster has yet to be told.

Dr. John Graves of the Mayo Clinic:

“Yes. That says that the kids aren’t telling you what happened on the weekend,” he said. “That says there is more to the story than the workouts. There is more going on that they aren’t telling us about … something else that sensitized them, perhaps, to the workout on Monday, and that is what tripped them into rhabdomyolysis.”

Paul Arndorfer, the assistant strength and conditioning coordinator at the University of Tulsa:

“I have had guys do that workout and I have done that workout myself, and it’s (tough), but there’s got to be some underlying reason” for the hospitalization,  Arndorfer said.  Iowa players “do that workout every year at this time and have not had any problems in the past.”

“I would have a couple of questions for the players,” he said. “One is: What were they doing Sunday or over the weekend? … Another is: Were any of them taking a supplement not given to them by the university?”

The University of Iowa is conducting an investigation into the highly unusual cluster of rhabdomyolysis cases affecting the Hawkeye football program that will hopefully answer these questions.

Read more at Steroids.Info: Steroid Use Not to Blame in Iowa Football Mass Hospitalization

Photo credit: Hawkeye Central

Sportswriters are mistakenly reporting that Mayo is the second basketball player in the NBA to test positive for DHEA. Orlando Magic Rashard Lewis did not test positive for DHEA. In actuality, he tested positive for anabolic steroid use after failing the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio (T:E ratio) test which is suggestive of exogenous testosterone use. Lewis blamed the positive steroid test on his inadvertent use of DHEA in a smoothie.

Few people think DHEA offers any performance-enhancement benefit.

Read more at Steroids.Info: Steroids Invade the NBA – Actually It’s Only DHEA

Low-dose trenbolone was called “SARM-like” because of the positive anabolic effects in muscle and bone without negative side androgenic side effects of prostate enlargement or polycythemia.

Trenbolone is an anabolic steroid that has been demonized more than others due to its limited use (in pellet implants used by veterinarians to increase muscle growth in livestock). Fortunately, researchers looked past the political stigma associated with trenbolone to revisit a therapeutic use for an old steroid.

Read more at MESO-Rx: Trenbolone for Androgen Replacement Therapy

Unlike the United States where the personal use of steroids is criminalized, the United Kingdom has medicalized the issue of steroid use and abuse. The government focuses on steroid education and harm reduction rather than incarceration.

In 2006, William Llewellyn was invited to speak at the National Conference on Injecting Drug Use in London to discuss the social and health implications of anabolic steroid use.

Read more at MESO-Rx: 25 Minutes of Steroid Truth: William Llewellyn’s Lecture at the 2006 National Conference on Injecting Drug Use

Read more at Steroids.Info: Scotland Opens Clinics for Steroid Users

Everyone in the world knows that the goal of this exercise is simply to prove that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and make a moral statement that steroid use is bad.

Conspiracy? Wire fraud? Money laundering? Racketeering? Drug trafficking? Defrauding the U.S. government?

Seriously?

Suppose Lance Armstrong used PEDs to help him become a better cyclist. Were any of these crimes EVER intended to be used to convict a steroid user?

The steroid witch-hunt has reached the point of absurdity. The anti-doping movement has been the chief instigator of the witch-hunt. Their credibility depends upon it. Their funding depends upon it. The Lance Armstrong witch-hunt reflects their desperation.

Lance Armstrong has allegedly used performance-enhancing drugs throughout most his 20 year career if Selena Roberts and David Epstein of Sports Illustrated are to be believed.

One of the most high-profile and accomplished athletes of the past two decades has allegedly been doping with impunity right under the noses of ant-doping testers who have tested him hundreds of times.

This points to a colossal failure of anti-doping protocols to make a difference in the use of PED in sports. Drug testing has been relatively ineffective contrary to ridiculous assertions that the movement is winning and/or on the verge of eliminating doping in sports.

The anti-doping movement has been the driving force behind the criminalization of the personal use of anabolic steroids in the United States and other countries around the world. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 was passed with an implicit goal of keeping steroids out of sports. This law has cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

Yet, steroid laws have rarely been used to prosecute competitive athletes using steroids. How many professional athletes involved in steroid scandals during the course of the past decade were prosecuted under steroid laws?

The Anabolic Steroid Control Act has not made a significant difference in the war against doping in sports. It simply has not been an effective tool to catch steroid users in sports.

Testing doesn’t work well.

Steroid laws don’t work well.

So, the witch-hunters have become more creative by trivializing the criminal justice system. In their desperation, they have misused perjury laws and appear ready to misuse laws against defrauding the government.

The federal government has been heavily influenced by the anti-doping special interest and has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on their behalf in order to catch (or at least humiliate and embarrass) athletes who dope.

The Sports Illustrated article does its best to justify how Lance Armstrong defrauded the government but it unwittingly makes a strong case for corruption and fraud in the anti-doping movement – a movement that is heavily subsidized by taxpayer funding. Allegations that anti-dopers manipulated test results and overlooked failed drug tests for favored athletes seem to be more appropriate for a case of defrauding the government.

Who has really defrauded the United States government and American taxpayers?

A seven-time Tour de France champion who has raised hundred of millions of dollars of private and corporate funding for cancer — and may have used steroids when riding for a $30 million government-sponsored pro cycling team?

OR…

Morality-based organizations who (1) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funding to catch steroid users in sports — while allegedly manipulating and covering up some failed test results, (2) have lobbied governments around around the world to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to enact and enforce laws criminalizing steroid use and (3) have been cheerleaders for the trivialization, misuse and perversion of other laws (e.g. perjury, etc.) in the pursuit of governmental witch-hunts targeting celebrity athletes?

Who is really defrauding American taxpayers?

Photo credit: Millard Baker / MESO-Rx