Mike Markson has an interesting proposal for confronting the problem of anabolic steroids (and performance enhancing drugs) in baseball – “let them cheat.” His steroid comments were included in suggestions to make baseball more exciting.

I started thinking, if I was to come up with a baseball variant to try and take on MLB, what would it look like? Well, it would be baseball, but, I’d market it as a faster, more exciting version. I’d make the following rules changes to try and re-enforce the brand [...]

No steroid testing. Leave that for the cops. This is baseball – let’s the conversation revolve around the action on the field, not off of it.

In a previous post, Markson expands on his feelings about steroids in sports with some insightful comments on the issue. Sports has had to deal with advances in technology in every aspect of the game including performance enhancing drugs. More often than not, sports have embraced advances in technology and incorporated them into the game. Sports have recently had a conflicted position with regarding to technological advances in pharmacological ergogens. But it’s difficult to counteract technology (progress).

The thing about technology is that it always evolves at a rate much faster than efforts designed to stop it. Don’t believe me, ask the recording industry. In the case of performance enhancing drugs, the drugs will always outpace the tests designed to detect their presence/ use. To try to combat this, testing has to become more frequent, more intrusive. Like anything the more frequent and more intrusive you make it, the more likely their will be false results. Which means there need to be procedures around appealing tests, results, etc. All of a sudden, testing requires an infrastructure, and then you’re in trouble.

Does this sound familiar? It should. It’s basically how the Tour de France and track and field operate. Bet you have no clue who won last year’ tour de france, but know Floyd Landis cheated. Likewise, bet you have absolutely no clue who holds what records for any track and field events, but are very familiar with the Marion Jones scandal.

The problem with false positives is very disturbing. The problem is compounded by the flimsy standards of evidence required for guilt by anti-doping agencies. I can’t imagine the degree of uproar if our own imperfect criminal justice system in the United States abandoned “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of the evidence” and adopted the “comfortable satisfaction” standard advocated by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

Markson continues by discussing how the ultimate outcome is the destruction of the sport.

This is what happen when you try to use policing measures to keep up with technology. The drug tests, their results, the appeals, etc. actually become the only interesting/ memorable thing about the sport. The become the brand of the sport. And, since this isn’t nearly as fun/interesting as remember the actual games or plays themselves, the fans eventually abandon.

Baseball should stick to the business of balls, strikes, beer and caps and leave police work to the pros [...]

At the end of the day, juice or no juice, talent and skill are still the ultimate arbiter of performance.

Most elite athletes strive to be the best at their sport without qualification. And most fans want to see the best without qualification. After all, who really cares who is the best cyclist riding on a bike that costs no more than $200 or the best baseball player who doesn’t lift weights? Let’s see the best.

Post from: Steroid Report

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

While high school football coaches like Chris Connolly of Dolgeville High School have banned Gatorade and other dietary supplements out of fear that they may be a gateway to steroid use, Major League Baseball has actually embraced Gatorade as MLB’s “official sports drink.” Major League Baseball has now taken it a step further and banned water from the clubhouse (“Don’t drink the water!” April 23).

Gatorade is Major League Baseball’s “official sports drink.” So instructions were sent that no player could be seen drinking anything but Gatorade in the dugout. Not even Aquafina, which is the “official water” of MLB. Not even bottles of water with the labels removed.

White Sox clubhouse personnel said if players take bottled water onto the bench, all the bottled water will be removed from the clubhouse as punishment.

This policy only reinforces the appearance of a pro-steroid agenda by Major League Baseball. MLB sends the following message to baseball fans.

So remember, the biggest threat to baseball isn’t steroids or HGH or amphetamines or runaway ticket prices or four-hour games.

It’s water.

Just think of the contradictory message this sends to the youth of Coach Connolly’s high school football team!

Post from: Steroid Report

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have modified a bill that would have added human growth hormone (HGH) to the Controlled Substances List. The bill was introduced as a kneejerk reaction to revelations of widespread HGH use in professional baseball. But in the end, legislators avoided making the same mistake with HGH as they did with anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) with the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990. (“HGH bill altered to help children,” April 16)

Senators Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, have dropped language in the bill that would have put HGH on the same legal plane as anabolic steroids, a move that would have severely limited access to the synthetic hormone.

For example, under the bill’s original language, HGH would not have been widely available through the mail and would not have been available in longer than six-month supplies. Because doctors specializing in childhood growth disorders often are far from patients, such controls could have caused hardship for families with children using the drug.

The atmosphere of steroid hysteria resulted in overwhelming bipartisan support for the original HGH bill practically guaranteeing passage of the legislation. When it comes to steroids and performance enhancing drugs, it appears that emotional arguments generally trump intellectual arguments. But fortunately, and surprisingly, the Sen. Schumer and Sen. Grassley rationally examined the evidence of the adverse consequences, particularly for children, of making HGH a Scheduled-III controlled substance. 

“We’ve ran into some things that we didn’t anticipate. We were enlightened by the parents whose children legitimately need HGH,” Grassley told USA TODAY on Tuesday. “Making it (a more tightly controlled substance) would have created a lot of red tape for them.”

Sadly, Sen. Schumer and Sen. Grassley are not students of history when it comes to the Controlled Substances Act; otherwise, they would already known how political misuse of the Controlled Substances Act (especially involving doping in sports) can adversely affect availability of pharmaceuticals for patients who needs these therapies for health, wellness, and survival. The addition of anabolic steroids to the Controlled Substances List with the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 had adverse unintended consequences for untold numbers of patients who had legitimate medical indications requiring anabolic steroid treatment.

We can thank Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), who were widely criticized for doing so at the time, for placing a temporary hold on the original HGH legislation thereby allowing reason to prevail over emotion in the Senate. But most credit should go to the MAGIC Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to “providing support services to the families of children afflicted with chronic and critical disorders, syndromes, and diseases that affect their growth,” for their activism in the matter.

Post from: Steroid Report

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

I previously reported how the federal expenditures for the war on steroids and congressional steroid investigations have come at the expense of slashing programs used in the traditional war on drugs.

The federal government’s obsession with eliminating anabolic steroids from Major League Baseball is compromising state law enforcement efforts to fight drug dealers and violent criminals thereby jeopardizing the public safety…

The feds are spending more and more taxpayer money pursuing steroid-related investigations while at the same time cutting funding for narcotic-related investigations (via Byrne task force investigations). Grits for Breakfast responded by pointing out how the Byrne task force programs had no meaningful effect on public safety (“Byrne task force funds mainly financing low-grade drug enforcement,” March 10).

That means 5/8 of the arrests Cooper made as a drug task force officer were for less than 4 oz of pot, not for harder drugs.

I’ll bet an investigation into the specifics of who drug task forces arrest in other states would yield similar results, but that’s not been the focus of recent press coverage on the subject. Those are pretty low-level targets, in the scheme of things, and helps explain why eliminating drug task forces in Texas didn’t really harm public safety.

I’ve since been following Grits for Breakfast’s excellent coverage of the Bryne funding cuts; Grits has concluded the funding cuts are a good thing (“Hyping Harm: Media should welcome, not decry cuts to federal Byrne grant program,” April 2).

Drug task forces funded by the federal Byrne grant program are a failed experiment, and it’s time to try a different approach.

Let’s hope that taxpayers, the media and bureacrats start to ask critical questions about whether the government’s newest drug war, the war on steroids, is having any demonstrable effect of public safety or public health (or even integrity in sports); hopefully we can avoid wasting any further funds on another failed experiment targeting low level personal users of anabolic steroids that have negligible effects on public safety.

Post from: Steroid Report

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

The jury in cyclist Tammy Thomas’ doping perjury trial did not reach a verdict after the first day of deliberations (“Thomas jury deliberations to continue,” April 3).

Thomas, whose case is the first to go to trial in the five-and-a-half-year Balco investigation, was charged with making false statements to a grand jury in 2003 about substances she is suspected of receiving from Arnold. For the jury to convict Thomas, it must conclude that her statements were false and that they were material to the government’s investigation.

I am certain that Tammy Thomas is anxiously awaiting the verdict. Not only is her freedom in jeopardy but also a future career as an attorney. She has been silent about the case and has not spoken to the media; however, she has been very outspoken in her fashion statements outside the courtroom where she was photographed wearing a San Francisco Giants baseball cap, no doubt in support of other athletes who have been targeted for perjury by this federal investigation.

The Steroid Report feels that Thomas’ defense attorney Ethan Balogh has successfully created reasonable doubt with his arguments.

The government’s case against cyclist Tammy Thomas for perjury is surprisingly weak. The government’s case is largely based on the assertion that Tammy Thomas ingested “anabolic steroids” and/or “controlled substances” and/or “banned substances” obtained from chemist Patrick Arnold and she lied about it.

The inconvenient fact is that tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) and norbolethone were NOT legally classified as “anabolic steroids” until the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 was passed; Norbolethone and THG were two of the 26 compounds added to the Controlled Substances Act with this legislation. Consequently, THG and norbolethone were NOT controlled substances until the passage of the legislation. Furthermore, THG and norbolethone were not on the WADA/IOC banned substances list at the time.

Of course, not everyone agrees. Steroid Nation feels Balogh’s statements in court in defense of Tammy Thomas were simply “ludicrous.”

It irritates this writer that a lawyer would argue that point in court without his tongue turning black and his eyes bleeding out.  As ludicrous as a woman shaving every morning, not thinking she is taking an anabolic androgenic steroid.

However, juries do not hinge deliberations on the issue of ludicrous statements.

The statements upset Dr. Gaffney because they are medically (pharmacologically) inaccurate; this is true. As I commented, his statements about THG and norbolethone may be scientifically correct, but not necessarily legally correct.

But this is a legal case and the arguments are legal arguments. THG and Norbolethone were NOT LEGALLY classified as anabolic steroids. Read the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 – THG and norbolethone are not included. Then read the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 and notice that this amendment LEGALLY CHANGED the status of THG and Norbolethone to “Anabolic Steroids.”

 Admittedly, a steroid is a steroid is a steroid. No amount of semantic bickering or legal lobbying will change that. But for better or worse, criminal justice is deliberated by rule of law (not pharmaceutical rules) and juries are instructed to base their verdicts on the law no matter how ludicrous the arbitrary legal definitions may appear to them.

As I further commented, legal definitions don’t change pharmacological definitions. But they matter in the criminal justice system.

The arbirariness of legal definitions regarding steroids is really quite silly. Over the past decade, we have learned that a pharmacologically defined (anabolic-androgenic) steroid can be legally defined as (1) a “dietary supplement”, (2) an “anabolic steroid”, and (3) an “unapproved new drug.”

The legal status obviously does nothing to change the pharmacological definition. But the legal defintion (no matter how arbitrary) has very important implications in our criminal justice system.

It will be very interesting to see if the jury accepts defense attorney Ethan Balogh’s argument, in whole or in part.

Post from: Steroid Report

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

Velo Vortmax blasts WADA for its resistance to change in the face of additional new evidence that the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio test is flawed (“Genetic variations in enzyme UGT2B17: Implications,” April 3).

WADA refuses to worry about trivial genetic factors. WADA is loath to do longitudinal tests of athletes. WADA might find a variable that might refute their laboratory findings or challenge their presumption of laboratory perfection. WADA would never invest time and money doing pedigree studies to determine if a single metabolite above threshold for exogenous testosterone is a trait common in a family, or among a group of people found in a geographical region. But idiosyncratic individual differences in medicine have been documented in many pedigree studies. For example, hematocrit levels above 50% have been found in fathers and sons of elite cyclists. These hematocirt levels are inherited tendencies, not based on EPO doping. The same is true for testosterone/epitestosterone ratio(s) and may be true for Carbon Isotope metabolite delta/delta scores.

Personally, I’ve always been suspicious and critical of the arbitrary 50% hematocrit level as an indicator of EPO doping. Why? My hematocrit level has regularly and consistently exceeded 50% for the past 15 years and I’ve never used EPO. I may be an outlier, but I would venture to guess that a significant percentage of elite endurance athletes fall into the outlier category on various physiologic parameters.

The unreliability of the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio test (T:E ratio) and WADA’s insistence on its infallibility only further undermines the credibility of WADA.

It would be nice to believe that the isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) [used in the carbon isotope ratio testing (CIR) to detect exogenous testosterone use] is 100% reliable as WADA would suggest. But Velo Vortmax explains why we shouldn’t just trust WADA with this test.

The IRMS is an instrument that requires very precise controls of operation. The results of an IRMS is only as good as the laboratory performing the tests. Inexperienced laboratory personnel who cannot follow sequential steps in testing cannot be expected to arrive at the correct results. A valid IRMS is also only as good as the science behind the tests. A valid IRMS is only as good as the criteria required in WADA technical documents, by international standards, and by standardized criteria as to constitutes a positive result. WADA has failed in all these areas.

One hundred years from now will the scientists of the future shake their heads in amazement at our ignorance. Will they abhor the stupidity and mistakes of the anti-doping crusade? Will they be forced to restore the honor to “fallen” athletes?

Is it any surprise that there is a fair amount of skepticism regarding WADA’s new human growth hormone testing kits?

Post from: Steroid Report

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

State Representative Jeff Roorda has introduced legislation to coerce professional sports in the State of Missouri to change their rules by increasing penalties for anabolic steroid use in their respective sports.

Roorda, a Democrat from Jefferson County, filed a bill today that would bar state tax credits from going to professional sports teams in a league that does not place at least a one-year ban on athletes caught using steroids.

That would mean: No state breaks for the Cardinals, as well as the Royals, the Chiefs, the Rams, the Blues, the state’s minor league baseball teams, or pro soccer outfits…

“Since when in baseball is it four strikes and you’re out?” Roorda said in a statement today.

Never mind that in baseball, it is not one strike and you’re out either. Roorda obviously intends to highlight what he believes to be a weak steroid and doping policy in Major League Baseball.

But it also highlights the government’s “investment” in professional sports via corporate welfare (e.g. sales tax revenue and tax subsidies). Major League Baseball is not the only entity to benefit from the bigger, faster, stronger steroid-fueled performances.

The sales tax will raise $425 million over 25 years for the overhaul of the stadiums. The Royals will contribute another $25 million, the Chiefs $75 million and the state of Missouri $50 million in tax credits.

The State of Missouri has a long-term investment in the success of Major League Baseball. Is there a conflict of interest when the issue of steroid use threatens the sports?

“This bill attempts to send a message to Major League Baseball and to all other professional sports leagues that if they want to continue to ignore the problem that they have with steroids, that we’re not going to continue to underwrite their activities with tax dollars,” Roorda said.  

How involved (taxpayer funds) should the government be in building stadiums for private sports teams? I’ve previously written about my distaste for government regulation of the rules in private sports leagues; I also question whether the government should provide corporate welfare to professional sports leagues especially if the government has a problem with the widespread steroid use.  Thoughts?

Post from: Steroid Report

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your preference) we have not reached the level of absurdity where everything that may offer an unfair advantage is banned in sports competition. The latest culprit in offering an unfair advantage is not any type of designer anabolic steroid created by a rogue chemist in a secret underground lab. It is a new Speedo swimsuit (“The suit that’s turned the swim world on its head,” March 27).

The new swimsuit? Speedo’s LZR Racer.

That modest meet last month in Columbia, Mo., began an unprecedented — and controversial — six weeks that turned competitive swimming upside down: 14 world records set as of Wednesday, 13 in the LZR suit.

“There’s going to be more fireworks,” Speedo USA executive Stu Isaac said of the records being shattered. He suggested that more would fall at the ongoing Olympic trials in Sydney, Australia, and the U.S. trials in Omaha, starting in June.

But the onslaught of new world records has ignited debate over whether high-tech apparel provides an unfair advantage.

Actually, the swimsuit has not been banned. So, swimmers will not be forced to swim naked during competition. The new Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit was approved by FINA (competitive swimming’s governing body) having met the rules for swimsuits (e.g. minimum thickness, etc).

Some doping commentators like Norm Fost suggest that the best way to eliminate an unfair advantage is to make that substance, technology, etc. readily available to all competitors. This could easily be accomplished with anabolic steroids since they are so inexpensive as evidenced by Kelcey Dalton (former girlfriend of chemist Patrick Arnold) recent court testimony. However, the idea of leveling the playing field by allowing cheap steroids to be used by all athletes has been strongly rejected. So, the economics of access is not the determining factor.

Yet, the real complaint about the unfair advantage of the Speedo LXR swimsuit turns out to be economic in nature.

Many of the complaints so far are from national federations that have deals with other manufacturers and contend that the LZR, which costs $550, creates an uneven playing field of the haves and have-nots.

It turns out many national federations will not allow their athletes to wear this new performance-enhancing swimsuit because the federations have entered contracts with commercial entities; secondarily it has been suggested that the $550 price tag is prohibitively expensive for less affluent athletes. I’m not sure anyone in the history of civilization has effectively determined how to level the economic playing field. Good luck to sports organizations at tackling this one!

Post from: Steroid Report

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

While the controversy and debate over the use of anabolic steroids and growth hormone in sports continues, little attention is paid to the use of Adderall and Provigil in academia. Cycling Fans Anonymous discusses an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times earlier this month.

Doping in academia is common, with Provigil and Adderall being the drugs of choice amongst professors and students at university. Apparently these drugs make it possible to concentrate without getting distracted for long periods of time, and to never get sleepy when pulling an all-nighter.

The New York Times compares doping in sports to doping in academia (“Brain enhancement is wrong, right?” March 9).

But is prescription tweaking to perform on exams, or prepare presentations and grants, really the same as injecting hormones to chase down a home run record, or win the Tour de France?

There was no shortage of people cited who saw ethical concerns with the use of drugs like Adderall and Provigil for non-medical purposes.  

Some argue that such use could be worse, given the potentially deep impact on society. And the behavior of academics in particular, as intellectual leaders, could serve as an example to others.

But I was surprised to see one professor go on record in defense of pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement.

“I think the analogy with sports doping is really misleading, because in sports it’s all about competition, only about who’s the best runner or home run hitter,” said Martha Farah, director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania. “In academics, whether you’re a student or a researcher, there is an element of competition, but it’s secondary. The main purpose is to try to learn things, to get experience, to write papers, to do experiments. So in that case if you can do it better because you’ve got some drug on board, that would on the face of things seem like a plus.”

Dr. Mariah Farah didn’t offer a defense of doping in general (as Professor Norm Fost has done in defense of doping in sports). Dr. Farah comments almost appeared to be an elitist defense – doping in sports is about competition and winning but doping in academia is about learning. Therefore, Farah seemingly suggests that the nobleness of learning may justify doping whereas the selfish competitiveness of sports is unjustified.

Doping for eggheads is good, but doping for athletes is bad.

Post from: Steroid Report

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

Victor Conte’s autobiographical account of the BALCO steroid scandal will hit bookstores in September 2008 (“BALCO founder Victor Conte has tell-all book ready,” March 30).

Slated for publication in September under the Skyhorse imprint, the book’s working title is “BALCO: The Straight Dope on Barry Bonds, Marion Jones and What We Can Do To Save Sports.” Conte, in conjunction with co-author Nathan Jendrick, promises to share “the dirt, the drugs, the doses, the names, dates and places, and a ‘prescription’ for a brighter future.”

He promises the “complete truth in its honest, unadulterated and raw form” and says he is “ready to tell the world everything.”

Most people will be interested in hearing “the dirt” on the various athletes allegedly involved in recent years’ doping scandals. But my attention will be on  what Conte has to say about IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitsky. As Jeff Novitsky testifies on the stand against cyclist Tammy Thomas in her perjury (doping) trial, Victor Conte is working with co-author Nathan Jendrick to pen a book that is highly critical of Novitsky. Forget about the athletes like Barry Bonds or Marion Jones that have doped; Conte has told me that Novitsky is the biggest cheater in the entire BALCO steroid scandal is Jeff Novitsky. The NY Daily News confirms that Novitsky is a target.

One of Conte’s biggest targets is likely to be Jeff Novitzky, the federal agent who sniffed out the BALCO conspiracy in 2003 and has tenaciously chased down every twist in it ever since.

Conte claims Novitzky, who is on the witness stand Monday in the government’s prosecution of cyclist Tammy Thomas (the first BALCO athlete to refuse a plea bargain and take her case to trial), fabricated a confession he says Conte gave on the day of the BALCO raid, and lied in court documents.

The more we learn about doping related events like the BALCO scandal and the Floyd Landis doping scandal, the more we realize that we live in a society where “winning at all costs” is the only standard.  This not only applies to the “dopers” but particularly to the “anti-dopers.” It’s all about winning – not about following the rules, pursuing justice, leveling the playing field, right or wrong or integrity in sports. Jeff Novitsky, WADA, USADA, etc. simply want to win and will seemingly use any unfair advantage and break the rules to do so.

Post from: Steroid Report

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.