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.

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?

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

Matthew Kelly  of the Newcastle Herald newspaper in Australia refers to the trade name of nandrolone decanoate as “Decca Duarbulon”. In fact, the commonly used trade name for this anabolic steroid is Deca Durabolin and has been for almost 50 years. Bodybuilders still refer to this drug by its trade name and/or “Deca” for short.

Read more at Steroids.Info: Decca Duarbulon: Would You Trust a Journalist Who Can’t Spell Name of Popular Steroid?

“Muscle profiling” as suggestive of anabolic steroid use is an accepted law enforcement practice in Sweden that has been used to detain numerous bodybuilders in recent years. The muscle profiling policy has been kept under the radar for the most part up until recently.

Sundvall Police Chief Henrik Blusi garnered publicity for his “war on bodybuilders” with a plan to make a very embarrassing and humiliating example of a pro bodybuilder(s) attending the 2010 Fitness Festival in Göteborg.

Read more at MESO-Rx: Pro Bodybuilder Toney Freeman Speaks Out Against Sweden War on Bodybuilders

Read more at MESO-Rx: Mr. Olympia Jay Cutler Cancels Guest Posing Appearance Due to Muscle Profiling in Sweden

Read more at MESO-Rx: IFBB Pro Bodybuilder Toney Freeman Taken Into Police Custody in Sweden

Having said that, I am disappointed to see Dara Torres publicly assert her moral superiority over other athletes who use performance enhancing drugs. Torres comes across as disingenous if not hypocritical when she decries the lack of a conscience in other competitors who use performance enhancing drugs.

After all, Torres sought a diagnose of asthma approximately 18 months and petitioned WADA/IOC for a theraepeutic use exemption (TUE) that would allow her to use the performance enhancing drugs Proventil (albuterol) and Symbicort (formoterol). But Torres still has a moral conscience, its just the other swimmers who do not (“Torres: Too bad some athletes don’t have a conscience,” August 6).

Unfortunately that’s just the way the world is today and it’s too bad that some athletes don’t have a conscience and think it’s OK to do that and think that if they win or do well that they did it the right way.

“So, for those of us who have a conscience, we know we’re doing it the right way and there’s nothing you can do.”

Obviously, the right way involves the use of performance enhancing drugs with a TUE. The “right way” also involves her use of the controversial Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit, which has been likened to “technological doping,” during her comeback.

Dara Torres occupation of the moral high ground comes across as an affront to her former Olympic teammate Jessica Hardy. Hardy was kicked off the U.S. Swim Team and disqualified from the 2008 Beijing Olympics for using a drug that is very similar to the performance-enhancing drugs used by Torres. The culprit in Hardy’s case, clenbuterol, belongs to the same class of long-acting beta-2 adrenergic agonists (LABAs) as Torres’ albuterol and formoterol.

I have no problem with unhealthy athletes using performance enhancing drugs. But if we allow some athletes to use PEDs, we need to allow all athletes to use PEDs, including the healthy ones.

Torres’ use of LABAs represents the “right way” to use performance enhancing drugs. Hardy’s use of LABAs represents the “wrong way.” This is apparently a very important lesson in moral values to Torres.

Certainly, Dara Torres is following WADA/IOC rules. Her use of PEDs is sanctioned by WADA. Her use of the LZR Racer is sanctioned by WADA/FINA/IOC. But given the arbitrary and capricious nature of the WADA code, I hope Torres abandons her self-righteous stance and exercises restraint in passing moral judgments on her competitors.