Country singer Mindy McCready tacitly confirmed she had an extramarital affair with Roger Clemens. Clemens, through his attorney Rusty Hardin, has acknowledged a long-term “relationship” but denies Clemens had a sexual relationship with McCready.

Does Roger Clemens’ personal and/or sexual relationships have any bearing on his alleged use of performance enhancing drugs (or vice versa)? Already, the blogosphere is suggesting that steroids may have caused Clemens’ infidelity. But as far as the legal proceedings are concerned, Yahoo Sports’ Tim Brown doesn’t think his philandering has relevance to his alleged steroid use (“We’re no closer to the truth about Clemens,” April 29)

Clemens had an affair with a country singer, according to the New York Daily News. Therefore, the thinking goes, the defamation case against his accuser and former trainer is weak. Didn’t we already have a pretty good notion of that? As for claims in the petition regarding marital purity, well, it doesn’t address that, exactly. It does claim that McNamee has sullied “Clemens’ good reputation,” and has caused him to suffer “mental anguish, shame, public humiliation and embarrassment.” Presumably, the Daily News report has piled onto that, but what does a private relationship have to do with Clemens’ public reputation, whatever it may be? I’m sure the lawyers will enlighten us.

Now the attorneys chime in…

Richard Emery, McNamee’s attorney, believes the news of an extramarital affair by Roger Clemens clearly hurts Clemens’ defamation lawsuit claiming McNamee lied about Clemens use of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone (“Roger Clemens had 10-year fling with country star Mindy McCready,” April 28).

“The issue in Roger’s suit against McNamee is Roger’s reputation and how it has been damaged,” said Richard Emery, one of McNamee’s lawyers who is handling the defamation suit. “If it’s proved that he’s a philanderer, his reputation is already damaged. When you sue for defamation, you put your whole reputation in the community at issue. Anything is fair game, including his claim of sanctimonious purity. We would cross-examine him and other witnesses who might impact on his alleged behavior. We would probably subpoena her and witnesses who knew [of the relationship]. He’s a ‘family man’ – he implies that. It’s about what his damages are. All is fair game.”

Richard Emery believes the lawsuit will be dismissed.

“If the case heads to trial and is not dismissed, as we feel it should be, we will be calling [McCready] as a witness,” Emery said.

“The point is whether he was damaged by the allegations that he used steroids – he claims he was hurt. But if there are other women – and there’s not just one case, but many – and he holds himself out as a family man and an American paradigm, it’s relevant.

“None of this would have been revealed but for his lawsuit and sanctimonious testimony before Congress.”

But Rusty Hardin, Clemens’ attorney, tells the press that Roger Clemens’ (alleged) infidelity is irrelevant to the veracity of Brian McNamee’s statements regarding Clemens’ steroid and growth hormone use.

“I think it’s totally irrelevant to the issue of whether Brian McNamee is telling the truth about Roger using human growth hormone and steroids,” said Hardin. “The character trait that you put in issue should be the character trait that the defamatory statement was made about.”

I guess the specter of anabolic steroid use is so bad that Clemens would rather publicly embarrass his wife Debbie Clemens with revelations of an extramarital affair and her illegal use of human growth hormone a Sports Illustrated swimsuit photo shoot than admit steroid use. At least, Roger Clemens will have officially gone on record as officially denying steroid use.

Post from: Steroid Report

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

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitsky has been transferred to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Criminal Investigations as a special agent to give him greater freedom to focus on anabolic steroid-related investigations (“No Longer With I.R.S., Novitzky Joins F.D.A.,” April 23).

In regards to Novitzky’s new job, Dwight Sparlin, a retired I.R.S. manager who led the San Francisco office when the Balco case started nearly six years ago, said he had been hearing for two weeks that Novitzky was going to the F.D.A. to continue focusing on drug cases.

“I think it would give him more exposure to just doing that type of work,” Sparlin said by telephone Tuesday. He added: “For Jeff to go as far as he did in Balco was a stretch for the I.R.S., too. I think he was allowed to go a lot further than he would otherwise because of the impact.”

Jeff Novitsky has been involved in almost every aspect of the BALCO steroid scandal and steroids in baseball investigation.

(Hat tip to Steroid Nation for the story.)

Post from: Steroid Report

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

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

Matthew Wong is not your average 17-year old high school student. He is an innovative entrepreneur, lacking in his legal education, who used the internet to order raw steroid powder from China to manufacture and distribute anabolic steroids in extracurricular chemistry and marketing experiments. Unlike his high school classmates, Wong has been in jail for the past two weeks socializing with Tarrant County criminals (“Steroid labs in Tarrant area are processing powder bought online,” April 23).

The arrests came after a two-month investigation prompted by a tip, Grapevine police Lt. Todd Dearing said. Matthew Wong, 17, of Grapevine was arrested April 10 on suspicion of possession of controlled substances and dangerous drugs and on suspicion of delivery of controlled substances. The charges range from state jail felonies to second-degree felonies, Dearing said. Wong remained in the Tarrant County Jail on Tuesday with bail set at $26,000.

Police say Wong sold an undercover officer steroids numerous times. According to an arrest warrant affidavit, Wong most recently met the undercover officer on Feb. 21 in a restaurant parking lot, where the officer bought 21.8 grams of Oxymetholone, a strong steroid, and 19.6 grams of testosterone from Wong for $310.

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.

Could it be that the FDA is cracking down on anabolic steroids in dietary supplements? Are they beginning to clean up the supplement industry by enforcing DSHEA? Maybe. The FDA seized $1.3 million in allegedly illegal dietary supplements from the warehouse of LG Sciences (formerly Legal Gear). The seized supplements included Methyl 1-D, Methyl 1-D XL and Formadrol Extreme XL.

LG Sciences markets Methyl 1-D as an “AAS (anabolic/androgenic steroid) hormone” on their website and on their blog.

METHYL 1-D™ may be one of the most potent androgens since the prohormone ban in January 2005. With METHYL-1D, you get an AAS (anabolic/androgenic steroid) hormone that’s a chemical cousin to Testosterone. METHYL 1-D converts easily into TEST and also has an estrogen blocker to prevent bloat and bitch tits along with a 5aR inhibitor, so you can keep your hair.

LG Sciences is minimizing the significance of the FDA raid involving U.S. Marshalls and maintains that their products are DSHEA compliant.

In response to recent action taken by the FDA, LG Sciences wishes to clarify that we contend that all of its products are completely legal and safe. The FDA’s detainment is merely a preliminary step in determining compliance with food regulations. LG Sciences wishes to specifically note that no court has made any determination as to the correctness of FDA’s allegations. Although LG Sciences feels that the temporary restraint of its product by the FDA is inappropriate, the company appreciates that the FDA wishes to protect the public and will cooperate in every possible way.

Unfortunately, the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 is ambiguous and unclear in determining what substances are considered new dietary ingredients (NDI). An NDI requires data be submitted to the FDA regarding safety for human consumption prior to its introduction into the market. Due to a lack of a definitive list of approved dietary ingredients, the FDA mistakenly asserts that the products seized contain substances that are either not dietary ingredients, as defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or that the substances are NDI. However, the substances are not NDI because these ingredients are naturally occurring, with confirmed studies over 25 years ago, and have been on the market in competitors products for several years. Thus, the ingredients have empirically been shown to be safe to consumers.

Items deemed unapproved food additives by the FDA 1,4,6 etiocholan-dione or commonly known as ATD or 1,4,6 Androstatriene3,17-dione. Additionally items alleged to require a new dietary ingredient status 4-etioallocholen-3,6,17-trione or better known by the trade name 6-OXO-4-androstenedione. LG Sciences looks forward to assisting the FDA in clarifying this matter and the prompt return of its inventory.

Legal Gear, the predecessor to LG Sciences, previously ran afoul of the FDA by selling unapproved new drugs containing synthetic anabolic steroids. Legal Gear discontinued the product after receiving a cease and desist from the FDA.

In March 2006, the FDA warned a company called Legal Gear – the predecessor to LG Sciences – to cease distribution of another product that was marketed as a dietary supplement but was actually an unapproved new drug containing synthetic steroids, the government’s statement said.

Post from: Steroid Report

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

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

Cyclist Tammy Thomas has been convicted on three counts of making false statements (perjury) and one count of obstruction of justice. She was acquitted of two counts of perjury (“Cyclist convicted of perjury in BALCO case,” April 4).

Under federal sentencing guidelines, Thomas faces a sentence that likely would range from probation to about two or three years in federal prison for the perjury convictions.

Thomas was specifically accused of lying to the grand jury about using steroids and obtaining performance enhancing drugs from Illinois chemist Patrick Arnold, a key Balco figure who pleaded guilty to manufacturing designer steroids and providing them to elite athletes through the now-defunct Peninsula laboratory.

Tammy Thomas already received a lifetime ban from competitive cycling for doping violations several years. This effectively ended her career as a cyclist. The conviction for perjury in the government’s case against Thomas may have effectively ended the pursuit of a second career as an attorney (“Tammy Thomas found guilty of perjury,” April 4).

“I already had one career taken away from me,” she yelled. “Look me in the eye. You can’t do it.”

Thomas then turned to a prosecutor and shouted, “Look me in the eye …. You like to destroy people’s lives.”

 The government has succeeded in its unstated goal of making an example of an athlete using steroids. Is this justice served?

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.

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.

After corresponding with sources involved in the Tammy Thomas doping trial and reading reports from the trial, I am convinced that the likelihood of an acquittal is very high. 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.

So, it appears that Tammy Thomas was, literally and legally, telling the truth in her statements.

THG and norbolethone were not anabolic steroids at the time.

THG and norbolethone were not controlled substances at the time.

THG and norbolethone were not of the banned substances list at the time.

In addition, Thomas purchased THG and norbolethone from a prominent “supplement manufacturer” (Pat Arnold develops supplements for the popular sports supplement company Ergopharm). Most people generally believe they are buying supplements when they buy products from a dietary supplement manufacturer.

There is no shortage of reasonable doubt. I am surprised the government would ever bring such a weak perjury case to federal court; it shows their obsession with targeting high profile elite athletes who have allegedly used anabolic steroids. At the very least the government could have found a case where anabolic steroids (by legal definition) were involved and not just “unapproved new drug(s)!”

I’m wondering if the government will file perjury charges against IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitsky since he is apparently falsely asserting that THG and norbolethone were anabolic steroids, controlled substances and banned substances!

He also said he wanted to call athletes because only if they’d known they were receiving steroids (i.e. controlled substances) would there be a money laundering charge, giving the IRS a reason to be involved.

If Tammy Thomas is acquitted, how will this affect the Barry Bonds case? Regardless of the outcome, many observers feel the case will help Barry Bonds’ attorneys.

Jeff Novitzky, an Internal Revenue Service special agent and a lead steroids investigator, is expected to play a starring government role in both trials. His appearance at Thomas’ trial could give Bonds’ legal team an idea of how to question him.

“The outcome of the Thomas case will inform their decision on whether they should go to trial or not,” University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said. “It’s a good road map.”

Maybe an acquittal will finally result in the general public’s disgust with the government’s steroid witch hunt?

Post from: Steroid Report

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

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.

IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitsky testified against cyclist Tammy Thomas at her perjury trial yesterday. Novitsky is a popular (and controversial) figure in the entire steroids in sports investigation. Thus, many observers were interested in his testimony. Reviewing the published accounts of Novitsky’s testimony, I found it particularly interesting how much incriminating evidence federal investigators found in BALCO’s trash.

Novitzky began searching through the trash behind the BALCO offices, learning when the company set garbage out and when it was collected. Each Monday night for a year, he hauled BALCO’s rubbish to a well-lit area nearby and sifted through it, he testified.

He found copies of e-mail messages and copious quantities of empty needle wrappers, he said. The latter led him to a medical-waste company where he found evidence of syringes, vials and performance-enhancing drugs that apparently originated at BALCO.

One of the “trash runs,” as he put it, yielded evidence that BALCO was buying epitestosterone from a company in the Midwest, he said.

Individuals closely involved in other federal steroid investigations have told me that evidence collected from the defendant’s trash was crucial to the prosecution’s case against the steroid dealer. The same was true with BALCO (“IRS agent: BALCO waste littered with drug evidence,” March 28).

The search of an individual (or business’) curbside trash does not require a warrant. The U.S. Supreme court has determined in California v. Greenwood that curbside trash is not subject to Fourth Amendment protections.

Court held that under the Fourth Amendment, no warrant was necessary to search the trash because Greenwood had no reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Although Greenwood had hidden the trash from view by putting in opaque plastic bags and expected it to be on the street only a short time before it would be taken to the dump, the Court believed it to be “common knowledge” that garbage at the side of the street is “readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public.” Moreover, Greenwood had left the trash there expressly so that the trash collector, a stranger, could take it. Quoting Katz v. United States, the court concluded that “what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.”

The BALCO dumpster was one small thing that contributed to the downfall of the steroid distribution ring at BALCO. (That, and of course an IRS Special Agent’s obsession with BALCO that developed over the course of 20 years.)

Post from: Steroid Report

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

©2010 Steroid Report. All Rights Reserved.