Landis, 32, has spent millions of dollars on a defense that tried to cast doubt on the scientific validity of doping tests and the procedures followed at antidoping labs. But last September, in a 2-to-1 ruling, a United States Anti-Doping Agency arbitration panel concluded that Landis had used synthetic testosterone to achieve his comeback win at the 2006 Tour. As a result, he was barred from racing until January 2009….
In its 84-page ruling last year, the United States Anti-Doping Agency panel accepted Landis’s argument that the French antidoping lab that tested his urine samples from the Tour was sloppy in some of its operating procedures, and in how it documented its work. But the panel also found that a more sophisticated second test, conducted after the initial screening proved positive, was accurate.
Over three years ago, MSNBC determined that anabolic steroids were sold on Ebay after a three-month investigation. I’m not sure why it took them three months to learn that steroids were sold on the popular auction site (”Steroid dealers use ruse to sell wares on eBay,” January 20, 2005).
In October and November [2004], an NABP investigator purchased four items on eBay that appeared to be steroids, paying between $90 and $140 for each order. In two cases, eBay shut down the auctions before they ran their course.
“I got a notice from eBay saying this auction was ended because of a violation of the rules, but the transaction still went through,” said the investigator, who spoke on condition of anonymity...
All four products — injectable solutions in factory packaging, oral tablets labeled in Spanish as being for veterinary use and unmarked pills in a plastic bag — turned out to be just what the sellers claimed they were: anabolic steroids like Dianabol, Sustanon and testosterone propionate.
Guess what? Ebay continues to be used to sell anabolic steroids in spite of efforts by the billion dollar auction website and the DEA to prevent it. Currently, an individual in Biloxi, Mississippi is trying to sell Dianabol on Ebay.
The 2006 Tour de France winner, who was stripped of his victory last year, seeks to have his title restored by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. It’s the final step in a series of appeals that have cost upward of $2 million, a good portion of which has been paid for with federal funds…
But it will still be costly, and a good chunk of the cost will be footed by USADA, which gets about 70 percent of its $12 million annual budget from the federal government, and the rest from the U.S. Olympic Committee.
Some newspapers, like the Akron Beacon Journal, have redistributed the aforementioned Associated Press news article only to change the title and imply that U.S. taxpayers are also paying for Floyd Landis’ defense
The steroid hysteria related to steroids in sports continues to have an adverse impact of the availability of anabolic-androgenic steroids and human growth hormone for legal use in legitimate medical conditions. Congressional attacks upon anabolic steroids and other anabolic drugs (solely because athletes use them) are hurting those patients who stand to benefit from these highly beneficial and effective drugs.
Here’s the problem: The proposed legislation would re-classify HGH as a Schedule III drug, increasing penalties for its illegal use and limiting access in several ways. The penalties are fine, the parents agree. Limiting access for growth-challenged kids is the deal breaker.
The Champs, for example, would need to go to Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan once every month for a new prescription, which would last 30 days. Currently with each visit, they are able to obtain a three-month supply of HGH, with two refills. They only need to go once every nine months. Meanwhile, their insurance co-pays would triple for the extra doses.
The Supreme Court in the State of Washington ruled that random drug testing of student athletes (which presumably would include steroid testing) was unconstitutional.
Other states allow it. The U.S. Constitution allows it. But the Washington Supreme Court said today that random drug testing of student athletes is not allowed under the state constitution.
If random testing student athletes for steroids and other drugs is consistent with the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, then why does the Washington state constitution prohibit random testing? Quite simply, residents of Washington have more privacy protections than those granted by the U.S. Constitution (”They Ain’t Gonna Pee-Pee in No Cup,” March 14).
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld random testing not only of athletes but of students participating in other extracurricular activities as well, and its logic (such as it is) suggests that random testing of all students also would be consistent with the Fourth Amendment. But Washington’s constitution has a privacy guarantee that goes beyond the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, saying, “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” The state Supreme Court has read this clause as providing more protection than the Fourth Amendment…
According to Reason, the State of Washington is not the only state whose residents are granted greater privacy protections than the U.S. Constitution (which I suspect would likely also prohibit random steroid testing in student athletes).
Washington is not the only state where residents enjoy more privacy protection than the Fourth Amendment (as currently read) guarantees. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for example, has taken a dimmer view of student drug testing than the U.S. Supreme Court. The Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the state constitution’s privacy clause, which says the “right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed,” as prohibiting prosecution of people for possessing small amounts of marijuana at home.Â
The steroid testing trend in public high schools sweeping the nation appears to be permanently stalled in at least a few states.
No sooner than I finished writing an article critical of the supplement industry does a professional football player file a lawsuit against a supplement company for containing steroids in their supplements (due to either contamination or intentional “spiking” of the ingredients). It gives me no pleasure to write this story because the defendant is a friend of mine.
Former NFL running back Femi Ayanbadejo has filed a lawsuit against Author L. Rea of ALR Industries. He claims an undisclosed ingredient in ALRI Max LMG caused him to fail an NFL doping test leading to his release by the Arizona Cardinals and Chicago Bears. Ayanbadejo tested positive for a “form of nandrolone.” Ayanbadejo’s attorney is blaming the positive steroid test on the manufacturer for possibly intentionally “spiking” the supplement with banned substances or contamination from the manufacturing facility.
I have not had a chance to review legal documents in the case. The owner of ALR Industries did not seem to be aware of the lawsuit and could not provide me with any insight into the case.
But on the surface, I’m not sure it has merit from a legal standpoint.
In a typical kneejerk reaction by Congress, it appears that they are on the verge of expanding the Controlled Substances Act to include non-addictive human growth hormone. Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sponsored the legislation in response to the Mitchell Report’s on performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids and growth hormone in Major League Baseball. The Senators misguided efforts are an attempt to make an example of athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs since they are role models for children. Essentially, the goal of the bill is to protect the children.
Sally Jenkins, writing in the Washington Post, observes that professional athletes who use anabolic steroids are treated more harshly than others who have committed similar crimes.
Perjury cases are rarely prosecuted by the Justice Department according to Jenkins:
It charged just 99 people with the crime in 2006, out of more than 88,000 federal defendants. Between 2001 and 2006, 566 perjury cases were filed — about 1 percent of all criminal charges. Cases brought before the federal criminal justice system are supposed to be top-notch in quality, and of overriding size and importance.
Unless, of course, the defendant is famous.
Prosecuting trivial lies by the likes of Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Marion Jones in federal court is highly unusual. This is especially true when serious lies have been told to Congress with no perjury charges:
We’ve learned a few things from the Congressional hearings on Roger Clemens and anabolic steroids. Roger Clemens is not very smart. And his attorney Rusty Hardin is an idiot. From the very beginning, I thought that Hardin should be fired.
Hardin allows Clemens to wait several days before responding to allegations of steroid and growth hormone use in the Mitchell Report. Hardin prepped Clemens for his terrible performance on 60 Minutes where he: (1) admitted the hypocritical use of various other performance-enhancing drugs that enabled him to continue playing while masking pain of his injuries; (2) offered idiotic explanations as proof that he never used steroids; and (3) admitted to allowing a non-medical professional inject him with B-12 and lidocaine. Hardin compared Clemens’ drug use to a high performance racehorse (apparently oblivious to the problem of steroids in horse racing). Hardin apparently preps Clemens to secretly record a phone conversation with Brian McNamee and hold a press conference to share it with the media even though it proved nothing. Hardin stands by as Clemens releases statistical report that supposedly proves he didn’t use steroids but fails to accomplish its goal. And lastly, Representative Henry Waxman apologizes for holding the disastrous Roger Clemens steroid hearings, explaining that the only reason he did it was because Clemens’ attorneys insisted upon it. Read the rest of this entry »
Source: Wikipedia