“The [NASCAR] community polices the community,” Helton added in an interview with The Associated Press. “The positiveness of all the drivers talking and everything, I think, echoes the responsibility that exists in this sport to avoid all that and to police all that. That’s why we think that the reasonable suspicion policy works as an umbrella from a NASCAR perspective.”

Commentator David Caraviello went a step farther, not only defending the “reasonable suspicion” drug testing policy, but also asserting that NASCAR does not have any type of problem with performance-enhancing drugs either (“Addressing a drug problem that is not a problem at all,” April 16).

The reason the Olympics began drug testing in 1976? Steroids. The reason the NFL began drug testing in 1990? Steroids. The reason tennis began drug testing in 1993? Steroids. The reason the NHL began drug testing in 2006? Steroids. The reason professional cycling conducts drug tests? Steroids. The reason the PGA Tour is implementing a drug-testing policy next year? Steroids. The reason for the recent upheaval in Major League Baseball? Steroids.

In each of those sports, the athlete can clearly benefit through the use of a performance-enhancing drug. Not so in NASCAR, where the raw skills are all bundled in reflex and nerve. Harvick can take all the tetrahydrogestrinone he wants, and it’s not going to help him with the Sprint Cup title.

While the performance enhancing benefit of anabolic steroids in NASCAR is questionable, Caraviello seems to pretend that the only type of performance enhancing drug is anabolic steroids. Obviously, this selective ignorance is self-serving in his argument against the implementation of anti-doping programs. There are no doubt several pharmaceuticals that can enhance the “raw skills… all bundled in reflex and nerve.” Just ask the U.S. military about performance enhancing drugs such as Provigil and Adderall that are mandatory for some fighter pilots.

But Caraviello is correct is stating that NASCAR is categorically different from football, baseball, basketball, etc. Perhaps NASCAR should consider a testing program that only tests fror pharmaceuticals and drugs that HURT performance. In most sports, a competitor who uses a drug that diminishes performance would be welcome to other competitors; in NASCAR, the use of such drugs may actually do more harm than good for other competitors by increasing the risk of serious injury and death. Ironically, the use of performance enhancing drugs that make fellow competitors better drivers might actually make the sport safer!

WADA says the out of competition testing for HGH will begin within weeks The test will be used at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Additionally, a WADA spokesperson says the the HGH screening kits will be used to analyze previously frozen blood samples from athletes.

The kits will allow doping authorities to analyze blood samples that have been frozen from earlier tests, Howman said.

Given WADA’s secrecy regarding the HGH screening kit, very little is known about the efficacy of the doping test. Daniel Rosen, author of Dope: A History of Performance Enhancement in Sports from the Nineteenth Century to Today, writes on his blog about the criteria for a truly effective human growth hormone test.

• Because most of us produce HGH naturally, the test must be able to effectively distinguish between natural and synthetic HGH. One possible way to do that would be through the use of carbon isotope ratio testing — although there is no guarantee that this technique would be used, or that it is the only method for making the distinction.

• The amount each individual produces is variable, so the criteria for a positive test must take that variability into account.

• Most people produce progressively less HGH as they age, so the amount that would be normally present in a 20-year-old will be different than for the same person at age 40, for example.

• The test should have been thoroughly vetted by peer review, and multiple studies with large enough test groups to draw statistically significant conclusions.

It remains to be seen how effective the HGH test will be. We will most likely learn after the first high profile case puts the new test in the spotlight.

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. 

The steroid testing trend in public high schools sweeping the nation appears to be permanently stalled in at least a few states.

The short history of steroid testing in public schools has yielded little, if anything. In the handful of local school districts that already test for steroids, no positive test has been reported. The same is true for limited state programs in Florida and New Jersey.

“It’s like looking for a needle in a haystack,” said Lloyd Johnston, a noted researcher at the University of Michigan. “My guess is that the payoff relative to the cost won’t be high.”

Some critics also question the state’s policy decision to go after steroids when the use of other illegal drugs, including marijuana, heroin and prescription drugs, is far more common among teenagers. The state’s steroid tests will cost up to $140 each, compared with $15 for most other drug tests.

Ms. Fox asked Texas State legislators about the statistically low probability (Lloyd Johnston’s “needle in a haystack” analogy) of catching steroid users. Legislators say catching steroid users wasn’t the primary objective anyway. The real goal of the steroid testing program is to serve as a deterrent for high school athletes considering the use of anabolic steroids.

Ms. Fox asks steroid prevention researcher, Linn Goldberg, M.D., about the deterrent effect of steroid testing in high schools:

Linn Goldberg, a national drug-testing expert and the head of the division of health promotion and sports medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, said “drug testing, as yet, is not a deterrent to use. There’s no evidence that it is.”

He called the Texas steroids program “a knee-jerk reflex so they can say they’re doing something.”

Dr. Goldberg’s study and another done in 2003 at the University of Michigan showed that drug testing did not have a significant effect on whether students continued to use drugs.

Although I don’t think Linn Goldberg is an uninterested, neutral observer in this debate, I do agree with his assessment of Texas’ steroid testing program.

I had the opportunity to ask Chris Bell about Arnold Schwarzenegger in a recent interview:

Arnold is an American hero. He’s a great success story. He can be an inspiration to anyone. He’s someone I’ve looked up to my whole life… But he’s on all these television talk shows and he’s saying we really need to do something about the drug testing in sports. He says it’s bad for the children and it sends the wrong message to the kids.

But then I turn the channel to the Arnold Classic where he’s handing Victor Martinez the trophy. He’s saying look at this guy – he’s so big, he’s so ripped, I’m so proud of him. He’s handing him the trophy but they didn’t test Victor Martinez [for steroids]… So here you have a guy who’s implicated in a steroid case, who got caught selling steroids to an undercover cop three years ago, he has done jail time for it and now he’s winning the Arnold Classic with Arnold is handing him the trophy…

I would love for Arnold to just stand up and say ‘hey look I did steroids and this is what it did for me – both good and bad.’ Just let me know. Talk to us. You’re the guy who did it. You did it for a long time. Now you’re in a position of power where you can speak about it. And speak about it honestly, honestly and openly.

I don’t want to hear what Governor Schwarzenegger has to say about it. I want to hear what Arnold has to say about it. Arnold the bodybuilder. Arnold who did it to enhance his performance and win competitions…

I wonder if anyone will ask Arnold Schwarzenegger to comment on this new steroid documentary. I expect it to be a popular topic of discussion at the Arnold Classic Bodybuilding Contest next month in Columbus, Ohio.

The study was done by Informed Choice, a nonprofit coalition of dietary supplements, and the analysis was conducted by the British company, HFL, to investigate levels of steroid and stimulant contamination in popular supplements available on the US market. The names of the supplements that were tested were not identified. This is most likely out of fear of legal action against them by any company should it be named in the study results.

Of course, the results shocked Travis Tygart, the CEO of the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). In recent years, the USADA has asserted, even in the absence of any hard data, that contamination of dietary supplements is not a problem for drug-tested athletes. He further claimed that no American athletes has tested positive for steroids due to contaminated supplements since 2004. He has called for Informed Choice to publish the names of the implicated supplement company so the “illegal activity” can be stopped.

Of course, such assertions have been made in the self-interest of the USADA rather than out of concern for athletes. The presence of undeclared banned substances in dietary supplements could lead the way for significant doubt about the guilt of athletes who fail drug tests, thereby making the job of the US Anti-Doping Agency significantly more difficult.

The present study is only further evidence of the quality control problems in the dietary supplement industry and the risks for competitive athletes subject to doping tests. In recent years, at least one athletes has successfully sued a supplement manufacturer. The IOC conducted a similar study between 2000 and 2002 that revealed 15% of dietary supplements purchased in various countries contained undeclared steroid and/or prohormone ingredients.

There are several explanations for the high incidence of steroids and stimulants found in sports supplements:

1. Intentional contamination. There have been allegations that some supplement companies may have added some undeclared ingredients, usually by the addition of a stimulant, so that the consumer actually “feels” that the product is working. The overall success of the sports nutrition supplement industry is largely due to the “placebo effect” – if the consumer “feels” something from the supplement, they think it is working. If they think it is working, it may actually have benefit (placebo) and they will continue to buy the product.
2. Cross-contamination. Many factories manufacturer various different categories of supplements in the same facility.  For example, ephedrine products may be processed on the same equipment as vitamin and mineral products; hormonal products may be processed on same line as protein powders. If the equipment is not cleaned properly, contamination could result.
3. Contaminated raw material. Supplement manufacturers often import raw materials from Asia, India and Eastern Europe. This could be contaminated with impurities.

Informed Choice Supplement Research Report (PDF)