Here is an excerpt from Patrick Arnold’s blog:

I also read about Lance Armstrong today. Apparently there is more evidence surfacing regarding his performance enhancing drug usage. Yeah, whoopee. Of course he doped. Everyone doped in the field of elite cycling. They still probably do, at least to whatever extent that they still can. This is reality. Prosecuting Lance Armstrong will not change that reality. Prosecuting all the dopers that he beat back in the day will not change that reality.

Read more at Patrick Arnold’s Blog: I Don’t Really Think I Should Talk About This But…

Methyltrienolone is a very toxic oral anabolic steroid. However, reports by the Athens News that methytrienolone killed 200 bodybuilders in the 1960s are ludicrous. Researchers at the University of Bonn (Germany) blocked its commercial release in 1966 due to its high hepatotoxicity (liver toxicity). Professor Demetrios Kouretas (Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology at the University of Thessaly) told Steroid Report he worked with the toxic steroid methyltrienolone as part of his postdoctoral thesis at the University of Harvard.

I remember when I was working with R1881( methyltrienolone) at Harvard in 1990, we were very particular with handling R1881 due to its lipophilicity and easy diffusion throught the skin. And you may think that when you work with steroids you must be very careful.

Steroid experts William Llewellyn (Molecular Nutrition) and Patrick Arnold (Ergopharm) have each called methyltrienolone one of the “most powerful” anabolic steroids ever created.

Arnold has told the Steroid Report that several athletes used methyltrienolone in the 1990s and were able to successfully pass doping controls looking for methyltrienolone due to the very small quantities of the steroid required for performance enhancing effects. He was somewhat surprised that methyltrienolone was detected by drug testers in the Greek Weightlifting steroid scandal suggesting anti-doping tests have improved for the substance.

Patrick Arnold is organic chemist who developed the once undetectable anabolic steroid tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) for BALCO. THG is a modified form of methyltrienolone.

The fact that Thomas was acquitted on two perjury charges is very significant. It may not be significant for Thomas, but it is significant in showing that the jury did not understand the law.

Basically, the jury determined that Tammy Thomas did NOT receive “banned or illegal performance-enhancing drugs” (i.e. legally-defined anabolic steroids) from Patrick Arnold. (Count 2)

They also determined that Tammy Thomas did NOT “ever get an anabolic steroid from anybody” (at least “up to the time of March 2002″). (Count 5)

But then they believed she was GUILTY of TAKING STEROIDS. (Count 4)

How did Tammy Thomas take steroids if she didn’t EVER get them from ANYBODY?!

The only other evidence of steorid use provided by the government was the medical testimony of virilization experienced by Thomas and the positive steroid test on March 14, 2002.

Concluding Thomas used anabolic steroids based on a positive steroid test for norbolethone is inconsistent with their verdict on other counts. The jury agreed that Thomas was GUILTY of receiving products from Patrick Arnold (which must refer THG and norobolethone since Arnold was the only person to have synthesized these substances at the time) but agreed with the defense that these were not “illegal or performance-enhancing” (i.e. NOT legally classified as anabolic steroids at the time). So how could the jury (theoretically and/or legally) use this as proof of steroid use if they determined that substances received from Patrick Arnold were not “illegal or performance-enhancing”?

Using evidence of virilization as proof of steroid use is also problematic due to the fact that there is and has been a legal definition of anabolic steroids and a pharmacological definition of anabolic steroids. (Much to the chagrin of prosecutors, their star witness Patrick Arnold offered testimony to this distinction in court.) There were dozens of “dietary supplements” that could legally be purchased at many sports nutrition stores prior to 2005 that could have caused significant virilization in women using significant dosages of these supplements. Certainly they were pharmacological androgens but they were not classified as anabolic steroids until the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 was enacted.

So, for the jury to accept the virilization as proof of steroid use (while at the same time accepting defense’s distinction between legal and pharmaceutical definition of anabolic steroids) is inconsistent.

The bottom line is that the jury was confused; they did not know or understand the law and rendered a factually and legally inconsistent verdict.

Is this good news for Tammy Thomas? No necessarily. Defense attorney Philip Sweitzer tells me California permits legally and factually inconsistent verdicts unlike many other states.

“Nor need a verdict be legally consistent. The jury’s prerogative to render a legally inconsistent verdict is unquestioned by any authority. Jury unanimity, not consistency of theory, is the touchstone of a valid verdict. [Citations.] . . . Once it is clear that the jury’s intent is to acquit, the form of the verdict is not important; it is the intention to acquit that triggers the mandatory duty to receive and record the verdict and acquit the prisoner.” (Bigelow, supra, 208 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 1134-1135.)

Now that perjury trial of Tammy Thomas has concluded, it will be interesting to see how the government’s “new anti-doping weapon” is used against Barry Bonds and other athletes.

I want to thank attorney Philip Sweitzer for sharing his legal knowledge on this case as well as many others.

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.

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?

While CNN is technically inaccurate, it is closer to the truth than Levin’s advocacy would suggest. From a consumer standpoint, I feel it is safer to assume that dietary supplements are unregulated. Most regulations are actually “post-marketing” measures i.e. very little prevents a new supplement from being sold in the marketplace.

I like the Dietary Health and Supplement Education Act (DSHEA) in principle too. But the supplement industry has abused and exploited DSHEA and utterly failed to self-regulate in the face of legislative challenges to DSHEA. It remains to be seen whether DSHEA is salvaged or systematically dismantled.

There is a reason that dozens of steroids have been and continue to be sold as dietary supplements for over a decade in the U.S.; DSHEA makes it legal. As long as supplement companies avoid certain claims and meet certain criteria well-known within the industry, the steroidal supplements can be introduced to the marketplace without “burdensome” requirements that the supplement company notify the government. This is the legacy of DSHEA.

At least one of the two most infamous designer steroids in the history of sport steroid scandals could have probably been legally sold as dietary supplements if they did not become scrutinized due to the spotlight of the BALCO steroids in baseball scandal i.e. tetrahydragestrinone aka THG aka “The Clear” and desoxymethyltestosterone aka DMT aka Madol synthesized by the convicted “father of prohormones” Patrick Arnold.

Pat Arnold’s indictment didn’t identify these so-called designer steroids as “anabolic steroids” because, legally, they were not. In response to the BALCO scandal, the FDA issued a press release on THG stating it was an “unapproved new drug” and not a “dietary supplement” to stop manufacturers who felt it met DSHEA criteria from selling it. (Actually, the latter steroid DMT was introduced into the marketplace but quickly (and voluntarily) pulled by its manufacturer shortly after the press associated it with the BALCO scandal and Patrick Arnold.)

THG and DMT did not legally become “anabolic steroids” until the passage of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004.

Several new steroid products are currently sold as dietary supplements legally and others illegally. But little is done about either due to the laissez faire regulation of the industry.

Furthermore, dietary supplements contaminated with steroids and stimulants continues to be a problem; for this reason alone I would be cautious about teenagers or children using any dietary supplement. Sadly, the supplement industry (or more accurately, several companies within the industry) are giving legislators every excuse to gut DSHEA.