Steroids Blog on Steroids RX.com

The California Governor Distances Himself from Steroids but Continues His Unwavering Support of Bodybuilding

Journalists prepare to confront California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger with the “steroid issue” as he prepares for the 21st Annual Arnold Classic bodybuilding contest next month in Columbus. This has become an annual event for the media who are obsessed with attacking Arnold’s association with a sport that has become synonymous with anabolic steroids and performance enhancing drugs.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, recognizing his political vulnerability when standing on stage with top professional bodybuilders, has preemptively re-affirmed his opposition to illegal anabolic steroids in the weeks leading up to one of bodybuilding’s premier contests. Schwarzenegger condemned athletes who make the mistake of using steroids on CNN’s ‘State of the Union with John King’, “I think they need to come out, be clean, and say look, I used that, I made a mistake, or whatever it is and the sports ought to be without drugs”.

Schwarzenegger’s connection to the steroid subculture of bodybuilding has been politically problematic from the moment he announced his political intentions as a California gubernatorial candidate to Jay Leno on the August 6, 2003 episode of The Tonight Show. After all, bodybuilding “by virtually everyone's account is totally saturated, immersed with illegal drug use," according to steroid epidemiologist Charles Yesalis from Penn State University.

Arnold’s previous use of anabolic steroids became a huge liability when the issue of steroids in sports exploded into the national consciousness when federal agents raided the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) less than a month later on September 3, 2003 in Burlingame, California. California voters didn’t care about Arnold’s steroid past and on October 7, 2003 elected him as the Governor of California.

The most affluent and most successful steroid user in history had skillfully managed to deflect criticisms of profiteering from his previous use of anabolic steroids. Many people feel that Schwarzenegger’s use of steroids as a competitive bodybuilder contributed to his dominance of the sport. His bodybuilding success in turn provided a platform from which Arnold launched a widely successful acting career. This opened the door for numerous political opportunities eventually leading to the Governor’s Office in Sacramento. "You have to ask, would Arnold Schwarzenegger be the successful person he is today without using those drugs?" asks Charles Yesalis.

Schwarzenegger has never denied his use of steroids. Arnold publicly admitted using anabolic steroids as a professional bodybuilder as early as 1974 and has never shied away from his steroid past. However, Arnold’s statements regarding anabolic steroids have become increasingly more “anti-steroid” particularly since he began his pursuit of political office.

Schwarzenegger’s statements have gone from being entirely unapologetic about his responsible and safe use of steroids to characterizing his steroid use as stupid experimentation due to ignorance. “It was stupid, because it was in the late ’60s, early ’70s when we didn’t know any better,” Arnold told Larry King during his gubernatorial campaign in 2003. “But then in the late ’70s and in the early ’80s, research was done and you found out that it’s actually damaging, that it causes side effects and it is bad for your health.” Arnold Schwarzenegger’s gubernatorial campaign spokesman Rob Stutzman explained that if Arnold “knew then what we know now, he wouldn’t have done [steroids].”

Arnold Schwarzenegger may have decided that taking an official anti-steroid position was the politically expedient thing to do, but he has never wavered in his support of the sport of bodybuilding. "It's where he came from and he’s proud of it," admits Schwarzenegger’s press secretary Margita Thompson. Schwarzenegger has jumped headfirst into the steroid-fueled media fire-storm every year that the Governor has made an appearance onstage at the Arnold Classic. "Whether it's sports, whether it's business or whether it's politics, I will always be involved in the sport of bodybuilding," promises the bodybuilder, actor, and Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Sources

“Schwarzenegger: Steroid Use Sends Bad Message,” February 22, 2009

“Return to Bodybuilding Roots Pumps Up the Gov.,” March 5, 2006

“The muscle marketplace - Schwarzenegger raps steroid use, but the Arnold Classic remains a showcase for drug-enhanced 'freak' physiques,” February 20, 2005

“Schwarzenegger linked to contests with steroids - Questions raised over his campaign against use,” October 1, 2003

By Millard Baker

http://www.millardbaker.com

www.SteroidsRx.com

Steroid Dealer Sentenced to 33 Months in Prison with Slap on Wrist for Child Porn

The owner of an illicit underground steroid laboratory in Canada was sentenced to 33 months in prison on various steroid-related charges that involved importing, smuggling, possession, exporting, producing, and trafficking anabolic steroids. Under the “proceeds of crime” legislation in Canada, Kevin Wayne Tanner of Illusion Labs forfeited $16,576 Scotia McLeod investment account, $35,485 and $9,210 in cash in Canadian and U.S. currency, respectively. The government also seized Tanner’s home even though his parents provided $58,500 for the down payment on the Bridgewater home; the government also took possession of a 2005 Pontiac Pursuit even though it was purchased for a former girlfriend. In addition, Tanner owes the Canada Revenue Agency over $50,000 on the proceeds of his illegal steroid business. Canada Revenue is assessing GST (Goods and Services Tax) and HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) as if Illusion Labs were a legitimate business.

During the course of the 15-month investigation of Illusion Labs, a forensic analysis of a computer hard drive seized from Tanner’s residence uncovered 638 photographs and two videos depicting child pornography in addition to another 73 photographs on removable media. Tanner’s defense attorney Alan Ferrier made an extremely weak attempt to explain the discovery of child pornography: Tanner had downloaded the images during “a very short period” of curiosity about child porn; furthermore 150 photographs were duplicates and only a few of the children were engaged in explicit sexual acts.

There is the expectation that sentencing should be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime and the harm caused by the crime. Therefore, one would expect harsh sentencing for a child pornography conviction from Judge Anne Crawford especially given the draconian sentencing for Tanner’s steroid-related crimes. Instead, Judge Crawford gave Tanner the proverbial “slap on the wrist” for his brief indulgence into child pornography. Tanner was sentenced to only two months imprisonment for child porn crime. The two-month sentence was not even added onto the end of his steroid-related sentence; Tanner was permitted to serve the child porn sentence concurrently. The possession of child pornography was not deemed as serious a crime as the distribution of anabolic steroids.

The Canadian government’s harsh sentencing in the case of Kevin Wayne Tanner sets a strong precedent for the seriousness of steroid distribution and trafficking in Canada. Steroid possession may be legal in Canada and harm reduction policies may be favored over the prohibitionist strategies in the United States but Canada believes steroids represent a serious threat to society nonetheless. On the other hand, the government all but dismissed the harm caused by caused by possession of child pornography. The Canadian government, or at least Judge Anne Crawford, disturbingly believes that anabolic steroids represent a greater threat to society than child pornography. Judge Crawford only expressed disappointment in court about Tanner’s involvement in an illegal steroid business.

"I don't envy you your position before the court today and what you're facing. For a young man who had such a brilliant future ahead of him to have destroyed it in this way for what I can only say was short-term gain is a very sad thing for this court to behold," Judge Crawford lectured Tanner. "You have a lot of talents and I believe you can rise again from this and become a responsible member of society."

The harsh steroid sentencing can be seen as a consequence of a global war on anabolic steroids, spearheaded by the United States, which seeks to demonize and criminalize steroids. But it is difficult to understand how steroid-related crimes can be seen as more harmful than child pornography.

One line of reason might suggest that the harm caused by child pornography is indirect and/or abstract since the simple act of downloading child pornography does not mean that the individual necessarily produced, profited from or stimulated demand for illicit pornography. In other words, the individual who has accessed the pornography has not done direct harm to the children depicted in the images.

This belief is contrary to the prevailing legal opinions about child pornography in several countries, including the United States. This line of reasoning is outlined in the Adam Walsh Act, "Every instance of viewing images of child pornography represents a renewed violation of the privacy of the victims and a repetition of their abuse."

The misplaced priorities in the criminal justice system are highlighted by the disparity in sentencing of Kevin Wayne Tanner on anabolic steroid charges and, separately, on child pornography charges. Tanner’s illegal underground steroid lab was the subject of a 15-month investigation involving Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), local Canadian Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP); Illusion Labs was also targeted by law enforcement in the United States including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. Federal agencies in at least two countries spent untold amounts of money to prosecute Tanner on steroid charges.

The prosecution related to child pornography charges was almost an afterthought. The illegal images were accidentally discovered and the Court felt it only deserved a two-month concurrent sentence which did not effectively add any time to Tanner’s 33-month steroid-related imprisonment.

The Canadian criminal justice system needs to objectively re-evaluate the relative harm involved with the possession of child pornography compared with the distribution of anabolic steroids and adjust the sentencing accordingly.

Sources

“Steroids dealer sent to prison,” February 17, 2009

“Illicit Steroid-Producing Labs Find it Impossible to Hide,” February 2, 2009

“Steroid lab made at least $200000, paper trail shows,” January 15, 2009

"H.R. 4472 — Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (pdf). Legislative Notice. U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee. 2006.

By Millard Baker

http://www.millardbaker.com

www.SteroidsRx.com

Center for the Study of Retired Athletes Panders to Anti-Steroid Propaganda with Flawed Study

A recent survey of retired NFL football players reported that 9.1% of 2,552 former players used anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS). The researchers reported a strong association or correlation between anabolic steroids and musculoskeletal injury (MSI); the steroid-hysterical media interpreted this to mean anabolic steroids cause musculoskeletal injury. Specifically, researchers only found an association between steroids and a specific type of MSI - joint and cartilaginous injuries. Contrary to expectations, there was NO association between steroids and tendon and muscle injuries. Very few news and media outlets reported that finding!

The survey was conducted by Kevin Guskiewicz, PhD, the professor of exercise and sport science at the University of North Carolina and the research director of the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes, and his colleagues at the center. They made the following conclusions in a paper entitled "Self-reported anabolic-androgenic steroids use and musculoskeletal injuries: Findings from the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes health survey of retired NFL players”:

“Our findings demonstrate that an association may exist between anabolic-androgenic steroids use and the prevalence of reported musculoskeletal injury sustained during a professional football career, particularly ligamentous/joint-related injuries.”

Unfortunately, the researchers made conclusions that are not well-supported by their analyses. The survey was compromised by flawed methodology and various confounding variables.

The major flaw of the survey goes to the very survey question that is the basis for the research. The University of North Carolina researchers NEVER asked respondents about "anabolic steroids" or "anabolic-androgenic steroids"! They only referred to “performance-enhancing steroids”.

"During the time in which it was acceptable to use performance-enhancing steroids, did you use steroids?"

Frederick Fu, M.D., professor and chairman of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, was skeptical of the survey and concerned that respondents did not understand the questions. The broad and vague question could easily encompass corticosteroids and/or anabolic steroids. Both types of steroids can provide an athlete with "performance-enhancing" effects albeit by vastly different mechanisms of action. The lack of validity of this question makes it impossible to know for certain if researchers measured what they intended to measure i.e. anabolic-androgenic steroid use.

Were retired football players responding to “corticosteroid use” or “anabolic steroid use”? We do not know. Nonetheless, the researchers make the leap from "performance-enhancing steroids" to interpretations and conclusions involving "anabolic-androgenic steroids". The two phrases can not be used interchangeably as the authors did in their article.

As a result, the survey is confounded by a potential association between corticosteroids and musculoskeletal injury. The entire study is called into question due to the poorly worded survey item. Which group of athletes is most likely to use corticosteroids? Of course, it would be athletes with joint-related injuries. We do not know if an association between steroids and MSI involves (a) corticosteroids, (b) anabolic steroids or; (c) a combination of the two types of steroids. It is unknown why the researchers didn’t explicitly ask the following:

"During the time in which it was acceptable to use anabolic-androgenic steroids, did you use anabolic steroids?"

Another major flaw in the survey is the failure of researchers to control for body weight and/or body mass index (BMI) during data analysis. Which group of athletes is most likely to experience ligament and joint-related injuries? Of course, it would be the football players who weighed the most and had the highest BMI. The researchers acknowledged that the football players who used AAS were the ones with the highest BMI and played in positions requiring greater size and strength e.g. offensive line, tight end, etc. The researchers still did not control for this variable. Would the nature of the association between AAS and MSI be affected after controlling for the confounding variable of BW or BMI? We don’t know.

The most curious finding was the lack of ANY association between steroids and tendon and muscle injuries. The authors predicted beforehand that tendons would represent the “weakest link” and would be most susceptible to injury in anabolic-androgenic steroid users. Several studies, along with anecdotal evidence, have suggested that anabolic steroids could lead to collagen abnormalities and alterations in tendon elasticity; such changes could make the tendon vulnerable to injury since tendons are slower to adapt to steroid-induced increases in strength.

The research team modified their predictions accordingly to support the findings that anabolic steroids were NOT associated with tendon injury in this survey. The lead author Dr. Scott Horn suggested that it may be the ligaments/joints/cartilage, rather than muscle tendons, that represent the “weakest link in the chain”.

Sadly, it seems that the popular press has little interest in identifying the flaws in a survey about the use of anabolic steroids. They would rather report on a study that conforms to the message that anabolic steroids are dangerous drugs with harmful side effects. They welcome a nice sound bite pandering to anti-steroid. The media prefers to ignore the technical gobbledygook involving methodology and statistical analysis but loves finding the money quote happily provided, in this case, by Kevin Guskiewicz, “Our findings speak to the compounded medical problems that appear with steroid use, with negative effects on joint health starting a ‘snowball effect’ that can lead to other chronic diseases later in life”.

Anabolic steroids users may actually be predisposed to musculoskeletal injury. The proposed mechanisms by which this can occur seem plausible. But the “retired NFL player survey” is flawed and cannot support the conclusions that the researchers attempt to make.

Sources

“Steroid use may be linked to risk for some musculoskeletal diseases,” February 20, 2009

“NFL players who use steroids have more injuries,” February 20, 2009

References

Horn S. Gregory P, Guskiewicz KM. Self-reported anabolic-androgenic steroids use and musculoskeletal injuries: Findings from the Center for the Study of Retired Athletes health survey of retired NFL players. Am J Phys Med & Rehab. 88(3):192-200.

Center for the Study of Retired Athletes at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in affiliation with the National Football League's Players Association.

By Millard Baker

http://www.millardbaker.com

www.SteroidsRx.com

The Government’s Shameful Behavior in the Barry Bonds Steroid Inquisition

Prosecutors in the U.S. United States Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of California are increasingly showing signs of desperation in their steroid-related perjury case against Barry Bonds. Bonds has been the primary target of their far-reaching Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO) doping investigation. The former baseball player for the San Francisco Giants has come to symbolize the infamous steroid era in baseball. The challenge of bringing down Major League Baseball’s single-season and all-time home run leader Barry Bonds will commence in San Francisco federal court on March 2, 2009. Barry Bonds faces ten counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.

The government’s desperation has become increasingly apparent during the weeks leading up to the trial after federal prosecutors have failed to secure the critical testimony of Bonds’ personal trainer Greg Anderson. Prosecutors have recognized the importance of Anderson as a key government witness testifying against Bonds and have obsessively pursued his testimony obsessively to no avail. Judge Susan Illston has ruled significant pieces of evidence as inadmissible, including all three alleged positive steroid tests and doping calendars/ledgers, unless Anderson testifies to verify their authenticity.

Greg Anderson has been one of the few defendants who did not cooperate with the government’s BALCO investigation. Anderson pleaded guilty to steroid distribution in 2005 and served 3 months in prison and 3 months home confinement. Anderson refused to become a government witness as part of his plea agreement. Greg Anderson would not testify against Barry Bonds under any circumstances according to his attorney.

After he was released from prison for dealing steroids, Greg Anderson refused to testify before a grand jury investigating whether Barry Bonds committed perjury in statements regarding his use of anabolic steroids and performance enhancing drugs. U.S. District Judge William Alsup found Anderson in contempt of court and immediately sent him to prison in July 2006. He was released a couple of weeks later after the grand jury term expired without indicting Bonds.

Anderson was found in contempt of court again on August 29, 2006 when he again refused to testify before a new grand jury convened to investigate Barry Bonds’ alleged steroid-related perjury. Anderson spent over a year in Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin (California). He was released shortly after Barry Bonds was indicted on November 15, 2007. Federal prosecutors, at the time, felt they no longer needed Anderson to pursue their case against Bonds. Anderson’s attorney Mark Geragos was surprised, “Frankly I’m aghast. It looks like the government misled me and Greg as well, saying this case couldn’t go forward without him.”

The day after Anderson was released from prison for contempt of court, his wife Nicole Gestas received an intimidating “target letter” from prosecutors threatening to charge her with criminal conspiracy to commit a crime if she did not agree to cooperate with the feds. The U.S. Attorney’s office had already assigned an undercover agent to join the Powerhouse Gym in Redwood City where Gestas is employed while her husband was in prison. The objective of the undercover agent was to “befriend her” and unsuspectingly encourage Gestas to talk about Barry Bonds. The covert operation was unsuccessful.

The San Francisco federal prosecutors continued their intimidation tactics when they threatened to charge Anderson’s mother-in-law with financial crimes when they raided the home of Madeleine Gestas on January 28, 2009. There was apparently a clear understanding that if Anderson testified against Barry Bonds, then the investigation against Gestas would be dropped.

Charles J. Smith, Nicole Gesta’s attorney expressed concern to the New York Daily News that the government would violate their own prosecutorial standards and go after Greg Anderson’s wife and mother-in-law to get him to testify against Barry Bonds.

“There are violations that both Nicole and Madeleine are worried about. They are matters that I don’t believe would rise to the level they would prosecute under the current standards of the U.S. Attorney’s office. But in this circumstance, perhaps they’ll ignore their own standards to prosecute Madeleine or her daughter to get what they want.”

“Fundamentally it is unfair that the government, in efforts to get Barry Bonds, would threaten Nicole and her mother to try to get Anderson to testify against Bonds. I’ve been an attorney for 32 years. I was a prosecutor for 10 years. But I have never heard anything like this. It’s mean-spirited. It really is mean-spirited.”

Mark Geragos, Greg Anderson’s attorney, was ashamed of the desperate and despicable actions by the government.

"The day after Greg was released, they sent a target letter to his wife. Almost 30 days before the trial, they now execute a search warrant at his mother-in-law's house. This is coming on the heels of a letter they wrote me two days ago, demanding to know whether or not he was contingent to testify. I'm ashamed of my government. Even the mafia spares the women and children. It's nothing more than cheap theatrics and frankly, disgusting tactics. It's blatant intimidation."

Even U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, the presiding judge in the Bonds case, has become irritated with prosecutors’ ridiculous pursuit of Greg Anderson’s testimony.

She uncharacteristically raised her voice when she asked the assistant United States attorney Matt Parrella if he could find a case “where someone was put in prison for a year” then released, refused to testify at trial “and is jailed again.”

“Have you ever found that?” she asked.

When Parrella said he knew of no such example, the judge responded: “Neither have I.”

Greg Anderson again faces contempt of court charges and could go to prison for a third time on the same charge for the duration of the Bonds trial. If the government proves that they can not make their case against Bonds without Anderson’s testimony, he could face criminal contempt of court which carries a significant longer penalty than civil contempt of court. Anderson’s lawyer has told reporters that his client’s defense team will be prepared for any and all possible consequences.

The significance of a successful conviction of Barry Bonds for prosecutors can not be understated. The San Francisco division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office has spent $55 million and counting in their dubious effort at making an example out steroid users in sports, specifically Barry Bonds. The San Francisco office is the agency most responsible for the morally inspired steroid witch-hunt against steroid use in professional sports. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Francisco has been building its case against Barry Bonds for almost five years utilizing every last moment of time permitted under the five year statute of limitations. In spite of spending so much time and money, the case is surprisingly weak and in most other circumstances would not go to trial. But the government is desperate and has resorted to questionable tactics in their continuing steroid witch-hunt against Barry Bonds.

The actions of the U.S. United States Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of California are reprehensible.

Sources

“Judge rules some evidence inadmissible,” February 19, 2009

“Wife of Bonds’s Trainer Backed Out of Deal to Cooperate,” February 18, 2009

“Greg Anderson subpoenaed to Barry Bonds trial; Trainer's mother-in-law's home raided,” January 28, 2009

“Family of Bonds’s Trainer Feeling More Pressure,” August 29, 2009

“Judge orders Anderson released from prison,” November 15, 2007

“Greg Anderson held in contempt, returned to jail,” August 29, 2006

“Bonds’ Trainer Sent to Prison,” July 6, 2006

By Millard Baker

http://www.millardbaker.com

www.SteroidsRx.com

Did the Government Illegally Leak Evidence Linking A-Rod to Steroids?

Alex Rodriguez, the Major League Baseball’s (MLB) highest paid player, allegedly tested positive for anabolic steroids in 2003 according to a report by Sports Illustrated (SI) reporters Selena Roberts and David Epstein. The ongoing steroid witch hunt has, for all intents and purposes, finally taken down baseball’s $275 million man. While this may be troubling for baseball fans, government watchdogs are concerned that government officials may have illegally leaked the name of Alex Rodriguez to SI. Furthermore, a federal court may ultimately decide that the government seizure of Alex Rodriguez’ positive steroid test itself may have been illegal.

Rodriguez has survived virtually unscathed by steroid allegations during the contemporary steroids in baseball hysteria. The much maligned whistleblower Jose Canseco did everything he could to implicate A-Rod in his book entitled Vindicated. “Hell, if you ask me, I did everything but inject the guy myself," Canseco wrote; but few people found the allegations credible given the lack of any first-hand evidence by Canseco.

Four anonymous sources confirmed to SI that Rodriguez tested positive for testosterone use (elevated testosterone:epitestosterone ratio) and Primobolan (methenolone) in 2003 as part of a player drug testing program.

A collective bargaining agreement between Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and the MLB Commissioner resulted in steroid testing for baseball players for the first time in 2003. The MLB’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program introduced non-disciplinary and anonymous steroid testing that would result in mandatory steroid testing ONLY if the number of players testing positive exceed 5% of the samples. The players were promised that they could not be penalized as a result of a positive test result in 2003. The anonymous testing resulted in 104 steroid positives. This number exceeded the threshold for the mandatory testing provision. The collective bargaining agreement called for the positive samples to be destroyed. This did not happen for unknown reasons.

The MLB list of steroid positives was seized by the federal agents during a raid of Comprehensive Drug Testing Incorporated (CDT) in Long Beach. CDT is the company responsible for steroid testing under the MLB joint drug program. The search warrant was executed as part of the investigation into the distribution of performance-enhancing drugs by the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO) to MLB players; specifically, federal agents were seeking information on 10 MLB players when they stumbled upon a spreadsheet listing of 104 players testing positive.

The Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), led by lead attorney Ethan Atticus Balogh, promptly sued the United States government for illegally seizing the list of steroid positive players and samples. The super-secret list of name of 104 MLB baseball players who tested positive for anabolic steroids has remained a closely guarded secret since the judge imposed a gag order against all parties legally involved in the case. The case of Major League Baseball Players v. United States of America has reached the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where arguments were heard by an eleven member panel of judges in December 2008.

There are strong indications that the Court will rule against the government seizure of MLB steroid users.

Judge Milan Smith was quoted in that story saying the idea that the government is allowed to seize computer databases containing all types of information while on narrowly focused investigations "would probably be frightening to the public because there's no end to it."

Alex Rodriguez is only one out of 104 baseball players on the list of individuals who tested positive for anabolic steroid use. Only a handful of individuals could have leaked Rodriguez’ name including the federal government, MLBPA, Alex Rodriguez, or friend, family, business associates or teammates of Rodriguez. Some speculate that the most likely source of the leak is a federal official(s). Perhaps, the government is frustrated that they’ve spent of $50 million dollars on a steroid investigation that has produced very few results aside from a few lenient sentences.

One would be hopeful that there would be significant outrage at such an irresponsible waste of taxpayer resources on a ridiculous witch-hunt especially during a troubled economic times. But thus far the government has apparently not underestimated the number of Americans who feel anabolic steroids in sports are a major threat facing our nation.

Sources

“Sources tell SI Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003,” February 7, 2009

“One BIG question remains: Who ratted out Alex Rodriguez?,” February 9, 2009

“Fate of steroid test list mired in ongoing court battle,” February 8, 2009

“Result for Rodriguez Revives Testing Controversy,” February 8, 2009

By Millard Baker

http://www.millardbaker.com

www.SteroidsRx.com