Steroids Blog on Steroids RX.com

The Media Overlooked Questionable Tactics of Star Witness in the Quest for a Blockbuster StoryThe Media Overlooked Questionable Tactics of Star Witness in the Quest for a Blockbuster Story

The case of the United States of America v. Barry Lamar Bonds was scheduled to begin on Monday, March 2, 2009. However, federal prosecutors desperately filed a last-minute appeal against an evidentiary ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in order to postpone the trial until as late as next year. Prosecutors faced a major problem when they were unable to secure Barry Bonds’ trainer, Greg Anderson, as a key witness in their steroid-related perjury case. Prosecutors’ star witness going into the trial was former IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky. This was why the government’s case against Barry Bonds was doomed.

The general public has been caught by surprise with news of the incredibly weak case against Barry Bonds. The government’s case against Barry Bonds had its hero and its villain. Barry Bonds was the rude and arrogant baseball player who cheated the integrity of baseball with the use of anabolic steroids to shatter sacred records. As much as Bonds inspired hatred, scorn and condemnation, Jeff Novitzky was adulated as the country’s most persistent and determined hero in the war against steroids in sports. Novitzky was “an unlikely contender for the role of the Eliot Ness of the steroids age” according to the New York Times. The media loved Jeff Novitzky as he aggressively investigated high-profile athletes around the country who were suspected of using steroids.

The public’s admiration for Novitzky increased as politicians jumped on the anti-steroid bandwagon to support the steroids in sports investigation. Former President George W. Bush gave his tacit support to the investigation by talking about steroids during his 2004 State of the Union Address. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft paid tribute to the steroid investigations by a special press conference to announce the BALCO indictments.

Unfortunately, Jeff Novitzky was not what he seemed. The San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams published stories implicating several athletes in the systematic use of performance-enhancing drugs. The stories leaked testimony that demonized baseball players such as Barry Bonds. But the stories, intentionally or unintentionally, omitted the other side of the story that including the questionable actions and alleged misconduct and wrongdoing by Jeff Novitzky.

Very few reporters dared to criticize Novitzky. After all, there was “something simply un-American” about steroid use in sports according to then-Senator Joseph Biden. During the presidency of George W. Bush, criticizing the government was not only frowned upon but considered unpatriotic.

A few sports writers had the courage to go against the prevailing journalistic wisdom and report the “other side of the story.” Jonathan Littman, sports writer for Yahoo Sports, followed up on several allegations made by BALCO mastermind Victor Conte. Littman’s investigative reported highlighted several issues that had been ignored or overlooked by most of his colleagues.

Jonathan Littman interviewed all three of the original lawmen who were assigned to the BALCO / Barry Bonds investigation and worked alongside Special Agent Novitzky. Iran White, an agent with the California's Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement (BNE) in San Jose, and two other un-named law enforcement agents told Littman that Novitzky expressed extreme hatred for Barry Bonds at the exclusion of other athletes that were similarly implicated such as Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield. Novitzky was obsessed with bringing down Bonds. The prospect of catching Bonds was used by Novitzky to lure other law enforcement agencies into supporting his investigation.

Novitsky’s credibility was hurt when three lawmen alleged that Jeff Novitzky discussed cashing in on a book deal or movie adaptation of his role in the largest steroid scandal in sports history. These allegations were corroborated by private investigators working with Barry Bonds’ defense team who also interviewed White and the two other drug task force agents who worked with Novitzky during the early stages of the investigation. Novitzky denied the allegations in a sworn court declaration; he alleged that any such statements were made in jest and his words "might have been misconstrued."

Victor Conte, and several others implicated in the BALCO investigation, accused Novitzky of potentially committing criminal misconduct with acts ranging from falsifying investigative reports to illegally coercing statements to improperly serving search warrants during the raid.

"It's my opinion that Novitzky is to law enforcement, what I was to sport. I helped athletes to use drugs, win medals and break records. I believe Novitzky has helped law enforcement to lie, steal and cheat in order to win cases,” according to Victor Conte. “In both instances, the real question is whether or not the end has justified the means. It's my opinion that it has not, in either case. What's wrong is wrong and there is no justification for wrongdoing in sport or in law enforcement."

Jeff Novitsky alleged that Victor Conte provided a list of names, including that of Barry Bonds, who he had provided with performance enhancing drugs. Conte stated that the list was entirely fabricated by Novitzky.

Apparently, Jeff Novitzky also forgot to serve the search warrant prior to the BALCO raid; Conte claims the warrant wasn’t served until after the raid had been completed. The detailed notes of IRS special agent Wendy Bergland supported Conte’s assertion.

Bergland’s memorandum also revealed a missing period of time totaling 53 minutes that did not appear in the official government report. Conte alleges that Jeff Novitzky aggressively pressured him to testify against implicated athletes suggesting that he wear a wire.

Judge Susan Illston, the presiding judge in the Barry Bonds case, characterized some of Novitzky’s actions in his raid of Comprehensive Drug Testing (CDT) as a "callous disregard" for constitutional rights. Novitzky’s raided CDT presumably to obtain evidence against Barry Bonds and a few other baseball players suspected of steroid use. Instead, he seized all of the lab reports and samples from all 104 baseball players who tested positive for prohibited substances. Judge Illston and three appeals judges demanded that Novitzky return the evidence; Novitzky refused.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) opened an investigation into Jeff Novitzky and his fellow agents arising from missing evidence seized from Greg Anderson’s house; $600 of the $63,920 disappeared after being confiscated from the residence of Barry Bonds’ trainer. "Novitzky and three other IRS special agents hired lawyers and signed proffers before cooperating with the investigation," according to Victor Conte. "There were inconsistencies with some of the statements. It was acknowledged in the report that the investigation could cause credibility issues for the agents if the BALCO case ever went to trial."

No legal action has been taken against Special Agent Novitzky for any alleged improprieties. But Jeff Novitzky’s questionable tactics during the BALCO-related interrogations will likely cause considerable credibility issues for the government’s star witness when he takes the stand against Barry Bonds

"Certainly how the investigation was carried out very well could be part of the defense's case down the road… if the lawyers can make a case for relevance,'' according to Robert D. Richards, a professor of journalism and law at Pennsylvania State University.

The desperation of federal prosecutors in the Bonds case comes as a surprise to many readers. Fortunately, there are a few journalists, like Jonathan Littman, who ignored the popular anti-steroid bandwagon of reporters, and pursued the allegations made against Jeff Novitzky by Victor Conte and others. Their objectivity has restored integrity to an era of investigative journalism consumed by steroid hysteria.

Sources

“The Federal Government Delays Barry Bonds Trial by Filing Appeal,” March 2, 2009

“The Persecution of Barry Bonds,” February 27, 2009

“Who's on trial in the Bonds case? Not just Barry,” February 10, 2009

“BALCO founder Victor Conte has tell-all book ready,” March 30, 2008

“Novitzky's reach goes from BALCO to Clemens,” January 8, 2008

“The Exclusive Inside Story of the BALCO Steroids Investigation and the Government’s Attempt to Bring Down Barry Bonds,” May 2004

By Millard Baker

http://www.millardbaker.com

www.SteroidsRx.com

Hapless Prosecutors Compared to “Keystone Cops” and “Three Stooges”

Prosecutors in the United States Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of California have appealed an evidentiary ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston barring significant pieces of evidence as inadmissible. Judge Illston said she was forced to postpone the trial indefinitely while the case heads to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The government’s appeal appears to be a tacit acknowledge of the significantly weak case they currently have against Barry Bonds in the steroid-related perjury case.

Judge Susan Illston has ruled significant pieces of evidence as inadmissible, including all three positive steroid tests and doping calendars, unless Barry Bonds’ trainer Greg Anderson testifies to verify their authenticity. Prosecutors have repeatedly failed to secure the critical testimony of Anderson after prolonged intimidation and threats. Anderson has consistently refused to testify against the baseball slugger and has been willing to go to prison for over a year on two separate contempt of court charges. Anderson confirmed to Judge Illston on Friday that he would not testify in the Bonds’ trial.

"Apparently, the prosecutors are now desperately trying to buy time to find a way out of the nightmare they have created for themselves,” said Victor Conte, the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO) mastermind. “It seems that they are beginning to look like the Three Stooges." But not everyone was laughing at the bumbling, hapless prosecutors in San Francisco who stand on the verge of blowing the most significant sports trial in history.

District Judge Illston was noticeable irritated when U.S. Assistant Attorney Matthew Parrella notified her of the government’s decision to appeal her ruling. "We are ready to go. We have 90 jurors coming in on Monday.” Judge Illston chastised Parrella for his last minute delay tactic, “We have made enormous accommodations. It will be an enormous expense in resources if the trial doesn't begin as planned." Obviously, the U.S. Attorney’s Office could care less about wasting additional government funds after having already spent $55 million dollars in their BALCO doping investigation.

Legal experts believe the appeal is a sure sign of desperation by the government since Judge Illston’s ruling on the evidence is solid. "I am amazed that they are doing this," remarked Golden Gate University law professor Peter Keane. "It's a very foolish move on the government's part. It has no chance of succeeding." The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will almost certainly defer to Judge Illston.

"The government is so desperate. It's actually quite hilarious. They can't get this guy into custody, they can't get their trial off the ground. It's like the Keystone Cops," said Mark Geragos, attorney for Greg Anderson, mocking federal prosecutors. "They go out of their way to piss [District Judge Susan Illston] off too. Generally in federal court, I found that that's not a good idea."

Prosecutors had already “piss[ed] off” Judge Illston earlier this month with their ridiculous and unsuccessful pursuit of Greg Anderson’s testimony. Assistance U.S. Attorney Matthew Parrella was also the target of Illston’s ire as she uncharacteristically raised her voice in frustration at the government’s actions.

The tactic by federal prosecutors automatically postpones the Bonds trial for several months and perhaps until next year. This gives the government more time to put together a case against Barry Bonds. Sadly, the government’s case is incredibly weak even after spending several million dollars over the course of seven years. Perhaps, the U.S. Attorney’s will continue its shameful and embarrassing intimidation campaign against Greg Anderson’s wife and mother-in-law hoping to get Anderson to testify against Barry Bonds?

The American public should prepare to see Barry Bonds exonerated. The government, with such a weak case based on circumstantial evidence, is only delaying the inevitable by going to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The perjury related charges do not even involve a factual dispute. Barry Bonds has not contested that he used anabolic steroids. This is not disputed by the government. The government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, Barry Bonds’ state of mind. It is considerably more challenging to prove what Bonds thought he was doing.

If the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of California is lucky, the case will never go to trial and they will be spared some embarrassment by avoiding a courtroom disaster. Perhaps, President Barrack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will intervene and end the prosecution of Barry Bonds. The Obama administration has stated that is does not believe it is the role of the federal government to police steroids in sports. Whatever the outcome of the United States of America versus Barry Lamar Bonds case, it will likely mark the crescendo of the steroid witch-hunt by the government.

Sources

“Barry Bonds trial could be delayed as prosecution appeals evidence ban,” February 28, 2009

“Barry Bonds trial postponed after prosecutors decide to appeal judge's ruling,” February 27, 2009

By Millard Baker

http://www.millardbaker.com

www.SteroidsRx.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