William Spencer Topham. Muscle Melee: Redefining Anabolic Steroid Policy In A Post-“Great Recession” Economy. WILLAMETTE SPORTS LAW JOURNAL 2010;44(7):44-56.
On September 24, 2009, federal authorities executed a search warrant on a sports supplement website’s warehouse in Boise, Idaho.1 The nutrition company, BodyBuilding.com (the “Website”), was charged with selling dietary supplements containing anabolic steroids and designer anabolic steroids (“steroids”). The raid was part of an ongoing effort by the Food and Drug Administration to regulate companies that sell anabolic steroids masked as dietary supplements.2 Ironically, the Website is not an outlier illuminated from a dark corner of the worldwide web (where crazed steroid fiends go to get a “fix”). In fact, the Website is the world’s largest bodybuilding and fitness website, boasting over one million “forum” members and a controlling ownership (purchased for $100 million in 2008) maintained by Liberty Media, a conglomerate that owns the Atlanta Braves and QVC.3
As has been the case with much of the “War on Drugs,” criminally enforcing a ban on the use of steroids (the “Policy”) as Schedule III drugs in the United States has failed.4 The rise of dangerous and unregulated grey market alternatives and underground laboratory production are proof of that. The main arguments historically posed against responsible steroid use by adults focus on (1) teenage access to the drugs if decriminalized or legalized, and (2) use in sports to create an unfair advantage. While each argument is separately considered, modern market realities vitiated much of their appeal.
First, with increasing accessibility to capsule form steroids and “pro-hormones,” it seems intuitive that teens now have much greater access to more dangerous versions of popular steroids. The hypothetical “little Jimmy” high school football player can now order unregulated—and, in many cases, mislabeled—steroids from any number of online retailers with next-day shipping.5 Although federal raids occur, rendering certain substances illegal, inventive chemists, driven by enormous profits, continue to produce novel and exotic compounds.6 Second, steroid use in professional sports has historically been one of the main reasons to continue steroids prohibition; however, use of steroids and human growth hormone (“HGH”) in professional sports has skyrocketed in recent years and does not seem to be declining.7
Aside from these issues looms the corollary question: whether anabolic steroids actually pose such a risk to society that prohibition should continue—contrary to current medical knowledge— specifically when heavily documented dangers such as cigarettes and fast food continue to poison the American population on a daily basis.8 Finally, the current economic situation facing the U.S. (and future economic prospects in a globalized marketplace) raises the question of whether it makes sense to continue allocating funds to steroid enforcement at federal, state, and local government levels. This article considers each of these questions, and argues that steroids (although subject to continual media hype and fear mongering) do not pose the inordinate public health risk necessary to justify continued spending on enforcement. Instead, we should allocate such resources to more critical societal needs.
Continue Reading . . . http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/journals/sportslaw/documents/Spring%202010%20-%20Topham.pdf
On September 24, 2009, federal authorities executed a search warrant on a sports supplement website’s warehouse in Boise, Idaho.1 The nutrition company, BodyBuilding.com (the “Website”), was charged with selling dietary supplements containing anabolic steroids and designer anabolic steroids (“steroids”). The raid was part of an ongoing effort by the Food and Drug Administration to regulate companies that sell anabolic steroids masked as dietary supplements.2 Ironically, the Website is not an outlier illuminated from a dark corner of the worldwide web (where crazed steroid fiends go to get a “fix”). In fact, the Website is the world’s largest bodybuilding and fitness website, boasting over one million “forum” members and a controlling ownership (purchased for $100 million in 2008) maintained by Liberty Media, a conglomerate that owns the Atlanta Braves and QVC.3
As has been the case with much of the “War on Drugs,” criminally enforcing a ban on the use of steroids (the “Policy”) as Schedule III drugs in the United States has failed.4 The rise of dangerous and unregulated grey market alternatives and underground laboratory production are proof of that. The main arguments historically posed against responsible steroid use by adults focus on (1) teenage access to the drugs if decriminalized or legalized, and (2) use in sports to create an unfair advantage. While each argument is separately considered, modern market realities vitiated much of their appeal.
First, with increasing accessibility to capsule form steroids and “pro-hormones,” it seems intuitive that teens now have much greater access to more dangerous versions of popular steroids. The hypothetical “little Jimmy” high school football player can now order unregulated—and, in many cases, mislabeled—steroids from any number of online retailers with next-day shipping.5 Although federal raids occur, rendering certain substances illegal, inventive chemists, driven by enormous profits, continue to produce novel and exotic compounds.6 Second, steroid use in professional sports has historically been one of the main reasons to continue steroids prohibition; however, use of steroids and human growth hormone (“HGH”) in professional sports has skyrocketed in recent years and does not seem to be declining.7
Aside from these issues looms the corollary question: whether anabolic steroids actually pose such a risk to society that prohibition should continue—contrary to current medical knowledge— specifically when heavily documented dangers such as cigarettes and fast food continue to poison the American population on a daily basis.8 Finally, the current economic situation facing the U.S. (and future economic prospects in a globalized marketplace) raises the question of whether it makes sense to continue allocating funds to steroid enforcement at federal, state, and local government levels. This article considers each of these questions, and argues that steroids (although subject to continual media hype and fear mongering) do not pose the inordinate public health risk necessary to justify continued spending on enforcement. Instead, we should allocate such resources to more critical societal needs.
Continue Reading . . . http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/journals/sportslaw/documents/Spring%202010%20-%20Topham.pdf
