BIDEN AND HATCH SEEK TO BAN DESIGNER STEROIDS

Discussion in 'Anything and Everything about dietary supplements' started by Coyote, Oct 25, 2003.

  1. Coyote

    Coyote New Member

    BIDEN AND HATCH SEEK TO BAN DESIGNER STEROIDS
    Bipartisan Bill Would Make Androstenedione and THG Schedule III Substances
    Friday, October 24, 2003

    WASHINGTON, DC -- Late last night U.S. Senators Joe Biden (D-DE) and Orrin
    Hatch (R-UT) introduced The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003, which will
    add androstenedione (also known as "andro"), tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), and
    other steroid precursors to the list of anabolic steroids that are
    classified as Schedule III controlled substances. Senators Charles Grassley
    (R-IA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are co-sponsors of the bill.

    Steroid precursors, or "pro-steroids," are chemically related to the
    substances scheduled in the 1990 Controlled Substances Act that made
    trafficking in steroids illegal. When ingested, these substances metabolize
    into testosterone or other illicit steroids. The United States Anti-Doping
    Agency, the group in charge of testing Olympic athletes for performance
    enhancing drugs, has called these products "the functional equivalent of
    steroids." Many physicians, parents and coaches have called for action
    against these dangerous products.

    "Products like andro and other pro-steroids are marketed to kids and young
    athletes as an effective way to increase muscle mass. However, I have
    serious concerns about the safety of these substances," said Biden. "The
    manufactures of these products are violating the spirit of the Controlled
    Substances Act and putting young people at risk." "I have been extremely
    frustrated by the lack of regulatory action on these performance-enhancing
    products," Hatch said. "For years, I have asked the FDA to explain how these
    dangerous products could be marketed freely to our teens, but I've never
    received an adequate response. Our hand has been forced - we must act to
    ensure no more young athletes are placed at risk."

    A 2001 survey conducted by Blue Cross Blue Shield's Healthy Competition
    Foundation indicated that approximately one million kids nationwide have
    used performance enhancing products. Many of these kids are unaware of the
    adverse effects these substances can have on their bodies. In addition to
    stunting growth, pro-steroid use can lead to a wide range of side effects -
    everything from increased blood pressure and elevated risk of heart attack
    to significant changes to sexual organs. As a result, andro and other
    steroid precursors have been banned by the International Olympic Committee,
    the National Football League, and the National Collegiate Athletics
    Association.

    "It is time we started being honest and calling andro and other steroid
    precursors what they really are: drugs. Performance enhancing drugs. They
    should be labeled as such. They should be treated as such and they should be
    controlled in the same manner as other anabolic steroids," concluded Biden.

    "Our major sports organizations are banning pro-steroids because they know
    what our kids don't: that these substances carry serious risks," Hatch
    added. "The federal government must take action. This bill will give our
    regulatory agencies the precise tools necessary to ensure that consumers
    have the choice of safe, health-enhancing products without these potentially
    dangerous side-effects."

    The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003 has four main components that will
    help protect young people from the dangers of pro-steroid abuse: First, it
    amends the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 by adding substances such as
    andro, THG, and their chemical cousins to the list of anabolic steroids
    controlled under the Controlled Substances Act and makes it easier for the
    DEA to add similar substances to that list in the future.

    Second, it directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review the Federal
    sentencing guidelines for crimes involving anabolic steroids and consider
    increasing them. Currently, the maximum sentence for offenses involving
    anabolic steroids is only 33 - 41 months for first time offenders. And to
    receive the maximum sentence an offender would have to have between 40,000
    and 60,000 units, which is defined as a 10 cc vial or 50 tablets.

    Third, the bill authorizes $15 million for the Secretary of Health and Human
    Services to award grants to public and non-profit entities to carry out
    science-based education programs in elementary and secondary schools to
    highlight the harmful effects of anabolic steroids.

    Finally, the bill provides $1 million to the Secretary of Health and Human
    Services to include questions about steroid use in the National Survey on
    Drug Use and Health, an annual survey to measure the extent of alcohol, drug
    and tobacco use in the United States.

    The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003 is strongly supported by a broad
    cross-section of the medical and sports communities. Organizations who have
    endorsed the bill include: The American Academy of Pediatrics, American
    Medical Association, Association of Tennis Professionals, Boys and Girls
    Clubs, The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Council for
    Responsible Nutrition, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Consumer
    Healthcare Products Association, Major League Baseball, The National
    Athletic Trainers Association, The National Collegiate Athletic Association,
    The National Football League, The National High School Athletic Coaches
    Association, National Nutritional Foods Association, American Herbal
    Products Association, United States Anti-Doping Agency, U.S. Olympic
    Committee, U.S. Soccer Federation, USA Cycling, USA Swimming, USA Track and
    Field, and The Utah Natural Products Alliance.
     
  2. Dianabol

    Dianabol Guest

    Until they apply the same control to tobacco and alcohol, whatever else they do is hypocrisy and under cue from the pharmaceutical big boys. They will be moving to take EC out of our hands too, and in return give us expensive, patented drugs that have worse side-effects than the proven (and cheap) EC combo.

    Still, for the price of pro-hormones, I'd rather have my doctor supervise my alleged loss of libido. Find a doctor you can pay for such service. It's a safer and perhaps, more cost-effective way to breach one's genetic limits if you can bargain a bulk-price for long-term service. Ask at your local gym if there's a doctor in the house. Usually, there is.

    It is nonsense to say that steroids in sports is unfair. If life were fair there would be no winners or losers, or tall people, or short people etc. Drugs actually helps level the playing field by making the genetically less gifted strong and fast enough to take on the genetically gifted. Now, that is what I call fairness. Clamping down on pro-hormones in such a way will only drive it underground where it would join its steroid big-brother.

    Godspeed, and happy HSTing :)
     
  3. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    If they ban them, prohormones wont go underground like steroids, they will dissapear completely as steroids are cheaper and far more effective. A whole group of people will also be open to procuring 'unknown' steroids from bilbob in the back of the gym.
    If the government was actually willing to reclassify steroids the way they should be (accessible under supervison) a lot of problems would be reduced. But that would require research on doseages, which they do not currently persue.
     
  4. Cylus

    Cylus New Member

    With all due respect, I think that that is a rediculous way to look at it. Sports are meant to be bastions of competition with which people can decide whom is either more naturally gifted, more driven to practice for competition or both. Using biochemistry to "level the playing field" puts that competition in the hands of those athlete's doctors and chemists, thus freeing the atheletes from much of the responsibility that it takes to be competitive among the elite.

    Granted, neither life nor sports are inherently fair but if you have to rely on substances that are banned/illegal/etc... to remain competitive, perhaps you should take a step back and decide whether or not that sport is really for you. Now, I'm sure someone will throw a "Well, if everyone else is doing it, I must do it to remain competitive" so feel free :)

    That's not to say that I agree with the way they are handling the prohormone/EC situation so please don't take it as such. They're basically trying to correct something that was implemented without any foresight (granted, hindsight is always 20/20) and, as such, are trying to patch a sinking boat with toothpaste and water :)
     
  5. Coyote

    Coyote New Member

    ALL chemicals are just another tool in the toolbox, you don't expect anyone to just sit on their arse and do "roids" and become a champion do you? they aren't magic pills.
    Anabolic agents can only increase competition, not decrease it
    How about dietary manipulation, more protein etc? its ALL unnatural, sport is unnatural.
    Are people who exercise "cheating"? they are causing biochemical changes within themselves as well.
    Would you allow a diabetic to use insulin? a depressive to use anti depressants?
    A nearsighted to wear contacts?
    Flat footed to wear corrective shoes?
    When a person can use an exogenous substance to enable competition with someone else (level the playing field), then it comes down to discipline determination skill development etc., otherwise the metabolically handicapped person has no realistic opportunity to show what he's made of.
    a molecule is a molecule is a molecule
    Anyway this is not the point-------
    I do not compete in sports, and I am over 21, and so its none of ANYONE'S business what I do with MY body, it is MY body last I checked, state assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
    Please explain how it is anyone else's business what I do with my body (so long as I do not encroach upon the rights of anyone else)
    -
    The general consensus is anything that theoretically "could be abused" by some dumbass darwin award candidate teenager is automatically contra banned for all people forever, reason, science and truth be damned, unless of course there is a sufficient profit motive for these limp wristed boot licking bureaucratic slimy shills and ninnies, like say... U.S. Prescription drugs, Tobacco and Alcohol.
    -
    This is such smug shameful arrogance, HOW DARE THEY!
    it shocking that anyone tolerates this, have we become this servile and apathetic?
     
  6. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    Thats the point. Everything in terms of training is a part of sport, drugs dont have to be :) In terms of medicine, creatine can be classed as doping, becuase you are taking in an amount that is basically impossible to get from food.
    Just becuase you train and your neighbour doesnt, has no impact in sport.
    If I do drugs and then compete in a drug free federation, I deserve to be kicked out or banned.

    For personal use, there should be some controls on steroids, but they should be available for personal prescription.

    Smokes should be banned, and alcohol should be limited
     
  7. Cylus

    Cylus New Member

    I hope you can see the difference between supplying a substance to someone in order to normalize their abilities/functions and supplying someone with a substance that enhances their abilities/functions beyond what is "normal." Comparing giving insulin to a diabetic with giving EPO to a cyclist? Come on now!


    This whole "level the playing field" thing reminds me of the recent changes in the educational system intended to equalize everyone to minimize hurt feelings. Isn't that special?


    Agreed and, as I stated above, I don't agree with how they are handling the situation. As compared to the previously mentioned alcohol and tobacco, this change will affect a relatively small portion of the nation so the probability that they'll implement it poorly without a chance for large recpercussions is high. While it may drive prohormones underground, that in and of itself will prevent many of the less-than-motivated users from using, which I'm sure Biden and co. are willing to settle with.
     
  8. Coyote

    Coyote New Member

    Cylus, Aaron_F I appreciate your feedback
    <rant>
    It is normal for some people to have diabetes, its is normal for some people to produce relativly supraphysiological levels of androgens, or GH.
    Normal is an abused word, you real meant "averaged"
    Agreed absolutely, a deal's a deal, a contract is a contract, if entered into voluntarily with full notice and knowledge, full disclosure anyway.
    Again, who the hell am I to tell you what you can do, and who the hell are you to tell me what I can do, are we realy that addicted to controlling others lives? does it help us with erectile difficultys or something?
    If I want to snort laundry detergent while skydiving with a baloon tied to my ear while playing the trumpet, thats my problem, not yours.
    <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">
    In terms of medicine, creatine can be classed as doping, becuase you are taking in an amount that is basically impossible to get from food.
    [/QUOTE]
    So your criteria for a &quot;drug&quot; is something that is &quot;impossible to get from food&quot; well amino acids ARE food, its like saying beef is impossible to get from food.
    This erection some people get from controling other peoples personal lives is just astonishing to me, and realy dismaying, it is so alien to my values, Why do people feel such righteous joy out of manipulating and regulating the snot out of people?
    &lt;/rant&gt;
     
  9. micmic

    micmic New Member

    It's not so simple... should we also abolish obligatory health insurance (for most countries) or fines for safety belts etc ? It may be your right to do what you wish with your body, but it is also my right to refuse to pay for restoring the health of some idiots who like to run at 250km/h on their motorcycle without a helmet etc... And if we don't pay for them and they are not insured, what are we going to do with them in our civilised society ?

    As for drugs in sports, we are really not going to talk about such things for too long... rumours say that during the China Olympic games we will witness the first 'genetically modified' athletes, although the 'modifications' will not be too dramatic (for the time being). In 30-40 years, there will be absolutely no need for chemical enhancement. The super-athletes will be getting designed in the lab.
     
  10. Coyote

    Coyote New Member

    Hey mimic whats up
    ok um...
    30 or 40 years? try 3 to 5, you have no idea Bro

    A coming era of personalized genetic medicine



    yep thats a contract, contracts are voluntary
    What did we used to do?
    Should we ban any activity the Insurance lobby deems bad for profits of insurance companys? (see: all activitys, nothing is perfectly safe)
     
  11. micmic

    micmic New Member

    Well, I don't know... you tell me...

    Umm... let's see... optional health insurance... what would happen if:

    - An uninsured guy (could be your brother) lies seriously injured on the highway... do we leave him there ?
    - An uninsured guy injures your child (which you have chosen to leave uninsured). Who pays for it ?
    - Your uninsured smoking uncle gets lung cancer. Do we send him to some kind of isolated island to die ?
    - People with mental or other ilnesses (e.g. the self-destructive Lesch-Nyhan syndrome) cause injuries to themselves. Do we throw them over the cliff ?

    Ever since mammals evolved, they provide some kind of care for the members that need it. In fact, the higher the care, the higher the evolution level.

    I believe that banning prohormones is hypocrisy as long as there are far more serious matters to deal with. But in a perfect future world, yes, prohormones will be banned (after drugs, alcohol and smoke are extinct), because they don't promote anyone's health. For those who need them, there will be prescribed hormones which will do the job much better.

    The wild, unmoderated freedom would bring us back to the jungle law, though it would be a rather primitive jungle. You would have to go really low in the evolution scale to find a species that don't care about their likes.

    I don't like insurance companies myself, but we obviously need to find a balance.

    You may want to think why it is so difficult to ban smoke or alcohol while drugs are already illegal... Could it be because they usually cause fatal illnesses around the time people start to receive their pension ? What about the infamous Philip Morris report ? Perhaps smoking and drinking serves well the insurance companies and the national budgets, that's why they allow us this 'freedom' ;)
     
  12. stevie

    stevie New Member

    Look at the drugs ('recreational&#39;) probelms around the entire world. They are banned, and highly illegal, yet there is HUGE black market world trade. Drugs are banned, yet drugs are everywhere. some would argue (...im just playing devil's advocate) that banning substances/increasing penalties is not the way to go. They propose education of the masses...a better education than 'this is bad, dont touch it'.

    Anyway, i personally find it increadible that cigarettes still exist. If you smoke, you are almost certain to get lung cancer etc....everyone seems to know this, yet cig companies still rake it in. who is at fault?

    to be honest, i dont know where i stand on such issues. yes the governments are fault for allowing such trade to continue, and the various companies are at fault.....but alot of blame has to be placed on the individuals also....hmmm i guess this is one of those 'society is to blame' topics. well lets give 'society' a slap on the wrist shall we.
     
  13. micmic

    micmic New Member

    Oh, but I don't blame goverments! Goverments are us! How can one blame them when so many people drink and smoke with their own free and well-informed will ? Goverments are doing nothing more than following the society. Smoke but especially alcohol, are very much tied to the way we think and live.

    Did you notice the subtle messages in the movie &quot;Lost in translation&quot; ? How the two stars are shown to be more 'human' because they drink and and smoke ? How Charlotte's standoffish husband urges her to quit smoking while friendly, funny and warm Bob Harris offers her a light as soon as they start talking ? And how Bob constantly (but smooth) brings forth his good relationship with booze ? Well, there are messages like them everywhere around us and guess what, they are absorbed extremely well.

    As a non-smoker (ex-smoker) and extremely casual drinker (some wine once or twice a month), I personally don't mind people drinking and smoking because, as I said, they will actually save my money in the long run. Cynical, but true.
     
  14. spartacus

    spartacus New Member

    there are more considerations other than just &quot;is this healthy.&quot; every time you smoke you are hurting yourself, but its also enjoyable. you're oging to die eventually, and for many people at little bit sooner, but with some smokes along the way is the better way to go.

    instead of banning anything that could be harmful, it would be a lot better to just require everyone to get insurance, since universal emergency care exists anyway.

    my standard for drugs, whether cannabis, alcohol, or prohormones, is that they should be legal if they don't keep people from functioning in society. so heroin isn't really something you can do recreationally, so it shouldn't be legal. and they should be taxed to recoup any expenses that society has because of their use.
     
  15. Cliner9er

    Cliner9er New Member

    [​IMG]5-->
    How do you require everyone to get insurance? Healthcare SHOULD be a fundamental right. You then have the situation of federal healthcare and 4-6 month waits on non-emergent procedures. A solution? No not really
    Again this is very subjective. What I can function doing and what you can function doing is totally different. Then it is an ethical question decided by goverment, and what is law? Minimum ethics on paper.
     
  16. spartacus

    spartacus New Member

    i didn't say socialized medical industry. just like car insurance is required if you own a car, medical insurance should be required if you own a body.
    i didn't say socialized medical industry. just like car insurance is required if you own a car, medical insurance should be required if you own a body.
    law always involves moral decisions. i just think &quot;functioning in society independently&quot; is a better standard for drug legality than &quot;does it cause more harm than its worth&quot; or &quot;does it cause any harm.&quot;
     
  17. Coyote

    Coyote New Member

    hey spartacus wassup
    In this state you are required to have car insurance:
    A. if you drive
    B. if you cannot post a bond instead
    Also, this insurance is not required to protect YOUR car, but only for liability to other peoples car, if your wreck your car its your problem. (the idea that driving is a so called privledge is another topic entirely)
    The Moral issue is, who owns your life?
    not always, many crimes are not mala in se but only mala prohibita
    Governments to not grant or allow Freedom, not the USA anyway, it is considered Inherent, self evident, inalienable.
    The governments existance as a privelege granted by the people to the government.
    And no you do not have a &quot;right&quot; to healthcare, you dont have a right to force someone to pay for your health, you cannot force others to take care of you, now if they wish to voluntarily (as they should) then its a better world, and we should look after one another, but to be forced involuntarily into a contract with an insurance company, or any other entity is illegal, at least in non communist countrys.
    so what if you dont want healthcare, and you refuse, should you be punished?
    in the inverse, if I was coerced into having to pay for soem fat assed chainsmokers cancer treatment, then I'd ban anything that would cause me to have to pay for anyone
    Id make it illegal to suntan, ilegal to mountain climb, illegal to use computers, illegal NOT to exersise, illegal to...
    Free healthcare creates an excuse to trash your body, because someone else will have to pay for it.
    look at these rediculous lawsuis, someone packs thier face wth crap food, gets diabetes and sues the fast food joint, as if they had no responsibility for it themselves
    Pathetic
    [​IMG]
    So what to do....
    stablish Medical Savings Accounts. One key to controlling health care costs is strengthening the role of the individual health care consumer. As part of this process, an individual should be exempted from taxes on money deposited in a Medical Savings Account (MSA), in the same way that he currently pays no taxes on deposits to an IRA. Money could be withdrawn from an MSA without penalty to pay medical expenses. This would increase consumer responsibility, while increasing access and controlling costs.
    Restructure tax policy. As a second consumer-based reform, taxes should be restructured to establish equity in the treatment of employer-provided health insurance, individually purchased health insurance, and out-of-pocket medical expenses. All health care expenditures should be 100% tax deductible. This will add a measure of fairness to current tax policies that penalize the self-employed, part-time workers, and employees of small businesses, while subsidizing health care for the most affluent in our society.
    Deregulate the health care industry. There should be a thorough examination of the extent to which government policies are responsible for rising health costs and the unavailability of health care services. America can help lower health care costs and expand health care access by taking immediate steps to deregulate the health care industry, including elimination of mandated benefits, repeal of the Certificate-of-Need program, and expansion of the scope of practice for non-physician health professionals.
    Replace the FDA. The Food and Drug Administration is clearly an unnecessary burden on the American health care system. There is no evidence that agency offers Americans any real protection, but there is massive evidence that it is causing great harm -- driving up health care costs and depriving millions of Americans of the medical care they need. The agency should be abolished and replaced with voluntary certification by a private-sector organization, similar to the way Underwriters Laboratories certifies electrical appliances.
    Privatize Medicare and Medicaid.The current Medicare and Medicaid systems have clearly failed. Costs are skyrocketing. Patients are receiving second rate care. And, providers are being shortchanged. The time is ripe for drastic reform. The federal government should begin to restructure the system to give Medicaid and Medicare recipients more flexibility to purchase private health insurance.

    http://www.lp.org/issues/program/health.html
     
  18. spartacus

    spartacus New Member

    hey mang.

    i'm not going to get into a politcal philosophy debate, but i pretty much align myself with a rawlsian position.

    i didn't mean the car insurance anology too literally; i guess i thought you were asking a rhetorical question.

    refer to what we were discussing - prohibiting drugs. deciding if drugs are acceptable involves making judgment between to options. how do you decide between things? deciding which better serves some ultimate principle, such as rights or th Good, and deciding on ultimate values is an excercize in ethics. in the case of drugs, it comes down to option of saving some people from misusing the drug, and protecting the freedom of people to decide to engage in risky behavior. i think deciding between these inherently requires an framework of values.

    i haven't been paying attention the last few years to various medical industry proposals, but in general i would favor those policies which make use of market mechanism like MSAs.
     

Share This Page