A "BIZARRE" Look at Steroid Contradictions

A "BIZARRE" Look at Steroid Contradictions

by Brent Allen, MS, MBA

The perfect way to open this article is to tell you about my conversations with the many university and college Health/Physical Education department heads I talked to in order to guest lecture at their respective institutions. I would tell them they may not want me to lecture because I have a slightly controversial approach. I'm 100% objective and honest about the positive and negative effects of steroids. Upon reflection, I realized there is something seriously wrong when objectivity and honesty are controversial!

One of the major reasons for the controversy surrounding the steroid topic is very simple. There have been "many" (and I do emphasize many) different "highly" respected degreed individuals, official sports/medical organizations, and even well known steroid experts that have changed their stand literally 180 degrees, on selected steroid issues, with one changing his stand in the same hour! I know what you are thinking - there is no way this could happen. But it did and Ive discovered them in an exhaustive search of the steroid literature and have revealed them for you in this unique article.

Individuals

Carl Lewis, March 23, 1989 vs. Carl Lewis, March 23, 1989

Carl Lewis is a world class track athlete and anti-steroid activist. Carl's testimony at a Senate hearing on steroids on March 23, 1989, is a common example of the changing point of view. He claimed that steroids made Ben Johnson, the fastest human of all time.

"The steroids made that much of an impact over a 7-year period in his [Ben Johnson's] career. We are talking about someone who went from possibly 50th or 60th in the world to No. 1 in the world, setting world records."

But six pages later in the same testimony, he talks about getting former steroid using athletes to help fight the problem, which I agree with, but he focuses on an athlete, which steroids did not help.

"I know of an athlete named Dianne Williams who stood up and said "I took steroids" with this particular coach in the United States, and "he gave them to me." But she turned around and said, "I've run my best races clean" and "we don't need steroids." She has been able to preach that message."

So according to Carl, steroids caused Ben Johnson to run so far over his head, it made his nose bleed, but actually hurt Dianne Williams' performance. Carl, you have many very good ideas I like, but if we are going to fight this epidemic, we must be objective and consistent. This means not using one example to make one point and the same example to make the exact opposite point. And how can anyone in their right mind expect anyone to believe Dianne Williams' statement that steroids do not enhance performance, when the fastest 100 meters of all-time was run by a man on steroids. If steroids did not help Dianne Williams, I firmly believe it was because she was not using them correctly.

Terry Todd, Ph.D., 1977 vs. Terry Todd, Ph.D. 1983 & 1988

Terry is one of the leading experts on steroids, a Ph.D. professor at the University of Texas, and has written several big articles on the topic for Sports Illustrated magazine as well as other publications. He used steroids to help him compete in powerlifting from 1963 to 1967. In 1977, he wrote the book Inside Powerlifting and stated...

"Today, if I were to reenter competition, I would take them [steroids] again."

In 1983, in one of his Sports Illustrated articles he stated...

"... I wish to God now I'd never done it [use steroids]. I'd like to go back and take the whole chapter out of my life."

Then in 1988, he stated...

"It's [steroids] not a moral issue. It's a question of an even playing field."

So in a ten year period, after getting off steroids, he would voluntarily take them again. But six years later, he totally regretted using them, but not for moral reasons.

Fredrick Hatfield, Ph.D., 1983 vs. Fredrick Hatfield, Ph.D.,1991 & 1994

Fred was a very vocal steroid advocate in the 80's, but has completely changed his stand in the 90's. As a side note, you will find Fred Hatfield in the background of a Sports Illustrated picture of Lyle Alzado's comeback! Here are some direct quotes from his 1983 book Anabolic Steroids: What Kind and How Many...

"Drugs have proven to be, are still, and will probably continue to be an important source of man's salvation. They have the capacity to prolong life, improve the quality of life, and - yes - improve athletic performance."

"So, the modus operandi [mode of operating], then, for this manual is to point out prevalent methods of drug use, given the present state of the art and science."

In a 1991 book of Fred's, Hardcore Bodybuilding: A Scientific Approach, it appears a totally different person wrote it. Here are just a couple of many contradictory statements he made...

To these [three] generations of [steroid using] bodybuilders I bid adieu. Sayonara, adios, arrivederci, because they ain't gonna make it in today's world of drug-free training."

"I happen to believe strongly that you can achieve bodybuilding greatness without drugs."

I feel many people can plead ignorance, but Fred is not one of them. When you read through the rest of my book you will realize the huge inaccuracies of these statements. However perhaps a recent article by Fred titled "Kids & Juice" in the November 1994 issue of Muscular Development, helps explain why he took a 180 degree turn, in this stand on steroids.

"I swore that I'd never get involved in the steroid controversy again. After writing a book [Anabolic Steroids: What Kind and How Many?] on the subject back in 1980, I got so much flack from both the Feds and my colleagues that I said, 'That's it! I quit!' Apparently, they got the idea that I was condoning the use of steroids. They obviously never read the book."

Dan Duchaine, 1982 vs. Dan Duchaine 1995

Dan is the author of the Underground Steroid Handbook, which is basically a "how to" book on steroid use for athletic enhancement that has had several updates since 1982. He was a steroid dealer back in the 80's and also coached numerous "big name" athletes in the techniques of evading positive drug tests. In the 90's Dan was incarcerated on two occasions related to steroid charges. However in a personal conversation with Dan just after getting out of prison the second time in 1995, had this to say about the current laws...

"The idea for a schedule III is a very good idea. And it had to be, because steroids were unique in that they were the only non-schedule drug that were getting massive diversion out of every place, warehouses, distributors, doctor's offices, everything. I can't think of a regular non-scheduled prescription drug that had that problem. And, I mean, it was really getting out of hand."

William Taylor, M.D.1984 vs. William Taylor, M.D. 1985 & 1987

William appears to be quite knowledgeable on steroids and is quoted quite often on TV, newspapers, and magazines. This quote is from his 1991 book Macho Medicine: A History of the Anabolic Steroids Epidemic. (He speaks of himself in the third person)

"Perhaps the strongest statements of the symposium [1984 American College of Sports Medicine Meeting] were given by Taylor. He referred to the anabolic steroid situation as an 'epidemic' and said that these steroids were 'addicting as amphetamines' and that 'anabolic steroids should be reclassified as controlled substances.'"

However, one year later in 1985, William was put on probation by the Florida Board of Medical Examiners for three years for prescribing and selling these same 'addictive' steroids, before he had received his medical license. He stated that he bought large quantities of steroids with fake prescriptions for the purpose of his own independent research on bodybuilders. He also stated...

"A few of my colleagues have said I should get a Noble prize for this work, and what have I gotten for it? What I've gotten is a bum deal."

Actually this was not the first time William Taylor had written a fake prescription, as he told of in a1987 subcommittee hearing...

"I attempted to find out what the diversion was like. I sent bogus prescriptions as a medical intern for human growth hormone to the National Hormone and Pituitary Association and two private companies which supplied the growth hormone. Boxes of the growth hormone came on a monthly basis from the private companies. I destroyed the growth hormone and refused further shipments. These came directly to my home, and I was only a first year medical resident, not even a licensed physician."

Mainstream Newspapers

The Berkshire Eagle, April 17, 1989 vs. The Berkshire Eagle, April 19, 1989

Bob Goldman, noted anti-steroid activist stated in the April 17, 1989 edition of the Berkshire Eagle...

"I've been at the center of this for such a long time that I sometimes get a little uptight when people say we don't have any hard data."

Well Bob, be prepared to get a "little uptight." This is what Gene Halslip, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, in the April 19, 1989 (just 2 days later) edition of the Berkshire Eagle...

"Part of the problem is we don't have hard evidence to tell people what bad things it does to you. It's hard to educate when you don't have all the facts."

The Washington Post vs., The Washington Post 14 paragraphs later

Liz Hunt a staff writer for the Washington Post, had these two points to make in her article "Steroid Use May Cause Sterility."

"Anabolic steroids, the drugs taken by hundreds of thousands of athletes to 'bulk up' their muscles, can cause sterility and diminish sexual function for at least several years after the drugs are stopped, according to fertility specialists."

However 14 paragraphs later she writes...

"In most men, sperm production returns to normal within four months of halting the use of steroids. But it now appears that in a small number of men, the effect on sperm production can persist - in one case, the effect continued up to four years."

Sports Organizations

The IAAF 1981 vs. TAC 1981

This one is a classical example of the lack of consistency surrounding this topic. In July of 1981, Ben Plucknett, a San Jose discus thrower tested positive to steroids and was banned from international competition "for life," by the international track and field governing body (IAAF). However, later that very same year, he was named "Athlete of the Year" by The Athletic Congress (TAC), the American track and field governing body.

The NFL

In one survey by Gene Upshaw of the NFL players association, concluded that 75% of players were opposed to random steroid testing. However Bill Fralic, 3-time pro-bowl lineman for the Atlanta Falcons, also performed a survey which he concluded 80% of his teammates were in favor of random steroid testing!

Medical Organizations

World Health Organization 1990 vs. Ben Johnson 1988

The World Health Organization concluded in a 1990 study that...

"... weekly [200 mg] injections of testosterone enanthate, ... can maintain safe, stable, effective, and reversible contraception for at least 12 months."

What is even more odd than the fact that an official medical organization will say steroid are "safe" is that the dosage in this study actually exceeded the dosage used by Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson 1988 when he was stripped of his gold medal.

Sports & Sports Medicine Organizations

The IOC. 1976 vs. The ACSM 1976 vs. Alan Ryan 1981 vs. The ACSM 1984 vs. Goodman & Gilman 1985

In 1976, this was the first year to test for anabolic steroids at the Olympic Games. I strongly believe they would have done it earlier but didn't have a test to use. However the International Olympic Committee only tests for those things that have the potential to enhance performance. Well guess who did just the opposite that very same year!

The American College of Sports Medicine is without a doubt the most prestigious sports organization in the world. Between 1965 and 1976 over two dozen studies were performed with anabolic steroids to determine if there were any performance enhancing qualities to these new drugs. At their 1976 national meeting, a heated discussion concerning this dilemma arose. Basically what happened Alan Ryan and Dan Henley felt they didn't work. However, Levon Johnson (who had used them himself), James Wright (noted expert), Arthur Jones (owner of Nautilus equipment) and Gideon Ariel felt they did work. It appears that Ryan and Henley had more power because the 1977 published ACSM official position stand is as follows...

"there is no conclusive scientific evidence that extremely large doses of anabolic-androgenic steroids either aid or hind athletic performance."

According to William Taylor, he felt this was perhaps the greatest lie in the history of modern medicine. Although I have not performed a thorough review of all medical research, I definitely cannot disagree with him. To add insult to injury, in 1981 Alan Ryan wrote an article in the Federation Proceedings titled "Anabolic Steroids are Fool's Gold," that basically undermined the International Olympic Committee's effort again by stating...

"Drug testing is expensive and relatively nonproductive and it encourages the idea that athletes may gain an advantage by taking these drugs."

And the story continues. In 1984 the ACSM discussed the topic again. However this time, they decided to reverse their official position stand. What is very unusual is the fact that the ACSM based a totally different stand, on virtually the exact same scientific studies! The position stand now read...

"1. Anabolic-androgenic steroids in the presence of an adequate diet can contribute to increases in body weight, often in the lean mass compartment.

"2. The gains in muscular strength achieved through high-intensity exercise and proper diet can be increased by the use of anabolic-androgenic steroids in some individuals."

Now guess what happened in 1985. Goodman and Gilman, in their book, The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, made the following statement from the same studies available to the ACSM...

"the use of these agents (anabolic steroids) does not cause an increase in muscle bulk, strength, or athletic performance - even when phenomenally large doses are used. The commonly observed increase in body weight (seen secondary to steroid use) is due to the retention of salt and water."

All I can say is - I love this topic!

Physicians' Desk Reference

However the1995 edition of the Physicians' Desk Reference (I??™ve been too lazy to go find a more current edition!) stated for every anabolic steroid listed, either:

"Anabolic steroids have not been shown to enhance athletic ability."

- OR -

"This drug has not been shown to be safe and effective for the enhancement of athletic performance. Because of the potential risk of serious adverse health effects, this drug should not be used for such a purpose."

The PDR inserts state that they are a scheduled III controlled substance under the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990. The PDR inserts also go on to state under the "OVERDOSE" heading...

"There have been no reports of acute overdosage with the androgens."

With one under the "DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION" section stating...

"The use of anabolic steroids may be associated with serious adverse reactions, many of which are dose related; therefore, patients should be placed on the lowest possible effective dose."

American Medical Association

And the current edition of the American Medical Association's Guide to Prescription and Over-The-Counter Drugs had these things to say in their descriptions of Nandrolone (Deca-Durabolin) and Oxandrolone (Anavar), respectively...

"Violating the rules of most athletic organizations, athletes have taken nandrolone and other anabolic steroids to increase body weight and muscle strength. But scientific studies indicate that the weight gain may be caused by fluid retention; the evidence of increased strength is equivocal."

"Risking suspension or disqualification by leading athletic organizations, some athletes have taken oxandrolone or other anabolic steroids to increase body weight and muscle strength. Authoritative medical studies have, however, raised questions about the validity of such results."

Congressional Hearings

After reading all of the congressional subcommittee hearings, I was left shaking my head wondering how our congressmen would realistically be able to pick out what was fact and what was fiction. And it is my opinion at most only 10-15% of the witnessed that testified were both informed and objective with their testimonies!

Jay Moyer

On July 22, 1988 Jay Moyer representing the NFL in a subcommittee hearing on the scheduling of anabolic steroids had to say this...

"But why in schedule I, which would then take Dianabol off the market altogether and deny it any conceivable medical legitimacy... "

I hate to break it to you Mr. Moyer, but Dianabol stopped being manufactured in 1983 and the generic version was taken off the American market by the FDA in 1985. This is a perfect example of the quality of witnesses that were called to testify.

American Medical Association

Here are the key parts of the AMA's official statement to the congressional subcommittee hearing on anabolic steroids on April 3, 1989...

"The AMA opposes the enactment of federal legislation to schedule steroids under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA)...

Anabolic steroids do not meet the statutory criteria for scheduling under Schedule I of the CSA. First, anabolic steroids have an accepted medical use in medical practice. Moreover, anabolic steroids can be used safely under medical supervision. Second, abuse of steroids does not lead to physical or psychological dependence as also is required for scheduling under the other schedules of the CSA.

The medical facts do not support scheduling anabolic steroids under the CSA."

Robert Voy vs. transcripts

After reading both the transcripts to all the subcommittee hearing and then Robert Voy's book Drugs, Sport, & Politics, I found a small but very significant difference. Here's an excerpt from Robert Voy's book...

"Incidentally, this hearing also produced a very memorable moment for me. I was asked why athletes use these drugs, regardless of the risks they pose. My answer was rather facetious. I stated that athletes would use anything if they thought it would give them the competitive edge. I illustrated this "whatever it takes to win" philosophy by saying that if I put horse manure in capsules to be taken three times a day and told an athlete that these capsules would make him big and strong, even if he knew they were filled with horse manure, he would take them. ... The questioning congressman thought I was being flippant and asked me to refrain from such ridiculous comments, particularly before such a prestigious congressional committee. Terry Todd jumped in to defend me. He said not only would he have used those manure pills if he'd had them while he was competing, but he also would have gone out and bought the biggest, meanest, strongest horse he could find so that he could make the pill himself."

Here's what was recorded in the subcommittee hearing on Medical Devices and Drug Issues on April 8, 1, and May 4, 1987...

"Mr. Coats. Dr. Voy, you testified that he consequences or possible side effects are decreased muscle capacity, decreased athletic ability. Obviously, this is not believed by the athletes or not experienced by the athletes or they wouldn't keep taking this stuff.

Mr. Voy. ... if athletes thought you could capsulize horse manure, pardon the expression, in a capsule and take it three times a day, athletes would take it that. I am not saying that critical of athletes. I'm simply stating the necessity athletes find themselves in, when they dedicate years and years of their life, their family and everything else to their sport and realize to win, they have to use performance enhancing substances. It is an unfair predicament. They will do it no matter what we attempt to do. That is one of the reasons why cheating is one of the main objects of the Olympic Committee's drug testing program, to attempt to assure the American public and our sports organizations of fair competition."

Mr. Todd. I would have a bought a horse, for example.

Mr. Coats. If we got to classifying these as Class 2 substances... "

First off, Robert Voy is very accurate in his assessment of how far athletes are willing to go, and I also thought Terry Todd's comment was a perfect addition. However the thing that bothered me was how significantly different the two quotes were about the same event. Personally I have a lot more faith in Robert Voys honestly, than our government, at least in this situation. It really made me think what other statements were significantly manipulated in these hearings.

Joseph Biden

I feel Joseph R. Biden, Jr., chairman of the subcommittee in charge of what would be the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, best sums up what I've been trying to say in this chapter in several statements he made , at the April 3, 1989 meeting...

"The Chairman. I have a lot of questions, but I can see your two colleagues are raising their hands, Dr. Katz and Dr. Yesalis.

Dr. Katz. I am the other M.D. on the panel, and Charles may have a position from his standpoint, that I realize this hearing is not the place or the time for a full debate.

The Chairman. Yes it is. I can assure you it is the beginning of what will be a long debate. It is appropriate today and to put it to you bluntly, fellows if you can not get your act together and tell what it is, then how do you expect lay persons like me or athletes like those ladies behind you to be able to make any sound judgments about their lives?

I am confused with your statement, Dr. Langston, and I am sure you will be able to amplify on it. On the one hand you say the reason that you do not want to move in this direction is because there are no serious problems. And you say they do not lead to physical or psychological dependence. Yet on the other hand, you say this is a serious problem we have to deal with. If there are no harmful effects, psychological or physical dependency, and it is not a serious problem, why don't we just let them use it?" (page 88)

"The Chairman. I would ask you all, if you can, as best you can, focus on the medical issue here. And again, if the side effects that you have just said were reasons to view it as a danger, why not outlaw it? I thought you said those side effects did not exit. I am confused. (page 90)

"The Chairman (Joseph R. Biden). I am confused because on the one hand, you talk about decreased libido, decreasing sexual drive, and on the other hand it increased sexual drive." (page 90)

"The Chairman. "With all due respect, Doctor, I think you have communicated well and very articulately the AMAs position. But I do not think the AMA has communicated a concern about this problem. As a matter of fact, I come away with a very sour taste in my mouth about the AMA on this. And I must tell you very bluntly. When I read these articles in the news print about I have come out of the hospital after some serious operations and I am now a changed man, but I am not so changed that I still have not learned to be silent. I can not help but be blunt. I am really surpassed by your testimony." (page 98)

I feel for Joseph Biden. He had to make an important decision, with some of the best experts in the country and he was still confused about the topic! The bad thing is this does not surprise me at all!

Mental Food for Thought...

I want to stress, my intention was not to discredit the individuals and organizations in this article, but rather demonstrate how unusual this topic is.

Because if I am critical of them, I must be critical of myself, because my attitudes have changed somewhat concerning several areas of this topic. Much of the reason for the changing opinions, is the steroid subculture has dramatically changed since that first Dianabol?® tablet was manufactured in 1958. You see, Dianabol was first made in this country, in the name of patriotism, to help "our" athletes compete on an equal plane with those "darn" communists, during the Cold War. But it turned out to be a Pandoras Box. Now, drugs are not new in the history of athletics, but steroids took it to a new level!

The information in this article is simply a testament of the transition from patriotism to "pandoraism". And we have not reached the end of that journey yet! However, very few could figure out what was (or is) going on. Many of the best minds in our country didnt know what to do. But after 40 years of steroid use in America, we are seeing how it has permeated many parts of our society. Lets try to look at this topic with longevity in mind. What is the Mr. Olympia going to be like in 20 years? Or more importantly, what is the life expectancy of professional bodybuilders going to be then? Think about it! Lets dont be a dog that returns to his vomit.

It has taken us four decades to see, to this extent, of what steroids (and the related sports-enhancing drugs) have done when they literally produced their own subculture. And in an American society that has become obsessed with winning, sexual attractiveness, money and self-- steroids "fit in" very nicely, but only if no one finds out you are using them! Look how Saturday morning cartoon figures have become vastly more muscular in the last 15 years. Look how the leading men for action movies have also become vastly more muscular in the last 15 years. In fact, when is the last time a blockbuster action hero actor tested positive to steroids? The answer is, they dont get tested!

Look at the drastic changes womens bodybuilding has gone through from the early 80s to now. Their journey has stretched the realms of female androgyny to the point of being repulsive to many people. Female bodybuilding had to return to the days of the Rachel McLish/Lisa Lyon type physique, with the womens fitness contest. In fact, if you look at the line-up of the first Ms. Olympia, the physiques are very similar to the fitness girls today. All it is, is a beauty contest with an athletic emphasis. From what I hear, steroids are still being used, but only to the point where they still look feminine. So what have we gained?

Most drugs used in moderation, under the supervision of a qualified physician, can produce significant benefits with limited or no side-effects. And steroids are definitely part of this group of drugs. But the key here is high level sports--has never been, is not, and will never be--about moderation. It is always about taking everything to the limit, including drugs. A comprehensive drug testing program is the only answer--not if sports are going to survive--but rather if the athletes that compete in those sports, are going to survive! In the age of "extreme" sports, we must first understand our mortality!