articles by Rick Collins

[bigkarch]

Be safe bros




Over the past year there have been several indicators suggesting a Government trend
toward greater enforcement of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act (ASCA). The year 2004
began curiously enough with President Bush's admonition of the dangers of
"performance-enhancing drugs like steroids" during his State of the Union Address.
This was soon followed the Balco scandal, massive drug testing at the Olympics, the
greatly expanded ASCA of 2004, and recent federal indictments of professional
bodybuilders at the Mr. Olympia last weekend.

This week, I have been informed by reliable sources that the "United and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism" (aka Patriot Act) is being cited in DEA and Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) subpoenas to obtain information in secure email accounts
used by AAS sources. The concern that the Patriot Act will be abused for purposes
other than preventing terrorism is no longer a concern. It is a reality! It is
happening now. It is being used as a tool in the DEA's reinvigorated crusade against
AAS trafficking and AAS use.

Rick Collins, author of Legal Muscle and outspoken advocate of AAS legal reform, has
been kind enough to offer his analysis of the ASCA of 2004 and the Patriot Act and
its relevance to bodybuilders.

The political climate over the next few years does not portend an environment that
is favorable for the anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) community. Now, more than
ever before, I strongly recommend Legal Muscle as mandatory reading for the serious
bodybuilder. Its themes and lessons apply much more broadly ? and more urgently ?
than ever before. Every copy of Legal Muscle offered by MESO-Rx comes with an
updated insert on the new law to keep you informed. I can't stress the importance of
educating yourself regarding the legal issues concerning AAS. Ignorance of the law
is no defense. Legal Muscle is the absolute best defense for members of the AAS
community.

 

[bigkarch]

another


The new federal steroid law has been passed! On October 22, 2004, President Bush
signed into law the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, scheduled to take effect
90 days later. The law adds 26 compounds to the existing 1990 list of steroids that
are classified as Schedule III controlled substances. Possession of a single andro
or other prohormone tablet, for example, will be a federal crime punishable by up to
one year in jail; distributing will be a felony punishable by up to five years in
prison for a first offense.

The 26 newly added compounds are androstanediol; androstanedione; androstenediol;
androstenedione; bolasterone; calusterone; *1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a.
?1-testosterone?); furazabol; 13b-ethyl-17a-hydroxygon-4-en-3-one;
4-hydroxytestosterone; 4-hydroxy-19-nortestosterone; mestanolone;
17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane;
17a-methyl-3a,17b-dihydroxy-5a-androstane; 17a-methyl-3b,17b-dihydroxyandrost-4-ene;
17a-methyl-4-hydroxynandrolone; methyldienolone; methyltrienolone;
17a-methyl-*1-dihydrotestosterone (a.k.a. ?17-a-methyl-1-testosterone?);
norandrostenediol; norandrostenedione; norbolethone; norclostebol; normethandrolone;
stenbolone; and tetrahydrogestrinone. Some of these substances have been marketed as
dietary supplements. Others are actually old pharmaceutical steroids that were
missed in the original federal law. The law permits the continued sale of DHEA as a
dietary supplement.

The law changes the required elements of an anabolic steroid. The ?promotes muscle
growth? language is now removed from the statute, simplifying the process by which a
newly created ?designer? steroidal compound may be scheduled by the Attorney General
under 21 U.S.C. ? 811. No longer must the Attorney General prove that the compound
is anabolic. The law also fixes some of the mistakes in the 1990 law (although at
least one new typographical error appears). Among other quirks in the new law, the
word ?isomer? has been removed from the catch-all provision, replaced by ?ether.?
Instead, the law includes specific isomers of selected compounds.

What can we expect from the new law? The politicians behind it apparently believe
that it will curtail steroid use in athletics. While their hopes are
well-intentioned, if past experience serves, such hopes seem doubtful. The original
1990 law was pitched to the public as a solution to steroids in sports. However, not
only has steroid use by athletes continued, but judging from the unprecedented
frenzy over the issue this past year the problem appears much bigger than ever.

Here?s what we can expect: the law will put an end to most legal steroidal dietary
supplements, leaving black market steroids as the predominant option. Don?t be
surprised if we see a dramatic rise in the use of illegal steroids. In response,
expect a newly invigorated anti-steroid enforcement crusade by the DEA. [Even before
the President signed the new law, DEA was sounding a war cry. ?We are now focused on
steroid trafficking and abuse as never before,? warned Michele Leonhart, deputy
administrator with DEA, at an October steroids summit in Los Angeles]. Expect
individual states to review their own codes in an effort to harmonize their steroid
laws with the new federal statute. Once new state laws are enacted, expect state and
local police to boost their enforcement efforts against steroid users. As steroid
usage is driven further underground, expect the health risks to be compounded as
fewer users than ever seek physician monitoring. Finally, expect confusion by
consumers and law enforcement authorities alike, because not all prohormone products
fall under the new law, nor do all conceivable anabolic steroids.

The backers of this bill say it?s about ?values.? But neither the Declaration of
Independence nor the U.S. Constitution says anything at all about preserving the
?purity? of athletes? urine. There were alternative means to protect our teens and
to prevent sports doping without criminalizing mature, health-conscious American
consumers and bringing the War on (Some) Drugs into health food stores. Freedom of
choice and personal liberty are the values this nation was founded upon, and don?t
let them tell you otherwise.

Suspected steroid users, most specifically adult bodybuilders, have become prime
targets for criminal investigation and arrest. But the many thousands of dollars
needed in the course of sending federal agents across the country, of conducting
interrogations, of serving subpoenas and summonses, of convening grand juries, and
of dragging dozens of hapless bodybuilders to testify before those grand juries is a
terribly misguided allocation of our hard-earned -- and limited -- tax dollars. Gee,
shouldn't the government be dedicating its available resources to finding Osama?"

? 2004, Rick Collins, J.D.

 

[bigkarch]

and another


What if Government authorities develop an interest in you? What if they focus on
your online activities, and decide to develop a profile on your habits and contacts?
They seek to identify your associates through the email addresses of those you?ve
corresponded with.

One surveillance approach the Government has used in recent years has been to apply
pen registers and trap and trace devices to the Internet. Pen registers are devices
that capture the telephone numbers dialed on outgoing calls; trap and trace devices
capture the numbers on incoming calls. These devices don?t disclose the contents of
the communications, or even whether the parties actually speak ? just that one phone
dialed another phone. A list of every phone number dialed and the source of every
call received can establish a comprehensive profile of a suspect?s contacts,
affiliations and activities. Think about how useful these devices are in the
investigation of racketeering conspiracies: ?Hey, the target calls a number
registered to ?Jimmy Potts? twice a day. Let?s do some surveillance on this guy
Jimmy and see what develops??

It?s been estimated that federal law enforcement agencies conduct roughly ten times
as many pen/trap surveillances as they do ?Title III? wiretaps (the kind that allows
them to listen to content, such as by bugging rooms or eavesdropping on phone
conversations). The beauty of pen/trap surveillance to law enforcement is that,
unlike wiretaps, they can be obtained very easily. The Government simply has to
certify to a judge that the information likely to be obtained by the surveillance is
relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation ? even if the target is not a suspect
in that investigation. By comparison, for the Government to get a Title III wiretap,
they have to meet the high standard of showing probable cause to believe that the
target committed one of a list of severe crimes. So, pen/trap surveillance can help
the Government fish around for evidence against people it has no proof against.
Also, the feds don?t need to report their findings back to the court like they have
to with traditional wiretaps, so there?s little chance of oversight of potential
abuses.

Before the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 [Oct. 26, 2001]), some
judges were already authorizing the use of pen/trap surveillance to capture the
source and destination information for emails. But the PATRIOT Act furthered things
along by explicitly applying pen/trap surveillance to the Internet by federal
statute. While it does not permit the feds to read any of the contents of the
emails, including the subject line, with a pen/trap order, it can be argued that
pen/trap surveillance on the Internet is more intrusive and personally revealing
than on telephones because email addresses are unique to individual users while many
individuals may share one telephone number. Further, there remain serious questions
in situations involving Web ?addresses? and other URLs identifying particular
content.

The PATRIOT Act also diminishes online privacy by changing the law to increase how
much information the Government can get about Internet users from their Internet
Service Providers (ISPs) or others who handle and store their online communications.
It allows ISPs to voluntarily turn over all ?non-content? information to Government
agencies without a court order or subpoena. It also broadens the types of records
that the Government can seek with a subpoena and without a judge?s review.

All in all, while the PATRIOT Act may be terrific when applied to combat terrorism,
some of you may not like it in other contexts. For example, if Congress passes the
proposed amendments to the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, will the suggested harsher
treatment for steroids and prohormones motivate the Government to monitor those they
may suspect are conducting transactions online? In the absence of comprehensive
judicial oversight, just how expansively might the Government apply this law?

Rick Collins, J.D., is a veteran lawyer and bodybuilder. He is the founder of
www.SteroidLaw.com and the author of the groundbreaking blockbuster LEGAL MUSCLE:
Anabolics in America [? Rick Collins, 2004. All rights reserved. For informational
purposes only, not to be construed as legal advice. This article was previously
published in Muscular Development magazine.]