[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ANABOLIC STEROID CONTROL ACT OF 2004
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 3866
__________
MARCH 16, 2004
__________
Serial No. 71
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
______
92-567 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee ZOE LOFGREN, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MAXINE WATERS, California
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RIC KELLER, Florida ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
STEVE KING, Iowa
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Philip G. Kiko, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
TOM FEENEY, Florida ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin MAXINE WATERS, California
RIC KELLER, Florida MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
Jay Apperson, Chief Counsel
Elizabeth Sokul, Counsel
Katy Crooks, Counsel
Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 16, 2004
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress From the
State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security............................... 1
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 2
WITNESSES
The Honorable John Sweeney, a Representative in Congress From the
State of New York
Oral Testimony................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Joseph Rannazzisi, Deputy Director of the Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S.
Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Mr. Ralph Hale, M.D., Chairman, United States Anti-Doping Agency
Oral Testimony................................................. 10
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
Mr. Robert Hazelton, former boxer
Oral Testimony................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 16
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Letter from the Major League Baseball Players Association to
Senators Biden and Hatch....................................... 39
Letter from Dr. Michael D. Maves, M.D., MBA of the American
Medical Association to Representatives Sensenbrenner and
Conyers........................................................ 41
ANABOLIC STEROID CONTROL ACT OF 2004
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard Coble (Chair
of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Coble. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will
conduct the first meeting on H.R. 3866, the ``Anabolic Steroid
Control Act of 2004.''
This hearing examines the dangers of the use of steroids
for professional athletes as well as college, high school and
even middle school athletes. Although steroid use was banned
under the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990, many
substances have since been developed that have essentially the
same effect on the body as anabolic steroids. These steroid
precursors have been banned by the International Olympic
Committee and other professional athletic associations, but
remain legal to purchase in the United States. The Anabolic
Steroid Control Act of 2004 will add these new drugs to the
list of controlled substances and provide increased penalties
for any individual who traffics in steroids within 1,000 feet
of an athletic facility.
Recently, the problem of steroid abuse has gotten a great
deal of media attention. Two weeks ago, the Senate Commerce
Committee conducted a hearing to highlight the problem of
performance enhancing drugs in professional athletes and
professional athletics. This Committee is concerned with the
prevalence of steroids in professional sports as well as the
adverse health effects these drugs have on adults and
adolescents. There have been numerous studies citing side
effects associated with steroid use. Some of the long-term
consequences of steroid use include liver disorders, high blood
pressure, extreme mood swings and severe acne.
Other side effects found in men include male breast
development, reduced sperm count and infertility. Women can
experience the cessation of menstrual cycle, male patterned
baldness, facial hair growth and deepening of the voice. Sadly,
the use of these performance enhancing drugs is glamorized by
professional athletics. The message that adolescents are
receiving, I fear, is that the use of performance enhancing
drugs is necessary to compete and should be used regardless of
the adverse health effects. This message is not only received
at the college and high school levels, but evidence suggests
that middle school students have not become immune to the
perils of steroid abuse. Adolescents are at risk for the side
effects outlined above as well as premature skeletal maturation
and accelerated puberty changes, which may result in stunted
growth.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimated in 2003 that
1.4 percent of eighth graders, 1.7 percent of tenth graders and
2.1 percent of twelfth graders had taken anabolic steroids at
least once in their lives. Although this is a slight decrease
from last year, use of steroids among adolescents has
significantly increased since the early 1990's. This trend is
alarming, but even more disturbing is that many of these
precursor steroids are not yet illegal. This legislation will
add these drugs to the controlled substance list, making it
more difficult for adults and adolescents to obtain these
harmful drugs.
I want to thank the witnesses who were able to be here
today and look forward to their testimony. I am pleased to
recognize my friend from Virginia, the Ranking Member, Mr.
Bobby Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join
you in convening this hearing on H.R. 3866, ``Anabolic Steroid
Control Act of 2004,'' and I note that am a co-sponsor of the
bill. This legislation updates the ban on steroids to include
the several steroid precursors that have been developed since
the 1990 ban when steroids went into effect. These precursors
have been shown to cause the same reaction to the body as
anabolic steroids and are just as dangerous in terms of side
effects and long-term damage potential. Currently, they are not
illegal. They are widely used by athletes and others seeking to
enhance muscle and body development. In addition to direct
ingestion, these drugs are also showing up in over-the-counter
nutrition and dietary supplements.
Of course, the important concern driving the bill is the
impact of these drugs and precursors on children. Some young
athletes are using drugs with the belief that they will become
great in their sport and gain money and fame. In addition to
risk and disqualification from playing sports, they also risk
all of the medical problems that you mentioned, even death. And
mentioning death, Mr. Chairman, I can't avoid pointing out that
a local funeral director from my district is sitting here in
the audience. I don't know if he is looking for potential
clients.
Mr. Coble. He seems to be smiling approvingly.
Mr. Scott. Many of these new drugs and precursors could
legitimately be made available for prescriptions by physicians
to legitimately treat conditions and many medical conditions.
So Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in the efforts to
get these drugs out of the category of easy access to children
and others unaware of their potential damaging effects and look
into the laboratory to determine the legitimate beneficial
uses. I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses on these
issues and other issues that may come up.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Scott. We are pleased to have the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller, join us as well. And
without objection, all opening statements of Members will be
made a part of the record.
Our first witness today is one of our colleagues. I will
echo what Mr. Scott said. I, too am a cosponsor of the bill.
Our first witness is one of our colleagues here in the House,
Representative John Sweeney. Congressman Sweeney has served the
20th district of New York since January 1999 and currently
serves on the House Appropriations Committee, where he has been
assigned to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Treasury,
the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and State and the
Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
Representative Sweeney was also recently named to the
Select Committee on Homeland Security. Congressman Sweeney is a
native of Troy, New York where his father was President of the
Local Shirtcutter's Union. After working his way through
college, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Russell
Sage College. The following year, he was appointed head of the
Rensselaer County DWI prevention program and continued working
while studying law and earned his law degree from Western New
England School of Law.
This has nothing to do with steroids, Mr. Sweeney, but your
dad was the President of a Local Shirtcutter's Union. Does my
memory serve me correctly that Arrow Shirts are made in New
York?
Mr. Sweeney. Arrow shirts were made in Troy, New York for
many years.
Mr. Coble. Our next witness is from the Drug Enforcement
Administration, DEA. Mr. Joseph Rannazzisi is deputy director
of the Office of Diversion Control for the DEA. He serves as an
advisor to the chief of operations and DEA manager on all
matters pertaining to the formulation, direction and
coordination of worldwide programs associated with the
diversion of legally controlled substances and listed
chemicals. Deputy Director Rannazzisi began his career with the
DEA in 1986 as a diversion investigator at Indianapolis. And he
holds a degree of science and pharmacy from Butler University
and a law degree from the Detroit College School of Law at
Michigan State University.
Our third witness is Doctor Ralph Hale who is chairman of
the board of directors of the United States Anti-Doping agency
and executive Vice President of the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists. He has served as vice
president of the U.S. Olympic Committee from 1992 to 1996 and
vice chair of the Sports Medicine Committee, as well as a
member of the USOC/USSR Anti-Doping Commission. Dr. Hale was
awarded his undergraduate from the University of Illinois,
Urbana and his medical degree from the University of Illinois
at Chicago.
Our final witness I will introduce in absentia because he
is en route. I think he made an incorrect turn, but he is on
his way. But our final witness will be not unknown to many of
you sports enthusiasts. Mr. Robert Hazelton is from Howard
Lake, Minnesota. Mr. Hazelton is a former heavyweight boxer who
knows firsthand about the dangers of steroid use. Mr. Hazelton
began his boxing career in 1969, a time when many people were
not aware of the dangers of steroids. Mr. Hazelton has learned
these dangers and has traveled around the country to share his
story with others. It is good to have all of you with us and we
will welcome Mr. Hazelton when he does arrive, which should be
momentarily.
Gentlemen, as we have previously asked you, and I want to
reiterate, if you would confine your statements to 5 minutes,
we would be appreciative of that and that will enable us to get
through and question you in some detail. Your 5-minute red
light warning is your notification that your time has elapsed.
But good to have all of you with us. Mr. Sweeney, we will start
with you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN SWEENEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much and thank
you, Ranking Member Scott, for having the foresight and the
diligence to go forward with this hearing. And Mr. Keller, it
is always good to see you, and I thank you very much for the
opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I submit my statement for the record, but I
have to tell you I feel like a wanderer who is emerging from
the deep dark throes of a wooded area having for 4 years now
talked about this issue. And with all of the very important
priorities that we face here with all the important
discussions, it is difficult to get people to focus on this
particular issue. Your hearing will shed the light of day on
what I think is a very important substantial debate in this
Nation and in this Congress over an issue I think affects us
all in ways that we really hadn't considered in the past.
As you know, in 1994, Congress enacted DSHEA, which made
illegal anabolic steroids. And since that time, a lot of
science has evolved and developed and some substantive data has
evolved and developed that shows us that unfortunately, some
manufacturers, driven by their desire for profit and desires to
do a number of things and some athletes and individuals tried
to find ways to skirt that 1994 exclusion of these products.
And the industry can and will, we have learned, make minor
chemical changes to a product after it is deemed illegal,
making such negligible changes that currently enable a
manufacturer to reintroduce a different product into the market
place as a legal substance.
We have made huge progress on the issue. In fact, half a
dozen of the prior steroid precursor and designer steroid
manufacturers voluntarily last year agreed they would stop
selling these products over the counter and stop manufacturing
them. This bill, H.R. 3866, recognizes that we need to find a
way to make it easier for our colleagues at the Drug
Enforcement Agency to outlaw similar steroid precursors in the
future and to give them the flexibility to enforce the law and
the intent of the law passed in 1994.
You may ask why a proprietor, why someone involved in
homeland security or why someone from Troy, New York got
involved in this process. And more than talk about the
substance of the law, I want to talk about the human elements
of this. Mr. Chairman, about 4 years ago, I had the
opportunity, and on occasion, worked out with my then 15, 16
year old son, who is an avid sports fan, who was an avid
athlete in baseball, football, all the sports you would expect
an average American kid to be involved in. And he mentioned to
me that a number of his friends in the gym were talking about
and/or using an anabolic precursor that goes by the tag line
Andro. And he asked me what I thought about that and he asked
me if I thought it would make him perform better, make him
faster and stronger; what I thought about the use of that.
I said to him, John, as a natural response, I think
anything you ingest in your body, you better check out first
before you really do some damage that you don't intend. He
said, dad, how bad can this be? They are selling it over the
counter at GNC and selling it over the counter at Wal-Mart. The
Government has had to check this out. You folks have had to
check this out. This has to be good for you. That started me on
a journey through the U.S. Olympic facilities in Lake Placid,
which is in my district, and through a variety of other sports
entities in this Nation researching the facts and what was
really involved in the steroid precursor phenomenon.
And what I found was sales quadrupled after Mark Maguire
hit 70 home runs and took Roger Maris off the record books and
acknowledged the use of Andro as a means to develop fitness and
strength. I found that as you had mentioned in your opening
statement, there were a number of very serious and debilitating
side effects to adults. And now, it wasn't much of a leap for a
parent like myself to move to the next conclusion, that if it
has that impact on a developed human body, what the heck does
it do to young children?
And with that and cutting quickly to the other end of it, I
introduced legislation 3 years ago that now is embodied in the
Anabolic Steroid Control Act that sits before you today.
Fortunately, the next year, another good colleague of ours, Tom
Osborne, the former coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers, came to
Congress and immediately, within the first month, got on our
bill and became a strong proponent of the bill. And I am happy
to say that the Judiciary Committee, with the Chairman, Mr.
Sensenbrenner and the Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers' lead on it,
says this bill is going to go forward in this Committee
following the hearings and the due diligence that you have to
perform.
I have to tell you as a parent in this country, I have to
say thank you very much. This Committee is the first Committee
to step forward and provide the kind of leadership that we have
needed. And we have made great progress. There is a lot more
that needs to be happening in questions and answers that maybe
I can get into that a little bit with you. And I thank you for
the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sweeney follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John E. Sweeney, a Representative
in Congress From the State of New York
Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott, thank you for holding this
important hearing. It is an honor to be here today to discuss a bill I
have had the pleasure of introducing with Chairman Sensenbrenner and
Ranking Member Conyers, H.R. 3866, The Anabolic Steroid Control Act. My
colleagues, Congressman Osborne and Congressman Berman have also joined
us in this bipartisan effort to project our children from the dangers
of steroid precursors.
I am happy to provide some background on this legislation, the
vital need for its passage, and explain why it is an issue of such
personal importance to me.
First, some brief history. The Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act (DSHEA) made steroids illegal in 1994. Since that time,
new products called steroid precursors have become popular. These
substances, as the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency will explain today, are the
``functional equivalent of steroids.''
Technology and science has advanced since the early 1990s. It is
now clear steroid precursors pose the same dangers as other steroids
and should be illegal. As a result, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act
specifically lists dozens of steroid precursors, categorizing them as
Schedule III substances.
Unfortunately, experience has taught us that a profit-driven
industry can, and will, make minor chemical changes to a product after
it is deemed illegal. Making such negligible changes currently enables
a manufacturer to reintroduce the product into the marketplace as a
legal substance.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3866 recognizes this challenge and makes it
easier for the Drug Enforcement Agency to outlaw similar steroid
precursors in the future. Changing one molecular of a performance-
enhancer will no longer undo its illegal status. This legislation will
remove the need for the repetitive and costly tests the federal
government currently uses to remove these dangerous substances from
store shelves.
This legislation has gained momentum recently as performance
enhancing drugs continue to show up in the news, specifically with the
BALCO scandal. The lines of fair play are blurred by the prevalence of
steroid precursors and designer steroids. These substances are the
equivalent of illegal steroids and should be treated as such.
As athletes have become more creative; turning to substances such
as andro and its muscle-building cousins, our children have become more
susceptible to the allure of performance-enhancing substances. While
the integrity of sports is significant, the use of steroids in sports
would not be of such profound concern if it did not impact children so
drastically.
In 1998 Mark McGwire admitted to using andro after hitting 70 home
runs and breaking Roger Maris' record. After his admission, sales of
andro quadrupled, with teenagers making up a large portion of those
sales.
The battle against the reckless availability of performance
enhancing substances became personal for me after my 16-year-old son,
an avid baseball player, asked me about the supplements he had seen in
the school locker room. My son assumed that since these substances were
easily available over-the-counter they must be safe. In reality,
steroid precursors have a wide range of side-effects, including stunted
growth, increased risk of heart attack and cancer, elevated blood
pressure, liver damage, serious changes to sexual organs and
depression. I was horrified to think children were so desperate to get
an athletic edge they would unknowingly damage their developing bodies.
Mr. Chairman, nearly three-quarters of kids say they want to
imitate professional athletes. At the same time, the majority of sports
fans believe steroids played a role in recent sports accomplishments.
What type of message does this send our children?
The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that almost 3% of
junior high students have taken anabolic steroids. According to the
Department of Health and Human Services, 1 out of every 40 high-school
seniors admitted to using andro in the past year.
It is time for Congressional action. I'm glad I have been able to
work closely with my colleagues to proactively address the dangers of
steroid precursors. It is our responsibility to address the safety
concerns of these substances and protect our young athletes from harm.
Keeping our children safe is far more important than restoring
integrity to the sports world. But, with the Anabolic Steroid Control
Act, we can accomplish both.
In conclusion, I would like to recognize our friends in the other
body, Senator Hatch and Senator Biden, who are working in tandem with
us on this legislation. It is an honor to have such skilled officials
working together on this issue. I hope their version of the Anabolic
Steroid Control Act, S. 1780, will see action soon.
Our legislation is supported by the DEA, the FDA and the White
House. Endorsements have also come from USADA, CASPER, the NBA, the NFL
and, although their own policy of steroid testing needs improvement--
the MLB.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your interest in this topic. I hope we
can continue to work together on this important issue.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Rannazzisi.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH RANNAZZISI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF THE OFFICE OF DIVERSION CONTROL, DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Rannazzisi. Thank you, sir. Chairman Coble, Ranking
Member Scott, Congressman and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you today for the
first time in my capacity as deputy director for the Office of
Diversion Control in the Drug Enforcement Administration. The
issue of steroid abuse has recently received national attention
in the context of professional sports. But the importance of
stopping steroid abuse extends far beyond preserving the
integrity of our national past time. The importance is to give
our children a healthy future. Abusive anabolic steroids among
young people has reached dangerous levels and puts our kids at
increased risk of heart disease, liver cancer, depression,
stunted growth, eating disorders, not to mention an increased
episode of hostility and aggression. These steroids pose real
dangers. We cannot afford to jeopardize the health of our young
people lured by the temptation of chemical shortcuts to greater
athletic prowess or more muscular physiques.
Unfortunately, the minimal research and short testing time
required for the continuous rapid introduction of new steroids
into the open market makes attempts at monitoring and
scheduling these new substances nearly impossible for law
enforcement. However, the legislation sponsored by Chairman
Sensenbrenner will directly declare certain steroids and
steroid precursors as dangerous drugs and allow us to more
quickly and effectively classify new steroids as controlled
substances. In short, it gives DEA two significant new tools to
help us shut down the illegal steroid trade. First, it gives us
a clear authority to conduct law enforcement operations against
the trafficking steroid precursors as well as designer steroids
like THG.
Until now, these steroids have been able to masquerade as
harmless dietary supplements. This bill will finally call the
steroids what they are, dangerous drugs. Second, this
legislation removes an enormous legal stumbling block to taking
these steroids off the shelf by eliminating the requirement to
prove muscle growth in order to schedule a new steroid. Despite
years of testing costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, we
have not yet been able to schedule a single steroid under these
requirements. This legislation will correct the problem.
Steroid manufacturers will need to register with DEA and
strict accountability will be required for the sale,
prescription and dispensing of approved steroids. These
products will no longer be legally purchased through ads in
fitness magazines or over the Internet, but only pursuant to a
valid prescription obtained from a licensed medical
practitioner. This bill will definitely do the job and I
encourage Members to support it. Mr. Chairman, thank you for
your recognition of these important issues and this opportunity
to testify. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Deputy director, I think you have set an all
time record by beating the 5-minute mark.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rannazzisi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph T. Rannazzisi
Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate your invitation to testify today on the
importance of fighting the growing abuse of steroids in this country.
OVERVIEW
The issue of steroid trafficking and abuse has recently received
national attention in the context of professional sports. But the
importance of stopping steroid abuse extends far beyond our national
pastimes; the importance is to give our children a healthy future.
Abuse of anabolic steroids among young Americans has reached dangerous
levels, and it puts our kids at increased risk of heart disease, liver
cancer, depression, stunted growth, and eating disorders, not to
mention increased episodes of hostility and aggression.
Anabolic androgenic steroids are synthetic chemicals based on the
structure and pharmacology of testosterone originally developed in the
1930s to help rebuild body tissue and prevent breakdown of tissue in
individuals suffering from debilitating diseases. They promote the
growth of skeletal muscle and the development of male sexual
characteristics, in addition to other effects. Their popularity with
athletes exists due to the muscle development and physical performance
enhancements they provide. Unfortunately, this popularity has filtered
down to our nation's teenagers and young adults, who are lured by easy
shortcuts to greater athletic prowess and more muscular physiques.
THE DANGEROUS IMPACT OF STEROIDS ON TEENS AND ATHLETES
Steroid use among young Americans has already passed the danger
zone. The 2003 Monitoring the Future Study conducted by the University
of Michigan indicates that approximately 3.5 percent of American high
school students have used illegal anabolic steroids at least once by
grade 12. In that same study, an incredible 45 percent of all 12th
graders did not believe taking steroids posed a great risk.
This report came on the heels of earlier studies, including the
National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) report of 1999, which stated
that more than a half million 8th and 10th grade students where using
anabolic steroids. A Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey conducted
by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicated that
in 2001, five percent of all high school students reported use of
steroids pills/injections without a physician prescription during their
lifetimes.
Compounding the dangerous perception among young people that
steroid use is harmless is the high-profile use of steroids among
professional athletes. And because sports figures are prominent role
models for our younger citizens, the President has focused on doping
and cheating in sports.
``To help children make the right choices, they need good
examples. Athletics play such an important role in our society,
but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting
much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing drugs like
steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous,
and it sends the wrong message--that there are shortcuts to
accomplishment, and that performance is more important than
character. So tonight I call on team owners, union
representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send
the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids
now.''
(President George W. Bush, 2004 State of the Union Address)
The negative effects of long term anabolic steroid use are well
documented. They include damage to the liver, kidney, heart, and sexual
organs. Their use can also prevent children from reaching their full
height. Moreover, abuse often elevates cholesterol and causes
cardiovascular weakening, combined with hypertension. And because
steroids are commonly injected, needle sharing can transmit blood born
diseases such as HIV and AIDS. Steroids use can also cause uncontrolled
outbursts of anger, frustration or combativeness resulting in wanton
acts of violence. These outbursts are commonly referred to as ``roid
rage.''
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION
Despite these clear health risks, the rapid evolution of new
steroids has made it difficult for law enforcement to keep up, because
each specific chemical formulation is required to be considered as a
separate drug. In its initial attempt to regulate steroid abuse,
Congress passed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 (ASCA), which
scheduled anabolic steroids as a class of drugs, and specifically
listed 27 as controlled substances. In addition, Congress anticipated
that future steroids would ultimately infiltrate the anabolic steroid
black-market, and crafted a four-part definition that the DEA could use
to administratively classify new steroids as Schedule III anabolic
steroids. All four of the following questions needed to be answered:
Is the steroid chemically related to testosterone?
Is the steroid pharmacologically related to
testosterone?
Is the steroid an estrogens, progestin, and
corticosteroid?
Does the steroid promote muscle growth?
The four-part test was first considered by the DEA in 1999, when it
determined that the substance androstenedione met the first three
criteria required under the 1990 legislation, but has been unable to
make a finding regarding the fourth criteria, due to a lack of accepted
methodology available to validate the final requirement for muscle
growth. This meant that Congress had provided the DEA with the
blueprint for scheduling steroids, but the scientific community had yet
to develop a study that accurately quantified the promotion of muscle
growth. This major stumbling block provided a legal loophole for
traffickers of anabolic steroids to continue marketing their dangerous
drugs as dietary supplements.
Consequently, the DEA has had to initiate and fund studies to
develop animal models that could quantify the effects of steroids on
muscle. For example, the DEA is currently co-sponsoring a three year
study in New York City using the guinea pig to evaluate the effects of
steroids on skeletal muscle growth. Other participating agencies
include the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and several branches of the
National Institutes of Health. The first phase has been completed and
the second phase is scheduled for completion in September 2004. This
model will then be used to evaluate the effects of skeletal muscular
growth from two substances: testosterone precursors and nandrolone
precursors. Both of these steroids are now openly sold in dietary
supplement products. The DEA is also funding a study in Seattle,
Washington, using an immature rat as a model. In conjunction with the
New York study, the development of skeletal muscular growth using
steroids currently sold in dietary supplements is being examined. We
anticipate this study will be completed by October 2004.
These two studies have already proven both costly and time
consuming. By contrast, the amount of research and time required to
introduce a new steroid into the dietary supplement market is minimal.
The logical result has been an increase in the number of steroids
available in dietary supplement products. Again, the ongoing
requirement that the DEA must first scientifically validate muscle
growth is a genuine impediment to effective regulatory oversight of
these steroids. This means they continue to enter the dietary
supplement market and continue to be legally purchased by America's
youth, athletes, bodybuilders and other ill informed individuals who
abuse anabolic steroids.
H.R. 3866
To counter this trafficking trend, the DEA believes the fourth
requirement of the ASCA, the quantification of muscle growth, be
dropped from the definition for anabolic steroids. This is a
cornerstone of the legislation sponsored by Chairman Sensenbrenner,
H.R. 3866. The legislation also specifically adds several steroids &
precursors to the list of controlled substances considered anabolic
steroids. In short, the bill will directly declare certain steroids and
steroid precursors as dangerous drugs, and give us new tools to more
quickly and effectively classify new steroids as controlled substances.
For example, one listed steroid precursor is androstenedione. Last
week, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G.
Thompson announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
concluded there is inadequate information to establish that a dietary
supplement containing androstenedione can reasonably be expected to be
safe. Therefore, the FDA sent 23 warning letters to companies that
manufacture, market, and distribute dietary supplement products
containing androstenedione informing them that failure to cease
distribution of these products could result in enforcement action.
The legislation this subcommittee is considering gives DEA two
important tools for shutting down the illegal steroid trade:
First, it would give us clear authority to conduct law enforcement
operations against the trafficking of steroid precursors, as well as
other steroids, including the designer steroid, THG. Until now, these
steroids have masqueraded as harmless dietary supplements. This bill
would finally call these steroids what they are--dangerous drugs.
Second, and as noted above, this legislation would remove an
enormous legal stumbling block to taking these steroids off the shelf
by eliminating the requirement to prove muscle growth to schedule a new
steroid. Despite years of testing costing hundreds of thousands of
dollars, we have not yet been able to schedule a single steroid under
that requirement.
TRAFFICKING OF ILLEGAL STEROIDS INTO OUR COUNTRY
AND DEA ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS
Anabolic steroids are not controlled in most countries. This
translates into a virtually unlimited supply of steroids world-wide.
Outside our borders, anabolic steroids are frequently smuggled into
the United States from Mexico by U.S. citizens who travel there to
purchase them without a prescription. In addition, criminal groups of
Russian, Romanian, and Greek nationals are significant traffickers of
steroids, and are responsible for substantial shipments of steroids
entering the United States. Domestically, illicit steroids are often
sold at gymnasiums and bodybuilding/weightlifting competitions, where
sellers obtained them through theft and fraudulent prescriptions.
Overall, the DEA has increased its enforcement effort of anabolic
steroids. In 2001, we initiated 52 steroid cases. Last year, 87
investigations were launched. In one example, in October 2002 the DEA
arrested eight individuals involved in the largest ketamine
manufacturing and trafficking organization in North America. Included
in the arrests were the owner of Ttokkyo Laboratorios and their sole
Mexican distributor arrested in Panama. At the time, Ttokkyo was the
largest manufacturer of anabolic steroids in Mexico and supplier to
major U.S. distributors. This international ketamine and anabolic
steroid trafficking organization in Mexico smuggled thousands of vials
of ketamine and steroids to California, New York, New Jersey, and
Florida. Among the Schedule III steroids being smuggled were
methandienone, nandrolone, testerone, and oxandrolone.
CONCLUSION
The DEA has one mission: to protect the public from dangerous
drugs. However, the current law regarding steroids causes regulatory
delay, especially with respect to steroids that we know are hormonally,
chemically, or pharmacologically related to testosterone. Because DEA
authority extends only to controlled substances, steroids that are not
classified as controlled substances continue to fall outside our
jurisdiction.
H.R. 3866 will correct this problem. Manufacturers of steroids
designated or scheduled as controlled substances will need to register
with the DEA and strict accountability will be required for the sale,
prescription, and dispensing of steroids. These products will no longer
be legally purchased through ads in fitness magazines or over the
Internet, but only pursuant to a prescription obtained by a licensed
medical practitioner.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your recognition of these important
issues and the opportunity to testify here today. I will be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Coble. Dr. Hale.
STATEMENT OF RALPH HALE, M.D., CHAIRMAN, UNITED STATES ANTI-
DOPING AGENCY
Dr. Hale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, good afternoon. I am currently the chairman of the
board of directors of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. I could make
it shorter because the two preceding speakers have already said
everything that I had planned on saying, but I will say a
couple of extra things. As you know, the U.S. Anti-Doping
Agency has recently received a lot of media attention based on
the designer steroid THG. We are very concerned about that. But
I want to emphasize to the Committee we are equally concerned
about all classes of anabolic substances readily available on
the shelves of the supermarkets and nutrition stores of the
United States.
Mr. Chairman, you have adequately presented the perils of
anabolic steroid use. They all originated, we think, a lot of
the time with the East Germans, and I am not going to go
through those again. But despite these well-known health
consequences for approximately the last 8 years, American
consumers have been able to walk in their corner nutrition
stores and buy products containing Androstenedione.
Mr. Sweeney pointed out about Mark Maguire and the other
athletes, and I think that has been a tremendous example to the
youth of America. If you want to succeed, you have to do it by
use of chemicals. Last Thursday, the FDA took action against
Androstenedione and acknowledged there is serious and a
substantial concern about the safety of the products. We fully
support this action and we are very appreciative of the FDA
finally moving in this regard. We hope they will continue to
move forward in the steroid precursor area as well. But I think
Androstenedione also makes it clear that there needs to be more
and better legislation as presented in bill 3866.
Some unscrupulous manufacturers have already made minor
chemicals changes. They changed Androstenedione to
Androstenediol, a simple chemical change which takes place in
the body. What takes place in the body is simply the cleaning
of the OL, the alcohol group chemically, and it becomes
Androstenedione again, and it has the same effect.
So legislative action is needed to discourage this
continued introduction of many steroids and steroid precursors.
I believe that the whole concerns of all American consumers who
do not fully understand the impact of these steroid precursors
and what happens to them and especially our young adolescents.
The story that Mr. Sweeney just told about his son is not rare.
It is probably more common than most people understand.
I have a son who teaches in high school. He tells me that
his students can easily go anywhere they want and get steroid
precursors in the various nutrition stores and the various
markets and the various areas around, and yet most of them
think that because it is on the shelf it is safe. They believe
that it has been approved. They don't understand the other
alternatives. You can go to the Internet. And I have with me
what we just took off the Internet today, four advertisements
for quote, ``hard to obtain pharmaceutical legal steroids.''
and they start out by saying, and I will read one of them, you
can get Boldenone, known as Equipoise. It is the active
ingredient in the anabolic steroid. Many of these
advertisements are available not only to us but to people all
over the world.
For Olympic athletes where we spend a lot of our time and
effort, they know how to avoid these products. They stay away
from anything they know would give them a failing doping test.
However, they also know that the IOC found in 624 dietary
supplements, 41 percent of them carried a steroid precursor or
banned substance. That puts our athletes as well as our
children at risk. There is no credible argument to the over the
counter availability of products containing steroid precursors.
The time has come to stop this proliferation. I really do
appreciate the Committee's attention to the problem as well as
the actions of numerous senators, Senator Sweeney, Senator
Sensenbrenner--Congressman Sensenbrenner, Congressman Sweeney,
Congressman Osborne.
Mr. Coble, you as an endorser, Mr. Scott, Mr. Keller, we
really do appreciate the actions you have done as well as the
fellow senators. And we hope and believe that these bills are
the appropriate solution to the steroid precursor problem in
the United States today, and we urge your full support for this
bill. Thank you very much for the opportunity for USDA to come
and to talk to you. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is available at
any time that you need to call upon us for anything.
Mr. Coble. Thank you Dr. Hale.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hale follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Ralph W. Hale
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning, my name is
Dr. Ralph Hale. Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding this
important health issue. Today, I am here as the Chairman of the Board
of Directors of the United States Anti-Doping Agency. I am also a
physician who has been practicing medicine for more than 40 years.
USADA has been recognized by Congress as the independent, national
anti-doping agency for Olympic and Paralympic sport in the United
States. Our mission is to protect and preserve the health of athletes,
the integrity of competition, and the well-being of sport through the
elimination of doping.
Recently USADA has received increased media attention for its role
in the investigation into the existence and use by elite athletes of
the designer steroid, THG. Designer steroids are an important concern
for USADA. However, USADA is equally concerned about a class of
anabolic substances that are readily available in the United States on
the shelves of supermarkets and nutrition stores, as well available for
order on thousands of internet sites. These products, marketed and sold
as allegedly ``safe'' dietary supplements, contain substances, such as
androstenedione and norandrostenedione and are one chemical step away
from anabolic steroids. Once ingested these products are converted
within the body into anabolic steroids. The availability of these
products is a significant public health issue that transcends sport and
places American consumers at risk.
The perils of anabolic steroid use are well known. In Olympic
sport, the most notable, systematic state-supported program of doping
with anabolic steroids was conducted by the East Germans from 1974
until the Berlin Wall fell. One of the anabolic substances developed by
the East Germans as part of their doping program was androstenedione.
In the body, androstenedione metabolizes into the anabolic steroid,
testosterone. The documented side effects of the East German steroid
program, particularly for women athletes, were tragic. These side
effects include damage to the liver and reproductive system,
susceptibility to cancers, and permanent masculinization of women. It
is also well known that men who abuse steroids and steroid precursors
risk serious health consequences including gynecomastia, baldness,
shrunken testicles, infertility and susceptibility to aggressive
behavior or rage. For adolescents who use steroids the side effects can
include all of the above, as well as a strong likelihood that natural
growth will be arrested or otherwise detrimentally affected.
Despite all of these well-known health consequences, for
approximately the last eight years, American consumers have been able
to walk into their corner nutrition store and buy products containing
androstenedione. In 1998, after certain popular professional athletes
acknowledged using androstenedione, sales of these supplements in the
United States, particularly among teenagers, dramatically increased.
The popular demand for androstenedione gave birth to an entire
industry. Now the nutrition store shelves, and the internet, are
flooded with products containing various steroid precursors. For
example, 19-norandrostenedione, which metabolizes in the body into the
steroid nandrolone, another controlled substance, is present in
hundreds of over-the-counter products.
Last Thursday, the Food and Drug Administration took action against
androstenedione and acknowledged that there is a ``serious and
substantial concern'' about the safety of products containing
androstenedione. USADA fully supports this important action and
encourages the FDA to immediately take action against the remaining
steroid precursor products on the market. Currently the introduction of
these products is governed by the Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act. Under DSHEA a supplement manufacturer is not required to
prove to the government that its precursor product is safe prior to
putting it on the shelf. Instead, DSHEA places the burden on the
government to take action against unsafe products after they reach the
shelves.
The androstenedione example makes clear, that by the time the
agencies are able to take action against a specific steroid precursor;
unscrupulous manufacturers will already have made minor chemical
changes to the product and reintroduced it into the marketplace. For
example, while the FDA sent letters to 23 companies selling products
containing androstenedione, last week's action does not yet reach the
companies that are now selling the more popular next-generation
androstenedione products such as 1-AD and 4-Androstenediol. While we
hope the FDA will promptly address those other products, legislative
action needs to be taken to discourage the continued introduction of
new steroid precursor products.
Significantly, steroid precursor manufacturers fully exploit the
protection offered by DSHEA and actively tout precursors products as
``natural'' and ``legal'' in order to raise the false implication that
they offer a safe alternative to controlled anabolic steroids. At the
same time, the marketers of these products glorify the muscle-building
qualities of these substances and reinforce the association between
these products and those very same controlled anabolic steroids. These
products are marketed under names that reinforce their connection to
anabolic steroids, including ``Cycloroid,'' ``Masterbolan,'' ``Anabol-
X,'' ``Paradrol,'' and ``Animal Stak.'' These products are advertised
as equal to or better than the ``real steroids'' and promise the user
huge gains in muscle mass.
While I believe these products raise a health concern for all
American consumers who are duped into taking them, I am particularly
concerned about the susceptibility of adolescents to the advertising
message of steroid precursors. In a society where high school athletes
can sign multi-million dollar endorsement contracts, we cannot expect
teenagers to ignore advertisements claiming that these products are
``safe alternatives'' to steroids and will make them ``ripped,''
``huge,'' improve their athletic performance and give them the body of
their dreams. The manufacturers certainly have no motivation to reveal
the serious health consequences associated with their products to the
adolescents who are buying them, and unfortunately, there is no law
requiring disclosure of those health consequences.
For Olympic athletes, who know to avoid these products, there
remains another concern. In increasing numbers, athletes are failing
doping tests after taking mislabeled dietary supplements. Studies have
shown that an alarmingly high percentage of dietary supplements contain
doping substances that are not disclosed on the label. For example, a
recent study of 624 dietary supplements by the International Olympic
Committee found that 41% of the products from American companies
contained a steroid precursor or banned substance not disclosed on the
label.
USADA believes that the current effectively unregulated
availability of products containing steroid precursors in the United
States is a health crisis that affects not just elite athletes, but
every American teenager who dreams of athletic success, and every
consumer who takes one of these products without being informed of the
risks. Additionally, because of the risk of contamination, American
consumers who believe they are taking perfectly safe nutritional
products may unknowingly be ingesting steroid precursors.
There is simply no credible argument supporting the over-the-
counter availability of products containing steroid precursors. The
time has come to put a stop to the proliferation of these dangerous
products. I appreciate this Committee's attention to this problem, as
well as the actions of numerous Senators and Congressmen who have
joined USADA in the fight to remove these dangerous products from
America's stores. On behalf of USADA, I would like to specifically
thank Congressmen Sensenbrenner, Conyers, Sweeney, Osborne, and Berman
for introducing the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. I would also
like to thank Senators Biden, Hatch, Grassley and Harkin for their
attention to this matter and commend their introduction of the Senate
version of this bill.
These bills amend the Controlled Substances Act by scheduling the
substances I have discussed here today and by making it easier to
schedule any anabolic steroid precursors introduced by manufacturers in
the future. USADA believes that these bills are the appropriate
solution to the steroid precursor problem. We urge full support for
these bills and we are hopeful that they will be rapidly passed by
Congress.
I would like to thank this Committee for its time and its interest
in this important public health issue and for inviting me to share my
thoughts on the dangers posed to American consumers by products
containing steroid precursors. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. Dr. Hale, some on this side of the Hill may
conclude that you demoted Sensenbrenner and Sweeney when you
call them Senators. But I will say that with tongue in cheek.
Mr. Hazelton, let me repeat your introduction to make sure I
have it correct. Mr. Robert Hazelton is from Howard Lake, MN.
Former heavyweight boxer who knows firsthand about the dangers
of steroid use. Mr. Hazelton began his boxing career in 1969, a
time when many people were not aware of the dangers of
steroids. Mr. Hazelton has learned those lessons and has
traveled widely around this country to share his story with
others.
It is good to have you with us, Mr. Hazelton, and you will
be the wrap-up witness. Mr. Hazelton, if you could, confine
your comments to as close to 5 minutes as you can. When that
red light illuminates in your eye, you will know you are on
thin ice. Good to have you with us.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT HAZELTON, FORMER BOXER
Mr. Hazelton. First, I would like to start, God bless that
I am here today, our country.
Mr. Coble. Could you pull that mike a little closer to you.
Mr. Hazelton. God bless America that I am here today, and
God bless our President and what is going on in our country
today. I would like to start by saying steroids have been going
on a long time. Even in the 1930's, they were being used in
Germany for the soldiers to give them more endurance, to be
more aggressive during wartime in World War II. Steroids has
been on the market for a long, long time, and I have been doing
lectures for 15 years, and it seems like the first 7 years I
started back in the early 1990's, everybody wanted to hear how
dangerous this drug was.
I know Senator Biden brought this to Congress back in the
early 1990's or late 1980's to make this a law to where it was
a prescribed drug. I caught the last part of one of my
associates down there about steroids being purchased over the
Internet. Before I came here, I made a purchase of $200 of
Anadol, Cypionate, Propionate, and these different types of
injectable steroids. We have done nothing in the last 15 to 20
years but put up smokescreens that we are going to stop
steroids.
We have professional athletes using this drug that are
breaking records, and they are saying they are doing with
basically what is God-given to them as a great athlete. We all
know that the records that have been broken in the last 10
years have been some type of enhancing drug. Now if we are
going to use steroids, then basically we need to have two types
of individuals or records, record books to where the guys who
broke them back in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's and early 1960's
compared to the guys that have broke them now because it is not
right that these guys did it with--the ability to break a
record. I know when I leave here today, that I am still going
to see these guys using them and basically not being
disciplined, fined or anything else.
Now I know for a fact that I tried to talk to Mr. Bud Selig
about 3 weeks ago trying to help these other athletes that have
been using steroids, and one of his associates said ``Well, it
is none of your business and we will handle it on our own
turf.'' That just tells me that these owners of professional
teams, they don't want to hear the true stories. As I sit here
today, I sit here with no legs.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Hazelton, don't worry about that. Take a
deep breath, and everybody is on your side.
Mr. Hazelton. It is because people didn't tell me. We have
got to do something about this drug. This drug is as bad as
cocaine, crack, heroin and any drug on the market because it is
a drug that when it affects your body, you don't know if it is
going to affect you now, 6 months down the road, or 10 years
down the road.
Finally some of these players are becoming a front, Conseco
admitted to using steroids. The tennis star, John McEnroe said
he used steroids. You don't have to have a big body to be on
steroids. Steroids enhance your performance. I had a guy when I
did an interview a couple of weeks ago who said, ``Well, I
drank a six-pack of beer and I could hit a softball over a
major league fence, and I didn't use steroids.'' Doesn't mean
because you use steroids that it is going to make you hit a
home run any further, but it will give you the ability to be
more aggressive, to be more powerful.
And if you have the ability, you will hit more home runs.
Now if we are going to make this drug presented to some of the
athletes that have broken records, then we might as well open
it to every athlete out there today because it is not right
that one set of guys use it, whether it be football or baseball
and another set that goes in there and plays the game, all the
rules, all the regulations, gets a big payday but still isn't
breaking that record. We know some of the guys that have hit
home runs in the last 20 years that have broken these records,
and they say they are not on drugs.
Well, I know firsthand that these guys have used drugs. I
mean when you spend your life in gymnasiums, you spend your
life being shot up with steroids and knowing what it does to
enhancing your performance in doing these sports, that I can
pick somebody out just by looking at them.
Now I spent the last 7 years having my legs amputated more
and more and more. This is never going to go away for me. It is
something I have to deal with everyday of my life. And it is
just something that I think is not fair for these kids to hear
from these athletes out there that they are doing this by the
ability they have by just being a good athlete. If you can
imagine laying on a surgery table like I did a month ago, not
being put to sleep but you can smell your bone and your tissue
being cut off your body because you used a drug that no one
told you about, it is going to make you a little more angry
than the normal guy because I get sick and tired of hearing
these baseball players and these people that are head of the
game saying they are handling it.
They are not handling it. The only way you are going to
handle this thing is make it for everybody. You got to say we
are going to cut it out for Joe Blow down to whoever. That is
the only way it is going to stop this drug. And you have to
have fines and suspensions, and they are going to have to mean
something because these guys are getting a slap on the hand.
They are making $30 million. You are not going to go stop them.
To me, that is a holiday for these guys. They take off a week
or 2 weeks and go off in the sun and relax and come back and
play the game and go right back on the drugs.
Until this Committee and this country stops it, then you
are not going to have a clean sport again. And I will sum this
up. My father, in 1972, after he learned that I had been on
steroids, we didn't have a lot to talk about because he had
lost his faith in me as a person who did play sports, was a
professional fighter and he actually died 13 years ago never
speaking to me because of that position in my life that I
thought I needed.
Well, my life, I have been spending 15 years to dedicate my
life out here to make a difference in these kids. But if I
don't get anybody backing me up, then it is not going to
happen. And I am the only one out there actually making a
difference. And that is all I have to say. And it is up to you
guys after I leave here today. And if there is media, I would
like to say right now, I guarantee in 5 years, you will not see
any difference than you see right here today.
[The preparded statement of Mr. Hazelton follows:]
Mr. Coble. We thank all the witnesses, but particularly Mr.
Hazelton, because you have been there and done that. And I
appreciate the media's interest as well. They are indeed
covering this. Mr. Hazelton, let me start with you, and we
impose the 5-minute rule against us folks--if you make your
answers fairly brief--tell us how you first became aware of the
dangers of steroid use, Mr. Hazelton.
Mr. Hazelton. Well, I started taking steroids after I lost
to George Foreman in 1969 on ABC Wild World of Sports. I
weighed 183 pounds and my manager sent me to England. And I
came in contact with the drug called Dianabol. The reason they
used them, it was a very high potency vitamin pill. It was okay
to take, and I would see weight gain and size, but that is all
I would feel. Four years down the road, I started having pains
in the back of my leg and calf, and it was a period from 1971
until 1980 that the leg had broken down so bad that the
circulation was almost completely dead.
That was the first time I knew I was taking steroids
because the doctor in Vegas in 1977 refused to give me an
injection. He says, you know what you are putting in your body?
I said, no, sir. He says you are putting in a synthetic hormone
which your body produces everyday. Everybody in here should
have a normal amount of steroids put in their body. When you
start injecting steroids, your body goes to the 5,000, 10,000
times your normal amount any professional athlete that takes
steroid, an aggressive type of steroid is going to be putting
in their body.
Your body just can't handle that. It is going to break down
somewhere, whether it is your heart, your lung or your kidneys.
Somewhere along the line, it is going to break down.
Mr. Coble. We may have a second round, too. Mr. Sweeney,
the products this legislation seeks to ban are widely available
in nutrition stores, pharmacies and even over the Internet.
Some of the manufactures have suggested that we should not ban
these products, but instead we should make them illegal for
anyone under the age of 18 or require better labeling of these
products? What say you to that?
Mr. Sweeney. The precursors and the designer steroids are
the equivalent, Mr. Chairman, of steroids. That is their
impact. And as Dr. Hale pointed out and the deputy director
pointed out, whether there is some slight chemical change or
not in the process, the effect is the same. And Congress's
intent in passing the 94 legislation banning the over-the-
counter sales of anabolic steroids is pretty clear. There isn't
any distinction there. There isn't anything that clouds that
response and that intent of Congress. And effectively, what you
have here are some manufacturers driven by greed, some
professional athletes driven by greed circumventing the intent
of Congress in the creation and the use and the distribution
and promotion of these products.
And as Mr. Hazelton pointed out, as I spoke to you earlier,
and as you cited in the National Institute of Drug Abuse
Statistics, this has real impact on kids. Now if you are going
to allow it for kids and treat it like alcohol, first of all we
know, it is difficult to enforce.
Secondly, the availability over the counter is still there.
And thirdly, as Mr. Hazelton has more accurately pointed out,
the availability by other means, the Internet, is going to be
there, and you are not going to get to the real problem. As I
said, the impact on the developing body I got to believe is
certainly more devastating to the mature body of an adult.
Mr. Coble. Dr. Hale, you indicated that by the time the
agencies are able to take actions against a specific steroid
precursor, unscrupulous manufacturers will already have made
minor chemical changes to the product and reintroduced it in
the marketplace. In your opinion, is the proposed legislation
comprehensive, A, and do you have recommendations that would
make this legislation more effective, B?
Dr. Hale. In answer to your questions, the answer is yes
and no. Yes, I do believe this is a very comprehensive bill
that will be very effective in protecting the American public.
And at this point, I cannot recommend any substantive changes
to this. I believe that those who have drafted this bill have
done an excellent job. I am very pleased that you have done
that. And I would just urge you to pass it so we can get on
with it.
Mr. Coble. Let me try to beat the red light here, Mr.
Rannazzisi. Strike that. Let me recognize Mr. Scott and then we
will have a second round. Gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sweeney, how do you
deal with Internet sales? Does your bill mention anything about
that?
Mr. Sweeney. It does not and it is a broader issue with
greater implication than I know your Committee has really
wrestled with over the years, but we have to take the first
step. We have to recognize that precursors exist and the
designer steroids exist, and we have to ban them first and
allow that law to evolve in the other areas.
Mr. Scott. Are there dietary supplements that are marketed
as performance enhancers that should not be illegal?
Mr. Sweeney. There are. And the first 2 years we introduced
the legislation, we broadly defined the ban as precursors and
designer steroids and because there are products that the FDA
has pointed out to us that--protein shakes, for example, things
of that nature, really ought not to be lumped into the same
bunch as the precursors and as the designer steroids. We, now
in this legislation, create two mechanisms, one the specific
ban on specific products, and then the capacity by the DEA to
reclassify other products as they evolve and are developed by
some of those folks.
And I want to reiterate what I said earlier. There are some
manufacturers who voluntarily said we are going to get out of
this business and we are not going to engage. And what we have
left, Mr. Scott, are a lot of people on the fringes. I liken it
to the methamphetamine labs that popped up over rural America.
What you got are people scattering now trying to find ways to
circumvent the law to create this product and sell this
product, marketing it and directing it to kids and young
athletes knowing that its impact is what it is and that is
unconscionable and we need to stop that.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Hazelton, are the steroids addictive? If
people want to stop, can they stop?
Mr. Hazelton. They are not on the same line as heroin or
your harder drugs, but it becomes psychologically addictive to
where when I was weighing 290 pounds, I thought I weighed 180.
On the same lines as anorexia. You feel like you don't get big
enough. Steroids have a really psychological bad side effect as
far as mentality. You are mental, the bad moods, the
aggressiveness. Sometimes you think you are doing something to
where you think it is like a psychopath. I found myself, when I
was using them, going out to nightclubs and beating the hell
out of people just because I felt I was strong. Of course, I
want to say other things, but I would like to ask one question
and have someone answer it.
Why do you need anabolic steroids? Why? Just tell me. If it
is to get big, to compete in body building contests, fine, I
can see it because, I mean, they use it. Professional
wrestling, which is not a sport, it is like going to a circus,
that is fine. But for someone that plays a professional sport,
for God's sake, why do you need it? Tell me. Babe Ruth didn't
use it. Mickey Mantle didn't use it. Roger Maris didn't use it.
Willy Mays didn't use it. These guys are in history. These guys
were great athletes.
If someone can tell me why you need to make steroids
allowed to be used for any reason, then I cannot walk away, but
I will take my chair and go somewhere else. But there is not a
reason.
Mr. Scott. As I understand it, we are not prohibiting it,
we are making it like a prescriptive drug where it can only be
available under medical supervision properly.
Mr. Hazelton. When you make this available for a doctor to
write it--and excuse me, Congressman, it is going to go rampant
because it is going to be just like when you get a handicapped
sticker for your car, someone can't walk 300 yards--well, my
patient is obese or this or that, got a bad back, what do you
think is going to happen to steroids? As soon as you pass the
law saying it can be written by a doctor again, they are going
to make a field day on selling scrips. Exactly.
Mr. Scott. Let me see what is in the bill.
Mr. Sweeney. We categorize them as schedule 3 substances.
And I would, just in response to Mr. Hazelton, I don't think
there is any legitimate over-the-counter use of anabolic
steroids.
Mr. Scott. No legitimate over-the-counter use?
Mr. Sweeney. Right. And Dr. Hale would probably be able to
answer more accurately.
Mr. Scott. I was going to ask Dr. Hale if there are
legitimate uses?
Dr. Hale. Yes, there are. Certain conditions, certain
wasting diseases related to cancer, something such as that
where this would help. There are certain other types of
conditions. It really depends on the individual injury and the
individual physician. I understand, Mr. Hazelton, but I do
believe physicians in this country. In our own State of
Virginia, you have a very strong control. I am licensed in
Virginia. And it would be very difficult to misuse this,
although we fully recognize that anyone can misuse this at any
given time. This would prevent the gross overusage that is
taking place today.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Feeney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, members
of the panel and our friend, Congressman Sweeney. I think all
of us, certainly at the collegiate and high school level, would
like to prohibit and proscribe all use of these performance
enhancers, and most of us would like to see them regulated, if
not prohibited, at the professional level. But there are two
areas here, one is the war on drugs, which has been, at best,
nixed in terms of its success the last several decades and then
the general decline in what I would call sportsmanship.
And you have these two areas, and I think Mr. Hazelton put
it right, it is going to be very difficult to have success here
which doesn't mean we shouldn't have to try but talk about some
of the way we are moving in sports these days, whether it is
parents screaming at umpires at little league, whether it is
the intent to injure that we see increased, whether it is
amount of money involved or sports agents dominating the news
page, suped up, not just athletes but bats and balls and every
other piece of equipment we can get a hand on.
So the whole notion of what we mean by sports in America
has been subject to some decline and we ought to be inculcating
a spirit of athleticism in every child, not just those that are
competing at the interscholastic ranks, but to up and down. So
my question is to my friend, Congressman Sweeney, with respect
to the effectiveness here, and in part to Dr. Hale, because I
have two concerns about how we actually take an effective
approach to the problem that has been outlined by Congressman
Sweeney's bill. And one would have to do with definitional
problems. We have enough problems enforcing laws against, say,
a heroin or cocaine user, marijuana user, even when we all
agree what the definitions are.
I note, for example, Dr. Hale, that the drug that Mr.
Hazelton said that he was encouraged to use is not on the list,
at least in my understanding of the very technical terms. You
have about 50 or 60 drugs that are now going to be categorized
as schedule 3. And what is it, Dr. Hale, that prevents, if we
pass this law and the manufacturer wants to comply and they
could put together a new--the combinations are almost infinite,
are they not? And not only are they infinite, but they have a
very difficult challenge when you talk about performance
enhancing drugs, which is not what this bill defines as
illegal. The reason you have to specifically enumerate them is
otherwise you get into caffeine, sugar, vitamins, high protein
soft drinks, et cetera.
So where are we going if we list 108 drugs that are
prohibited? Isn't 109 right around the corner. And if
Congressman Sweeney could maybe address that as a follow up
after Dr. Hale does. I guess the other question is with respect
to increasing the penalties at or near sports facilities.
Doesn't this pretty much drive weight lifters and athletes who
are training, simply drive the behavior somewhat underground?
And do you really get what you are going after here or you just
sort of drive the occurrence of the activities somewhere else?
Dr. Hale, if you would.
Dr. Hale. Thank you, Mr. Feeney, you asked a critical and
very important question. First, let me answer your question
about dianabol. That is a known steroid that was covered in the
original. That is why you don't see it on the list anymore.
What we are looking at are steroid precursors now. The actual
known steroids are already covered. What we are looking at are
those precursors which in the body actually move into the
steroid.
The answer to your second is that I would like to think
that the next step, once we have been able to ban this easy
access over the counter is education, just as with the drug
program. I know that we will never get rid of everything, but
we can certainly try to make certain that the young people in
America at least don't have easy access using what we talked
about as some of the other illicit drugs.
Yes, as I read the reports from the DEA, we are making
inroads in it. And there are others that come up. But it is
education that is ultimately going to be the winner. USADA, we
have been working with Scholastic Magazine to begin an intense
education program for young grade schoolers to teach them about
what is right and what is wrong. The instance of fair play you
talk about, that is a real issue we face in America today. I
wish I had a solution for it, but I do not. But I do think we
can go the first step. And the first step along the way is
banning the precursors, not making them easily available. As
long as they are easily available, all the education in the
world and everything else we do is not going to come to any
fruition until such time as they can learn the dangers and the
problems.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Chabot. And we will have a second round.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a couple of
questions and I got here a little bit late and I apologize, and
this may have been covered. But as far as high school athletes
and college athletes and the pressures through competition that
exists out there, have any of you touched on or could you touch
on how prevalent this is, how below----
Mr. Sweeney. The National Institute of Drug Abuse said 3
years ago that almost 3 percent of seventh and eighth graders
had used the substances, either the precursors and/or steroids
or themselves and a greater percentage--and I don't recall the
number offhand--in the high school age group had done that.
But, Mr. Chabot, I have to reiterate the point this is about
getting more of these products on the list as schedule 3s,
because there is definitive science showing their impact. It is
having real impact and it starts at the major sports level.
And we have had great progress in the last several years
since there has been an acknowledgment by the major sports, the
NBA, the NFL, the NCAA, the USOC, all have joined on in support
of this idea and all have said independent testing needs to be
done in their sports, and there is a reason for that. It is
because it skews the sport, but it goes beyond that. It affects
the culture that we live in. It affects our kids. And the only
obstacle in this process has been major league baseball, but it
has also been the predominant sales entity of this product by
virtue of Mark Maguire's accomplishments, by virtue of his
acknowledgement of use, by virtue of the rumors and the
acknowledgement of other major league players, and because
baseball itself at first, and now I guess it is just the
players' union really have taken an absurd, obstructionist,
unconscionable stance in this process saying it is a privacy
issue. They fail to recognize the impact and the messages they
send out.
And they fail to recognize the special privileges we have
given them here; the public funds that are used for their
facilities. They fail to recognize the message they are sending
to our kids and that is, if you are going to get ahead, cheat a
little bit and who cares what happens to you later in your life
with your health.
Well, Mr. Hazelton has pointed out as dramatically as
anybody could of that impact. And so we really need to
understand that the manufacturers of these products and the
athletes that use them are intending to circumvent our intent
and we ought not to let that happen anywhere.
Mr. Chabot. What kind of effort is being made or might be
made in the future to educate some of the athletes, especially
at the high school and college level, as to how they might
obtain the results they are looking for through natural food or
working out lifting weights naturally as opposed to being
involved with the anabolic steroids?
Mr. Hazelton. Out of the lectures I have done, I have seen
some of the ways they use to deter these kids from using them
is a cassette tape, bringing their athletes into a room and
letting them listen to the dangers of steroids. And 9 times out
of 10, the worse thing they have on the tape is hair loss or
problems basically with pimples, the swelling of the body and
it never got into the part of the heart, the lungs, the liver,
the loss of legs, the inoperable cancer. It doesn't get into
where it is going to be something that is going to make you
look at and say, my God, can this happen to me and they don't
push it. It is like a joke.
When you talk about how many kids are out there using it
from the time I saw it in 1989 doing lectures until now, there
is one part of the country has 73 percent of their athletes on
the football team using steroids, 73 percent. The team was
number one in the State. I don't want to say--I am not here to
start downing the city or the State that was in, 73 percent.
And I had kids calling me after I had gone there to do a
lecture, crying wondering is this going to happen to them.
Mr. Chabot. Was there any effort to discuss the
alternatives to this stuff? You mentioned about the bad things
that it can do to you. Has there been much of an effort?
Mr. Hazelton. I am not saying anything bad about
Washington, the school at the time couldn't find me and this
was when I was hot on the market doing my lectures. They had
brought someone from the FDA and someone from the pharmacy
department here to come down there and tell the kids what the
dangers were, what happened. And finally after I did reach the
superintendent of the schools, he told me that Bob when they
came in there, the kids were so bored that they spent more time
talking, writing stuff out, drawing, but it is after you had
left, the kids actually spent time in the classroom asking each
other what could be done--how to stop our friend or our
teammates from using it and what the dangers were.
Mr. Sweeney. If I could point out quickly, but we have
secured in the past years, seed funding for education programs
starting in New York and Oklahoma. This was over the last
couple of years as we were beginning the awareness here in
Congress. And we have also, in the last week, picked up the
scholastic in partnership for a drug free America support who
are going to do ad campaigns. And I think Dr. Hale's group and
the U.S. Anti-Doping folks have gotten engaged in the last
several years in trying to get that message.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. And the other
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When the President of
the United States decided to use his bully pulpit of the State
of the Union to mention the problems with steroids and
performance enhancing drugs, it became crystal clear to me that
something was about to happen in Congress. Now anabolic
steroids have been banned since 1990 both for athletes and
nonathletes, and now we see a need to expand this list of
banned steroids to include the over-the-counter steroid
precursors. Whereas the popular anabolic steroid dianabol has
been banned for quite some time, we will now be banning the
steroid precursor andro. Now because this issue is being
championed by the President of the United States and
Congressman Sweeney as well as the bipartisan leadership of the
Judiciary Committee in the House and some prominent bipartisan
U.S. senators, I am relatively convinced that this bill will
become law, and I will support it.
But I want to take this to the next step and ask you some
questions about testing, and Congressman Sweeney, I will start
with you. I am concerned that even after we pass this, we are
still not going to be able to rely on the honor system of
athletes not taking this, both amateur athletes when there is a
gold medal at stake, or an NCAA championship, and with respect
to pro athletes, when you stand to get a bonus for being the
MVP for hitting so many home runs. I would like someone who is
not that familiar with how testing works, both in the
professional sports and amateur, if you could give me an
overview of how it works, say, with professional sports in
terms of testing.
Mr. Sweeney. Well, it is a great question. I think it goes
to the root of the obstruction that we faced in this process.
Ben Johnson is not known as the world's fastest man and gold
medal winner in the Olympics.
Ben Johnson is known as a disgraced athlete who cheated and
was stripped of all of those honors all of those medals because
he used steroids in the process.
The USOC and the other groups I mentioned, the NCAA and the
NFL and the NBA, have all now agreed that it is in their
sports' interests as it relates to the integrity of those sorts
to implement independent testing systems, random independent
testing systems, that I think are going to have real impact on
their sports and create real benefit in reducing the use of it.
One of the last obstacles is Major League Baseball. What I
would think, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member, and Members,
is what you ought to do as well, is you continue to review this
bill, is get Don Fehr and Bud Selig in here, and ask them what
they are going to do next, because the shielding of independent
and random testing done by the players union in particular, and
in part, by the owners, is banned because they have got a
collective bargaining agreement that only calls for a limited
round of testing.
Now, we know what happened in that limited round of
notified tests, that 5 to 7 percent of Major League Baseball
players tested positive, when they knew they were going to get
tested. That is three full teams in current construct of Major
League Baseball.
Baseball is thumbing its nose at Congress, at the laws of
this land. I am not so sure jurisdictionally what we can do in
this bill, and we have struggled with this issue to require any
kind of mandated testing. And I think folks at USADA have been
very effective at getting these other sports entities involved
in the process.
But, I think that we ought to use our bully pulpit, because
you are right. The President called in the calvary on the day
of the State of the Union, and we are now reacting to that
call. It is going to be passed into law in some form.
But, we need to find a way that has an impact, with the
recognition that this is a little bit less about pro athletes,
and a heck of a lot about our kids.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Congressman Sweeney. Dr. Hale,
Congressman Sweeney seems to be relatively comfortable, I take
it from his testimony, with the amateur sports governing
themselves in the appropriate testing, but at least one
particular professional sport, major league baseball, not doing
enough.
What is your opinion as to the amateur sports and their
testing procedures? Are they adequate with respect to, say, the
Olympics and NCAA football?
Dr. Hale. Let me just very briefly explain to the Committee
how testing is done. As Congressman Sweeney pointed out, there
are actually three types of testing. There is testing in
competition, which is where Ben Johnson got caught, I happened
to be there at that time.
And there is testing at camps and other things. But, the
most effective testing is the no-announced testing. For
example, if you were an athlete in the pool, one of our doping
control officers could walk up today and tap you and say
Representative Keller, join me in the bathroom, I want a
sample. Then and now. And you have to produce. If you don't
produce it is a positive. And the punishments are very heavy.
And I think that right now is the basis of our most
successful testing program. That is being done by the NFL, it
is being done by the NCAA, it is being done by all of the
Olympic sports. And so I think these are the ways that we can
prevent people from abusing the use of these drugs and
medications.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Keller. Mr. Rannazzisi, we have
overlooked you but we have not abandoned you.
Dr. Hale, in his statement, indicated that studies have
shown that an alarmingly high percentage of dietary supplements
contain doping substances, and they are not disclosed on the
label.
Assuming this statement is accurate, and I have no reason
to doubt it, is it reasonable to assume that companies may
still continue to manufacture these products containing steroid
precursors, and simply continue not to list its contents
accurately?
If so, what can be done to combat this problem?
Mr. Rannazzisi. Well, if the legislation passes, those
substances become controlled substances. As controlled
substances, those substances have to be identified properly,
because they are going to be prescribed--if they are prescribed
by a medical practitioner.
So if they are under the act, they have to be labeled and
cannot be mislabeled.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Hazelton, in a recent Washington Times
article, it was noted that you regularly make appearances, as
have you told us today, at schools to address the detrimental
health effects of steroid use.
What sort of feedback have you received from these students
and educators? Are most children aware of steroids and the side
effects associated with them, or do you think that many of them
just view this as a necessary evil to get ahead in athletics,
so I can be drafted early and become a millionaire overnight?
Mr. Hazelton. Basically, that was the beginning of our
young athletes coming out of high school, junior high, even,
taking steroids was one way to get a jump.
Most of our young adults had no idea and they still don't
have an idea what steroids does to their body. I have always
had great reception, I mean the best.
The thing I run up against in schools, they don't have the
money. They can't afford to bring somebody in to give them a
layout of actually how dangerous steroids really are.
I have had a few things that we could have done a long time
ago that would have saved a lot of money, but it seemed like it
was something at the time wasn't important. Then, I am not
going to say if it is important now.
And I would like to just say one thing about testing.
Testing, it is the most easiest thing to do is block. I know
professional football players that would empty their bladder
out, put a catheter back in there, and put water back up to
their kidney so that when they did do a urine test, it would
come up negative.
There are certain steroids that if you drink certain
things, that will block it. There is certain things that if
someone knows it is going to be a test, it is very easy to do
something 12 hours before you have the test. Now, the people
that you send in there to say, okay, let's go in the bathroom
and do a urine test, the test that they do, is that going to be
automatically trustworthy?
You know, you have to start looking at these things,
because we have been dealing with this for a long, long time,
and I don't know how many people that they have actually got
using steroids, but when you have got 70 percent of
professional athletes using steroids out there, and you have
only busted--and this is going a big number, 50, somewhere
along the line someone is not coming true. Something is not
going on.
Now, it seems to me that if you really, really wanted to
stop steroids, I mean at least stop it on the link. You guys
have--you have got a list, which I don't know if there are
steroids that you are going to bust, but you guys haven't
talked about Equipoise yet, which is one of the biggest
steroids on the market. And that is used for race horses. You
get it from veterinarians.
That with Anadrol or Dianabol or Ethinate or Propinate, I
haven't heard those drugs yet. You have got a list of steroids
here, and these steroids are the ones that are mostly used.
Now, you can change the name by making it something else. But I
am sure these people here know that they consist of almost the
same ingredients as the ones I am talking about right now. The
only thing different is the human growth hormone.
Mr. Coble. Let me point a final question to the sponsor of
the bill, a rhetorical question, but I want to get it on the
record. Some will say Government has no business here
prohibiting these substances, but it is a matter of personal
choice.
What do you say, Mr. Sweeney, in response to that?
Mr. Sweeney. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Government, the
Congress has already acted based on definitive science in this
area.
And there are substantial Government interests and societal
interests in this legislation. Mr. Hazelton, I think points
them out as accurately and as well as anybody can. And if we
are not engaged at this point in this process, could you
imagine, in order to make the local high school prep football
team, the requirements your coach is going to have for you is
to do what in order to get that edge?
And then 30 years down the road, what do we face as a
society in terms of those costs ?
Mr. Coble. I don't disagree. I was being devil's advocate.
Just wanted it for the record. The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Hale, let's follow
up with some of the questions that we were asking last.
You indicated that wasting associated with cancer, and I
assume AIDS would be one appropriate use for steroids, loss of
muscle mass. What about healing generally?
Dr. Hale. There are certain types of injuries that they do
use steroids to increase and to prepare the body better for
healing process, that is sometimes is used.
Again, it is difficult to classify these in any specific
category, because the use of steroids contains a fair amount of
side effects. And you have to weigh, like anything in medicine,
the side effects with the benefits. It would depend on what
that situation is.
But yes, there are. That is why we believe it should be a
Category III prescription only.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. The FDA, under our present act, has
defined that a product is expected to be safe. What about safe
and effective? Should we go back to that standard?
Dr. Hale. Personally I would say yes. It would be nice if
everything could be safe and effective. The problem is, in
getting randomized controlled trials in a large number of
drugs, is very, very difficult, because the effectiveness of it
varies from individual to individual.
Unfortunately in medicine, any conditions, some are very
straightforward that you can treat and you know exactly how it
responds. Others are not, depending on the individual
variation.
I think what happens over a period of time is once a drug
has been approved, found to be safe, then when you evaluate it
and its clinical usage, you find out whether it is effective.
If it is not effective, it drops out of use very quickly. And
the FDA has been very good in following that, because they have
a long-term follow up of all these drugs being produced.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Rannazzisi, possession of
steroids without a prescription is a Federal crime. Is that
correct?
Mr. Rannazzisi. Possession of the currently listed
steroids, from the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990, yes.
That is a Federal crime if they are possessed without a
prescription.
Mr. Scott. Why haven't we seen more prosecutions? Or is the
reason we aren't finding more prosecutions because they can
find these legal precursors that do the same thing, so there is
no reason to fool with the illegal stuff?
Mr. Rannazzisi. I wouldn't say that there aren't
prosecutions. As far as more prosecutions, I think the act did
its job. I think that the prevalence of those drugs kind of
slowly faded away. I think that is exactly why people used
chemistry to create the precursors, steroid precursors. I think
that is how they circumvented the act.
You don't need those drugs if you have these drugs.
Mr. Scott. Are the steroids controlled substances in most
countries?
Mr. Rannazzisi. No. Actually, most of the drugs under the
act right now that are controlled are not controlled in other
countries. And that is where a majority of those substances are
being produced.
Mr. Scott. So if somebody wanted to train in one of those
other countries, they could have easy access to the drugs.
I guess, how long would it be--how long after you have last
taken them, how long for testing purposes, how long can you go
and become clean, I guess?
Mr. Hazelton. Over 6 to 10 weeks, sir, usually. Depends on
how much you are using and whether you think something is going
to come out.
Like I said before, you have got blocking that you can do,
one that can block within 24 hours. As far as other countries,
I have done lectures in Germany, England, South Africa, I have
sent articles over there. And all of these countries, they
don't want to admit steroid use, but there is a lot of steroid
use, especially in the Olympics before they actually go into
the Olympics.
And people say, well if you stop using steroids, you are
going to lose the ability to perform whatever event. That is
wrong. You will keep that ability to produce as much----
Mr. Scott. So if you use the steroids and get built up, you
can stop using the steroids and maintain that build?
Mr. Hazelton. At least 5 to 6 months, believe it or not. We
are talking about drugs, steroids, steroids are being made now
in bathrooms, in sinks----
Mr. Scott. Say that again.
Mr. Hazelton. You can make steroids. I used steroids 15
years ago, which I thought was anabolic steroids. I wound up
shooting it in my hip. It wound up being Armour-All. It looked
just like Cyclamate which you buy on the market.
It had all of the labels on it, the box and everything.
After shooting it about 2 minutes later, my hip had turned
black. It covered about 12 to 18 inches. I wound up having to
have surgery done on the hip to basically dig the infected
tissue out of my hip.
Now, this is what these kids are doing also, they are
buying black market steroids and they are getting themselves in
trouble that way. So not only buying them the legal kind, you
have got to worry about now the bad kind.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman. Dr. Hale, I believe that
Mr. Scott also directed that question to you. Do you want to
weigh in on that as well?
Dr. Hale. Thank you. It depends on the mode of
administration, whether it is oral, whether injectable. But in
general, most steroids are detectable per dose somewhere
between 48 and 96 hours later, depending upon what type of
testing you are using, whether it is excreted in the urine, and
how it is excreted.
So that is why--but in order to have an effect, you have to
have continued use of it. That is why they continue to use it
over and over, that is why no-announced testing is so
important, because they have to use it for an extended period
of time to get the effect.
Mr. Scott. But we have a slight difference in testimony.
Mr. Hazelton suggested that it was detectable weeks after the
last use.
Dr. Hale. We are not really different. What we are saying
is that people continue to use it over an extended period of
time, but if you--for example today took a single dose of one
of these in about 96 hours without really ultra, ultra
sensitive equipment, we would not be able to----
Mr. Scott. If I trained in another country where this stuff
was available and got build up to whatever--and if I stopped,
how long would it take for the drug to be undetectable?
Dr. Hale. About 96 hours would be the maximum, under ideal
circumstances would be the earliest that we could detect it.
However, remember that the effect of the drug begins to
wear off at the same time. And that is why athletes take it
right up as close as they can to the point of competition.
But, I would like to clarify that it is my understanding
that in most of Europe, especially the UK and in Australia, New
Zealand, the anabolics are also prohibited.
Mr. Coble. Thank you. We have been joined by the Ranking
Member, Mr. Conyers. Does the gentleman from Michigan have
questions, John?
Mr. Conyers. Well, yes and no.
But I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Coble. Without objection.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Scott, I
wanted to ask, is there anybody we know that is not supportive
of this bill, I mean in the universe?
Mr. Coble. Well, if the gentleman will yield, I know you
and Bobby Scott and I are cosponsors. Mr. Feeney, are you on
board?
Mr. Feeney. Well, I was officially undecided coming in.
Mr. Coble. Okay.
Mr. Conyers. What I am leading up to----
Mr. Feeney. But the Ranking Member is intimidating me
strongly into a position of support.
Mr. Conyers. This is known as the gentleman's touch.
No, the fact of the matter is that I think that this bill
enjoys the support of the Chairman, the Subcommittee Chairman,
and all of us, the Ranking Member and my colleague from New
York, who is a witness, and an original cosponsor.
So the question really quickly comes down to, what about
DHEA? And I would like to open that up for some friendly
instructions on that subject. Mr. Sweeney.
Mr. Sweeney. First, Congressman Conyers, and Ranking
Member, you missed the earlier statements. And I said I feel a
little bit like, you know, the fellow who has been lost in the
woods for a number of years and has been screaming and nobody
has heard it.
I feel like the sunshine is coming out. And I have to say,
I am deeply appreciative of your leadership, and your getting
involved as you did a year ago or more on this issue.
And I think it is with that leadership that this bill is
going to move forward, and we are going to have some important
changes. And one of the most significant changes in the bill,
as it relates DSHEA, is this idea that we are now shifting the
burden from the Government to prove that any of these products
promote muscle growth, which is very costly, and we certainly
don't have the resources in this extreme time to the
manufacturing community.
And in answer to the other question, are there people who
oppose it, there are. There are still some of those folks in
the manufacturing community. I think the less legitimate of the
manufacturers, the ones on the fringes who are involved in
this, and they are making a lot of money, and I am sure that
they will use that influence wherever they can to try to make
whatever changes or sprawl and delay this the best they can.
And DHEA, another precursor. The problem with that
precursor and that issue, and how we are trying to deal with
the disagreement that we have, is that there are those in the
Senate who don't agree with us on the inclusion of that product
on this bill.
In shifting that burden away from the Government, we think
over some time that the folks at the DEA and FDA will be able
to expand on to the list some products we would like to see on
that. But, we can't get a consensus or an agreement from the
other body on that.
Mr. Conyers. Well, that is what conference committees are
for. You close the doors, and in some cases, turn out the
lights, and then, lo and behold, there is the provision in the
bill.
Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Conyers, I would volunteer to be on that
conference. I would fight just as hard to have that included.
Mr. Conyers. Does anybody else want my time? I will turn it
back then.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Feeney, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Feeney. Well, thank you. And in my last round, my
friend, Congressman Sweeney, didn't get to quite address some
of my questions.
But, Dr. Hale, very quickly, is the list of steroid
precursors that we have included in this bill, is it sufficient
for now, and how likely is it that we are going to be back here
changing this in a year or two, as manufacturers keep pace with
ways around the law.
Dr. Hale. I think the way the bill is written that it will
prohibit that. Because of what it is talking about is
precursors, it is not defining them by specific name, it is
defining them by chemical type. So I don't think it will
happen.
However, I would be the last one, after our recent
experience with THG and a few other steroids, to say that they
would not be out there trying to find some ways around the
bill. There are always people that because of the money
involved, because of the activities involved, that will try any
way possible to circumvent the law.
Mr. Feeney. Well, and again, I spoke earlier about the war
on drugs in general. And at best, it has been a mixed success.
And some would say it has been a very expensive failure. That
is a reasonable debate to have.
Congressman Sweeney, you heard my concerns about the
decline in the athletic culture and the loss of sportsmanship
and sports in general from very early on through, you know,
through much of what we are doing. So I invite you to comment
on how this bill affects that. We invite you to comment on what
the State's roles are here. We invite you to comment on the
fact that are there coaches at the competitive levels of high
schools and college and pro that are basically with a wink and
a nod turning the other way, they don't want to know what is
happening, but they really do know what is happening?
How does this bill, if anything, get to that? I do
appreciate that we do have the right to regulate drugs, through
the FDA, that are legal or not, prescribed or not. I am
certainly going to support this bill.
But, you know, I will suggest that where there is a will,
there is a way. That has certainly proved to be the case with
other addictive drugs. This is America. And you know Americans,
for example, eat until we are obese and then we go get a tummy
tuck. This is America. If you can get a pill to enhance
athletic performance, and if it is available, there is going to
be a great deal of temptation and then some.
And then finally, going back to sportsmanship as a whole,
cheating is not just confined to sports, unfortunately. I have
seen studies where as many as three-quarters of college
students acknowledge that they cheat in class.
And part of this is how we get to the whole cultural
decline of self-responsibility and individual responsibility,
and unfortunately, where there are benefits to taking those
pills or in performance enhancers, legal or not, you know, my
view is that we will be back here dealing with this problem 5
or 10 years from now.
Mr. Sweeney. If I can answer your question, I think the
core of it is the question of why are we involved at all? And I
will say this: Given the proliferation of use and the promotion
of use by those, especially those in major league sports and
baseball, in particular, as I pointed out a number of times
today, but that is only because they have been the most
obstructionist in this process, there is substantial and real
science that says that there are side effects, that the health
implications affect us all.
And if we don't do something about ending the proliferation
of use, if we don't do something about drawing definitive lines
in what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and in part,
Congress tried to do that in 1994, with DSHEA, and what these
really are, are circumventions by athletes and manufacturers.
Because there is a lot of money and profit driven on both ends
from it.
Then, Congress, I guess, ought not to be involved in
anything, because we are all going to have to pay those health
care cost bills down the road.
In terms of are there coaches who would circumvent the
system? Certainly in a society in which Congress or the
authorities that have the responsibility to regulate,
particularly the use or in any particular area, there are going
to be coaches. And there will be a lot of them, because it--at
the end of the day, there is motivation for them, whether it is
the next best job or whether it is just winning the next game.
And I think Congress has a role in setting those kind of
moral and ethical priorities for the rest of our society,
especially when we know the use and the proliferation of that
use is so detrimental to the rest of us as well, but in
particular to our kids.
So I guess my answer to you is, yeah, we ought to be
involved. And this is really a response by many of us to what
we see as a circumvention in what we intended to do back in the
1990's.
Mr. Coble. Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from
California.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have been
discussing this bill with my staff. And I recognize that we are
here to examine the abuse of steroids by professional athletes
and the prevalence of the use of steroids and steroid
precursors. And we cannot help but conclude that the intent of
this bill is to try and prevented people from damaging their
health and saving lives, particularly as it relates to young
children.
So it is certainly not something that one can be against.
It is just unfortunate that we have to find ourselves
increasingly legislating in every conceivable area. This week
alone, in addition to this issue, we have had to deal with the
Janet Jackson issue of exposure in some ways that are
considered, I guess indecent and other issues that I just never
thought we would have to deal with as legislators in this body.
However, I suppose that we find that the more sophisticated
we get, the more complicated we get. The more advanced we
become, technologically and otherwise, the more problems are
created. So there are a lot of questions that one could ask,
but the bottom line is, basically whether or not we are going
to support legislation that will create stiffer penalties and
discourage the use of these performance-enhancing drugs that
could cause damage and loss of life.
There is not much more to say. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentlewoman.
We very much appreciate you all being here, Mr. Hazelton,
in particular, sharing your personal experiences with us and
your courageous role, when you visit schools across the country
I wish you well. I thank you all. The Subcommittee appreciates
the contribution today. This conclude the legislative hearing
on H.R. 3866, the ``Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004.''
The record will remain open. I recognize the gentleman from
Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, reference was made to major league
baseball. I would ask unanimous consent that a letter from
Donald Fehr, the Major League Baseball Players Association
Director, saying that if Congress chooses to expand the
definition of Schedule III, in order to cover certain steroid
precursors, we would not only support such a decision, but also
would automatically expand our own testing program, jointly
administered by the clubs to cover such substances; and also a
letter from the American Medical Association in support of the
legislation.
Mr. Coble. Without objection, it will be received. And I
want to thank those in the audience who stayed for the hearing.
I want to thank the media for having covered this. Mr.
Hazelton.
Mr. Hazelton. I have one question. It might be a long
question. Right now, we are looking at this going to some type
of law being passed and educating our youth out there today.
First, I would like to say, what time period are we looking
at to start educating our kids? Second thing is, I would like
to be totally involved in this, considering I am the one that
started actually the lecture tour on steroids and to have a
major input.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Hazelton, to answer your first question,
what time period, you are looking at a man who does not have
the wisdom of King Solomon. So I can't answer that one. As far
as your second question, I direct your attention to the primary
sponsor of the bill.
I think Mr. Sweeney would be glad to work with you to that
end.
Mr. Sweeney. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned
earlier, we got money in the approps process last year to begin
a program. I am hopeful with the passage of this legislation,
the moving forward, we are going to be able to do even better.
Mr. Coble. In response to your first question, didn't mean
that to be a cute answer. I would say in a reasonable time. It
would be my belief that this very well may be enacted into law.
This concludes the hearing. I thank you all for your
cooperation. The Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
----------