US troops in Iraq using steroids.

[epepke]

I'm sorry that I left my snarky-cynical detector at home today. Luke got it, but I didn't.

No problem. As this is my 4000th post, I generally assume that most people have a sense of how utterly dessicated my sense of humor is.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Ah, that's the problem then. The vast majority of people who use them do so legally. They may do so in violation of the Baseball Commission's rules or something, but they do it legally. The reasons for this are simple. It's easy to find a sports doctor who will prescribe steroids, especially over the Internet. Once one has a prescription, they're a lot cheaper than they are on the black market.

You seem to think that this is not true.

You're right. I do not believe that the vast majority of users are taking steroids under the supervision of a doctor. In fact, it was quite the opposite when I used to hang around gyms frequented by steroid users. Almost none of them had a legitimate prescription from a doctor who prescribed them for a legitimate medical reason, and the steroids were very easy to get. This was common in 1000s of gyms across the country, and common in 1000s of high schools as well. Also, I suspect you are thinking primarily of professional athletes. For every one of them taking steroids under the supervision of a physician, there are 1000s of teenage and young 20-something athletes and would-be athletes taking them unlawfully, mostly on their own. By "on their own" I mean have not had a doctor teach them how to administer the injections or orals and they do not report to their doctors regularly with the results and reports of side effects. Many of these kids take 10s or even 100s of times the recommended dosages. They have no idea what they are doing.

Don't misunderstand. There are plenty of doctors who will prescribe anabolic steroids on some pretext for athletes. That's still not a lawful, legitimate medical practice.

As I indicated, there are doctors who have been busted for prescribing anabolic steroids indiscriminantly to virtually anyone who asks. They don't have an unfettered license to prescribe controlled substances. To be lawful, their prescriptions must have a legitimate, medical basis. The law does not recognize sports performance enhancement as a legitimate medical reason.

In the US, I think the receipt of prescription meds over the internet prescribed by a doctor who has never met the patient or examined him or her is probably illegal in the vast majority of cases and in most, if not all, jurisdictions. I know people who have had online "consultations" with a doctor which consisted merely of completing a form that took 2-5 minutes. A few days later, their prescription medications arrived by courier, usually from India. Do you really believe those prescriptions are lawfully recognized by US law enforcement?

As for getting a prescription from a doctor over the internet, well, I suspect you can probably guess the legality of that practice. Some pharmacies may dispense steroids per the instructions of such prescriptions, but their possession and usage is not rendered legitimate because of it.

It seems that you would consider that illegal.

What I think is irrelevant. It's law makers and law enforcement authorities who make those judgments. I think most of them disagree with your assessment.

AS

[edited for stupid spelling error]

 

[AmateurScientist]

No problem. As this is my 4000th post, I generally assume that most people have a sense of how utterly dessicated my sense of humor is.

I'm honored. You used your 4000th post to respond to me? Thanks. Hey, I had over 4000 posts once, but most of them got tossed as being part of the 97% in the Great Pruning.

Easy come, easy go. You may get a second chance to make a 4000th post too. Here's to hoping for that chance!

Heh. I just realized that someday, maybe someday if I don't get under Darat's skin too much, I'll get to make another 4000th post. Remind me when I get close, and I promise to address it to you. Deal?

AS

 

[epepke]

You're right. I do not believe that the vast majority of users are taking steroids under the supervision of a doctor. In fact, it was quite the opposite when I used to hang around gyms frequented by steroid users.

OK, then. I used to hang around the "fitness" newsgroups (which is a really dumb euphemism for bodybuilding, but what do you expect?) because, while I was never really a bodybuilder, I did lift weights in much the same way. It's been my impression that, while there was a significant black market in steroids in the 1980s, most people within the past ten years simply found it more convenient and cheaper to find a sports doctor that would prescribe them. The illegality per se wasn't much fo an impetus, but the fact that a lot of people claimed to have steroids that turned out to be nothing more than skimmed milk was.

The Internet has accelerated this even further. It's trivially easy to get a prescription.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Who knows anyone whos OD'd on steroids?

Hardly anyone.

For that matter who knows anyone who has gotten sick taking steroids? (no anecdotal evidence please)

 

[AmateurScientist]

OK, then. I used to hang around the "fitness" newsgroups (which is a really dumb euphemism for bodybuilding, but what do you expect?) because, while I was never really a bodybuilder, I did lift weights in much the same way. It's been my impression that, while there was a significant black market in steroids in the 1980s, most people within the past ten years simply found it more convenient and cheaper to find a sports doctor that would prescribe them. The illegality per se wasn't much fo an impetus, but the fact that a lot of people claimed to have steroids that turned out to be nothing more than skimmed milk was.

Yeah, most of my experience was in the 80s and early 90s. The black market was huge. In virtually every gym, there was usually at least one guy who could put you onto a real doctor who would prescribe 'roids for you. Some guys educated themselves about how to take them sensibly, if there is such a thing, but lots of them didn't. They were mostly idiots playing with matches.

It was in fact the large black market which was the impetus for the change in the law and in law enforcement. Unlawful possession of steroids simply wasn't prosecuted much before. Since their widespread use grew and got the attention of the public, and hence lawmakers, Congress acted.

The Internet has accelerated this even further. It's trivially easy to get a prescription.

I don't doubt that at all. Of course, as you must recognize, most of those prescriptions are illegitimate. They don't shield one from prosecution for unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

People steal prescription pads from doctors' offices and forge prescriptions too. Pharmacies often fill those bogus prescriptions. Under those circumstances, merely having a prescription is not a defense to unlawful possession, of course.

AS

 

[epepke]

I'm honored. You used your 4000th post to respond to me? Thanks. Hey, I had over 4000 posts once, but most of them got tossed as being part of the 97% in the Great Pruning.

Heh. I lost most of my status in the Great Pruning as well. There was a way to have one's status recovered, but since I didn't give a rat's hairy perineum, I didn't bother.

Heh. I just realized that someday, maybe someday if I don't get under Darat's skin too much, I'll get to make another 4000th post. Remind me when I get close, and I promise to address it to you. Deal?

Fair enough.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Re: Re: US troops in Iraq using steroids.

Hardly anyone.

For that matter who knows anyone who has gotten sick taking steroids? (no anecdotal evidence please)

You mean like depression, psychosis, personality disorders, or testicular cancer?

Ummm....I know, I know. Pick me. My cousin. He lost one of his balls.

AS

 

[epepke]

I don't doubt that at all. Of course, as you must recognize, most of those prescriptions are illegitimate. They don't shield one from prosecution for unlawful possession of a controlled substance.

People steal prescription pads from doctors' offices and forge prescriptions too. Pharmacies often fill those bogus prescriptions. Under those circumstances, merely having a prescription is not a defense to unlawful possession, of course.

Well, I must admit shamefully never to have availed myself of Internet prescriptions. I probably should do so, because I like to know about stuff first-hand. But since they made Claritin available OTC, there isn't anything left that I would actually want, and I don't have much money to spend on experiments these days.

As for stealing prescription pads, every time I've tried to get a Schedule II drug at the pharmacy, they've called the physician's office. I've gotten Schedule III drugs, though, with no question, and anabolic steroids qualify, though for me it was Vicodan.

Nota bene: I've heard from a pharmacist that physcians frequently misspell the names of drugs. So if you want to do this, misspell the name.

My fiancee has to take an awful lot of drugs for migraines and ADHD, and practically every month, she is impaired in her ability to get a prescription filled because it's outside office hours.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Re: Re: Re: US troops in Iraq using steroids.

You mean like depression, psychosis, personality disorders, or testicular cancer?

Ummm....I know, I know. Pick me. My cousin. He lost one of his balls.

AS

again...AS...no anecdotal evidence please.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cmed.section.27523

quote:
It is unlikely that exogenous steroids contribute to a major degree to the incidence of testicular cancer in the United States. Their lack of use in other endemic areas with rising incidence rates (Denmark) underscores their relatively minor role (if any) in the etiology of this disease.

 

[Rob Lister]

So what happens when someone in the military gets a prescription from a non-military doctor and tests positive for it? I haven't heard anybody say anything about this. All I've heard is that if you test positive for steroids, you're out.

It depends on the circumstances. Most likely they'd be charged just as if they obtained them illegally. As a member of the military you are not allowed to seek civilian health care unless there is an emergency or you are otherwise specifically authorized.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: US troops in Iraq using steroids.

again...AS...no anecdotal evidence please.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cmed.section.27523

quote:
It is unlikely that exogenous steroids contribute to a major degree to the incidence of testicular cancer in the United States. Their lack of use in other endemic areas with rising incidence rates (Denmark) underscores their relatively minor role (if any) in the etiology of this disease.

Not sure about exogenous steroids but Web MD has this to say about men who take anabolic steroids:

[*] Develop breasts
[*] Get painful erections
[*] Have their testicles shrink
[*] Have decreased sperm count
[*] Become infertile
[*] Become impotent

Women who take anabolic steroids may:

[*] Grow excessive face and body hair
[*] Have their voices deepen
[*] Experience menstrual irregularities
[*] Have an enlarged clitoris
[*] Have reduced breast size
[*] Have a masculinized female fetus

Both men and women who take anabolic steroids may:

[*] Get acne
[*] Have an oily scalp and skin
[*] Get yellowing of the skin (jaundice)
[*] Become bald
[*] Have tendon rupture
[*] Have heart attacks
[*] Have an enlarged heart
[*] Develop significant risk of liver disease and liver cancer
[*] Have high levels of "bad" cholesterol
[*] Have mood swings
[*] Fly into rages
[*] Suffer delusions

Teens who take anabolic steroids may:

[*] Have short height due to arrested bone growth
[*] Girls may suffer long-term masculinization

http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/102/106612.htm?pagenumber=2

 

[epepke]

It depends on the circumstances. Most likely they'd be charged just as if they obtained them illegally. As a member of the military you are not allowed to seek civilian health care unless there is an emergency or you are otherwise specifically authorized.

Hmm... That's interesting. I bet, however, that there are a lot of military members who go outside to get, say, acyclovir for herpes, or prescriptions for depression or bipolar, because they don't want it to be a part of military record.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Re: Re: Re: Re: US troops in Iraq using steroids.

again...AS...no anecdotal evidence please.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cmed.section.27523

quote:
It is unlikely that exogenous steroids contribute to a major degree to the incidence of testicular cancer in the United States. Their lack of use in other endemic areas with rising incidence rates (Denmark) underscores their relatively minor role (if any) in the etiology of this disease.

Sorry. It's funny the way you asked the question, however, as it practically demands anecdotes.

Ok, anyway, you're probably right that there appears to be little solid scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that androgenic-anabolic steroids (AS) are a causal factor in the incidence of testicular cancer, which is rare anyway. My cousin's account is most likely pure coincidence. In his teens and early 20s, he used steroids heavily and competed in regional bodybuilding contests. Later, in his mid-30s, he developed testicular cancer and beat it. There is probably no causal link between the two.

Setting that aside, it is very likely, although many researchers have reserved drawing any definitive conclusions until better and more controlled research is performed, that the abuse of AS can have many adverse side effects. I won't catalogue them for you here, as you can read them in the link and I suspect you are already familiar with them, but there is some research beyond mere anecdotes that suggests AS usage can be associated with, among other things, affective and psychotic disorders. These include an increased risk for depression, psychosis, schizophrenic episodes, and other affective changes in behavior, chief among them increased aggression and a reduction in ability to control one's emotions, primarily anger. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has heard of 'Roid Rage, and who hasn't?

The link I'm giving you is the least passionate one I've found, and the most scientific. It was published in the Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, a peer-reviewed professional journal, in 1992. I wish I had a more recent source, as I suspect that some of the missing data the authors lacked at the time is now available. The authors conclude in typical fashion for the time that there is insufficient data as to both the efficacy of steroids (does anyone seriously doubt their anabolic efficacy today?) and the long-term adverse effects in adult men. They do note some possible irrervsible effects on adolescents and females.

BTW, most of the good, promising results I found in my search link to scientific papers available only by subscription or by direct payment. I've noticed lately that seems to be a trend. Too bad. We mere mortals don't get to read a lot of the professional scientific research articles. Sorry, but I'm limited in what I can research and find.

OK, here's the link.


Journal article

AS

 

[fishbob]

Re: Re: US troops in Iraq using steroids.

Hardly anyone.

For that matter who knows anyone who has gotten sick taking steroids? (no anecdotal evidence please)

Now why the heck would you ask for anecdotal evidence then restrict anecdotal evidence from the responses? Is this another one of those subtle dessicated humor things?

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: US troops in Iraq using steroids.

Ok, anyway, you're probably right that there appears to be little solid scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that androgenic-anabolic steroids (AS) are a causal factor in the incidence of testicular cancer, which is rare anyway

Testicular cancer is rare, but it is the fastest growing and most dangerous of all cancers. Men should do monthly testicular exams. I did that and caught a spermatocele. By the time I had it removed, it was the size of a large grape. Benign, fortunately.

There's a closer relationship with liver cancer. Also, of course, acceleration of existing cancers, because anything that causes stuff to grow will work especially well on cancers.

That having been said, I doubt that anabolic steroids represent a risk anywhere near as great as cigarettes, which the military subsidizes.

 

[Rob Lister]

Hmm... That's interesting. I bet, however, that there are a lot of military members who go outside to get, say, acyclovir for herpes, or prescriptions for depression or bipolar, because they don't want it to be a part of military record.

You are correct, many do. Especially for things like depression or bipolar. In the military, these can be career killers.

 

[Tmy]

I think roids are the target of a big smear campaine. They get blamed for every illness that hits a roid user. Often with no direct link to the roid use. Much like silicone implants.

 

[epepke]

You are correct, many do. Especially for things like depression or bipolar. In the military, these can be career killers.

I wrote a snarky essay on this, but that was several computers ago. My conclusion was that, if there's a guy in a bunker with a key for a missile, I personally want him to have all the lithium he can eat.

 

[AmateurScientist]

I think roids are the target of a big smear campaine. They get blamed for every illness that hits a roid user. Often with no direct link to the roid use. Much like silicone implants.

I wouldn't go that far, but you have a point. I vividly remember doing a lot of reading about steroid usage in the late 70s and early 80s and constantly hearing doctors and medical researchers claim that there were no reliable data that steroids had any positive effect on sports performance or muscle building. Publicly, doctors in the US nearly universally claimed that there was no evidence that steroids had any anabolic efficacy.

That's entirely laughable today, and it was entirely laughable then to most bodybuilders, competitive weight lifters, and many Soviet and Eastern Bloc athletes, and to many other professional athletes. Making such claims even at that time was irresponsible and made doctors look stupid and/or uninformed about the matter. It may have contributed to the widespread disregard that so many young athletes have for the real risks associated with steroid usage. One might draw a parallel between the doctors' denials of steroids' efficacy and some of the absurd claims made by the government concerning the adverse effects of marijuana usage. They seem to encourage young persons to discount any negative claims about them from persons of authority.

Anyway, there can be little doubt today that when properly used by trained strength athletes with sound nutritional and rest regimens, anabolic steroids do in fact account for some substantial and often dramatic increases in strength and skeletal muscle hypertrophy in relatively short periods of time. Of course, what many persons don't understand is that mostly they are short-term gains, and that users must cycle between periods of use and non-use. The gains are partly or even mostly reversible after cessation of use and training.

Anyway, I don't think it's accurate to discount that long-term anabolic steroid usage can have some real and possibly severe side effects. For instance, gynecomastia (bitch tits) is a very real risk and is well-documented. It's not universal by any means, but the risk is substantial enough to consider in weighing the costs versus the benefits of undertaking steroid usage for performance enhancement. Increased risk of liver cancer or other liver disease is another severe risk associated with usage. There are plenty of other short-term risks and side effects as well, but most of them are reversible upon cessation of use.

AS