NPC Texas Chairman Lee Thompson continues to fight steroid conspiracy charges that were filed against him in an overreaching Texas steroid investigation that targeted dozens of individuals. Several individuals charged in the conspiracy have already pleaded guilty including Brock Falkenhagen. However, Lee Thompson is NOT one of them.

Thompson has repeatedly stated that he has no plans whatsoever to plead guilty; he plans to exhaust every and any legal means to vindicate himself against the charges filed by federal prosecutors in the United States Attorneys Office in Texas.

Prosecutors are undoubtedly dismayed by the sentencing handed down to defendants who have pleaded guilty thus far. United States District Judge Lynn Hughes has handed down sentences of “time served” and “probation” to co-defendants in a move that has surprised  prosecutors and defendants alike who were expecting imprisonment as part of their plea agreements.

The reasons for Judge Hughes light sentencing are not known; we suspect it might have to do with the petty nature of most of the cases and/or his dissatisfaction with the way the government has handled the prosecution. The federal conspiracy laws were never intended to be used in a moralistic witch-hunt against bodybuilders who use anabolic steroids. We look forward to Lee Thompson’s legal battle as it exposes the government misuse and abuse of power in order to target steroid use in bodybuilding.

UPDATE: It has been  erroneously reported that Lee Thompson has pleaded guilty. Chris Downey, Lee Thompson’s attorney, has sent cease and desist letter(s) to website(s) publishing libelous statements. The statements have been removed as a result.

TIME: 17:11 CDT

RE: Timothy Lee Thompson

Dear Sir:

Please be advised that I represent Timothy Lee Thompson in the matter styled:

Cause No 08-443 United State of America v. Timothy Lee Thompson

now pending in the United States District Court in the Southern District of Texas.

On your online “blog” posted at:

http://www.anthonyroberts.co.za/2010/02/lee-thompson-and-charles-brock-falkenhagen-plead-guilty-get-deals/ ,

you have published the following statements:

Lee Thompson and Charles “Brock” Falkenhagen plead guilty, get deals  <http://www.anthonyroberts.co.za/2010/02/lee-thompson-and-charles-brock-falkenhagen-plead-guilty-get-deals/>

The following is the full docket for the Lee Thompson/ Brock Falkenhagen case, from beginning to present. Falkenhagen has entered a plea deal and is awaiting sentencing. He plead (sic) down from 46 charges to 4, and faces a maximum of 50 years in Federal prison.  Lee Thompson has pleaded guilty as well, although I do not yet have the details on his plea arrangement. (emphasis added)

Please be advised that the statement that Timothy Lee Thompson, a/k/a Lee Thompson has pleaded guilty is false. Mr. Thompson has NEVER entered a plea of guilty. A review of the docket will indicate that Mr. Thompson’s matter was set for trial on February 9, 2010, then reset by the Court for a status conference later in the month. At no time has Mr. Thompson ever entered a plea of guilty, nor does he ever anticipate doing so.

Your website indicates that you have accessed the database that contains all of the information necessary to verify that Mr. Thompson has never pled guilty. However, you have elected to publish plainly false statements in spite of your apparent knowledge of its falsity. Your recklessness is nothing short of astounding.

Please be advised we consider your actions to be slanderous. We demand the immediate retraction of any and all published statements you have made indicating or implying that Mr. Thompson has pled guilty to any offense. We further demand you publish a notice of correction immediately acknowledging your significant error.

Sincerely,

CHRISTOPHER J. DOWNEY
ATTORNEY FOR TIMOTHY LEE THOMPSON
2814 HAMILTON STREET
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77004

Post from: MESO-Rx Blog

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

VMG Global, the manufacturer of American Cellular Labs “Tren Xtreme” and “Mass Xtreme“, has pleaded guilty to one count of introducing unapproved drugs into interstate commerce and has agreed to a fine of up to $500,000. The VMG Global case is the first of several pending investigations targeting the marketing of steroidal compounds as dietary supplements since BALCO prosecutors have turned their attention from “steroids in sports” to “steroids in supplements”.

Rick Collins, steroid legal expert and attorney for VMG Global, described the plea agreement as a model for supplement companies facing prosecution in the many other steroid investigations affecting the industry. Collins successfully negotiated an “intelligent and fair” plea agreement that kept the principals of the company from personally facing felony charges and imprisonment.

In a message to MESO-Rx, Rick Collins shared his insight into the case and the legal and regulatory environment currently facing the sports nutrition industry:

I think this case represents the next phase in the Government’s evolving approach to what it perceives as a major problem in the sports nutrition supplement market. The Government wants steroidal supplement products off the market, period. I suspect that from the perspective of regulatory and enforcement officials, warning letters are ineffective, Congressional changes to the law can be vague and confusing, and administrative amendments can take forever. Execution of a search warrant followed by criminal prosecution in a federal court is a way to get a target’s attention in a big way. It can also bring money, in the form of forfeited revenues, into the Government coffers and send a message to others in the industry that the Government means business. The scariest aspect of this approach is the potential for the principals of a company to be prosecuted as individuals – personally facing felony charges and years of imprisonment.

The team members behind this particular investigation and prosecution are the same folks who launched the BALCO investigation and are pursuing Barry Bonds. Steroid cases are something they’re familiar with – probably much more so than any other Government office. While I continue to have some fundamental differences with them as to the interpretation of certain language in the federal steroid laws, I vastly prefer having them as adversaries over a team of agents and prosecutors who lack experience and understanding in the subject matter. While the saying is that the hallmark of a good negotiation is that everyone comes away unhappy, the Americell-Labs.com case was resolved in an intelligent and fair way that satisfied both sides. It should serve as a model for similar pending matters. While nobody went to jail, there was a huge fine imposed along with an agreement to comply with additional quality control measures, including having future products tested by an independent lab for banned substances before bringing them to market. The principals of companies who continue to market these products may face even more aggressive sanctions. The case should send a message to companies, and individuals as well, that the Government is committed to the position that synthetic steroid ingredients have no place in dietary supplements.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Francisco has previously launched criminal investigations of Bodybuilding.com, iForce Nutrition, Genetic Edge Technologies (GET), Kilo Sports (KS), and Innovative Delivery Systems (IDS). The current status of these investigations is unknown. However, customers of Bodybuilding.com have purportedly been contacted by the FDA as recently as this month regarding the company’s recall of products allegedly containing illegal steroidal ingredients.

The search warrants from these pending investigations suggest that the government may be inclined to indict principals personally should the sports nutrition companies be prosecuted. As Rick Collins notes, this is indeed a “scary” approach from the government in the crackdown on the industry.

Post from: MESO-Rx Blog

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

Dr. Jesse Haggard was permitted to keep his chosen legal representation in the Applied Pharmacy steroid case after the federal government failed in their attempts to have his attorneys removed from the case. United States Magistrate Judge Sonja Bivins rejected the prosecutors attempt to disqualify David York and Christ Coumanis after the attorneys exposed government deception in court documents. Prosecutors failed to prove  that David York participated “personally and substantially” in the Applied Pharmacy investigation as a former U.S. Attorney between 2001 and 2006; government prosecutors decided against producing the documents they said supported their motion to disqualify at a court hearing on the matter.

York disputed the unsubstantiated Government assertion that he “personally approved the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Applied Pharmacy investigation”  pointing out that the government did not actually submit any evidence supporting this assertion in their memorandum.

York also questioned the legitimacy of the document the government claims would have supported his personal approval of the Applied Pharmacy investigation. York claimed that this document, purportedly bearing his initials, was dated over eight months following his departure from the U.S. Attorney’s Office! Furthermore, even if the document were legitimate, it was NOT the document required for the personal approval of the investigation.

The tactics used by the Government to disqualify Dr. Jesse Haggard’s attorneys appear questionable if not suspect. Certainly, the government was aware that the document was not the one required to approve the investigation. Furthermore, how could they fail to realize that the document was dated eights months after York left the U.S. Attorney’s office?  (“Defendant’s Response and Objections to Government’s Motion to Disquality” December 9)

From the record it is apparent that in no way can it be fairly stated that Mr. York “participated personally and substantially” in this matter as asserted by the Government. First, there is no evidence that Dr. Haggard was ever a “target” of the Applied Pharmacy case when Mr. York was United States Attorney. Secondly, there is no evidence that Mr. York was ever briefed on the case while in office. (Exhibit B, ¶6). The document produced to opposing counsel by the Government (but not offered into evidence) that purports to be evidence of Mr. York’s personal approval of the investigation bears what are deemed to be Mr. York’s initials next to his printed name but is dated more than eight months after Mr. York left office, and does not list or identify any individual defendants, much less Dr. Haggard. (Exhibit B, ¶s 10, 11, and 13). Furthermore, the three (3) page document is but an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDEFT) “request for designation” form. These forms were regularly sent to the regional OCDETF office asking for official designation as on OCDETF case. Said designation would not prevent the case from moving forward if “official recognition” was denied. In essence, it was purely an administrative document. (Exhibit B, ¶ 12). Of further importance, the document is not one that required Mr. York’s personal approval. As evidenced from the face of the document, it could be signed by the appropriate federal agency head or his designee. (Exhibit B, ¶12).

The Government has presented no evidence that Mr. York requested any documents such as IRS tax returns. No evidence that York requested that any subpoena’s be issued, presented any evidence to a Grand Jury, consulted on strategy, offered advice or in any way directed the prosecution. In fact, Mr. York does not recall giving any advice or direction regarding the investigation or being involved in any filings, discovery or strategy decisions related to the investigation and/or the prosecution in this matter. (Exhibit B, ¶ 5).

As detailed in Exhibit B filed in support of this Response, AUSA Dobbins was responsible for supervision of the appellate and administration sections of the USAO. (Exhibit B, ¶ 8). To the extent she handled any criminal matters, she would have reported to other AUSAs and not Mr. York. (Exhibit B, ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 11 and 15).

It is apparent from the record and the void of evidence that Mr. York’s participation if any was minimal at best and woefully fails to satisfy the regulatory definition of “participate” or “substantial” which are entitled to due deference by the Courts. Chevron v. Naturalization Resources Defense Counsel, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984).

The government also failed to convince the court that David York “personally and substantially” participated in the Haggard investigation in the alleged time frame. Haggard’s attorneys pointed out that Dr. Haggard’s alleged involvement in the Applied Pharmacy investigation only occurred in the final months of York’s tenure as U.S. Attorney :

Although the Government asserts a timeframe of March, 2003 through August, 2006 for the conspiracy, Dr. Haggard’s alleged involvement in the distribution and dispensing of Schedule III controlled substances occurred on April 20, 2005, April 22, 2005, April 25, 2005 and May 2, 2005 and involved Co-Defendants A.SAMUEL KELLEY, II, JASON R. KELLEY, and ROBIN K. KELLY. (Doc, 4-3, ¶24, Counts 52-58). Dr. Haggard is also named along with other indicted Co-Defendants in Counts 1, 105, 206 and 207 of the Superseding Indictment. (Doc 4-3).

The government failed to convince the Court that David York received any briefings related to Dr. Haggard’s investigation.

Mr. York has no recollection of participating in any review, evaluation or recommendations regarding any indictments or prosecution nor does he recall having any role in deciding who, if anyone should be prosecuted for the offenses the subject of the indictment including those counts brought against Dr. Haggard while he was U.S. Attorney. (Exhibit B, ¶ 4). Further, Mr. York has no recollection of Dr. Haggard being a target of any investigation while he was U. S. Attorney and first became aware of him after being contacted by his family to represent him in this action. (Exhibit B, ¶ 4). During his tenure as U.S. Attorney, Mr. York does not recall giving any advice or direction to the agents or AUSA Dobbins regarding the investigation. As U.S. Attorney, Mr. York does not remember being involved in any filings, discovery or strategy decisions related to the investigation and/or the prosecution in this matter. To the contrary, the first indictment known to Mr. York arising out of the Applied Pharmacy investigation was filed on September, 25, 2008, under seal, nearly three (3) years after Mr. York left office. (Exhibit B, ¶ 5).

Mr. York has no recollection of having received any substantive briefings regarding the Applied Pharmacy investigation by AUSA Dobbins or any other Asst. U. S. Attorneys or investigators associated with the investigation. If Mr. York received any “briefings” as stated in Brief by the Government, any such “briefings” would have been extremely limited in information, general and non-specific. (Exhibit B, ¶ 6).

During Mr. York’s tenure as U.S. Attorney, he held a weekly management meeting with specific senior staff members, including but not limited to, the Chief of the Criminal Section, the Civil Section Chief, the Law Enforcement Coordinator and the Administrative Officer. These meetings were administrative in nature and did not include specific in-depth case discussions. (Exhibit B, ¶ 7).

In early 2005 the administrative structure of the office was shuffled. AUSA Greg Bordenkircher was assigned the role of First Assistant United States Attorney (FAUSA) and AUSA Donna Dobbbins was re-assigned to supervise the administrative section and appellate division and relocated from the sixth floor to the fourth floor of the United States Attorney’s Office. York has no recollection of AUSA Dobbins having any active criminal cases following her transfer to the Appellate/Administrative Section in early 2005. (Exhibit B, ¶ 8). Following AUSA Bordenkircher’s assumption of the FAUSA role, it would have been the office practice for the criminal section AUSA’s to report to either Bordenkircher or AUSA Gina Vann who was acting as deputy criminal chief. (Exhibit B, ¶ 9). Accordingly, Mr. York was not serving in a supervisory capacity over the Applied Pharmacy investigation.

The government failed to convince the Court that Christ Coumanis was conflicted due to Briskman and Binion’s representation of Dr. Pamela Pyle when Coumanis was an associate attorney at the firm. Haggard’s attorneys point out that Pamela Pyle was never associated to any aspect of Dr. Haggard’s case; the government implication that Pyle would testify against Dr. Haggard in court appeared to be a bluff due to the lack of a connection with Dr. Haggard.

Unknown to Mr. Coumanis or Mr. York, Pamela A. Pyle (“Pyle”) was a un-indicted physician not identified in the Indictment(s) against Dr. Haggard and was allegedly involved in this “illegal drug distribution network” from her medical practice in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. (Doc. 362-5, pp. 3-4). According to Factual Resume supporting Pyle’s plea, the Government asserted that participants in the conspiracy included APS of Mobile and James Abernathy and Daniel Riedel operating first out of San Diego, California and later from Colorado Springs, Colorado. (Doc. 362-5, p.2). According to the Factual Resume of Pyle, Pyle’s involvement in the distribution occurred as follows:

“ [g]enerally, Abernathy or Riedel would send an email to PYLE that included a list of various drugs and dosages that the customer needed, along with a diagnosis determined by Abernathy. Pyle, who never actually saw any of Abernathy’s customers would prepare a prescription for the drugs recommended by Abernathy, and fax the prescriptions to Abernathy. Next, Abernathy or Riedel would fax the prescriptions to APS. The faxes from Abernathy and Riedel often included specific instructions regarding billing and shipping of the orders. APS, in turn, would fill the order and ship the drugs via Federal Express, sometimes to the customer’s address and sometimes to Abernathy.” (Doc. 362-5, p.3)

The activities of Pyle viz a viz Abernathy and/or Riedel and/or APS did not involve Dr. Haggard and/or Phoenix, Arizona and no mention of Dr. Haggard and/or Phoenix, Arizona is made in the nineteen (19) page Factual Resume of Pyle. (Doc. 363-5).

The government failed to convince the Court that Christ Coumanis had any involvement in Dr. Pamela Pyle’s case that would create a conflict in his representation of Dr. Haggard:

While with B & B, Mr. Coumanis was generally aware that Mr. Briskman was representing someone in a steroid conspiracy case in Federal Court but does not recall learning or viewing any information related to the investigation and/or the present prosecution other than what may have been reported through the media. (Exhibit A, ¶ 6). Mr. Coumanis has no recollection of ever meeting Mr. Briskman’s client or speaking with her by the phone. (Exhibit A, ¶ 5). Further, Mr. Coumanis has no recollection of reviewing any documents while with B & B and during Mr. Briskman’s representation of Pyle and thus, has obtained no confidential or privileged information involved in this prosecution as a result of Mr. Briskman’s representation of Pat Pyle. (Exhibit A, ¶ 5). During his tenure with B & B from 1994 until July, 1, 2009, Mr. Coumanis had the occasion to assist Mr. Briskman in representing some “high profile” clients. When Mr. Coumanis had such an opportunity, he made it his practice to file a Notice of Appearance in the case, especially if it were a federal criminal case. (Exhibit A, ¶ 7). Mr. Coumanis did not file a Notice of Appearance or any other document on behalf of Pyle, who apparently entered her plea agreement on an Information and represented by Mr. Briskman .(Exhibit A, ¶ 8).

Post from: MESO-Rx Blog

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

Robert Whitehead, the President and CEO of Slate Pharmaceuticals, released a statement defending the use of the anabolic steroid testosterone by professional athletes when prescribed by a physician to treat low testosterone levels. Slate is the manufacturer of Testogel testosterone pellets. The statement is noteworthy because it represents the first time big pharma has been bold enough to criticize the anti-doping policies in professional sports.

The pharmaceutical company CEO’s press release supported golfer Doug Barron in his lawsuit against the PGA Tour. Barron was the first golfer banned by the PGA for violating the policy on the use of performance enhancing drugs (“PGA Tour’s Suspension of Doug Barron For Doping Is ‘Dopey,’ Says Pharmaceutical Company CEO,” December 8).

“I have examined the PGA Tour’s claims and statements put forth in defending their action against Doug Barron,” said Whitehead, “and when it comes to the issue of low testosterone and how to properly evaluate it, the PGA Tour has not made a sufficiently diligent effort to achieve a medically sound decision.”

“This area of medicine is complex,” said the pharmaceutical company CEO. “Physicians recognized as leading experts in this field habitually point out that many physicians who do not specialize in testosterone frequently render poor advice as a result of not being current with scientific findings. The PGA Tour would have been better served by seeking out the opinion of at least one physician recognized as a leading expert in this specialized area of medicine.”

Doug Barron was prescribed monthly exogenous testosterone injections by his physician after being diagnosed with hypogonadism in 2005; Barron’s testosterone value was 78. The LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics reference ranges for total testosterone are 241-827 ng/dL and 260-1000 ng/dl, respectively.

Barron submitted a therepeutic use exemption (TUE) application to the PGA Tour in order to continue testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) under the PGA anti-doping policy. An independent endocrinologist requested that Barron discontinue the use of testosterone in order to confirm the original diagnosis of hypogonadism.

Doug Barron discontinued testosterone injections in October 2008. He reported testosterone values were 325 in November 2008 and 296 in December 2008. Since his testosterone level was within the “normal” range, although far from optimal, his TUE was denied in January 2009.

Furthermore, Barron was unable to provide medical documentation of clinical hypogonadism at any time during the 6 months following the denial of his therapeutic use exemption (TUE) application.

At best, Barron had low-normal testosterone levels (not optimal) with symptomalogy that caused signficant impairment and reduced quality of life. He and his physician may have been medically justified in pushing his testosterone to “optimal” levels with TRT to treat his symptoms rather than treating a lab value.

Unfortunately, the PGA anti-doping policy explicitly disallows increasing “low-normal levels” of endogenous hormones as an “acceptable therapeutic intervention.”

“[t]he use of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method to increase ‘low normal’ levels of any Endogenous hormone is not considered an acceptable therapeutic intervention[.]

Yet, the question remains ‘Should anti-doping policy dictate what is acceptable medical treatment?’

Hopefully, more big pharma companies will speak out against anti-doping policies that interfere with proper medical treatment in athletes.

—

Excerpt from United States Magistrate Judge Tu M Pham of the US District Court in Memphis, Tennessee denying temporary restraining order preventing Barron’s suspension:

On June 23, 2008, Barron submitted his TUE application to the PGA Tour to allow him to continue taking the exogenous Testosterone. The TUE Committee that reviewed his application was comprised of doctors, including endocrinologists. The TUE Committee requested that Barron be re-examined by an independent endocrinologist, who directed Barron to stop using Testosterone so that his normal Testosterone levels could be evaluated. In November and December of 2008, the endocrinologist took samples of Barron’s blood. The November test indicated Barron’s Testosterone level was 325 and the December test indicated that it was 296. Barron does not dispute the accuracy of these tests, nor does he dispute that these levels fall within the normal Testosterone range. The TUE Committee denied his application to use Testosterone on January 21, 2009, and Barron did not appeal this decision.

[...]

Barron has not alleged in his complaint, or provided the court with medical evidence to show, that the blood tests conducted by the independent endocrinologist were inaccurate or that his Testosterone levels dropped below the normal range between January and June of 2009. Had his levels dropped during this period, Barron could have reapplied for a TUE before the St. Jude Classic, which is permitted under the Program, but did not do so. The court has not been provided with the additional information that the TUE Committee received from Barron after he tested positive in June; however, Barron has not claimed that the additional information would reveal that he had abnormally low Testosterone levels between January and June of 2009.

As for the sanction itself, it was imposed by Commissioner Finchem based on Barron’s intentional and continued use of Testosterone. In his October 20 letter, the Commissioner outlined the bases for his decision, the terms of the sanction, and Barron’s right to appeal the decision. The Program authorizes the Commissioner to impose a one-year suspension for this violation, a sanction that also appears to be consistent with the World Anti-Doping Code. The Commissioner even took into consideration Barron’s desire to compete in the 2010 Q-School, and therefore decided to make the suspension retroactive to September 20, 2009, so that Barron could participate in the 2010 Q-School. Based on this record, the court finds that Barron has not shown a likelihood of success that the one-year sanction imposed for his use of Testosterone was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair.

Post from: MESO-Rx Blog

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

The New York Times highlighted the widespread use of steroids in competitive bodybuilding suggesting that anabolic steroids cause a specific form of kidney disease known as focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. This was the disease that required IFBB pro bodybuilder Flex Wheeler to undergo kidney transplant surgery. The article interviews three IFBB pro bodybuilders: Flex Wheeler, King Kamali, and Bob Cicherillo.

The study in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology allegedly establishes a direct link between steroid use and kidney damage (“Bodybuilders See Kidney Damage with Steroids,” December 10).

The study began 10 years ago when a kidney pathologist at Columbia University Medical Center in New York noticed that a bodybuilder had an advanced form of kidney disease. Curious, she started looking for similar cases and eventually studied 10 men with serious kidney damage who acknowledged using steroids. Nine were bodybuilders and one was a competitive powerlifter with a similar training routine.

All 10 men in the case series, published in November by the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, showed damage to the filters of the kidney. Nine had an irreversible disease known as focal segmental glomerulosclerosis — the same disease contracted by Wheeler — even though the men in the study did not have other apparent risk factors. Their disease was worse than in obese patients with a higher body-mass index, suggesting that steroids — combined with the other practices — might be harming the kidneys.

Several steroid experts were skeptical of the causal link between steroids and kidney damage. Dr. Michael Scally, M.D., founder of the biotech pharmaceutical company HPT/Axis, posted his concerns on MESO-Rx that researchers may have prematurely jumped to conclusions.

The authors of the article cited in the NYT piece have also published similar findings in the obese and nonobese with an increased muscle mass (abstracts below). While not discounting the possible role of AAS in the kidney pathology, I caution that often and without good evidence AAS are quickly grabbed on as the culprits for many pathologies only to later determine not to be the cause.  [...]

On first review, I am little impressed by the authors’ attribution of AAS to the pathology. Admittedly, being a cynic I am more likely to take the position that the authors are looking for research dollars and the use of AAS as causation will help bring monies. Regardless, I hope that true independent third-party research confirms or refutes this hypothesis. One must be very careful though since others might grasp on this for their own research dollars (i.e., AAS addiction/dependency).

Bill Roberts, anabolic pharmacology and medicinal chemistry expert, pointed out that the kidney disease was mult-factorial and that steroids were unlikely to be the sole factor involved.  A more reasonable explanation for kidney disease is hypertension that may or may not be aggravated by steroids. He posted his reaction on MESO-Rx:

I agree with Dr Scally. More than one factor is involved, but for reasons having — in my opinion — to do with the muscle-hating psychology of many individuals, these findings may be considered by them to be a useful weapon against anabolic steroids.

It is actually a reasonable argument that supraphysiological androgen levels may aggravate glomerulosclerosis where it is already developing, or perhaps be “the last straw” if other factors contribute. Or perhaps even with some forms of use being sufficient as a sole factor. There is considerable evidence that testosterone, even at physiological levels, can be an aggravating factor.

However, whether this is due to anything but hypertension, I don’t know.

Certainly hypertension is strongly linked to this disease state, and is prevalent among those with high BMI, whether from extreme muscle mass or from obesity. Androgens also can raise blood pressure, but of course the individual can monitor this and so by no means is this an inevitable side effect.

It is important to acknowledge that, while the claim that anabolic steroids cause kidney damage is certainly overstated, the extreme polypharmacy in competitive bodybuilding that involves prolonged use of high dosages of anabolic steroids combined various other anabolic agents and ancillaries can have serious health consequences.

Flex Wheeler acknowledged to NY Times reporter Katie Thomas that competitive bodybuilding “has nothing to do with health” but does not believe anabolic steroids caused his kidney problems

Lifting weights in the gym is “extremely healthy for you,” said Kenneth Wheeler, a former elite bodybuilder known as Flex. “But if you want to be a bodybuilder and compete at the highest level, it has nothing to do with health.” A relatively rare form of kidney disease forced Wheeler to retire in 2003 at age 37, and he needed a kidney transplant later that year. [...]

Wheeler said he was convinced steroid use did not cause his kidney disease, although it might have made it worse.

Iron Man Magazine’s Jerry Brainun told Thomas that he found the results “alarming” and called for additional research.

Jerry Brainum writes a column for Iron Man Magazine called Bodybuilding Pharmacology and said he welcomes more research on the subject. “I found it very alarming, quite frankly,” Brainum said.

The NY Times article referenced a July 2005 editorial published in FLEX Magazine. Former FLEX Editor-in-Chief Peter McGough warned that competitive bodybuilding had reached a dangerous crossroads and required decisive action by the IFBB leadership to save the sport (“For Whom the Bells Toll,” July 2005).

 Just going from memory, the list of bodybuilders who have died prematurely since 1992, in addition to Durr and Youngblood, includes Momo Benaziza, Andreas Munzer, Curtis Leffler, Hans Hopstaken, Sonny Schmidt and Derrick Whitsett. Bodybuilders whose competitive careers were cut short by illness include Dennis Newman, Mike Francois, Don Long, Flex Wheeler, Tom Prince and Mike Matarazzo. The list of athletes that we know have experienced harum-scarum hospital visits with conditions in which their lives have been in danger includes Mike Matarazzo, Edgar Fletcher, Paul Dillett (twice), Milos Sarcev, Nasser El Sonbaty, Bob Cicherillo and Mustafa Mohammad (twice).

Our sport has reached a dangerous crossroad, where it seems that too many athletes (pro and amateur) have become walking time bombs, with the prospect of a future lived in poor health (or worse) being the only trophy they can look forward to. Consider the following lifestyle: use liberal amounts of steroids, growth hormone and insulin; kick in an array of exotic substances for God knows what; add huge quantities of food every two hours that severely overtax the human digestive system; throw in a heavy dose of painkillers (some narcotic in nature); adopt an MO that requires dropping 40 or 50 pounds twice a year in a 12-week period; peak on contest day by means of diuretics so as to be bone dry and severely dehydrated. We don’t have to fund a Harvard research project to figure out that such a regimen is a recipe for physical disaster.

To save certain athletes from themselves and to save the sport, an overhaul of how physiques are to be judged has already been implemented and a discussion on drug-testing controls has already begun (more on that in the months to come). Rest assured, the combined powers that be are committed to returning competitive bodybuilding to the position where it is a celebration of life, not a shortening of it.

Bob Cicherillo did his best to defend the current state of the IFBB. He told the New York Times about the little known IFBB Pro drug testing policy; Cicherillo also stated that bodybuilders are unfairly singled out when athletes in other sports also use steroids.

The International Federation of Body Building and Fitness reserves the right to test for steroids and human growth hormone at the professional level, and testing is done on a random basis, said Bob Cicherillo, athlete representative for the federation, which is the main governing body for bodybuilding.

But several bodybuilders said the testing was nearly nonexistent, and Cicherillo said he could not provide specific figures on competitors who tested positive. [...]

Bodybuilders said that they were unfairly singled out as drug abusers when athletes in most other sports were also using performance-enhancing drugs. “Like anything else, it’s use and abuse,” Cicherillo said. “We’re the ones who are visual. We’re the ones who walk around, and you see us with the big muscles.”

Law enforcement had started targeting steroid use by competitive bodybuilders in large scale arrests and indictments in Oklahoma, Texas (Operation Juicy Phruit), and most recently Pennsylvania (Operation Roid Runner). Unfortunately, it was only a matter of time before mainstream media started to focus on competitive bodybuilding and steroids.

Photo credit: Flex Wheeler at 1999 IFBB Mr. Olympia by Muscletime

Post from: MESO-Rx Blog

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

The federal government is unhappy with Dr. Jesse Haggard’s selection of defense counsel in the Applied Pharmacy steroid case. The United States Attorney Office filed a motion with the court to disqualify David York and Chris Coumanis of Coumanis & York based on an alleged potential conflict of interest.

David York brings considerable trial experience to the legal defense of Dr. Jesse Haggard. York was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama for five years; he returned to private practice in 2006.

York was also the former boss for Assistant U.S. Attorney Donna Dobbins, the government’s lead attorney in the Applied Pharmacy Services case. The government argues that the unhappiness with Haggard’s legal team is not the consequence of a personal political rivalry but an issue of ethics.

The government claims that David York, as the former U.S. Attorney, represented the United States at the inception of the Applied Pharmacy investigation and received regular updates on the steroid investigation from Assistant U.S. Attorney Dobbins before going into private practice in 2006. The government wants York disqualified based on potential conflict of interest.

In addition, the government also seeks to remove Chris Coumanis from Haggard’s legal counsel. Since Coumanis was a member of the law firm Briskman & Binion that represented co-defendant Dr. Pamela Pyle in the Applied Pharmacy case, the government seeks disqualification based on the potential conflict of interest; Coumanis maintains he avoided contact with the Pyle case. The government anticipates that Dr. Pyle could be called as a witness for the prosecution.

The government does not feel that the Sixth Amendment, federal law and state law protect Dr. Haggard’s choice of counsel:

While the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel, that right does not allow a defendant to insist on a counsel who has a prior ongoing relationship with an apposing (sic) party, even where the opposing party is the Government.

[...]

Section 207 (a)(1) of Title 18 bars former Government officials from appearing before a court in regard to a matter in which the United States is a party if the matter involves a “specific party or parties” and if the former official participated in the matter “personally and substantially.”

[...]

Rule 1.9 of those Rules bars a lawyer who formerly represented a client in a matter from thereafter representing another person in the same or substantially related matter where the interests of the parties are materially adverse.

The filing for the government’s motion to disqualify counsel for Dr. Jesse Haggard comes on the same day that Chief United States District Judge affirmed the continued detention of Haggard pending trial:

The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s assessment during the detention hearing that the evidence requires that the defendant be detained pending trial because there is a serious risk that the defendant will flee. He has spent the last year and a half living outside this country, knowing that he was under investigation and, later, under indictment. Although he came to the decision to return to this country and made arrangements to turn himself in, the evidence is clear that he could just as easily reverse that decision and again absent himself from the court.

Jesse Haggard pleaded not guilty at his arraignment.

Post from: MESO-Rx Blog

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

IFBB professional bodybuilder Guy Ducasse was sentenced to one month imprisonment and 400 hours community service after pleading guilty to steroid distribution. United States District Judge Claire Eagan emphatically rejected the prosecution’s argument that Ducasse was “no different than any other drug dealer and should be treated accordingly.” Federal prosecutors had asked Judge Eagan to put Ducasse in jail for 15-21 months.

Guy Ducasse’s attorney, public defender Stephen Greubel, skillfully used testimony by the prosecution’s star witness to lay the groundwork for requesting a reduced sentence of zero months for his client. Greubel argued that the use of anabolic steroids was expected and required to compete as a professional bodybuilder in non-steroid tested competitions. Therefore, Ducasse’s personal use of steroids and his distribution of steroids to other bodybuilders did NOT result in “the corruption of sports or athletes.”

Ducasse’s attorney cited testimony by Agent Brian Surber of the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs to support his argument the steroid use was the accepted norm in competitive bodybuilding particularly in the absence of steroid testing.

It is extremely difficult if not impossible for a bodybuilder to compete at a national level without the benefit of anabolic steroids and performance enhancing drugs. Every bodybuilder I have interviewed has told me that EVERY national level bodybuilder is using anabolic steroids as well as other performance enhancing drugs.

… there is no drug testing in the IFBB (The professional bodybuilding association to which Ducasse belongs) events …. [emphasis in original].

Public defender Stephen Greubel argued that the primary reason anabolic steroids were criminalized by the Anabolic Steroid Control Act was to prevent the “corruption of sports and athletes”. However, bodybuilding differs from other sports since steroids are more or less accepted in competitive bodybuilding; steroid testing  has not been utilized as a deterrent. Therefore, the use and distribution of anabolic steroids in competitive bodybuilding does not represent a “corruption” of the sport as it currently exists.

The gravamen of the instant offense is not so much Defendant Ducasse’s personal use of steroids, but rather his willing distribution of those steroids to others. Defendant Ducasse does not deny that in the course of acquiring and using steroids for his own benefit, he provided steroids to others. Who those “others” were, however, should be a relevant factor in assessing the appropriate punishment for Defendant Ducasse.

This is not a case where the defendant was distributing steroids to Olympic athletes, world class cyclists, or professional ballplayers. This is not a case where the defendant was providing steroids to teenage or collegiate athletes. This is not a case where the defendant maintained a sophisticated lab or training facility which could test his clients’ blood levels or provide them with masking agents to aid them in avoiding detection of their steroid use by regulatory agencies or federations. In other words, Defendant Ducasse was not involved in the corruption of sports or athletes – one of the principal concerns of Congress in amending 21 U.S.C. § 812(c) to include steroids in Schedule III.

The seven people that testified that Guy Ducasse distributed steroids to them were primarily competitive bodybuilders, allegedly including one IFBB pro bodybuilder, and individuals seeking a bodybuilder-type physique.

Defendant Ducasse’s distribution of steroids was centered almost exclusively upon the training of those who desired to vastly increase their muscle mass – generally for the purpose of bodybuilding. Most of the individuals who provided Agent Surber with evidence against Defendant Ducasse admitted that they were training to increase muscle mass for the bodybuilder’s physique – either for their own personal satisfaction or for the purpose of bodybuilding competitions. Some of the witnesses requested Defendant Ducasse to assist them with their steroid regimen. Others asked if Defendant Ducasse could obtain steroids for them. Some of the witnesses provided steroids to Defendant Ducasse for his personal use. At least one potential witness was himself a professional bodybuilder. No one who used steroids in this case did so unwillingly or unwittingly.

U.S. District Judge Eagan apparently agreed in part with the defense argument and did not see lengthy incarceration of a bodybuilder as a good use of taxpayer funds. It costs taxpayers approximately $25,894.50 per year to incarcerate a defendant.

Photo credit: Guy Ducasse via Muscletime.com

Post from: MESO-Rx Blog

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

Dr. Jesse Haggard is quickly becoming a martyr to the cause of medical steroids. There is no better example of the excesses of the modern day steroid witch-hunt than the federal government’s prosecution of the Arizona naturopathic physician.

Dr. Haggard is being prosecuted by the federal government for allegedly prescribing anabolic steroids “outside the usual course of professional practice” and “not for legitimate medical purposes”. Yet Dr. Haggard not only met the standard of care but often established the medical standard of care with off-label prescribing of anabolic steroids supported by scientific and clinical evidence.

In a recent communication, Dr. Haggard warned healthcare practitioners that evidence-based prescribing of anabolic steroids can not be advised in the present-day climate of steroid hysteria. Haggard advocates steroid law reform as the solution that will allow medical practitioners to prescribe anabolic steroids more freely, and without restraint, in appropriate medical conditions (“Steroid Phobia,” October 11).

I am writing this text from inside an Orange County jail cell. I am sharing a room no larger than 400 square feet and one in-room toilet with seven other men. I have been here for 9 long days and have no clear idea when I will be able to leave and begin court proceedings in another county.

I want to believe that “truth will prevail” and that science will reveal steroids as a valuable and safe treatment option for patients. That potential has been more difficult for me to visualize each day I reside in this setting. Although this dream’s clarity has previously waxed and waned over the course of one and a half years, it has reached a low point for me.

I have painstakingly documented the thousands of beneficial patient results utilizing steroids in my book, “Demystifying Steroids“. I have proven to myself beyond doubt that steroids can be a powerful and wonderful tool in medicine. I tried to communicate it to others as well, but did I fail?

If by some miracle I was vindicated and allowed to practice medicine again, I ask myself, “Would I prescribe steroids again in the same manner?” When I answer this question, the longing desire to see my family burns inside me and is a powerful incentive to answer, “No!” Despite knowing the facts of steroids benefits and safety with pervasive confidence, I cannot at this point condone its future use by practitioners in current context.

So if I, as a leading proponent of medical steroid therapies, am unwilling to accept the risk of prescribing steroids in the future absent steroid law reform, how can I honestly expect my healthcare provider colleagues to consider prescribing steroids more often and possibly more appropriately in a largely hypogonadal patient population?

My conclusion is medical research is clearly not enough to eliminate the fear of healthcare providers when it comes to prescribing steroids. I believe a legislative change in medicine is appropriate based on recent research and necessary in order to expect healthcare practitioners to alter their prescribing habits and reduce the risk of legal consequences associated with steroids. In the light of recent and dramatic changes in the medical paradigm (compared to the last 70 years) regarding steroids, it is not unreasonable to me to expect complimentary and simultaneous legislative changes. Steroid legislation and legal status have had no change in 20 years despite landmark steroid findings released during the last decade in the medical literature. How can we work together to bring about this needed change?

-written by Dr. Jesse Haggard, October 11, 2009

Dr. Haggard’s prosecution reflects the devastating impact that hysteria related to steroids in sports has had on the prescribing of anabolic steroids for legitimate medical purposes. Congressional attacks on anabolic steroids and misguided DEA steroid law enforcement policy have created an environment where medical healthcare providers are afraid to prescribe steroids and explore the amazing therapeutic potentials this class of drugs may hold for the overall health and well-being of their patients. This fear is only reinforced with the prosecutions of doctors like Dr. Haggard.

The DEA has inexplicably inserted itself into the medical steroid debate by making determinations as to what constitutes appropriate medicine. Law enforcement has asserted their superior “qualifications” to practice medicine over trained medical practitioners who want to provide anabolic therapies for their patients when appropriate. The moral crusade demonizing steroids in sports has regrettably trumped the medical evidence supporting the off-label use of anabolic steroids.

Will the Dr. Haggard case represent the turning point in the government’s steroid witch-hunt? Will the public oppose existing steroid legislation that limits their freedoms in healthcare and access to innovative anabolic steroid therapies?

Post from: MESO-Rx Blog

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

United States Magistrate Judge David Baker refused to release Dr. Jesse Haggard at a detention hearing at the U.S. Courthouse in Orlando. Dr. Haggard has been detained without bail as a flight risk pending his transfer to Mobile, Alabama sometime in the next 10-14 days. Federal prosecutors argued that Haggard knew he was under federal investigation at the time he moved to Costa Rica and that Haggard knew he should have surrendered based on postings on his personal blog and legal documents he signed before he left. Magistrate Judge Baker was not influenced by defense arguments that Haggard voluntarily surrendered and therefore was not a flight risk.

The blockbuster revelation during court proceedings on Wednesday was that local news media to actively assisted the federal government in their investigation of Dr. Jesse Haggard and Revolution Medical Center. A source with knowledge of the court proceedings indicated that the government worked with television crews in Phoenix to conduct an undercover investigation to gather evidence against Haggard.

The television news station was not identified. Suggestions that the federal government has paid news organizations to conduct their steroid witch-hunt are highly disturbing.

Post from: MESO-Rx Blog

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail

Dr. Jesse Haggard will appear today before United States Magistrate Judge David Baker in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in his first court appearance since voluntarily surrendering to federal authorities on Friday. Haggard will be represented by federal public defender Clarence W. Counts, Jr.

Dr. Haggard had been living in Costa Rica for over a year preparing a scientific defense to support the therapeutic use of anabolic steroids during the course of his medical practice. The naturopathic physician moved to Costa Rica with his family to escape the hysteria perpetuated by the local media. Haggard was harrassed and practically stalked by ABC15 “investigative journalist” Josh Bernstein in a sensationalistic tabloid-style witch-hunt. Haggard wrote and published the book “Demystifying Steroids“, a patient and practictioner guide to anabolic steroid therapy, while in Costa Rica.

Although Haggard has been called a fugitive by federal prosecutors, this may not be entirely accurate. Haggard had travelled and resided in Costa Rica for approximately eight months prior to being indicted on federal steroid charges. Furthermore, Dr. Haggard or Timothy Holt (Haggard’s legal representation at the time) were never served or shown a warrant for his arrest. Apparently, the government only shared the warrant with ABC15’s Josh Bernstein.

The legal designation as a fugitive may be significant in determining whether Haggard is released on bond pending trial. Haggard clearly did not flee prosecution having lived in Costa Rica for several months prior to being indicted. Haggard may be considered an American living abroad at the time of his indictment who has voluntarily surrendered to federal authorities. He was not compelled to do so given the quite favorable Costa Rican extradition laws. As such, he may less likely to be considered a flight risk. In addition, his father has informed the court that he would assume full responsibility should the court decide to release Haggard into his custody in Phoenix pending a court date.

MESO-Rx has reported extensively on the steroid hysteria in the Phoenix area and specifically on Dr. Haggard’s case over the past year. Dr. Jesse Haggard contacted MESO-Rx last month prior to surrendering to ensure that coverage of his surrender would be fairly reported; he hoped that our coverage could pre-empt the hysterical, tabloid-style journalism that he had experienced in Phoenix.

MESO-Rx announced Dr. Haggard’s surrender on September 28, 2009 on our blog. MESO-Rx solicited the assistance of Aaron Singerman and Carl Lanore to help report the truth about Haggard’s case. We arranged an interview on the popular internet-based radio show OFF TOPIC for Jesse Haggard on September 30th. Carl Lanore has subsequently discussed Haggard’s case on Superhuman Radio on October 5th. The U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecuting defendants in the Applied Pharmacy Services  steroid investigation purportedly listened live and heard Dr. Haggard passionately defend the therapeutic use of anabolic steroids on OFF TOPIC and/or Superhuman Radio. 

Post from: MESO-Rx Blog

Written by: Millard Baker | Twitter | FriendFeed | Facebook | E-mail