danimal

yeah that and they define suplly as having a few hundred dbol and 20 sus lol

Millard Baker

It's funny that the U.S. passed steroid laws in response to elite athletes doping in sports, but after over 15 years of AAS possession as a felony, I don't think a single pro athlete (from the major professional leagues) has been prosecuted for possession.

It's mainly affected recreational bodybuilders and athletes who don't compete.

A few IFBB pro bodybuilders (Milos Sarcev and Dennis James) have been prosecuted for steroid possession under federal law. Last year Hidetada Yamagishi was prosecuted for sterod possession AND distribution but plead guilty only to possession.

Most others (largely amateurs) with legal problems were involved in distribution.

Millard Baker

There was a federal steroid distribution case in Florida where the guy was indicted for giving 10 tabs of dianabol to his training partner.

U.S. prosecutors will always try to call a large personal supply possession with "intent to distribute"

Millard Baker

Bottom line is that steroid users in the USA envy the more reasonable laws that you guys enjoy in the UK.

Criminalizing possession will not affect demand that is for sure. But from our experience in the U.S, it has affected the supply.

Anyone who wants to use steroids in the US can still find them pretty easily.

But the nature of the supply is what have deteriorated with the harsher steroid laws.

The quality is poor from UGLs and pharmaceutical AAS are in very short supply.

Possession as a felony really does suck too.

thevoice

I wonder how the US in particlar will rate SARMS, while the first generation may not be as good as high does of standard steroids they could certinally get much better, also the supplement industry will no doubt release some SARMs at some point. If SARMS are as safe as what they are being predicted to be as as efective as they are hoped to be Governments could not use the card "its not safe".

tommy28

I think it's a fantastic idea to make criminals out of a group of people who are at present not harming anyone. It'll give the fuzz something to do - they seem to have given up on catching burglars, murderers, rapists and knife carriers.

I am afraid it might happen though. As has already been mentioned, criminalising steroid possession is totally impractical, as indeed it has proved to be in the US, but it's wrong to underestimate the hysteria of a largely ignorant public.

We in the UK (and especially our government) are a bunch of fickle bandwagon jumping mo-fo's. All it would take is the Daily Mail to decide steroids are bad and the whole country could be up in arms over it.

And just cos France thinks it's a good idea to criminalise AAS doesn't mean we should follow like sheep. We fought wars to protect our sovereign right to make our own decisions in this country. I hope we don't chuck all that away at the request of the IOC.

thevoice

id like to know the hoe many people used steroids pre ban and post ban in USA for example, I heard there are more users than ever which shows its not working.

Vince

i think the really interesting point in the article is the last question the writer asks: "But should it be the government’s role to criminalize the violation of rules in a sporting event?"
Shouldn't the governing body of such sporting event rule against violations without asking for goverment to get involved?
There are loads of substances on the banned list yet only AAS are criminalized, i don't see caffeine being criminalized any time soon.