FanHome - View Single Post - Asterisks, windbags & fools in high places

nanwynnfan · August 11th, 2007, 06:56 PM

The following offered for purposes of information sharing:

The Sports Law Professor: Book Notes: Game of Shadows

The Book:

A review of the book, Game of Shadows, vis-à-vis questions of legality and protection of witness rights under the U.S. Constitution, is provided at the link above; and I’ve taken the liberty of citing segments of the review from THAT perspective.

[Quoted segments follow}:

”1. Really, the authors should be in jail. As I've argued previously, there are some pretty significant reasons that grand jury testimony must be kept secret. The writers had a source leaking that information to them, and it appears to me that the source didn't just provide a few generalities. The writers appeared to have had significant access to the testimony of several witnesses, including Bonds, Giambi and Santiago. The reporters can argue all they want about journalistic privilege, but they were breaking the law when they elicited this information, and from the sound of things, they knew it. Maybe it's ironic that the reporters go to prison while Bonds goes to the outfield; on the other hand, maybe the reporters' wrong was more serious.”

”2. Got to love the ban on performance-enhancing drugs. By the way, in most sports, when players are tested for performance-enhancers, they're also tested for other drugs (marijuana) which do nothing to enhance athletic performance, and in fact hurt it. (Golf may be an exception here, I'm told; being high on marijuana might help even out that putting stroke. Are PGA tour pros smoking weed before putting on their plaid slacks? Now that would be a Category 3 book I'd read.) Some problems with the ban on performance enhancers: (1) it doesn't make a lot of sense, given that all kinds of non-pharmeceutical [sic] substances can enhance performance: are they any different in principle?; (2) are genetically engineered enhancements (the coming thing) any different? Given that all of us differ genetically anyway, if an athlete's very genetic makeup can be altered, in what sense is this enhancement non-natural? We can be born weak and yet lift weights to make us strong, so why can't we undergo gene therapy to accomplish the same alteration?; and (3) baseball's ban does drive drug use underground. This is the big story of Game of Shadows.”

[Personal comments to above quoted passages]:

1. Point speaks for itself from the legal perspective of “being innocent until proved guilty” and from the added perspective that bits and pieces of an entire mosaic invited the willing to connect dots that aren’t there and to draw conclusions [E] from [A through D]. when the accusing experts are in possession of bits of a, a touch of B, none of C, and a smidgen of D, illegally leaked.

2. [Point 2.] I quoted entirely to show that this reviewer in not immune to sully tangents; but he does get back on topic with the telling DIFFERENCES among supplements collectively herded, for example, as steroids, by lay persons totally UNAWARE of the subtle and even not-so-subtle individual variances among them, their proposed use and benefit and, most importantly, their individual status when interpreted by those who know both the law, their biochemistry, and genetics.

Substances:

… and in that vein: {Wikipedia];

“Nevertheless, anabolic steroids were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.[93] The same act also introduced more stringent controls with higher criminal penalties for offenses involving the illegal distribution of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone. By the early 1990s after anabolic steroids were scheduled in the U.S., several pharmaceutical companies stopped manufacturing or marketing the products in the U.S., including Ciba, Searle, Syntex and others.

Controlled Substances Act

"In the Controlled Substances Act, anabolic steroids are defined to be any drug or hormonal substance chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, and corticosteroids) that promote muscle growth. The act was amended by the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, which added prohormones to the list of controlled substances, with effect from January 20, 2005.[89]

… And the Law:

[Comments to above]: Legal experts as late as 2003 were debating inclusions and exclusions of supplement compounds which were as complex in their categorization as they were in their legality.

[Yet more input from the legal community]:

“Another issue related to quantity arises when non-controlled substances are inadvertently "tossed into the mix." Many bodybuilders utilize a variety of ancillary medications - anastrozole (Arimidex), clomiphene citrate, tamoxifen, clenbuterol, etc. -- to enhance beneficial effects or to control adverse ones. When a wide variety of substances are recovered in a search, all manner of confusion by law enforcement can ensue. Such confusion is not hard to understand when often the lawmakers themselves are thoroughly confused. For example, Delaware law [16 Del. C. Section 4701(18)] defines "human growth hormone" as "synonymous with the term "human chorionic gonadotropin." Other than sharing the word "human," these two hormones have nothing in common. The Delaware statute effectively defines "apples" as "oranges." It's anybody's guess as to what is intended.

”The depth of confusion and misinformation by those in the legal community can present an impediment to the proper resolution of these matters. A prosecutor or judge whose knowledge of anabolic steroids is based on what has been read in the lay press may not offer an appropriate plea and sentence. Counsel can refute aggressive prosecutors who spout the "evils" of steroid use by referencing the medical literature itself, including the landmark 1996 study (printed in the New England Journal of Medicine) that found virtually no adverse effects when anabolic steroids were administered at a dosage of 600 mgs per week for ten weeks. Recent scholarly reviews of the literature have also concluded that the health risks have been overstated.”

The Layer-Cake of Supplements, Prohormones:

“In the last two decades, prohormones have also been used by bodybuilders, athletes, and nonmedical users of anabolic steroids and other hormones to refer to substances that are expected to convert to active hormones in the body. The intent is to provide the putative benefits of taking an anabolic steroid without the legal or medical risks, and to achieve the hoped-for benefits or advantages without use of anabolic steroids themselves. Since prohormones are not anabolic steroids themselves, they are legally classified as dietary supplements and not subject to the much tighter regulatory requirements of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which apply to prescription hormones.”

Citation:

FindLaw: Legal Subjects: Entertainment and Sports Law: Web Sites

MLB has had no integrated, practicable or enforceable policy or official rulemaking program with enforceable consequences because their was only a perceived “ideal” [ill-defined, at that], free from abuses observed in amateur competitions, especially the Olymics, where sexual “morphs” were revealed; and later. in pro sports where strapping young jocks started collapsing and dying at extraordinary young ages. Even the target of athletic righteousness was ill-defined.

The Physical Aspects; Statistical Regressions; Batting Dynamics & Supplements:

Citation: DeVanyHomeRunMS.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Dr, Arthur de Vray, Professor Emeritus, Mathematics, Economics, University of California, Irvine … an excellent read from various perspectives of the bigger picture.

Did not quote from this: It is in pdf format and at 21 + pages is well worth the read.

August 11th, 2007, 06:56 PM	#157 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	The following offered for purposes of information sharing: The Sports Law Professor: Book Notes: Game of Shadows The Book: A review of the book, Game of Shadows, vis-à-vis questions of legality and protection of witness rights under the U.S. Constitution, is provided at the link above; and I’ve taken the liberty of citing segments of the review from THAT perspective. [Quoted segments follow}: ”1. Really, the authors should be in jail. As I've argued previously, there are some pretty significant reasons that grand jury testimony must be kept secret. The writers had a source leaking that information to them, and it appears to me that the source didn't just provide a few generalities. The writers appeared to have had significant access to the testimony of several witnesses, including Bonds, Giambi and Santiago. The reporters can argue all they want about journalistic privilege, but they were breaking the law when they elicited this information, and from the sound of things, they knew it. Maybe it's ironic that the reporters go to prison while Bonds goes to the outfield; on the other hand, maybe the reporters' wrong was more serious.” ”2. Got to love the ban on performance-enhancing drugs. By the way, in most sports, when players are tested for performance-enhancers, they're also tested for other drugs (marijuana) which do nothing to enhance athletic performance, and in fact hurt it. (Golf may be an exception here, I'm told; being high on marijuana might help even out that putting stroke. Are PGA tour pros smoking weed before putting on their plaid slacks? Now that would be a Category 3 book I'd read.) Some problems with the ban on performance enhancers: (1) it doesn't make a lot of sense, given that all kinds of non-pharmeceutical [sic] substances can enhance performance: are they any different in principle?; (2) are genetically engineered enhancements (the coming thing) any different? Given that all of us differ genetically anyway, if an athlete's very genetic makeup can be altered, in what sense is this enhancement non-natural? We can be born weak and yet lift weights to make us strong, so why can't we undergo gene therapy to accomplish the same alteration?; and (3) baseball's ban does drive drug use underground. This is the big story of Game of Shadows.” [Personal comments to above quoted passages]: 1. Point speaks for itself from the legal perspective of “being innocent until proved guilty” and from the added perspective that bits and pieces of an entire mosaic invited the willing to connect dots that aren’t there and to draw conclusions [E] from [A through D]. when the accusing experts are in possession of bits of a, a touch of B, none of C, and a smidgen of D, illegally leaked. 2. [Point 2.] I quoted entirely to show that this reviewer in not immune to sully tangents; but he does get back on topic with the telling DIFFERENCES among supplements collectively herded, for example, as steroids, by lay persons totally UNAWARE of the subtle and even not-so-subtle individual variances among them, their proposed use and benefit and, most importantly, their individual status when interpreted by those who know both the law, their biochemistry, and genetics. Substances: … and in that vein: {Wikipedia]; “Nevertheless, anabolic steroids were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990.[93] The same act also introduced more stringent controls with higher criminal penalties for offenses involving the illegal distribution of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone. By the early 1990s after anabolic steroids were scheduled in the U.S., several pharmaceutical companies stopped manufacturing or marketing the products in the U.S., including Ciba, Searle, Syntex and others. Controlled Substances Act "In the Controlled Substances Act, anabolic steroids are defined to be any drug or hormonal substance chemically and pharmacologically related to testosterone (other than estrogens, progestins, and corticosteroids) that promote muscle growth. The act was amended by the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, which added prohormones to the list of controlled substances, with effect from January 20, 2005.[89] … And the Law: [Comments to above]: Legal experts as late as 2003 were debating inclusions and exclusions of supplement compounds which were as complex in their categorization as they were in their legality. [Yet more input from the legal community]: “Another issue related to quantity arises when non-controlled substances are inadvertently "tossed into the mix." Many bodybuilders utilize a variety of ancillary medications - anastrozole (Arimidex), clomiphene citrate, tamoxifen, clenbuterol, etc. -- to enhance beneficial effects or to control adverse ones. When a wide variety of substances are recovered in a search, all manner of confusion by law enforcement can ensue. Such confusion is not hard to understand when often the lawmakers themselves are thoroughly confused. For example, Delaware law [16 Del. C. Section 4701(18)] defines "human growth hormone" as "synonymous with the term "human chorionic gonadotropin." Other than sharing the word "human," these two hormones have nothing in common. The Delaware statute effectively defines "apples" as "oranges." It's anybody's guess as to what is intended. ”The depth of confusion and misinformation by those in the legal community can present an impediment to the proper resolution of these matters. A prosecutor or judge whose knowledge of anabolic steroids is based on what has been read in the lay press may not offer an appropriate plea and sentence. Counsel can refute aggressive prosecutors who spout the "evils" of steroid use by referencing the medical literature itself, including the landmark 1996 study (printed in the New England Journal of Medicine) that found virtually no adverse effects when anabolic steroids were administered at a dosage of 600 mgs per week for ten weeks. Recent scholarly reviews of the literature have also concluded that the health risks have been overstated.” The Layer-Cake of Supplements, Prohormones: “In the last two decades, prohormones have also been used by bodybuilders, athletes, and nonmedical users of anabolic steroids and other hormones to refer to substances that are expected to convert to active hormones in the body. The intent is to provide the putative benefits of taking an anabolic steroid without the legal or medical risks, and to achieve the hoped-for benefits or advantages without use of anabolic steroids themselves. Since prohormones are not anabolic steroids themselves, they are legally classified as dietary supplements and not subject to the much tighter regulatory requirements of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which apply to prescription hormones.” Citation: FindLaw: Legal Subjects: Entertainment and Sports Law: Web Sites MLB has had no integrated, practicable or enforceable policy or official rulemaking program with enforceable consequences because their was only a perceived “ideal” [ill-defined, at that], free from abuses observed in amateur competitions, especially the Olymics, where sexual “morphs” were revealed; and later. in pro sports where strapping young jocks started collapsing and dying at extraordinary young ages. Even the target of athletic righteousness was ill-defined. The Physical Aspects; Statistical Regressions; Batting Dynamics & Supplements: Citation: DeVanyHomeRunMS.pdf (application/pdf Object) Dr, Arthur de Vray, Professor Emeritus, Mathematics, Economics, University of California, Irvine … an excellent read from various perspectives of the bigger picture. Did not quote from this: It is in pdf format and at 21 + pages is well worth the read. Last edited by nanwynnfan; August 11th, 2007 at 07:09 PM.