"Badge of Dishonor" was in the March, 2003 issue of MD, which was on the stands in January. Here it is:
Busted: Legal Q & A
By Rick Collins, J.D.
BADGE OF HONOR
Q: Why do cops seem to have a hard-on for juicers?
A: Don’t blame the police. They don’t get to pick which laws to enforce. Once politicians spit out a law, enforcement is required. While there are bad apples in any occupation, most beat cops are dedicated public servants who endure tough challenges and grave risks every day. Not only must they grapple with violent perps and skels on the street, but they also have to deal with the institutionalized ignorance and myopia of their own superiors. My respect for street cops was recently renewed when I met a top-notch officer during his departmental discharge proceeding. He was accused of anabolic steroid use after testing positive for steroid metabolites and having a high ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E).
When initially questioned, the officer explained that he’d been using large quantities of over-the-counter prohormones. Consuming these currently legal products is known to skew T/E ratios and cause excretion of the same metabolites found after consuming anabolic steroids. Prohormones caused so many false positives in steroid testing that they were banned for Olympic competitors.
The department had a zero tolerance policy on all drug positives. Having never had a steroid case before, the department researched the issues online at www.SteroidLaw.com. They cited me in their reports, and included extensive printouts of my writings in their official “disclosure” materials to the officer and his union lawyer.
The officer then contacted me to review his case. Based upon my considerable experience with steroid and prohormone issues, it was obvious that prohormone usage was a possible cause for the test results. I consulted chemist Patrick Arnold, the “father of prohormones” who introduced androstenedione to the supplement market in 1996. He confirmed my opinion, and together we created a compelling testimonial presentation for the trial board. It included many articles from scientific journals about prohormones and false anabolic steroid positives, as well as numerous IOC statements warning Olympic athletes not to consume any dietary supplement products that might be tainted or cross-contaminated with prohormones.
At the discharge trial, the department called as a witness a police clinic doctor with no experience in anabolic steroids or prohormones. Suspiciously, the trial board deemed her an “expert.” In a demonstration of jaw-dropping ignorance, she claimed that the only substances that can cause a positive for anabolic steroids are anabolic steroids.
Worse yet, the officer’s lawyer was prevented from rebutting the false statements of the clinic doctor. When Patrick Arnold and I were called into the hearing room to recite our qualifications, the trial board told us that we lacked the necessary qualifications to testify! While my writings on the topic were deemed sufficiently reliable for the department’s own investigation, my appearance as a defense witness seemed to suddenly remove my expertise. Apparently, I’m not an expert as to my own articles! As for Patrick, he was also rejected as an expert on the topic of the substances that he pretty much invented! Nobody I’ve ever met knows more about prohormones than Patrick Arnold, but in the mini-minds of the trial board he lacked the expertise of a clueless clinic doctor.
The greatest irony is that while charged with the task of making evidentiary rulings and interpreting laws, the trial board members themselves lacked any qualifications whatsoever! None were trained as judges; in fact, they weren’t even lawyers! A first-year law student would have been better qualified to make legal rulings! Of course, mere ignorance couldn’t explain what went on here. The board’s mind was unfairly made up before anyone entered the room, and the last thing they wanted to hear was a viable defense. Engineering a predetermined result by silencing the truth is a sickening perversion of justice to witness. It was even harder to watch because the officer in question was such a good and decent man whose service was exemplary. He should have been afforded a fair chance to defend himself, rather than be railroaded by corrupt bureaucrats. Whatever their decision, he wears an untarnished badge of honor as far as I’m concerned.
Busted: Legal Q & A
By Rick Collins, J.D.
BADGE OF HONOR
Q: Why do cops seem to have a hard-on for juicers?
A: Don’t blame the police. They don’t get to pick which laws to enforce. Once politicians spit out a law, enforcement is required. While there are bad apples in any occupation, most beat cops are dedicated public servants who endure tough challenges and grave risks every day. Not only must they grapple with violent perps and skels on the street, but they also have to deal with the institutionalized ignorance and myopia of their own superiors. My respect for street cops was recently renewed when I met a top-notch officer during his departmental discharge proceeding. He was accused of anabolic steroid use after testing positive for steroid metabolites and having a high ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E).
When initially questioned, the officer explained that he’d been using large quantities of over-the-counter prohormones. Consuming these currently legal products is known to skew T/E ratios and cause excretion of the same metabolites found after consuming anabolic steroids. Prohormones caused so many false positives in steroid testing that they were banned for Olympic competitors.
The department had a zero tolerance policy on all drug positives. Having never had a steroid case before, the department researched the issues online at www.SteroidLaw.com. They cited me in their reports, and included extensive printouts of my writings in their official “disclosure” materials to the officer and his union lawyer.
The officer then contacted me to review his case. Based upon my considerable experience with steroid and prohormone issues, it was obvious that prohormone usage was a possible cause for the test results. I consulted chemist Patrick Arnold, the “father of prohormones” who introduced androstenedione to the supplement market in 1996. He confirmed my opinion, and together we created a compelling testimonial presentation for the trial board. It included many articles from scientific journals about prohormones and false anabolic steroid positives, as well as numerous IOC statements warning Olympic athletes not to consume any dietary supplement products that might be tainted or cross-contaminated with prohormones.
At the discharge trial, the department called as a witness a police clinic doctor with no experience in anabolic steroids or prohormones. Suspiciously, the trial board deemed her an “expert.” In a demonstration of jaw-dropping ignorance, she claimed that the only substances that can cause a positive for anabolic steroids are anabolic steroids.
Worse yet, the officer’s lawyer was prevented from rebutting the false statements of the clinic doctor. When Patrick Arnold and I were called into the hearing room to recite our qualifications, the trial board told us that we lacked the necessary qualifications to testify! While my writings on the topic were deemed sufficiently reliable for the department’s own investigation, my appearance as a defense witness seemed to suddenly remove my expertise. Apparently, I’m not an expert as to my own articles! As for Patrick, he was also rejected as an expert on the topic of the substances that he pretty much invented! Nobody I’ve ever met knows more about prohormones than Patrick Arnold, but in the mini-minds of the trial board he lacked the expertise of a clueless clinic doctor.
The greatest irony is that while charged with the task of making evidentiary rulings and interpreting laws, the trial board members themselves lacked any qualifications whatsoever! None were trained as judges; in fact, they weren’t even lawyers! A first-year law student would have been better qualified to make legal rulings! Of course, mere ignorance couldn’t explain what went on here. The board’s mind was unfairly made up before anyone entered the room, and the last thing they wanted to hear was a viable defense. Engineering a predetermined result by silencing the truth is a sickening perversion of justice to witness. It was even harder to watch because the officer in question was such a good and decent man whose service was exemplary. He should have been afforded a fair chance to defend himself, rather than be railroaded by corrupt bureaucrats. Whatever their decision, he wears an untarnished badge of honor as far as I’m concerned.