U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–567 PDF 2004

ANABOLIC STEROID CONTROL ACT OF 2004

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 3866

MARCH 16, 2004

Serial No. 71

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 
(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts

JAY APPERSON, Chief Counsel 

ELIZABETH SOKUL, Counsel 

KATY CROOKS, Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 16, 2004

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES 

The Honorable John Sweeney, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of New York 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5

The Honorable Joseph Rannazzisi, Deputy Director of the Office of Diversion 

Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

Mr. Ralph Hale, M.D., Chairman, United States Anti-Doping Agency 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 10

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12

Mr. Robert Hazelton, former boxer 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Letter from the Major League Baseball Players Association to Senators Biden 

and Hatch ............................................................................................................. 39

Letter from Dr. Michael D. Maves, M.D., MBA of the American Medical 

Association to Representatives Sensenbrenner and Conyers ........................... 41

(1)

ANABOLIC STEROID CONTROL ACT OF 2004

TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard Coble (Chair 

of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will conduct the first meeting on H.R. 3866, the ‘‘Anabolic Steroid Control 

Act of 2004.’’

This hearing examines the dangers of the use of steroids for professional athletes as well as college, high school and even middle 

school athletes. Although steroid use was banned under the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990, many substances have since 

been developed that have essentially the same effect on the body 

as anabolic steroids. These steroid precursors have been banned by 

the International Olympic Committee and other professional athletic associations, but remain legal to purchase in the United 

States. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 will add these 

new drugs to the list of controlled substances and provide increased 

penalties for any individual who traffics in steroids within 1,000 

feet of an athletic facility. 

Recently, the problem of steroid abuse has gotten a great deal of 

media attention. Two weeks ago, the Senate Commerce Committee 

conducted a hearing to highlight the problem of performance enhancing drugs in professional athletes and professional athletics. 

This Committee is concerned with the prevalence of steroids in professional sports as well as the adverse health effects these drugs 

have on adults and adolescents. There have been numerous studies 

citing side effects associated with steroid use. Some of the longterm consequences of steroid use include liver disorders, high blood 

pressure, extreme mood swings and severe acne. 

Other side effects found in men include male breast development, 

reduced sperm count and infertility. Women can experience the cessation of menstrual cycle, male patterned baldness, facial hair 

growth and deepening of the voice. Sadly, the use of these performance enhancing drugs is glamorized by professional athletics. The 

message that adolescents are receiving, I fear, is that the use of 

performance enhancing drugs is necessary to compete and should 

be used regardless of the adverse health effects. This message is 
2

not only received at the college and high school levels, but evidence 

suggests that middle school students have not become immune to 

the perils of steroid abuse. Adolescents are at risk for the side effects outlined above as well as premature skeletal maturation and 

accelerated puberty changes, which may result in stunted growth. 

The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimated in 2003 that 1.4 

percent of eighth graders, 1.7 percent of tenth graders and 2.1 percent of twelfth graders had taken anabolic steroids at least once in 

their lives. Although this is a slight decrease from last year, use 

of steroids among adolescents has significantly increased since the 

early 1990’s. This trend is alarming, but even more disturbing is 

that many of these precursor steroids are not yet illegal. This legislation will add these drugs to the controlled substance list, making 

it more difficult for adults and adolescents to obtain these harmful 

drugs. 

I want to thank the witnesses who were able to be here today 

and look forward to their testimony. I am pleased to recognize my 

friend from Virginia, the Ranking Member, Mr. Bobby Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you 

in convening this hearing on H.R. 3866, ‘‘Anabolic Steroid Control 

Act of 2004,’’ and I note that am a co-sponsor of the bill. This legislation updates the ban on steroids to include the several steroid 

precursors that have been developed since the 1990 ban when 

steroids went into effect. These precursors have been shown to 

cause the same reaction to the body as anabolic steroids and are 

just as dangerous in terms of side effects and long-term damage potential. Currently, they are not illegal. They are widely used by 

athletes and others seeking to enhance muscle and body development. In addition to direct ingestion, these drugs are also showing 

up in over-the-counter nutrition and dietary supplements. 

Of course, the important concern driving the bill is the impact of 

these drugs and precursors on children. Some young athletes are 

using drugs with the belief that they will become great in their 

sport and gain money and fame. In addition to risk and disqualification from playing sports, they also risk all of the medical problems that you mentioned, even death. And mentioning death, Mr. 

Chairman, I can’t avoid pointing out that a local funeral director 

from my district is sitting here in the audience. I don’t know if he 

is looking for potential clients. 

Mr. COBLE. He seems to be smiling approvingly. 

Mr. SCOTT. Many of these new drugs and precursors could legitimately be made available for prescriptions by physicians to legitimately treat conditions and many medical conditions. 

So Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in the efforts to get 

these drugs out of the category of easy access to children and others unaware of their potential damaging effects and look into the 

laboratory to determine the legitimate beneficial uses. I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses on these issues and other 

issues that may come up. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Scott. We are pleased to have the 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller, join us as well. And without 

objection, all opening statements of Members will be made a part 

of the record. 
3

Our first witness today is one of our colleagues. I will echo what 

Mr. Scott said. I, too am a cosponsor of the bill. Our first witness 

is one of our colleagues here in the House, Representative John 

Sweeney. Congressman Sweeney has served the 20th district of 

New York since January 1999 and currently serves on the House 

Appropriations Committee, where he has been assigned to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Treasury, the Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Justice and State and the Subcommittee on Homeland 

Security. 

Representative Sweeney was also recently named to the Select 

Committee on Homeland Security. Congressman Sweeney is a native of Troy, New York where his father was President of the Local 

Shirtcutter’s Union. After working his way through college, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Russell Sage College. The following year, he was appointed head of the Rensselaer County DWI 

prevention program and continued working while studying law and 

earned his law degree from Western New England School of Law. 

This has nothing to do with steroids, Mr. Sweeney, but your dad 

was the President of a Local Shirtcutter’s Union. Does my memory 

serve me correctly that Arrow Shirts are made in New York? 

Mr. SWEENEY. Arrow shirts were made in Troy, New York for 

many years. 

Mr. COBLE. Our next witness is from the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. Mr. Joseph Rannazzisi is deputy director of the 

Office of Diversion Control for the DEA. He serves as an advisor 

to the chief of operations and DEA manager on all matters pertaining to the formulation, direction and coordination of worldwide 

programs associated with the diversion of legally controlled substances and listed chemicals. Deputy Director Rannazzisi began his 

career with the DEA in 1986 as a diversion investigator at Indianapolis. And he holds a degree of science and pharmacy from Butler 

University and a law degree from the Detroit College School of Law 

at Michigan State University. 

Our third witness is Doctor Ralph Hale who is chairman of the 

board of directors of the United States Anti-Doping agency and executive Vice President of the American College of Obstetricians and 

Gynecologists. He has served as vice president of the U.S. Olympic 

Committee from 1992 to 1996 and vice chair of the Sports Medicine 

Committee, as well as a member of the USOC/USSR Anti-Doping 

Commission. Dr. Hale was awarded his undergraduate from the 

University of Illinois, Urbana and his medical degree from the University of Illinois at Chicago. 

Our final witness I will introduce in absentia because he is en 

route. I think he made an incorrect turn, but he is on his way. But 

our final witness will be not unknown to many of you sports enthusiasts. Mr. Robert Hazelton is from Howard Lake, Minnesota. Mr. 

Hazelton is a former heavyweight boxer who knows firsthand about 

the dangers of steroid use. Mr. Hazelton began his boxing career 

in 1969, a time when many people were not aware of the dangers 

of steroids. Mr. Hazelton has learned these dangers and has traveled around the country to share his story with others. It is good 

to have all of you with us and we will welcome Mr. Hazelton when 

he does arrive, which should be momentarily.
4

Gentlemen, as we have previously asked you, and I want to reiterate, if you would confine your statements to 5 minutes, we would 

be appreciative of that and that will enable us to get through and 

question you in some detail. Your 5-minute red light warning is 

your notification that your time has elapsed. But good to have all 

of you with us. Mr. Sweeney, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN SWEENEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK 

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much and thank 

you, Ranking Member Scott, for having the foresight and the diligence to go forward with this hearing. And Mr. Keller, it is always 

good to see you, and I thank you very much for the opportunity. 

Mr. Chairman, I submit my statement for the record, but I have 

to tell you I feel like a wanderer who is emerging from the deep 

dark throes of a wooded area having for 4 years now talked about 

this issue. And with all of the very important priorities that we 

face here with all the important discussions, it is difficult to get 

people to focus on this particular issue. Your hearing will shed the 

light of day on what I think is a very important substantial debate 

in this Nation and in this Congress over an issue I think affects 

us all in ways that we really hadn’t considered in the past. 

As you know, in 1994, Congress enacted DSHEA, which made illegal anabolic steroids. And since that time, a lot of science has 

evolved and developed and some substantive data has evolved and 

developed that shows us that unfortunately, some manufacturers, 

driven by their desire for profit and desires to do a number of 

things and some athletes and individuals tried to find ways to skirt 

that 1994 exclusion of these products. And the industry can and 

will, we have learned, make minor chemical changes to a product 

after it is deemed illegal, making such negligible changes that currently enable a manufacturer to reintroduce a different product 

into the market place as a legal substance. 

We have made huge progress on the issue. In fact, half a dozen 

of the prior steroid precursor and designer steroid manufacturers 

voluntarily last year agreed they would stop selling these products 

over the counter and stop manufacturing them. This bill, H.R. 

3866, recognizes that we need to find a way to make it easier for 

our colleagues at the Drug Enforcement Agency to outlaw similar 

steroid precursors in the future and to give them the flexibility to 

enforce the law and the intent of the law passed in 1994. 

You may ask why a proprietor, why someone involved in homeland security or why someone from Troy, New York got involved in 

this process. And more than talk about the substance of the law, 

I want to talk about the human elements of this. Mr. Chairman, 

about 4 years ago, I had the opportunity, and on occasion, worked 

out with my then 15, 16 year old son, who is an avid sports fan, 

who was an avid athlete in baseball, football, all the sports you 

would expect an average American kid to be involved in. And he 

mentioned to me that a number of his friends in the gym were 

talking about and/or using an anabolic precursor that goes by the 

tag line Andro. And he asked me what I thought about that and 
5

he asked me if I thought it would make him perform better, make 

him faster and stronger; what I thought about the use of that. 

I said to him, John, as a natural response, I think anything you 

ingest in your body, you better check out first before you really do 

some damage that you don’t intend. He said, dad, how bad can this 

be? They are selling it over the counter at GNC and selling it over 

the counter at Wal-Mart. The Government has had to check this 

out. You folks have had to check this out. This has to be good for 

you. That started me on a journey through the U.S. Olympic facilities in Lake Placid, which is in my district, and through a variety 

of other sports entities in this Nation researching the facts and 

what was really involved in the steroid precursor phenomenon. 

And what I found was sales quadrupled after Mark Maguire hit 

70 home runs and took Roger Maris off the record books and acknowledged the use of Andro as a means to develop fitness and 

strength. I found that as you had mentioned in your opening statement, there were a number of very serious and debilitating side effects to adults. And now, it wasn’t much of a leap for a parent like 

myself to move to the next conclusion, that if it has that impact 

on a developed human body, what the heck does it do to young children? 

And with that and cutting quickly to the other end of it, I introduced legislation 3 years ago that now is embodied in the Anabolic 

Steroid Control Act that sits before you today. Fortunately, the 

next year, another good colleague of ours, Tom Osborne, the former 

coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers, came to Congress and immediately, within the first month, got on our bill and became a strong 

proponent of the bill. And I am happy to say that the Judiciary 

Committee, with the Chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner and the Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers’ lead on it, says this bill is going to go 

forward in this Committee following the hearings and the due diligence that you have to perform. 

I have to tell you as a parent in this country, I have to say thank 

you very much. This Committee is the first Committee to step forward and provide the kind of leadership that we have needed. And 

we have made great progress. There is a lot more that needs to be 

happening in questions and answers that maybe I can get into that 

a little bit with you. And I thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sweeney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN E. SWEENEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott, thank you for holding this important 

hearing. It is an honor to be here today to discuss a bill I have had the pleasure 

of introducing with Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers, H.R. 

3866, The Anabolic Steroid Control Act. My colleagues, Congressman Osborne and 

Congressman Berman have also joined us in this bipartisan effort to project our 

children from the dangers of steroid precursors. 

I am happy to provide some background on this legislation, the vital need for its 

passage, and explain why it is an issue of such personal importance to me. 

First, some brief history. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act 

(DSHEA) made steroids illegal in 1994. Since that time, new products called steroid 

precursors have become popular. These substances, as the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency 

will explain today, are the ‘‘functional equivalent of steroids.’’

Technology and science has advanced since the early 1990s. It is now clear steroid 

precursors pose the same dangers as other steroids and should be illegal. As a re-
6

sult, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act specifically lists dozens of steroid precursors, 

categorizing them as Schedule III substances. 

Unfortunately, experience has taught us that a profit-driven industry can, and 

will, make minor chemical changes to a product after it is deemed illegal. Making 

such negligible changes currently enables a manufacturer to reintroduce the product 

into the marketplace as a legal substance. 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3866 recognizes this challenge and makes it easier for the 

Drug Enforcement Agency to outlaw similar steroid precursors in the future. Changing one molecular of a performance-enhancer will no longer undo its illegal status. 

This legislation will remove the need for the repetitive and costly tests the federal 

government currently uses to remove these dangerous substances from store 

shelves. 

This legislation has gained momentum recently as performance enhancing drugs 

continue to show up in the news, specifically with the BALCO scandal. The lines 

of fair play are blurred by the prevalence of steroid precursors and designer 

steroids. These substances are the equivalent of illegal steroids and should be treated as such. 

As athletes have become more creative; turning to substances such as andro and 

its muscle-building cousins, our children have become more susceptible to the allure 

of performance-enhancing substances. While the integrity of sports is significant, the 

use of steroids in sports would not be of such profound concern if it did not impact 

children so drastically. 

In 1998 Mark McGwire admitted to using andro after hitting 70 home runs and 

breaking Roger Maris’ record. After his admission, sales of andro quadrupled, with 

teenagers making up a large portion of those sales. 

The battle against the reckless availability of performance enhancing substances 

became personal for me after my 16-year-old son, an avid baseball player, asked me 

about the supplements he had seen in the school locker room. My son assumed that 

since these substances were easily available over-the-counter they must be safe. In 

reality, steroid precursors have a wide range of side-effects, including stunted 

growth, increased risk of heart attack and cancer, elevated blood pressure, liver 

damage, serious changes to sexual organs and depression. I was horrified to think 

children were so desperate to get an athletic edge they would unknowingly damage 

their developing bodies. 

Mr. Chairman, nearly three-quarters of kids say they want to imitate professional 

athletes. At the same time, the majority of sports fans believe steroids played a role 

in recent sports accomplishments. What type of message does this send our children? 

The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that almost 3% of junior high 

students have taken anabolic steroids. According to the Department of Health and 

Human Services, 1 out of every 40 high-school seniors admitted to using andro in 

the past year. 

It is time for Congressional action. I’m glad I have been able to work closely with 

my colleagues to proactively address the dangers of steroid precursors. It is our responsibility to address the safety concerns of these substances and protect our young 

athletes from harm. 

Keeping our children safe is far more important than restoring integrity to the 

sports world. But, with the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, we can accomplish both. 

In conclusion, I would like to recognize our friends in the other body, Senator 

Hatch and Senator Biden, who are working in tandem with us on this legislation. 

It is an honor to have such skilled officials working together on this issue. I hope 

their version of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act, S. 1780, will see action soon. 

Our legislation is supported by the DEA, the FDA and the White House. Endorsements have also come from USADA, CASPER, the NBA, the NFL and, although 

their own policy of steroid testing needs improvement—the MLB. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your interest in this topic. I hope we can continue 

to work together on this important issue.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Rannazzisi. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH RANNAZZISI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF DIVERSION CONTROL, 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Thank you, sir. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, Congressman and distinguished Members of the Sub-
7

committee, it is an honor to appear before you today for the first 

time in my capacity as deputy director for the Office of Diversion 

Control in the Drug Enforcement Administration. The issue of steroid abuse has recently received national attention in the context of 

professional sports. But the importance of stopping steroid abuse 

extends far beyond preserving the integrity of our national past 

time. The importance is to give our children a healthy future. Abusive anabolic steroids among young people has reached dangerous 

levels and puts our kids at increased risk of heart disease, liver 

cancer, depression, stunted growth, eating disorders, not to mention an increased episode of hostility and aggression. These steroids 

pose real dangers. We cannot afford to jeopardize the health of our 

young people lured by the temptation of chemical shortcuts to 

greater athletic prowess or more muscular physiques. 

Unfortunately, the minimal research and short testing time required for the continuous rapid introduction of new steroids into 

the open market makes attempts at monitoring and scheduling 

these new substances nearly impossible for law enforcement. However, the legislation sponsored by Chairman Sensenbrenner will directly declare certain steroids and steroid precursors as dangerous 

drugs and allow us to more quickly and effectively classify new 

steroids as controlled substances. In short, it gives DEA two significant new tools to help us shut down the illegal steroid trade. First, 

it gives us a clear authority to conduct law enforcement operations 

against the trafficking steroid precursors as well as designer 

steroids like THG. 

Until now, these steroids have been able to masquerade as harmless dietary supplements. This bill will finally call the steroids 

what they are, dangerous drugs. Second, this legislation removes 

an enormous legal stumbling block to taking these steroids off the 

shelf by eliminating the requirement to prove muscle growth in 

order to schedule a new steroid. Despite years of testing costing 

hundreds of thousands of dollars, we have not yet been able to 

schedule a single steroid under these requirements. This legislation 

will correct the problem. 

Steroid manufacturers will need to register with DEA and strict 

accountability will be required for the sale, prescription and dispensing of approved steroids. These products will no longer be legally purchased through ads in fitness magazines or over the Internet, but only pursuant to a valid prescription obtained from a licensed medical practitioner. This bill will definitely do the job and 

I encourage Members to support it. Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

your recognition of these important issues and this opportunity to 

testify. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Deputy director, I think you have set an all time 

record by beating the 5-minute mark. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rannazzisi follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. RANNAZZISI

Chairman Coble, Congressman Scott, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate your invitation to testify today on the importance of fighting 

the growing abuse of steroids in this country. 
8

OVERVIEW

The issue of steroid trafficking and abuse has recently received national attention 

in the context of professional sports. But the importance of stopping steroid abuse 

extends far beyond our national pastimes; the importance is to give our children a 

healthy future. Abuse of anabolic steroids among young Americans has reached dangerous levels, and it puts our kids at increased risk of heart disease, liver cancer, 

depression, stunted growth, and eating disorders, not to mention increased episodes 

of hostility and aggression. 

Anabolic androgenic steroids are synthetic chemicals based on the structure and 

pharmacology of testosterone originally developed in the 1930s to help rebuild body 

tissue and prevent breakdown of tissue in individuals suffering from debilitating 

diseases. They promote the growth of skeletal muscle and the development of male 

sexual characteristics, in addition to other effects. Their popularity with athletes exists due to the muscle development and physical performance enhancements they 

provide. Unfortunately, this popularity has filtered down to our nation’s teenagers 

and young adults, who are lured by easy shortcuts to greater athletic prowess and 

more muscular physiques. 

THE DANGEROUS IMPACT OF STEROIDS ON TEENS AND ATHLETES

Steroid use among young Americans has already passed the danger zone. The 

2003 Monitoring the Future Study conducted by the University of Michigan indicates that approximately 3.5 percent of American high school students have used 

illegal anabolic steroids at least once by grade 12. In that same study, an incredible 

45 percent of all 12th graders did not believe taking steroids posed a great risk. 

This report came on the heels of earlier studies, including the National Institute 

of Drug Abuse (NIDA) report of 1999, which stated that more than a half million 

8th and 10th grade students where using anabolic steroids. A Youth Risk Behavior 

Surveillance Survey conducted by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) indicated that in 2001, five percent of all high school students reported use 

of steroids pills/injections without a physician prescription during their lifetimes. 

Compounding the dangerous perception among young people that steroid use is 

harmless is the high-profile use of steroids among professional athletes. And because sports figures are prominent role models for our younger citizens, the President has focused on doping and cheating in sports.

‘‘To help children make the right choices, they need good examples. Athletics play 

such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional 

sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing 

drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it 

sends the wrong message—that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that 

performance is more important than character. So tonight I call on team owners, 

union representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now.’’

(President George W. Bush, 2004 State of the Union Address)

The negative effects of long term anabolic steroid use are well documented. They 

include damage to the liver, kidney, heart, and sexual organs. Their use can also 

prevent children from reaching their full height. Moreover, abuse often elevates cholesterol and causes cardiovascular weakening, combined with hypertension. And because steroids are commonly injected, needle sharing can transmit blood born diseases such as HIV and AIDS. Steroids use can also cause uncontrolled outbursts of 

anger, frustration or combativeness resulting in wanton acts of violence. These outbursts are commonly referred to as ‘‘roid rage.’’

THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION

Despite these clear health risks, the rapid evolution of new steroids has made it 

difficult for law enforcement to keep up, because each specific chemical formulation 

is required to be considered as a separate drug. In its initial attempt to regulate 

steroid abuse, Congress passed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 (ASCA), 

which scheduled anabolic steroids as a class of drugs, and specifically listed 27 as 

controlled substances. In addition, Congress anticipated that future steroids would 

ultimately infiltrate the anabolic steroid black-market, and crafted a four-part definition that the DEA could use to administratively classify new steroids as Schedule 

III anabolic steroids. All four of the following questions needed to be answered:

• Is the steroid chemically related to testosterone?

• Is the steroid pharmacologically related to testosterone?
9

• Is the steroid an estrogens, progestin, and corticosteroid?

• Does the steroid promote muscle growth?

The four-part test was first considered by the DEA in 1999, when it determined 

that the substance androstenedione met the first three criteria required under the 

1990 legislation, but has been unable to make a finding regarding the fourth criteria, due to a lack of accepted methodology available to validate the final requirement for muscle growth. This meant that Congress had provided the DEA with the 

blueprint for scheduling steroids, but the scientific community had yet to develop 

a study that accurately quantified the promotion of muscle growth. This major 

stumbling block provided a legal loophole for traffickers of anabolic steroids to continue marketing their dangerous drugs as dietary supplements. 

Consequently, the DEA has had to initiate and fund studies to develop animal 

models that could quantify the effects of steroids on muscle. For example, the DEA 

is currently co-sponsoring a three year study in New York City using the guinea 

pig to evaluate the effects of steroids on skeletal muscle growth. Other participating 

agencies include the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the National 

Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and several branches of the National Institutes of 

Health. The first phase has been completed and the second phase is scheduled for 

completion in September 2004. This model will then be used to evaluate the effects 

of skeletal muscular growth from two substances: testosterone precursors and 

nandrolone precursors. Both of these steroids are now openly sold in dietary supplement products. The DEA is also funding a study in Seattle, Washington, using an 

immature rat as a model. In conjunction with the New York study, the development 

of skeletal muscular growth using steroids currently sold in dietary supplements is 

being examined. We anticipate this study will be completed by October 2004. 

These two studies have already proven both costly and time consuming. By contrast, the amount of research and time required to introduce a new steroid into the 

dietary supplement market is minimal. The logical result has been an increase in 

the number of steroids available in dietary supplement products. Again, the ongoing 

requirement that the DEA must first scientifically validate muscle growth is a genuine impediment to effective regulatory oversight of these steroids. This means they 

continue to enter the dietary supplement market and continue to be legally purchased by America’s youth, athletes, bodybuilders and other ill informed individuals 

who abuse anabolic steroids. 

H.R. 3866

To counter this trafficking trend, the DEA believes the fourth requirement of the 

ASCA, the quantification of muscle growth, be dropped from the definition for anabolic steroids. This is a cornerstone of the legislation sponsored by Chairman Sensenbrenner, H.R. 3866. The legislation also specifically adds several steroids & precursors to the list of controlled substances considered anabolic steroids. In short, the 

bill will directly declare certain steroids and steroid precursors as dangerous drugs, 

and give us new tools to more quickly and effectively classify new steroids as controlled substances. 

For example, one listed steroid precursor is androstenedione. Last week, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson announced 

that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded there is inadequate information to establish that a dietary supplement containing androstenedione can reasonably be expected to be safe. Therefore, the FDA sent 23 warning letters to companies that manufacture, market, and distribute dietary supplement products containing androstenedione informing them that failure to cease distribution of these 

products could result in enforcement action. 

The legislation this subcommittee is considering gives DEA two important tools 

for shutting down the illegal steroid trade: 

First, it would give us clear authority to conduct law enforcement operations 

against the trafficking of steroid precursors, as well as other steroids, including the 

designer steroid, THG. Until now, these steroids have masqueraded as harmless dietary supplements. This bill would finally call these steroids what they are—dangerous drugs. 

Second, and as noted above, this legislation would remove an enormous legal 

stumbling block to taking these steroids off the shelf by eliminating the requirement 

to prove muscle growth to schedule a new steroid. Despite years of testing costing 

hundreds of thousands of dollars, we have not yet been able to schedule a single 

steroid under that requirement. 
10

TRAFFICKING OF ILLEGAL STEROIDS INTO OUR COUNTRY

AND DEA ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS

Anabolic steroids are not controlled in most countries. This translates into a virtually unlimited supply of steroids world-wide. 

Outside our borders, anabolic steroids are frequently smuggled into the United 

States from Mexico by U.S. citizens who travel there to purchase them without a 

prescription. In addition, criminal groups of Russian, Romanian, and Greek nationals are significant traffickers of steroids, and are responsible for substantial shipments of steroids entering the United States. Domestically, illicit steroids are often 

sold at gymnasiums and bodybuilding/weightlifting competitions, where sellers obtained them through theft and fraudulent prescriptions. 

Overall, the DEA has increased its enforcement effort of anabolic steroids. In 

2001, we initiated 52 steroid cases. Last year, 87 investigations were launched. In 

one example, in October 2002 the DEA arrested eight individuals involved in the 

largest ketamine manufacturing and trafficking organization in North America. Included in the arrests were the owner of Ttokkyo Laboratorios and their sole Mexican 

distributor arrested in Panama. At the time, Ttokkyo was the largest manufacturer 

of anabolic steroids in Mexico and supplier to major U.S. distributors. This international ketamine and anabolic steroid trafficking organization in Mexico smuggled 

thousands of vials of ketamine and steroids to California, New York, New Jersey, 

and Florida. Among the Schedule III steroids being smuggled were methandienone, 

nandrolone, testerone, and oxandrolone. 

CONCLUSION

The DEA has one mission: to protect the public from dangerous drugs. However, 

the current law regarding steroids causes regulatory delay, especially with respect 

to steroids that we know are hormonally, chemically, or pharmacologically related 

to testosterone. Because DEA authority extends only to controlled substances, 

steroids that are not classified as controlled substances continue to fall outside our 

jurisdiction. 

H.R. 3866 will correct this problem. Manufacturers of steroids designated or 

scheduled as controlled substances will need to register with the DEA and strict accountability will be required for the sale, prescription, and dispensing of steroids. 

These products will no longer be legally purchased through ads in fitness magazines 

or over the Internet, but only pursuant to a prescription obtained by a licensed medical practitioner. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your recognition of these important issues and the 

opportunity to testify here today. I will be happy to answer any questions you may 

have.

Mr. COBLE. Dr. Hale. 

STATEMENT OF RALPH HALE, M.D., CHAIRMAN, UNITED 

STATES ANTI-DOPING AGENCY 

Dr. HALE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, good afternoon. I am currently the chairman of the board 

of directors of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. I could make it shorter 

because the two preceding speakers have already said everything 

that I had planned on saying, but I will say a couple of extra 

things. As you know, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency has recently received a lot of media attention based on the designer steroid THG. 

We are very concerned about that. But I want to emphasize to the 

Committee we are equally concerned about all classes of anabolic 

substances readily available on the shelves of the supermarkets 

and nutrition stores of the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, you have adequately presented the perils of anabolic steroid use. They all originated, we think, a lot of the time 

with the East Germans, and I am not going to go through those 

again. But despite these well-known health consequences for approximately the last 8 years, American consumers have been able 

to walk in their corner nutrition stores and buy products containing Androstenedione. 
11

Mr. Sweeney pointed out about Mark Maguire and the other athletes, and I think that has been a tremendous example to the youth 

of America. If you want to succeed, you have to do it by use of 

chemicals. Last Thursday, the FDA took action against 

Androstenedione and acknowledged there is serious and a substantial concern about the safety of the products. We fully support this 

action and we are very appreciative of the FDA finally moving in 

this regard. We hope they will continue to move forward in the 

steroid precursor area as well. But I think Androstenedione also 

makes it clear that there needs to be more and better legislation 

as presented in bill 3866. 

Some unscrupulous manufacturers have already made minor 

chemicals changes. They changed Androstenedione to 

Androstenediol, a simple chemical change which takes place in the 

body. What takes place in the body is simply the cleaning of the 

OL, the alcohol group chemically, and it becomes Androstenedione 

again, and it has the same effect. 

So legislative action is needed to discourage this continued introduction of many steroids and steroid precursors. I believe that the 

whole concerns of all American consumers who do not fully understand the impact of these steroid precursors and what happens to 

them and especially our young adolescents. The story that Mr. 

Sweeney just told about his son is not rare. It is probably more 

common than most people understand. 

I have a son who teaches in high school. He tells me that his students can easily go anywhere they want and get steroid precursors 

in the various nutrition stores and the various markets and the 

various areas around, and yet most of them think that because it 

is on the shelf it is safe. They believe that it has been approved. 

They don’t understand the other alternatives. You can go to the 

Internet. And I have with me what we just took off the Internet 

today, four advertisements for quote, ‘‘hard to obtain pharmaceutical legal steroids.’’ and they start out by saying, and I will 

read one of them, you can get Boldenone, known as Equipoise. It 

is the active ingredient in the anabolic steroid. Many of these advertisements are available not only to us but to people all over the 

world. 

For Olympic athletes where we spend a lot of our time and effort, 

they know how to avoid these products. They stay away from anything they know would give them a failing doping test. However, 

they also know that the IOC found in 624 dietary supplements, 41 

percent of them carried a steroid precursor or banned substance. 

That puts our athletes as well as our children at risk. There is no 

credible argument to the over the counter availability of products 

containing steroid precursors. 

The time has come to stop this proliferation. I really do appreciate the Committee’s attention to the problem as well as the actions of numerous senators, Senator Sweeney, Senator Sensenbrenner—Congressman Sensenbrenner, Congressman Sweeney, 

Congressman Osborne. 

Mr. Coble, you as an endorser, Mr. Scott, Mr. Keller, we really 

do appreciate the actions you have done as well as the fellow senators. And we hope and believe that these bills are the appropriate 

solution to the steroid precursor problem in the United States 
12

today, and we urge your full support for this bill. Thank you very 

much for the opportunity for USDA to come and to talk to you. The 

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is available at any time that you need to 

call upon us for anything. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you Dr. Hale. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hale follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. RALPH W. HALE

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning, my name is Dr. Ralph 

Hale. Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding this important health issue. 

Today, I am here as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the United States 

Anti-Doping Agency. I am also a physician who has been practicing medicine for 

more than 40 years. USADA has been recognized by Congress as the independent, 

national anti-doping agency for Olympic and Paralympic sport in the United States. 

Our mission is to protect and preserve the health of athletes, the integrity of competition, and the well-being of sport through the elimination of doping. 

Recently USADA has received increased media attention for its role in the investigation into the existence and use by elite athletes of the designer steroid, THG. 

Designer steroids are an important concern for USADA. However, USADA is equally 

concerned about a class of anabolic substances that are readily available in the 

United States on the shelves of supermarkets and nutrition stores, as well available 

for order on thousands of internet sites. These products, marketed and sold as allegedly ‘‘safe’’ dietary supplements, contain substances, such as androstenedione and 

norandrostenedione and are one chemical step away from anabolic steroids. Once ingested these products are converted within the body into anabolic steroids. The 

availability of these products is a significant public health issue that transcends 

sport and places American consumers at risk. 

The perils of anabolic steroid use are well known. In Olympic sport, the most notable, systematic state-supported program of doping with anabolic steroids was conducted by the East Germans from 1974 until the Berlin Wall fell. One of the anabolic substances developed by the East Germans as part of their doping program 

was androstenedione. In the body, androstenedione metabolizes into the anabolic 

steroid, testosterone. The documented side effects of the East German steroid program, particularly for women athletes, were tragic. These side effects include damage to the liver and reproductive system, susceptibility to cancers, and permanent 

masculinization of women. It is also well known that men who abuse steroids and 

steroid precursors risk serious health consequences including gynecomastia, 

baldness, shrunken testicles, infertility and susceptibility to aggressive behavior or 

rage. For adolescents who use steroids the side effects can include all of the above, 

as well as a strong likelihood that natural growth will be arrested or otherwise detrimentally affected. 

Despite all of these well-known health consequences, for approximately the last 

eight years, American consumers have been able to walk into their corner nutrition 

store and buy products containing androstenedione. In 1998, after certain popular 

professional athletes acknowledged using androstenedione, sales of these supplements in the United States, particularly among teenagers, dramatically increased. 

The popular demand for androstenedione gave birth to an entire industry. Now the 

nutrition store shelves, and the internet, are flooded with products containing various steroid precursors. For example, 19-norandrostenedione, which metabolizes in 

the body into the steroid nandrolone, another controlled substance, is present in 

hundreds of over-the-counter products. 

Last Thursday, the Food and Drug Administration took action against 

androstenedione and acknowledged that there is a ‘‘serious and substantial concern’’

about the safety of products containing androstenedione. USADA fully supports this 

important action and encourages the FDA to immediately take action against the 

remaining steroid precursor products on the market. Currently the introduction of 

these products is governed by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. 

Under DSHEA a supplement manufacturer is not required to prove to the government that its precursor product is safe prior to putting it on the shelf. Instead, 

DSHEA places the burden on the government to take action against unsafe products 

after they reach the shelves. 

The androstenedione example makes clear, that by the time the agencies are able 

to take action against a specific steroid precursor; unscrupulous manufacturers will 

already have made minor chemical changes to the product and reintroduced it into 

the marketplace. For example, while the FDA sent letters to 23 companies selling 

products containing androstenedione, last week’s action does not yet reach the com-
13

panies that are now selling the more popular next-generation androstenedione products such as 1-AD and 4-Androstenediol. While we hope the FDA will promptly address those other products, legislative action needs to be taken to discourage the 

continued introduction of new steroid precursor products. 

Significantly, steroid precursor manufacturers fully exploit the protection offered 

by DSHEA and actively tout precursors products as ‘‘natural’’ and ‘‘legal’’ in order 

to raise the false implication that they offer a safe alternative to controlled anabolic 

steroids. At the same time, the marketers of these products glorify the muscle-building qualities of these substances and reinforce the association between these products and those very same controlled anabolic steroids. These products are marketed 

under names that reinforce their connection to anabolic steroids, including 

‘‘Cycloroid,’’ ‘‘Masterbolan,’’ ‘‘Anabol-X,’’ ‘‘Paradrol,’’ and ‘‘Animal Stak.’’ These products are advertised as equal to or better than the ‘‘real steroids’’ and promise the 

user huge gains in muscle mass. 

While I believe these products raise a health concern for all American consumers 

who are duped into taking them, I am particularly concerned about the susceptibility of adolescents to the advertising message of steroid precursors. In a society 

where high school athletes can sign multi-million dollar endorsement contracts, we 

cannot expect teenagers to ignore advertisements claiming that these products are 

‘‘safe alternatives’’ to steroids and will make them ‘‘ripped,’’ ‘‘huge,’’ improve their 

athletic performance and give them the body of their dreams. The manufacturers 

certainly have no motivation to reveal the serious health consequences associated 

with their products to the adolescents who are buying them, and unfortunately, 

there is no law requiring disclosure of those health consequences. 

For Olympic athletes, who know to avoid these products, there remains another 

concern. In increasing numbers, athletes are failing doping tests after taking mislabeled dietary supplements. Studies have shown that an alarmingly high percentage of dietary supplements contain doping substances that are not disclosed on the 

label. For example, a recent study of 624 dietary supplements by the International 

Olympic Committee found that 41% of the products from American companies contained a steroid precursor or banned substance not disclosed on the label. 

USADA believes that the current effectively unregulated availability of products 

containing steroid precursors in the United States is a health crisis that affects not 

just elite athletes, but every American teenager who dreams of athletic success, and 

every consumer who takes one of these products without being informed of the risks. 

Additionally, because of the risk of contamination, American consumers who believe 

they are taking perfectly safe nutritional products may unknowingly be ingesting 

steroid precursors. 

There is simply no credible argument supporting the over-the-counter availability 

of products containing steroid precursors. The time has come to put a stop to the 

proliferation of these dangerous products. I appreciate this Committee’s attention to 

this problem, as well as the actions of numerous Senators and Congressmen who 

have joined USADA in the fight to remove these dangerous products from America’s 

stores. On behalf of USADA, I would like to specifically thank Congressmen Sensenbrenner, Conyers, Sweeney, Osborne, and Berman for introducing the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. I would also like to thank Senators Biden, Hatch, Grassley 

and Harkin for their attention to this matter and commend their introduction of the 

Senate version of this bill. 

These bills amend the Controlled Substances Act by scheduling the substances I 

have discussed here today and by making it easier to schedule any anabolic steroid 

precursors introduced by manufacturers in the future. USADA believes that these 

bills are the appropriate solution to the steroid precursor problem. We urge full support for these bills and we are hopeful that they will be rapidly passed by Congress. 

I would like to thank this Committee for its time and its interest in this important public health issue and for inviting me to share my thoughts on the dangers 

posed to American consumers by products containing steroid precursors. Thank you.

Mr. COBLE. Dr. Hale, some on this side of the Hill may conclude 

that you demoted Sensenbrenner and Sweeney when you call them 

Senators. But I will say that with tongue in cheek. Mr. Hazelton, 

let me repeat your introduction to make sure I have it correct. Mr. 

Robert Hazelton is from Howard Lake, MN. Former heavyweight 

boxer who knows firsthand about the dangers of steroid use. Mr. 

Hazelton began his boxing career in 1969, a time when many people were not aware of the dangers of steroids. Mr. Hazelton has 
14

learned those lessons and has traveled widely around this country 

to share his story with others. 

It is good to have you with us, Mr. Hazelton, and you will be the 

wrap-up witness. Mr. Hazelton, if you could, confine your comments to as close to 5 minutes as you can. When that red light illuminates in your eye, you will know you are on thin ice. Good to 

have you with us. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT HAZELTON, FORMER BOXER 

Mr. HAZELTON. First, I would like to start, God bless that I am 

here today, our country. 

Mr. COBLE. Could you pull that mike a little closer to you. 

Mr. HAZELTON. God bless America that I am here today, and God 

bless our President and what is going on in our country today. I 

would like to start by saying steroids have been going on a long 

time. Even in the 1930’s, they were being used in Germany for the 

soldiers to give them more endurance, to be more aggressive during 

wartime in World War II. Steroids has been on the market for a 

long, long time, and I have been doing lectures for 15 years, and 

it seems like the first 7 years I started back in the early 1990’s, 

everybody wanted to hear how dangerous this drug was. 

I know Senator Biden brought this to Congress back in the early 

1990’s or late 1980’s to make this a law to where it was a prescribed drug. I caught the last part of one of my associates down 

there about steroids being purchased over the Internet. Before I 

came here, I made a purchase of $200 of Anadol, Cypionate, Propionate, and these different types of injectable steroids. We have done 

nothing in the last 15 to 20 years but put up smokescreens that 

we are going to stop steroids. 

We have professional athletes using this drug that are breaking 

records, and they are saying they are doing with basically what is 

God-given to them as a great athlete. We all know that the records 

that have been broken in the last 10 years have been some type 

of enhancing drug. Now if we are going to use steroids, then basically we need to have two types of individuals or records, record 

books to where the guys who broke them back in the 1930’s, 1940’s, 

1950’s and early 1960’s compared to the guys that have broke them 

now because it is not right that these guys did it with—the ability 

to break a record. I know when I leave here today, that I am still 

going to see these guys using them and basically not being disciplined, fined or anything else. 

Now I know for a fact that I tried to talk to Mr. Bud Selig about 

3 weeks ago trying to help these other athletes that have been 

using steroids, and one of his associates said ‘‘Well, it is none of 

your business and we will handle it on our own turf.’’ That just 

tells me that these owners of professional teams, they don’t want 

to hear the true stories. As I sit here today, I sit here with no legs. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Hazelton, don’t worry about that. Take a deep 

breath, and everybody is on your side. 

Mr. HAZELTON. It is because people didn’t tell me. We have got 

to do something about this drug. This drug is as bad as cocaine, 

crack, heroin and any drug on the market because it is a drug that 

when it affects your body, you don’t know if it is going to affect you 

now, 6 months down the road, or 10 years down the road. 
15

Finally some of these players are becoming a front, Conseco admitted to using steroids. The tennis star, John McEnroe said he 

used steroids. You don’t have to have a big body to be on steroids. 

Steroids enhance your performance. I had a guy when I did an 

interview a couple of weeks ago who said, ‘‘Well, I drank a six-pack 

of beer and I could hit a softball over a major league fence, and I 

didn’t use steroids.’’ Doesn’t mean because you use steroids that it 

is going to make you hit a home run any further, but it will give 

you the ability to be more aggressive, to be more powerful. 

And if you have the ability, you will hit more home runs. Now 

if we are going to make this drug presented to some of the athletes 

that have broken records, then we might as well open it to every 

athlete out there today because it is not right that one set of guys 

use it, whether it be football or baseball and another set that goes 

in there and plays the game, all the rules, all the regulations, gets 

a big payday but still isn’t breaking that record. We know some of 

the guys that have hit home runs in the last 20 years that have 

broken these records, and they say they are not on drugs. 

Well, I know firsthand that these guys have used drugs. I mean 

when you spend your life in gymnasiums, you spend your life being 

shot up with steroids and knowing what it does to enhancing your 

performance in doing these sports, that I can pick somebody out 

just by looking at them. 

Now I spent the last 7 years having my legs amputated more and 

more and more. This is never going to go away for me. It is something I have to deal with everyday of my life. And it is just something that I think is not fair for these kids to hear from these athletes out there that they are doing this by the ability they have by 

just being a good athlete. If you can imagine laying on a surgery 

table like I did a month ago, not being put to sleep but you can 

smell your bone and your tissue being cut off your body because 

you used a drug that no one told you about, it is going to make 

you a little more angry than the normal guy because I get sick and 

tired of hearing these baseball players and these people that are 

head of the game saying they are handling it. 

They are not handling it. The only way you are going to handle 

this thing is make it for everybody. You got to say we are going 

to cut it out for Joe Blow down to whoever. That is the only way 

it is going to stop this drug. And you have to have fines and suspensions, and they are going to have to mean something because 

these guys are getting a slap on the hand. They are making $30 

million. You are not going to go stop them. To me, that is a holiday 

for these guys. They take off a week or 2 weeks and go off in the 

sun and relax and come back and play the game and go right back 

on the drugs. 

Until this Committee and this country stops it, then you are not 

going to have a clean sport again. And I will sum this up. My father, in 1972, after he learned that I had been on steroids, we 

didn’t have a lot to talk about because he had lost his faith in me 

as a person who did play sports, was a professional fighter and he 

actually died 13 years ago never speaking to me because of that position in my life that I thought I needed. 

Well, my life, I have been spending 15 years to dedicate my life 

out here to make a difference in these kids. But if I don’t get any-
16

body backing me up, then it is not going to happen. And I am the 

only one out there actually making a difference. And that is all I 

have to say. And it is up to you guys after I leave here today. And 

if there is media, I would like to say right now, I guarantee in 5 

years, you will not see any difference than you see right here today. 

[The preparded statement of Mr. Hazelton follows:]
17
18
19
20
21

Mr. COBLE. We thank all the witnesses, but particularly Mr. 

Hazelton, because you have been there and done that. And I appreciate the media’s interest as well. They are indeed covering this. 

Mr. Hazelton, let me start with you, and we impose the 5-minute 

rule against us folks—if you make your answers fairly brief—tell 

us how you first became aware of the dangers of steroid use, Mr. 

Hazelton. 

Mr. HAZELTON. Well, I started taking steroids after I lost to 

George Foreman in 1969 on ABC Wild World of Sports. I weighed 

183 pounds and my manager sent me to England. And I came in 

contact with the drug called Dianabol. The reason they used them, 
22

it was a very high potency vitamin pill. It was okay to take, and 

I would see weight gain and size, but that is all I would feel. Four 

years down the road, I started having pains in the back of my leg 

and calf, and it was a period from 1971 until 1980 that the leg had 

broken down so bad that the circulation was almost completely 

dead. 

That was the first time I knew I was taking steroids because the 

doctor in Vegas in 1977 refused to give me an injection. He says, 

you know what you are putting in your body? I said, no, sir. He 

says you are putting in a synthetic hormone which your body produces everyday. Everybody in here should have a normal amount 

of steroids put in their body. When you start injecting steroids, 

your body goes to the 5,000, 10,000 times your normal amount any 

professional athlete that takes steroid, an aggressive type of steroid 

is going to be putting in their body. 

Your body just can’t handle that. It is going to break down somewhere, whether it is your heart, your lung or your kidneys. Somewhere along the line, it is going to break down. 

Mr. COBLE. We may have a second round, too. Mr. Sweeney, the 

products this legislation seeks to ban are widely available in nutrition stores, pharmacies and even over the Internet. Some of the 

manufactures have suggested that we should not ban these products, but instead we should make them illegal for anyone under the 

age of 18 or require better labeling of these products? What say you 

to that? 

Mr. SWEENEY. The precursors and the designer steroids are the 

equivalent, Mr. Chairman, of steroids. That is their impact. And as 

Dr. Hale pointed out and the deputy director pointed out, whether 

there is some slight chemical change or not in the process, the effect is the same. And Congress’s intent in passing the 94 legislation 

banning the over-the-counter sales of anabolic steroids is pretty 

clear. There isn’t any distinction there. There isn’t anything that 

clouds that response and that intent of Congress. And effectively, 

what you have here are some manufacturers driven by greed, some 

professional athletes driven by greed circumventing the intent of 

Congress in the creation and the use and the distribution and promotion of these products. 

And as Mr. Hazelton pointed out, as I spoke to you earlier, and 

as you cited in the National Institute of Drug Abuse Statistics, this 

has real impact on kids. Now if you are going to allow it for kids 

and treat it like alcohol, first of all we know, it is difficult to enforce. 

Secondly, the availability over the counter is still there. And 

thirdly, as Mr. Hazelton has more accurately pointed out, the availability by other means, the Internet, is going to be there, and you 

are not going to get to the real problem. As I said, the impact on 

the developing body I got to believe is certainly more devastating 

to the mature body of an adult. 

Mr. COBLE. Dr. Hale, you indicated that by the time the agencies 

are able to take actions against a specific steroid precursor, unscrupulous manufacturers will already have made minor chemical 

changes to the product and reintroduced it in the marketplace. In 

your opinion, is the proposed legislation comprehensive, A, and do 
23

you have recommendations that would make this legislation more 

effective, B? 

Dr. HALE. In answer to your questions, the answer is yes and no. 

Yes, I do believe this is a very comprehensive bill that will be very 

effective in protecting the American public. And at this point, I 

cannot recommend any substantive changes to this. I believe that 

those who have drafted this bill have done an excellent job. I am 

very pleased that you have done that. And I would just urge you 

to pass it so we can get on with it. 

Mr. COBLE. Let me try to beat the red light here, Mr. Rannazzisi. 

Strike that. Let me recognize Mr. Scott and then we will have a 

second round. Gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sweeney, how do you 

deal with Internet sales? Does your bill mention anything about 

that? 

Mr. SWEENEY. It does not and it is a broader issue with greater 

implication than I know your Committee has really wrestled with 

over the years, but we have to take the first step. We have to recognize that precursors exist and the designer steroids exist, and we 

have to ban them first and allow that law to evolve in the other 

areas. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are there dietary supplements that are marketed as 

performance enhancers that should not be illegal? 

Mr. SWEENEY. There are. And the first 2 years we introduced the 

legislation, we broadly defined the ban as precursors and designer 

steroids and because there are products that the FDA has pointed 

out to us that—protein shakes, for example, things of that nature, 

really ought not to be lumped into the same bunch as the precursors and as the designer steroids. We, now in this legislation, create two mechanisms, one the specific ban on specific products, and 

then the capacity by the DEA to reclassify other products as they 

evolve and are developed by some of those folks. 

And I want to reiterate what I said earlier. There are some manufacturers who voluntarily said we are going to get out of this business and we are not going to engage. And what we have left, Mr. 

Scott, are a lot of people on the fringes. I liken it to the methamphetamine labs that popped up over rural America. What you 

got are people scattering now trying to find ways to circumvent the 

law to create this product and sell this product, marketing it and 

directing it to kids and young athletes knowing that its impact is 

what it is and that is unconscionable and we need to stop that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Hazelton, are the steroids addictive? If people 

want to stop, can they stop? 

Mr. HAZELTON. They are not on the same line as heroin or your 

harder drugs, but it becomes psychologically addictive to where 

when I was weighing 290 pounds, I thought I weighed 180. On the 

same lines as anorexia. You feel like you don’t get big enough. 

Steroids have a really psychological bad side effect as far as mentality. You are mental, the bad moods, the aggressiveness. Sometimes you think you are doing something to where you think it is 

like a psychopath. I found myself, when I was using them, going 

out to nightclubs and beating the hell out of people just because 

I felt I was strong. Of course, I want to say other things, but I 

would like to ask one question and have someone answer it. 
24

Why do you need anabolic steroids? Why? Just tell me. If it is 

to get big, to compete in body building contests, fine, I can see it 

because, I mean, they use it. Professional wrestling, which is not 

a sport, it is like going to a circus, that is fine. But for someone 

that plays a professional sport, for God’s sake, why do you need it? 

Tell me. Babe Ruth didn’t use it. Mickey Mantle didn’t use it. 

Roger Maris didn’t use it. Willy Mays didn’t use it. These guys are 

in history. These guys were great athletes. 

If someone can tell me why you need to make steroids allowed 

to be used for any reason, then I cannot walk away, but I will take 

my chair and go somewhere else. But there is not a reason. 

Mr. SCOTT. As I understand it, we are not prohibiting it, we are 

making it like a prescriptive drug where it can only be available 

under medical supervision properly. 

Mr. HAZELTON. When you make this available for a doctor to 

write it—and excuse me, Congressman, it is going to go rampant 

because it is going to be just like when you get a handicapped 

sticker for your car, someone can’t walk 300 yards—well, my patient is obese or this or that, got a bad back, what do you think 

is going to happen to steroids? As soon as you pass the law saying 

it can be written by a doctor again, they are going to make a field 

day on selling scrips. Exactly. 

Mr. SCOTT. Let me see what is in the bill. 

Mr. SWEENEY. We categorize them as schedule 3 substances. And 

I would, just in response to Mr. Hazelton, I don’t think there is any 

legitimate over-the-counter use of anabolic steroids. 

Mr. SCOTT. No legitimate over-the-counter use? 

Mr. SWEENEY. Right. And Dr. Hale would probably be able to answer more accurately. 

Mr. SCOTT. I was going to ask Dr. Hale if there are legitimate 

uses? 

Dr. HALE. Yes, there are. Certain conditions, certain wasting diseases related to cancer, something such as that where this would 

help. There are certain other types of conditions. It really depends 

on the individual injury and the individual physician. I understand, 

Mr. Hazelton, but I do believe physicians in this country. In our 

own State of Virginia, you have a very strong control. I am licensed 

in Virginia. And it would be very difficult to misuse this, although 

we fully recognize that anyone can misuse this at any given time. 

This would prevent the gross overusage that is taking place today. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, members of the panel and our friend, Congressman Sweeney. I think all 

of us, certainly at the collegiate and high school level, would like 

to prohibit and proscribe all use of these performance enhancers, 

and most of us would like to see them regulated, if not prohibited, 

at the professional level. But there are two areas here, one is the 

war on drugs, which has been, at best, nixed in terms of its success 

the last several decades and then the general decline in what I 

would call sportsmanship. 

And you have these two areas, and I think Mr. Hazelton put it 

right, it is going to be very difficult to have success here which 

doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have to try but talk about some of the 
25

way we are moving in sports these days, whether it is parents 

screaming at umpires at little league, whether it is the intent to 

injure that we see increased, whether it is amount of money involved or sports agents dominating the news page, suped up, not 

just athletes but bats and balls and every other piece of equipment 

we can get a hand on. 

So the whole notion of what we mean by sports in America has 

been subject to some decline and we ought to be inculcating a spirit 

of athleticism in every child, not just those that are competing at 

the interscholastic ranks, but to up and down. So my question is 

to my friend, Congressman Sweeney, with respect to the effectiveness here, and in part to Dr. Hale, because I have two concerns 

about how we actually take an effective approach to the problem 

that has been outlined by Congressman Sweeney’s bill. And one 

would have to do with definitional problems. We have enough problems enforcing laws against, say, a heroin or cocaine user, marijuana user, even when we all agree what the definitions are. 

I note, for example, Dr. Hale, that the drug that Mr. Hazelton 

said that he was encouraged to use is not on the list, at least in 

my understanding of the very technical terms. You have about 50 

or 60 drugs that are now going to be categorized as schedule 3. And 

what is it, Dr. Hale, that prevents, if we pass this law and the 

manufacturer wants to comply and they could put together a new—

the combinations are almost infinite, are they not? And not only 

are they infinite, but they have a very difficult challenge when you 

talk about performance enhancing drugs, which is not what this 

bill defines as illegal. The reason you have to specifically enumerate them is otherwise you get into caffeine, sugar, vitamins, 

high protein soft drinks, et cetera. 

So where are we going if we list 108 drugs that are prohibited? 

Isn’t 109 right around the corner. And if Congressman Sweeney 

could maybe address that as a follow up after Dr. Hale does. I 

guess the other question is with respect to increasing the penalties 

at or near sports facilities. Doesn’t this pretty much drive weight 

lifters and athletes who are training, simply drive the behavior 

somewhat underground? And do you really get what you are going 

after here or you just sort of drive the occurrence of the activities 

somewhere else? 

Dr. Hale, if you would. 

Dr. HALE. Thank you, Mr. Feeney, you asked a critical and very 

important question. First, let me answer your question about 

dianabol. That is a known steroid that was covered in the original. 

That is why you don’t see it on the list anymore. What we are looking at are steroid precursors now. The actual known steroids are 

already covered. What we are looking at are those precursors which 

in the body actually move into the steroid. 

The answer to your second is that I would like to think that the 

next step, once we have been able to ban this easy access over the 

counter is education, just as with the drug program. I know that 

we will never get rid of everything, but we can certainly try to 

make certain that the young people in America at least don’t have 

easy access using what we talked about as some of the other illicit 

drugs. 
26

Yes, as I read the reports from the DEA, we are making inroads 

in it. And there are others that come up. But it is education that 

is ultimately going to be the winner. USADA, we have been working with Scholastic Magazine to begin an intense education program for young grade schoolers to teach them about what is right 

and what is wrong. The instance of fair play you talk about, that 

is a real issue we face in America today. I wish I had a solution 

for it, but I do not. But I do think we can go the first step. And 

the first step along the way is banning the precursors, not making 

them easily available. As long as they are easily available, all the 

education in the world and everything else we do is not going to 

come to any fruition until such time as they can learn the dangers 

and the problems. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Ohio, 

Mr. Chabot. And we will have a second round. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a couple of 

questions and I got here a little bit late and I apologize, and this 

may have been covered. But as far as high school athletes and college athletes and the pressures through competition that exists out 

there, have any of you touched on or could you touch on how prevalent this is, how below——

Mr. SWEENEY. The National Institute of Drug Abuse said 3 years 

ago that almost 3 percent of seventh and eighth graders had used 

the substances, either the precursors and/or steroids or themselves 

and a greater percentage—and I don’t recall the number offhand—

in the high school age group had done that. But, Mr. Chabot, I 

have to reiterate the point this is about getting more of these products on the list as schedule 3s, because there is definitive science 

showing their impact. It is having real impact and it starts at the 

major sports level. 

And we have had great progress in the last several years since 

there has been an acknowledgment by the major sports, the NBA, 

the NFL, the NCAA, the USOC, all have joined on in support of 

this idea and all have said independent testing needs to be done 

in their sports, and there is a reason for that. It is because it skews 

the sport, but it goes beyond that. It affects the culture that we live 

in. It affects our kids. And the only obstacle in this process has 

been major league baseball, but it has also been the predominant 

sales entity of this product by virtue of Mark Maguire’s accomplishments, by virtue of his acknowledgement of use, by virtue of the 

rumors and the acknowledgement of other major league players, 

and because baseball itself at first, and now I guess it is just the 

players’ union really have taken an absurd, obstructionist, unconscionable stance in this process saying it is a privacy issue. They 

fail to recognize the impact and the messages they send out. 

And they fail to recognize the special privileges we have given 

them here; the public funds that are used for their facilities. They 

fail to recognize the message they are sending to our kids and that 

is, if you are going to get ahead, cheat a little bit and who cares 

what happens to you later in your life with your health. 

Well, Mr. Hazelton has pointed out as dramatically as anybody 

could of that impact. And so we really need to understand that the 

manufacturers of these products and the athletes that use them 
27

are intending to circumvent our intent and we ought not to let that 

happen anywhere. 

Mr. CHABOT. What kind of effort is being made or might be made 

in the future to educate some of the athletes, especially at the high 

school and college level, as to how they might obtain the results 

they are looking for through natural food or working out lifting 

weights naturally as opposed to being involved with the anabolic 

steroids? 

Mr. HAZELTON. Out of the lectures I have done, I have seen some 

of the ways they use to deter these kids from using them is a cassette tape, bringing their athletes into a room and letting them listen to the dangers of steroids. And 9 times out of 10, the worse 

thing they have on the tape is hair loss or problems basically with 

pimples, the swelling of the body and it never got into the part of 

the heart, the lungs, the liver, the loss of legs, the inoperable cancer. It doesn’t get into where it is going to be something that is 

going to make you look at and say, my God, can this happen to me 

and they don’t push it. It is like a joke. 

When you talk about how many kids are out there using it from 

the time I saw it in 1989 doing lectures until now, there is one part 

of the country has 73 percent of their athletes on the football team 

using steroids, 73 percent. The team was number one in the State. 

I don’t want to say—I am not here to start downing the city or the 

State that was in, 73 percent. And I had kids calling me after I had 

gone there to do a lecture, crying wondering is this going to happen 

to them. 

Mr. CHABOT. Was there any effort to discuss the alternatives to 

this stuff? You mentioned about the bad things that it can do to 

you. Has there been much of an effort? 

Mr. HAZELTON. I am not saying anything bad about Washington, 

the school at the time couldn’t find me and this was when I was 

hot on the market doing my lectures. They had brought someone 

from the FDA and someone from the pharmacy department here to 

come down there and tell the kids what the dangers were, what 

happened. And finally after I did reach the superintendent of the 

schools, he told me that Bob when they came in there, the kids 

were so bored that they spent more time talking, writing stuff out, 

drawing, but it is after you had left, the kids actually spent time 

in the classroom asking each other what could be done—how to 

stop our friend or our teammates from using it and what the dangers were. 

Mr. SWEENEY. If I could point out quickly, but we have secured 

in the past years, seed funding for education programs starting in 

New York and Oklahoma. This was over the last couple of years 

as we were beginning the awareness here in Congress. And we 

have also, in the last week, picked up the scholastic in partnership 

for a drug free America support who are going to do ad campaigns. 

And I think Dr. Hale’s group and the U.S. Anti-Doping folks have 

gotten engaged in the last several years in trying to get that message. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. And the other gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When the President of 

the United States decided to use his bully pulpit of the State of the 
28

Union to mention the problems with steroids and performance enhancing drugs, it became crystal clear to me that something was 

about to happen in Congress. Now anabolic steroids have been 

banned since 1990 both for athletes and nonathletes, and now we 

see a need to expand this list of banned steroids to include the 

over-the-counter steroid precursors. Whereas the popular anabolic 

steroid dianabol has been banned for quite some time, we will now 

be banning the steroid precursor andro. Now because this issue is 

being championed by the President of the United States and Congressman Sweeney as well as the bipartisan leadership of the Judiciary Committee in the House and some prominent bipartisan U.S. 

senators, I am relatively convinced that this bill will become law, 

and I will support it. 

But I want to take this to the next step and ask you some questions about testing, and Congressman Sweeney, I will start with 

you. I am concerned that even after we pass this, we are still not 

going to be able to rely on the honor system of athletes not taking 

this, both amateur athletes when there is a gold medal at stake, 

or an NCAA championship, and with respect to pro athletes, when 

you stand to get a bonus for being the MVP for hitting so many 

home runs. I would like someone who is not that familiar with how 

testing works, both in the professional sports and amateur, if you 

could give me an overview of how it works, say, with professional 

sports in terms of testing. 

Mr. SWEENEY. Well, it is a great question. I think it goes to the 

root of the obstruction that we faced in this process. Ben Johnson 

is not known as the world’s fastest man and gold medal winner in 

the Olympics. 

Ben Johnson is known as a disgraced athlete who cheated and 

was stripped of all of those honors all of those medals because he 

used steroids in the process. 

The USOC and the other groups I mentioned, the NCAA and the 

NFL and the NBA, have all now agreed that it is in their sports’ interests as it relates to the integrity of those sorts to implement 

independent testing systems, random independent testing systems, 

that I think are going to have real impact on their sports and create real benefit in reducing the use of it. 

One of the last obstacles is Major League Baseball. What I would 

think, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking Member, and Members, is 

what you ought to do as well, is you continue to review this bill, 

is get Don Fehr and Bud Selig in here, and ask them what they 

are going to do next, because the shielding of independent and random testing done by the players union in particular, and in part, 

by the owners, is banned because they have got a collective bargaining agreement that only calls for a limited round of testing. 

Now, we know what happened in that limited round of notified 

tests, that 5 to 7 percent of Major League Baseball players tested 

positive, when they knew they were going to get tested. That is 

three full teams in current construct of Major League Baseball. 

Baseball is thumbing its nose at Congress, at the laws of this 

land. I am not so sure jurisdictionally what we can do in this bill, 

and we have struggled with this issue to require any kind of mandated testing. And I think folks at USADA have been very effective 

at getting these other sports entities involved in the process. 
29

But, I think that we ought to use our bully pulpit, because you 

are right. The President called in the calvary on the day of the 

State of the Union, and we are now reacting to that call. It is going 

to be passed into law in some form. 

But, we need to find a way that has an impact, with the recognition that this is a little bit less about pro athletes, and a heck of 

a lot about our kids. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Congressman Sweeney. Dr. Hale, Congressman Sweeney seems to be relatively comfortable, I take it 

from his testimony, with the amateur sports governing themselves 

in the appropriate testing, but at least one particular professional 

sport, major league baseball, not doing enough. 

What is your opinion as to the amateur sports and their testing 

procedures? Are they adequate with respect to, say, the Olympics 

and NCAA football? 

Dr. HALE. Let me just very briefly explain to the Committee how 

testing is done. As Congressman Sweeney pointed out, there are actually three types of testing. There is testing in competition, which 

is where Ben Johnson got caught, I happened to be there at that 

time. 

And there is testing at camps and other things. But, the most effective testing is the no-announced testing. For example, if you 

were an athlete in the pool, one of our doping control officers could 

walk up today and tap you and say Representative Keller, join me 

in the bathroom, I want a sample. Then and now. And you have 

to produce. If you don’t produce it is a positive. And the punishments are very heavy. 

And I think that right now is the basis of our most successful 

testing program. That is being done by the NFL, it is being done 

by the NCAA, it is being done by all of the Olympic sports. And 

so I think these are the ways that we can prevent people from 

abusing the use of these drugs and medications. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Keller. Mr. Rannazzisi, we have 

overlooked you but we have not abandoned you. 

Dr. Hale, in his statement, indicated that studies have shown 

that an alarmingly high percentage of dietary supplements contain 

doping substances, and they are not disclosed on the label. 

Assuming this statement is accurate, and I have no reason to 

doubt it, is it reasonable to assume that companies may still continue to manufacture these products containing steroid precursors, 

and simply continue not to list its contents accurately? 

If so, what can be done to combat this problem? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, if the legislation passes, those substances 

become controlled substances. As controlled substances, those substances have to be identified properly, because they are going to be 

prescribed—if they are prescribed by a medical practitioner. 

So if they are under the act, they have to be labeled and cannot 

be mislabeled. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Hazelton, in a recent Washington Times article, 

it was noted that you regularly make appearances, as have you told 

us today, at schools to address the detrimental health effects of 

steroid use. 
30

What sort of feedback have you received from these students and 

educators? Are most children aware of steroids and the side effects 

associated with them, or do you think that many of them just view 

this as a necessary evil to get ahead in athletics, so I can be drafted early and become a millionaire overnight? 

Mr. HAZELTON. Basically, that was the beginning of our young 

athletes coming out of high school, junior high, even, taking 

steroids was one way to get a jump. 

Most of our young adults had no idea and they still don’t have 

an idea what steroids does to their body. I have always had great 

reception, I mean the best. 

The thing I run up against in schools, they don’t have the money. 

They can’t afford to bring somebody in to give them a layout of actually how dangerous steroids really are. 

I have had a few things that we could have done a long time ago 

that would have saved a lot of money, but it seemed like it was 

something at the time wasn’t important. Then, I am not going to 

say if it is important now. 

And I would like to just say one thing about testing. Testing, it 

is the most easiest thing to do is block. I know professional football 

players that would empty their bladder out, put a catheter back in 

there, and put water back up to their kidney so that when they did 

do a urine test, it would come up negative. 

There are certain steroids that if you drink certain things, that 

will block it. There is certain things that if someone knows it is 

going to be a test, it is very easy to do something 12 hours before 

you have the test. Now, the people that you send in there to say, 

okay, let’s go in the bathroom and do a urine test, the test that 

they do, is that going to be automatically trustworthy? 

You know, you have to start looking at these things, because we 

have been dealing with this for a long, long time, and I don’t know 

how many people that they have actually got using steroids, but 

when you have got 70 percent of professional athletes using 

steroids out there, and you have only busted—and this is going a 

big number, 50, somewhere along the line someone is not coming 

true. Something is not going on. 

Now, it seems to me that if you really, really wanted to stop 

steroids, I mean at least stop it on the link. You guys have—you 

have got a list, which I don’t know if there are steroids that you 

are going to bust, but you guys haven’t talked about Equipoise yet, 

which is one of the biggest steroids on the market. And that is used 

for race horses. You get it from veterinarians. 

That with Anadrol or Dianabol or Ethinate or Propinate, I 

haven’t heard those drugs yet. You have got a list of steroids here, 

and these steroids are the ones that are mostly used. Now, you can 

change the name by making it something else. But I am sure these 

people here know that they consist of almost the same ingredients 

as the ones I am talking about right now. The only thing different 

is the human growth hormone. 

Mr. COBLE. Let me point a final question to the sponsor of the 

bill, a rhetorical question, but I want to get it on the record. Some 

will say Government has no business here prohibiting these substances, but it is a matter of personal choice. 

What do you say, Mr. Sweeney, in response to that? 
31

Mr. SWEENEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Government, the Congress has already acted based on definitive science in this area. 

And there are substantial Government interests and societal interests in this legislation. Mr. Hazelton, I think points them out as 

accurately and as well as anybody can. And if we are not engaged 

at this point in this process, could you imagine, in order to make 

the local high school prep football team, the requirements your 

coach is going to have for you is to do what in order to get that 

edge? 

And then 30 years down the road, what do we face as a society 

in terms of those costs ? 

Mr. COBLE. I don’t disagree. I was being devil’s advocate. Just 

wanted it for the record. The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Hale, let’s follow up 

with some of the questions that we were asking last. 

You indicated that wasting associated with cancer, and I assume 

AIDS would be one appropriate use for steroids, loss of muscle 

mass. What about healing generally? 

Dr. HALE. There are certain types of injuries that they do use 

steroids to increase and to prepare the body better for healing process, that is sometimes is used. 

Again, it is difficult to classify these in any specific category, because the use of steroids contains a fair amount of side effects. And 

you have to weigh, like anything in medicine, the side effects with 

the benefits. It would depend on what that situation is. 

But yes, there are. That is why we believe it should be a Category III prescription only. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. The FDA, under our present act, has defined that a product is expected to be safe. What about safe and 

effective? Should we go back to that standard? 

Dr. HALE. Personally I would say yes. It would be nice if everything could be safe and effective. The problem is, in getting randomized controlled trials in a large number of drugs, is very, very 

difficult, because the effectiveness of it varies from individual to individual. 

Unfortunately in medicine, any conditions, some are very 

straightforward that you can treat and you know exactly how it responds. Others are not, depending on the individual variation. 

I think what happens over a period of time is once a drug has 

been approved, found to be safe, then when you evaluate it and its 

clinical usage, you find out whether it is effective. If it is not effective, it drops out of use very quickly. And the FDA has been very 

good in following that, because they have a long-term follow up of 

all these drugs being produced. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Mr. Rannazzisi, possession of steroids 

without a prescription is a Federal crime. Is that correct? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Possession of the currently listed steroids, from 

the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990, yes. That is a Federal 

crime if they are possessed without a prescription. 

Mr. SCOTT. Why haven’t we seen more prosecutions? Or is the 

reason we aren’t finding more prosecutions because they can find 

these legal precursors that do the same thing, so there is no reason 

to fool with the illegal stuff? 
32

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I wouldn’t say that there aren’t prosecutions. As 

far as more prosecutions, I think the act did its job. I think that 

the prevalence of those drugs kind of slowly faded away. I think 

that is exactly why people used chemistry to create the precursors, 

steroid precursors. I think that is how they circumvented the act. 

You don’t need those drugs if you have these drugs. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are the steroids controlled substances in most countries? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. No. Actually, most of the drugs under the act 

right now that are controlled are not controlled in other countries. 

And that is where a majority of those substances are being produced. 

Mr. SCOTT. So if somebody wanted to train in one of those other 

countries, they could have easy access to the drugs. 

I guess, how long would it be—how long after you have last 

taken them, how long for testing purposes, how long can you go 

and become clean, I guess? 

Mr. HAZELTON. Over 6 to 10 weeks, sir, usually. Depends on how 

much you are using and whether you think something is going to 

come out. 

Like I said before, you have got blocking that you can do, one 

that can block within 24 hours. As far as other countries, I have 

done lectures in Germany, England, South Africa, I have sent articles over there. And all of these countries, they don’t want to admit 

steroid use, but there is a lot of steroid use, especially in the Olympics before they actually go into the Olympics. 

And people say, well if you stop using steroids, you are going to 

lose the ability to perform whatever event. That is wrong. You will 

keep that ability to produce as much——

Mr. SCOTT. So if you use the steroids and get built up, you can 

stop using the steroids and maintain that build? 

Mr. HAZELTON. At least 5 to 6 months, believe it or not. We are 

talking about drugs, steroids, steroids are being made now in bathrooms, in sinks——

Mr. SCOTT. Say that again. 

Mr. HAZELTON. You can make steroids. I used steroids 15 years 

ago, which I thought was anabolic steroids. I wound up shooting it 

in my hip. It wound up being Armour-All. It looked just like Cyclamate which you buy on the market. 

It had all of the labels on it, the box and everything. After shooting it about 2 minutes later, my hip had turned black. It covered 

about 12 to 18 inches. I wound up having to have surgery done on 

the hip to basically dig the infected tissue out of my hip. 

Now, this is what these kids are doing also, they are buying 

black market steroids and they are getting themselves in trouble 

that way. So not only buying them the legal kind, you have got to 

worry about now the bad kind. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. Dr. Hale, I believe that Mr. 

Scott also directed that question to you. Do you want to weigh in 

on that as well? 

Dr. HALE. Thank you. It depends on the mode of administration, 

whether it is oral, whether injectable. But in general, most steroids 

are detectable per dose somewhere between 48 and 96 hours later, 
33

depending upon what type of testing you are using, whether it is 

excreted in the urine, and how it is excreted. 

So that is why—but in order to have an effect, you have to have 

continued use of it. That is why they continue to use it over and 

over, that is why no-announced testing is so important, because 

they have to use it for an extended period of time to get the effect. 

Mr. SCOTT. But we have a slight difference in testimony. Mr. 

Hazelton suggested that it was detectable weeks after the last use. 

Dr. HALE. We are not really different. What we are saying is that 

people continue to use it over an extended period of time, but if 

you—for example today took a single dose of one of these in about 

96 hours without really ultra, ultra sensitive equipment, we would 

not be able to——

Mr. SCOTT. If I trained in another country where this stuff was 

available and got build up to whatever—and if I stopped, how long 

would it take for the drug to be undetectable? 

Dr. HALE. About 96 hours would be the maximum, under ideal 

circumstances would be the earliest that we could detect it. 

However, remember that the effect of the drug begins to wear off 

at the same time. And that is why athletes take it right up as close 

as they can to the point of competition. 

But, I would like to clarify that it is my understanding that in 

most of Europe, especially the UK and in Australia, New Zealand, 

the anabolics are also prohibited. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. We have been joined by the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Conyers. Does the gentleman from Michigan have 

questions, John? 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, yes and no. 

But I move to strike the requisite number of words. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Scott, I 

wanted to ask, is there anybody we know that is not supportive of 

this bill, I mean in the universe? 

Mr. COBLE. Well, if the gentleman will yield, I know you and 

Bobby Scott and I are cosponsors. Mr. Feeney, are you on board? 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, I was officially undecided coming in. 

Mr. COBLE. Okay. 

Mr. CONYERS. What I am leading up to——

Mr. FEENEY. But the Ranking Member is intimidating me strongly into a position of support. 

Mr. CONYERS. This is known as the gentleman’s touch. 

No, the fact of the matter is that I think that this bill enjoys the 

support of the Chairman, the Subcommittee Chairman, and all of 

us, the Ranking Member and my colleague from New York, who is 

a witness, and an original cosponsor. 

So the question really quickly comes down to, what about DHEA? 

And I would like to open that up for some friendly instructions on 

that subject. Mr. Sweeney. 

Mr. SWEENEY. First, Congressman Conyers, and Ranking Member, you missed the earlier statements. And I said I feel a little bit 

like, you know, the fellow who has been lost in the woods for a 

number of years and has been screaming and nobody has heard it. 
34

I feel like the sunshine is coming out. And I have to say, I am 

deeply appreciative of your leadership, and your getting involved as 

you did a year ago or more on this issue. 

And I think it is with that leadership that this bill is going to 

move forward, and we are going to have some important changes. 

And one of the most significant changes in the bill, as it relates 

DSHEA, is this idea that we are now shifting the burden from the 

Government to prove that any of these products promote muscle 

growth, which is very costly, and we certainly don’t have the resources in this extreme time to the manufacturing community. 

And in answer to the other question, are there people who oppose 

it, there are. There are still some of those folks in the manufacturing community. I think the less legitimate of the manufacturers, 

the ones on the fringes who are involved in this, and they are making a lot of money, and I am sure that they will use that influence 

wherever they can to try to make whatever changes or sprawl and 

delay this the best they can. 

And DHEA, another precursor. The problem with that precursor 

and that issue, and how we are trying to deal with the disagreement that we have, is that there are those in the Senate who don’t 

agree with us on the inclusion of that product on this bill. 

In shifting that burden away from the Government, we think 

over some time that the folks at the DEA and FDA will be able to 

expand on to the list some products we would like to see on that. 

But, we can’t get a consensus or an agreement from the other body 

on that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that is what conference committees are for. 

You close the doors, and in some cases, turn out the lights, and 

then, lo and behold, there is the provision in the bill. 

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Conyers, I would volunteer to be on that conference. I would fight just as hard to have that included. 

Mr. CONYERS. Does anybody else want my time? I will turn it 

back then. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Feeney, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, thank you. And in my last round, my friend, 

Congressman Sweeney, didn’t get to quite address some of my 

questions. 

But, Dr. Hale, very quickly, is the list of steroid precursors that 

we have included in this bill, is it sufficient for now, and how likely 

is it that we are going to be back here changing this in a year or 

two, as manufacturers keep pace with ways around the law. 

Dr. HALE. I think the way the bill is written that it will prohibit 

that. Because of what it is talking about is precursors, it is not defining them by specific name, it is defining them by chemical type. 

So I don’t think it will happen. 

However, I would be the last one, after our recent experience 

with THG and a few other steroids, to say that they would not be 

out there trying to find some ways around the bill. There are always people that because of the money involved, because of the activities involved, that will try any way possible to circumvent the 

law. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, and again, I spoke earlier about the war on 

drugs in general. And at best, it has been a mixed success. And 
35

some would say it has been a very expensive failure. That is a reasonable debate to have. 

Congressman Sweeney, you heard my concerns about the decline 

in the athletic culture and the loss of sportsmanship and sports in 

general from very early on through, you know, through much of 

what we are doing. So I invite you to comment on how this bill affects that. We invite you to comment on what the State’s roles are 

here. We invite you to comment on the fact that are there coaches 

at the competitive levels of high schools and college and pro that 

are basically with a wink and a nod turning the other way, they 

don’t want to know what is happening, but they really do know 

what is happening? 

How does this bill, if anything, get to that? I do appreciate that 

we do have the right to regulate drugs, through the FDA, that are 

legal or not, prescribed or not. I am certainly going to support this 

bill. 

But, you know, I will suggest that where there is a will, there 

is a way. That has certainly proved to be the case with other addictive drugs. This is America. And you know Americans, for example, eat until we are obese and then we go get a tummy tuck. This 

is America. If you can get a pill to enhance athletic performance, 

and if it is available, there is going to be a great deal of temptation 

and then some. 

And then finally, going back to sportsmanship as a whole, cheating is not just confined to sports, unfortunately. I have seen studies 

where as many as three-quarters of college students acknowledge 

that they cheat in class. 

And part of this is how we get to the whole cultural decline of 

self-responsibility and individual responsibility, and unfortunately, 

where there are benefits to taking those pills or in performance 

enhancers, legal or not, you know, my view is that we will be back 

here dealing with this problem 5 or 10 years from now. 

Mr. SWEENEY. If I can answer your question, I think the core of 

it is the question of why are we involved at all? And I will say this: 

Given the proliferation of use and the promotion of use by those, 

especially those in major league sports and baseball, in particular, 

as I pointed out a number of times today, but that is only because 

they have been the most obstructionist in this process, there is substantial and real science that says that there are side effects, that 

the health implications affect us all. 

And if we don’t do something about ending the proliferation of 

use, if we don’t do something about drawing definitive lines in 

what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and in part, Congress tried to do that in 1994, with DSHEA, and what these really 

are, are circumventions by athletes and manufacturers. Because 

there is a lot of money and profit driven on both ends from it. 

Then, Congress, I guess, ought not to be involved in anything, 

because we are all going to have to pay those health care cost bills 

down the road. 

In terms of are there coaches who would circumvent the system? 

Certainly in a society in which Congress or the authorities that 

have the responsibility to regulate, particularly the use or in any 

particular area, there are going to be coaches. And there will be a 

lot of them, because it—at the end of the day, there is motivation 
36

for them, whether it is the next best job or whether it is just winning the next game. 

And I think Congress has a role in setting those kind of moral 

and ethical priorities for the rest of our society, especially when we 

know the use and the proliferation of that use is so detrimental to 

the rest of us as well, but in particular to our kids. 

So I guess my answer to you is, yeah, we ought to be involved. 

And this is really a response by many of us to what we see as a 

circumvention in what we intended to do back in the 1990’s. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from California. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have been 

discussing this bill with my staff. And I recognize that we are here 

to examine the abuse of steroids by professional athletes and the 

prevalence of the use of steroids and steroid precursors. And we 

cannot help but conclude that the intent of this bill is to try and 

prevented people from damaging their health and saving lives, particularly as it relates to young children. 

So it is certainly not something that one can be against. It is just 

unfortunate that we have to find ourselves increasingly legislating 

in every conceivable area. This week alone, in addition to this 

issue, we have had to deal with the Janet Jackson issue of exposure in some ways that are considered, I guess indecent and other 

issues that I just never thought we would have to deal with as legislators in this body. 

However, I suppose that we find that the more sophisticated we 

get, the more complicated we get. The more advanced we become, 

technologically and otherwise, the more problems are created. So 

there are a lot of questions that one could ask, but the bottom line 

is, basically whether or not we are going to support legislation that 

will create stiffer penalties and discourage the use of these performance-enhancing drugs that could cause damage and loss of life. 

There is not much more to say. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentlewoman. 

We very much appreciate you all being here, Mr. Hazelton, in 

particular, sharing your personal experiences with us and your courageous role, when you visit schools across the country I wish you 

well. I thank you all. The Subcommittee appreciates the contribution today. This conclude the legislative hearing on H.R. 3866, the 

‘‘Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004.’’

The record will remain open. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reference was made to major league 

baseball. I would ask unanimous consent that a letter from Donald 

Fehr, the Major League Baseball Players Association Director, saying that if Congress chooses to expand the definition of Schedule 

III, in order to cover certain steroid precursors, we would not only 

support such a decision, but also would automatically expand our 

own testing program, jointly administered by the clubs to cover 

such substances; and also a letter from the American Medical Association in support of the legislation. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection, it will be received. And I want to 

thank those in the audience who stayed for the hearing. I want to 

thank the media for having covered this. Mr. Hazelton. 
37

Mr. HAZELTON. I have one question. It might be a long question. 

Right now, we are looking at this going to some type of law being 

passed and educating our youth out there today. 

First, I would like to say, what time period are we looking at to 

start educating our kids? Second thing is, I would like to be totally 

involved in this, considering I am the one that started actually the 

lecture tour on steroids and to have a major input. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Hazelton, to answer your first question, what 

time period, you are looking at a man who does not have the wisdom of King Solomon. So I can’t answer that one. As far as your 

second question, I direct your attention to the primary sponsor of 

the bill. 

I think Mr. Sweeney would be glad to work with you to that end. 

Mr. SWEENEY. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned earlier, 

we got money in the approps process last year to begin a program. 

I am hopeful with the passage of this legislation, the moving forward, we are going to be able to do even better. 

Mr. COBLE. In response to your first question, didn’t mean that 

to be a cute answer. I would say in a reasonable time. It would be 

my belief that this very well may be enacted into law. 

This concludes the hearing. I thank you all for your cooperation. 

The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
40
41Æ