<< <i>The problem is that they were NOT legal. Bart Giamatti had banned them but the rule was never enforced until it was too late. Such a shame that the one who oversaw the worst era in baseball history is still the comissioner to this day. >>
at the time they WERE legal >>
you need to read up on this topic more, you are wrong >>
Do you have a reference on when steriods were banned from baseball? Doubleday didn't ban them.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
In 1971, the first baseball drug policy was issued. It didn't name steroids specifically, but it threatoned punishment for violating federal and state drug laws. Steroids were only avaliable via prescription, so if you juiced w/o a prescription, you were violating the law, and thus, the rules.
The 70s policy was clearly not a cover all drugs policy. The MLB policy has gotten a little tougher since then and it is still not a cover all policy. It is a long list of drugs you cannot take. Also, I am not aware of any feberal law of the time that gave a complete ban on "steroids" and as most we are familiar with were being invented or in early test stages at the time, they would not have been illegal. State and Feberal laws all use general drug terms now, like amfetamines, but these terms were never widely used until the last 20 years. As they were never a social problem until then.
Also, on the 1991 memo. The commissioner himself, does not have the power to change or create rules. He is more like a city mayor....so what exactly makes the 1991 memo rulebook official? Did the owners and player's union vote on it. I can find no reference. I guess the commish may have power to revise rules?
As far as Federal laws, it appears it was the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 that reclassified anabolic steroids as Schedule III controlled substances, and the illegal use of them became subject to substantially increased criminal penalties. Note, most drugs it is not illegal to use....just own.
As far as history of steroids and baseball, I found a good reference of it being around in the 70s.
According to Rep. Henry A. Waxman in his March 17,2005 opening statement before the House Government Reform Committee: "Congress first investigated drugs and professional sports, including steroids over 30 years ago. I think perhaps the only two people in the room who will remember this are me and Commissioner Selig, because I believe he became owner in 1970".
In 1973, the year I first ran for Congress, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce concluded a year-long investigation that found--and I quote--"drug use exists...in all sports and levels of competition...In some instances, the danger of improper drug use--primarily amphetamines and anabolic steroids--can only be described as alarming".
Bowie Kuhn, and the powers that be at the time, quietly squashed the entire episode and with good reason: it would cast suspicions on an African-American slugger who was challenging one of baseball's most cherished records: The career record for home runs.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Also, I am not aware of any feberal law of the time that gave a complete ban on "steroids" and as most we are familiar with were being invented or in early test stages at the time, they would not have been illegal. >>
<< <i>Also, I am not aware of any feberal law of the time that gave a complete ban on "steroids" and as most we are familiar with were being invented or in early test stages at the time, they would not have been illegal. >>
Here you go. Distribution of anabolic steroids and/or HGH outside of a doctor-patient relationship has been illegal since 1938.
Basically, baseball originally just banned "illegal use", but in 1991, baseball actually banned "use" in general. >>
Correct me if I am wrong, but the '38 law appears to be about distibuting prescription drugs.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Correct me if I am wrong, but the '38 law appears to be about distibuting prescription drugs. >>
Apparently at the time, steroids and hgh were considered prescription drugs. >>
Right, so this '38 law is really about distibution and distribution only. This makes sense as before the 1990 law, it was a FDA thing rather then a DEA thing. With the '38 law it gave the DEA something to possible go after a person on.
It is unlikely that many ball players got their steroids through prescription, and if they did, then it was not illegal, so the '38 law likely does not fit baseball and steroids.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>It is unlikely that many ball players got their steroids through prescription, and if they did, then it was not illegal, so the '38 law likely does not fit baseball and steroids. >>
The text of the 1938 law appears to ban the illegal sale, purchase, or importation of these drugs.
If a player obtained the drugs w/o a prescription, then they've broken the law. Thus, the 1971 Kuen ruling against illegal drug use would cover illegal steroid use.
<< <i>It is unlikely that many ball players got their steroids through prescription, and if they did, then it was not illegal, so the '38 law likely does not fit baseball and steroids. >>
The text of the 1938 law appears to ban the illegal sale, purchase, or importation of these drugs.
If a player obtained the drugs w/o a prescription, then they've broken the law. Thus, the 1971 Kuen ruling against illegal drug use would cover illegal steroid use. >>
The Text does some, but it is clearly a law only concerning prescription drugs. Further the cases quoted are all about distribution of prescription drugs. If the '38 law is all encompassing, then why have we had to create dozens of other related laws. It clearly is not.
Also, laws on sales, purchase and importation.....are not the same as use. I can not go to jail for having THC in my system. I can go to jail for having a bag of Mary Jane on me.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>The Text does some, but it is clearly a law only concerning prescription drugs. Further the cases quoted are all about distribution of prescription drugs. If the '38 law is all encompassing, then why have we had to create dozens of other related laws. It clearly is not. >>
If steroids and hgh were prescription drugs when the 38 law was written, then it covers them. According to the original artical I posted, and to the Mitchell Report, they were. If you look through the law books, there's a lot of redundancy and restatement, apparently to cover up any logic loopholes that sneaky people try to find and exploit to get out of trouble.
<< <i>Also, laws on sales, purchase and importation.....are not the same as use. I can not go to jail for having THC in my system. I can go to jail for having a bag of Mary Jane on me. >>
Kuhn apparently saw it differently. If you had a prescription drug in your system, and you didn't have a prescription, then you must have obtained it through illegal means, as thus broken the law.
THC in one's system can be used as a disqualifier for getting a job, and is considered a probation violation if you're an ex-con. In California, if you're wandering around in public exhibiting impared behavior, and a cop approaches you and smells pot, you can be picked up for public intoxication.
<< <i>The Text does some, but it is clearly a law only concerning prescription drugs. Further the cases quoted are all about distribution of prescription drugs. If the '38 law is all encompassing, then why have we had to create dozens of other related laws. It clearly is not. >>
If steroids and hgh were prescription drugs when the 38 law was written, then it covers them. According to the original artical I posted, and to the Mitchell Report, they were. If you look through the law books, there's a lot of redundancy and restatement, apparently to cover up any logic loopholes that sneaky people try to find and exploit to get out of trouble.
<< <i>Also, laws on sales, purchase and importation.....are not the same as use. I can not go to jail for having THC in my system. I can go to jail for having a bag of Mary Jane on me. >>
Kuhn apparently saw it differently. If you had a prescription drug in your system, and you didn't have a prescription, then you must have obtained it through illegal means, as thus broken the law.
THC in one's system can be used as a disqualifier for getting a job, and is considered a probation violation if you're an ex-con. In California, if you're wandering around in public exhibiting impared behavior, and a cop approaches you and smells pot, you can be picked up for public intoxication. >>
If they were not obtained with a perscription, they are not perscription drugs. I can make drugs in the basement of my house....they would not be perscription drugs reguardless of whatever drugs I made.
I am not sure where you are getting with your THC comment, I am just trying to figure out exactly when they became illegal.....1938 does not appear the date. USE and ownership are two separate things in the law. That was my point with my THC comment. A federal law on distribution can not convict you of having used. You will note we do have a President that has admitted doing Mary Jane and coccaine.
Here is an easy one for you. We prosecute what (?), 50,000 to 100,000 drugs cases or year or more in the US. Show me one case that used that law to charge them with anything that is related to drug use and not prescription drug distribution. I bet you can't find one. Steroids were in the FDA court and the FDA did not care. They did not see the law the way you are trying to interpt as. It is when the DEA took over that things changed.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Steroids were widely available during the 70's (and widely used in the NFL). They were not illegal at the time (without looking it up not sure when that changed). The "steroid era" talk is non-sense; it's just the time that people cared about it, and it does not reflect the time frame when it was avaiable and used by athletes. Just because writers and reports didn't discuss the topic in the 70's does not mean it didn't happen.
<< <i>If they were not obtained with a perscription, they are not perscription drugs. I can make drugs in the basement of my house....they would not be perscription drugs reguardless of whatever drugs I made. >>
The term "prescritpion drug" is used to define any range of drugs that can only be legally taken with a prescription. Vicodin, for instance, is a prescription drug. If you go and steal a bottle of Vicodon, or buy one on the street from a drug dealer, you are in posession of a prescription drug which you don't have a prescription for.
Do you think that players were cooking up steroids and HGH in their own basements for personal use? I highly doubt that. They were illegally obtaining them from folks selling them illegally.
<< <i>I am not sure where you are getting with your THC comment, I am just trying to figure out exactly when they became illegal.....1938 does not appear the date. USE and ownership are two separate things in the law. That was my point with my THC comment. A federal law on distribution can not convict you of having used. You will note we do have a President that has admitted doing Mary Jane and coccaine. >>
Past use is different from "in your system". If Obama or Bush were found to be getting high in the White House, I'm sure there'd be a scandal the likes of which we have never seen.
<< <i>Here is an easy one for you. We prosecute what (?), 50,000 to 100,000 drugs cases or year or more in the US. Show me one case that used that law to charge them with anything that is related to drug use and not prescription drug distribution. I bet you can't find one. Steroids were in the FDA court and the FDA did not care. They did not see the law the way you are trying to interpt as. It is when the DEA took over that things changed. >>
I doubt anyone in the last 30 years has been prosecuted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 for illegal purchase or use, especially since more current laws have been put into effect to pin-point this sort of stuff... like the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
According to the 1971 Kuhn drug policy: "Baseball must insist its personnel comply with federal and state drug laws." Can someone legally obtain that which is illegaly distributed?
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The problem is that they were NOT legal. Bart Giamatti had banned them but the rule was never enforced until it was too late. Such a shame that the one who oversaw the worst era in baseball history is still the comissioner to this day. >>
at the time they WERE legal >>
you need to read up on this topic more, you are wrong >>
Do you have a reference on when steriods were banned from baseball? Doubleday didn't ban them.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
1991 Memorandum
source: Mitchell Report, III-B-1
In 1991, the re-vamped drug policy was released, and specifically banned steroids.
source: Mitchell Report, III-B-6
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Also, on the 1991 memo. The commissioner himself, does not have the power to change or create rules. He is more like a city mayor....so what exactly makes the 1991 memo rulebook official? Did the owners and player's union vote on it. I can find no reference. I guess the commish may have power to revise rules?
As far as Federal laws, it appears it was the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 that reclassified anabolic steroids as Schedule III controlled substances, and the illegal use of them became subject to substantially increased criminal penalties. Note, most drugs it is not illegal to use....just own.
As far as history of steroids and baseball, I found a good reference of it being around in the 70s.
According to Rep. Henry A. Waxman in his March 17,2005 opening statement before the House Government Reform Committee:
"Congress first investigated drugs and professional sports, including steroids over 30 years ago. I think perhaps the only two people in the room who will remember this are me and Commissioner Selig, because I believe he became owner in 1970".
In 1973, the year I first ran for Congress, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce concluded a year-long investigation that found--and I quote--"drug use exists...in all sports and levels of competition...In some instances, the danger of improper drug use--primarily amphetamines and anabolic steroids--can only be described as alarming".
Bowie Kuhn, and the powers that be at the time, quietly squashed the entire episode and with good reason: it would cast suspicions on an African-American slugger who was challenging one of baseball's most cherished records: The career record for home runs.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Also, I am not aware of any feberal law of the time that gave a complete ban on "steroids" and as most we are familiar with were being invented or in early test stages at the time, they would not have been illegal. >>
More reading
Here you go. Distribution of anabolic steroids and/or HGH outside of a doctor-patient relationship has been illegal since 1938.
Basically, baseball originally just banned "illegal use", but in 1991, baseball actually banned "use" in general.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>Also, I am not aware of any feberal law of the time that gave a complete ban on "steroids" and as most we are familiar with were being invented or in early test stages at the time, they would not have been illegal. >>
More reading
Here you go. Distribution of anabolic steroids and/or HGH outside of a doctor-patient relationship has been illegal since 1938.
Basically, baseball originally just banned "illegal use", but in 1991, baseball actually banned "use" in general. >>
Correct me if I am wrong, but the '38 law appears to be about distibuting prescription drugs.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>Correct me if I am wrong, but the '38 law appears to be about distibuting prescription drugs. >>
Apparently at the time, steroids and hgh were considered prescription drugs.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>Correct me if I am wrong, but the '38 law appears to be about distibuting prescription drugs. >>
Apparently at the time, steroids and hgh were considered prescription drugs. >>
Right, so this '38 law is really about distibution and distribution only. This makes sense as before the 1990 law, it was a FDA thing rather then a DEA thing. With the '38 law it gave the DEA something to possible go after a person on.
It is unlikely that many ball players got their steroids through prescription, and if they did, then it was not illegal, so the '38 law likely does not fit baseball and steroids.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>It is unlikely that many ball players got their steroids through prescription, and if they did, then it was not illegal, so the '38 law likely does not fit baseball and steroids. >>
The text of the 1938 law appears to ban the illegal sale, purchase, or importation of these drugs.
If a player obtained the drugs w/o a prescription, then they've broken the law. Thus, the 1971 Kuen ruling against illegal drug use would cover illegal steroid use.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>It is unlikely that many ball players got their steroids through prescription, and if they did, then it was not illegal, so the '38 law likely does not fit baseball and steroids. >>
The text of the 1938 law appears to ban the illegal sale, purchase, or importation of these drugs.
If a player obtained the drugs w/o a prescription, then they've broken the law. Thus, the 1971 Kuen ruling against illegal drug use would cover illegal steroid use. >>
The Text does some, but it is clearly a law only concerning prescription drugs. Further the cases quoted are all about distribution of prescription drugs. If the '38 law is all encompassing, then why have we had to create dozens of other related laws. It clearly is not.
Also, laws on sales, purchase and importation.....are not the same as use. I can not go to jail for having THC in my system. I can go to jail for having a bag of Mary Jane on me.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>The Text does some, but it is clearly a law only concerning prescription drugs. Further the cases quoted are all about distribution of prescription drugs. If the '38 law is all encompassing, then why have we had to create dozens of other related laws. It clearly is not. >>
If steroids and hgh were prescription drugs when the 38 law was written, then it covers them. According to the original artical I posted, and to the Mitchell Report, they were. If you look through the law books, there's a lot of redundancy and restatement, apparently to cover up any logic loopholes that sneaky people try to find and exploit to get out of trouble.
<< <i>Also, laws on sales, purchase and importation.....are not the same as use. I can not go to jail for having THC in my system. I can go to jail for having a bag of Mary Jane on me. >>
Kuhn apparently saw it differently. If you had a prescription drug in your system, and you didn't have a prescription, then you must have obtained it through illegal means, as thus broken the law.
THC in one's system can be used as a disqualifier for getting a job, and is considered a probation violation if you're an ex-con. In California, if you're wandering around in public exhibiting impared behavior, and a cop approaches you and smells pot, you can be picked up for public intoxication.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>
<< <i>The Text does some, but it is clearly a law only concerning prescription drugs. Further the cases quoted are all about distribution of prescription drugs. If the '38 law is all encompassing, then why have we had to create dozens of other related laws. It clearly is not. >>
If steroids and hgh were prescription drugs when the 38 law was written, then it covers them. According to the original artical I posted, and to the Mitchell Report, they were. If you look through the law books, there's a lot of redundancy and restatement, apparently to cover up any logic loopholes that sneaky people try to find and exploit to get out of trouble.
<< <i>Also, laws on sales, purchase and importation.....are not the same as use. I can not go to jail for having THC in my system. I can go to jail for having a bag of Mary Jane on me. >>
Kuhn apparently saw it differently. If you had a prescription drug in your system, and you didn't have a prescription, then you must have obtained it through illegal means, as thus broken the law.
THC in one's system can be used as a disqualifier for getting a job, and is considered a probation violation if you're an ex-con. In California, if you're wandering around in public exhibiting impared behavior, and a cop approaches you and smells pot, you can be picked up for public intoxication. >>
If they were not obtained with a perscription, they are not perscription drugs. I can make drugs in the basement of my house....they would not be perscription drugs reguardless of whatever drugs I made.
I am not sure where you are getting with your THC comment, I am just trying to figure out exactly when they became illegal.....1938 does not appear the date. USE and ownership are two separate things in the law. That was my point with my THC comment. A federal law on distribution can not convict you of having used. You will note we do have a President that has admitted doing Mary Jane and coccaine.
Here is an easy one for you. We prosecute what (?), 50,000 to 100,000 drugs cases or year or more in the US. Show me one case that used that law to charge them with anything that is related to drug use and not prescription drug distribution. I bet you can't find one. Steroids were in the FDA court and the FDA did not care. They did not see the law the way you are trying to interpt as. It is when the DEA took over that things changed.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>If they were not obtained with a perscription, they are not perscription drugs. I can make drugs in the basement of my house....they would not be perscription drugs reguardless of whatever drugs I made. >>
The term "prescritpion drug" is used to define any range of drugs that can only be legally taken with a prescription. Vicodin, for instance, is a prescription drug. If you go and steal a bottle of Vicodon, or buy one on the street from a drug dealer, you are in posession of a prescription drug which you don't have a prescription for.
Do you think that players were cooking up steroids and HGH in their own basements for personal use? I highly doubt that. They were illegally obtaining them from folks selling them illegally.
<< <i>I am not sure where you are getting with your THC comment, I am just trying to figure out exactly when they became illegal.....1938 does not appear the date. USE and ownership are two separate things in the law. That was my point with my THC comment. A federal law on distribution can not convict you of having used. You will note we do have a President that has admitted doing Mary Jane and coccaine. >>
Past use is different from "in your system". If Obama or Bush were found to be getting high in the White House, I'm sure there'd be a scandal the likes of which we have never seen.
<< <i>Here is an easy one for you. We prosecute what (?), 50,000 to 100,000 drugs cases or year or more in the US. Show me one case that used that law to charge them with anything that is related to drug use and not prescription drug distribution. I bet you can't find one. Steroids were in the FDA court and the FDA did not care. They did not see the law the way you are trying to interpt as. It is when the DEA took over that things changed. >>
I doubt anyone in the last 30 years has been prosecuted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 for illegal purchase or use, especially since more current laws have been put into effect to pin-point this sort of stuff... like the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
According to the 1971 Kuhn drug policy: "Baseball must insist its personnel comply with federal and state drug laws." Can someone legally obtain that which is illegaly distributed?
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25