Talk:Anabolic steroid/Archive 5

Article is still POV.
This article is clearly maintained by people interested in proving to the world that steroids are not as bad as we think, and this is tangible throughout the article, especially the parts where "myths" in "popular culture" are dispelled. It is not blatantly there, but as several other people have pointed out (before being lynched by a certain member), the undercurrent is there. Just wanted to point that out. Now you may lynch me. SergioGeorgini (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to edit the article and improve it. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I don't feel nearly competent or knowledgeable enough to rewrite entire sections that were clearly written by people who know what they're talking about (yourself included I'm sure). The only thing I could offer is some prose-rewriting, which in my opinion occasionally leans toward to defensive monologue of a lawyer in court:


 * "Anabolic steroids, like many other drugs, have generated much controversy. There are also many popular misconceptions concerning their effects and side effects. One common misconception in popular culture and the media is that anabolic steroids are highly dangerous and users' mortality rates are high. Anabolic steroids are used widely in medicine with an acceptable side-effect profile, so long as patients are monitored for possible complications. Former assistant professor at the University of Toronto and World Wrestling Entertainment athletic physician Mauro Di Pasquale has stated, "As used by most people, including athletes, the adverse effects of anabolic steroids appear to be minimal.""


 * That just reads like it was written with an agenda, which is not what an encyclopedia should read like. It also essentially claims that "mortality rates are not high", something that is obviously subjective no matter how many proper sources are presented. The same goes for whether something is "acceptable". SergioGeorgini (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you have a better formulation for that sentence, please change it. I'm sure a fresh set of eyes will improve this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

USA
I think this article is a bit american-ized. For example, it says things like "Anabolic steroids are banned by all major sports bodies including the Olympics, the NBA, the NHL, as well as the NFL." Since when are the NBA, NFL and NHL 3 of the top 4 sporting bodies? Anyway, this doesn't really detract from the article that much, but long term I think the article could be made more world-neutral.

On that note, in the opening paragraph I added the ICC (cricket) and deleted the women's tennis link, since international tennis federation was already linked. Disco (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that long list of sports organizations is even necessary to the article as a whole, much less the intro. We have separate articles that could go into that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Roids Rage
Is there successful treatments for people who are experiencing Roids Rage? Such as herbal detoxification? 06.05.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.87.64 (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes: stop using anabolic steroids. MastCell Talk 19:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * False, MastCell, anabolic steroids do not cause "roid rage", which has shown to be mythical and largely due to perceptions and also relates to who it is that had access to steroids, i.e. groups with higher rates of behavioural/abuse issues. Please stop repeating falsehoods; what the person in question needs is psychotherapy or counselling for anger management.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you really need the last word on a 6-month-old thread? It's yours. MastCell Talk 23:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but apparently you do; I made my comment without fussing over dates; asinine comments like yours in response to this guy's query, always call for being put in their place. Especially as your agenda, summed up by that reply of yours, is in clear display in the POV nature of many or your edits; are you going to reply re the claim you made elsewhere on this page about Rick Collins still being cited five times, even though no other editor can find the cites you claim remain (of those you didn't delete?).  I'm familiar enough with politics to know it when I see it; and here you're attacking me, personally, because I'm challenging you on factual/logical grounds elsewhere.  I have avoided this page because of the known information war going on re this subject; but when I saw your comment, no matter how old it was (and how old it was really doesn't matter), somebody had to say something; you are clearly in the steroid-hating/witch-hunting camp and display distortion and misleading hype in many of our emendations of what you claim a citation is about.  Just stop pretending to objectivity, OK?  And for guys re the above, first - as a respnosible medical person - you should have asked what other behaviourla and physiological problems this guy might have, instead of offering a highly unprofessional - and sarcastic - prognosis.  And it shows what you don't know; sudden cessation of a heavy steroid load will cause side effects; as is well-known in the user community; you're not concerned with this guy's health, you're only concerned with advancing the various lies and distortions of hte anti-drug lobby as if there were some kind of objective truth here, isntead of moral relativism and WP:Band science.  I may be prolix, but at least I'm more honest than you....and apparently enough on-target that you decided it was time to attack me.  In fact, why did it take you 22 days to reply?  I guess you were just looking for some way to be nasty.  Maybe you shoudl try a cycle; some testosterone might cheer you up; on teh other hand if you already have a personality disorder then it will give you a chance to blame misconduct and rudeness on the juice.....a better prognosis for the above is "try meditation", "are you sure it's the steroids makign you behave that way and not the liquor/your girlfriend/your mother/your boss?" or "just smoke a joint".  Oh, but you're probably anti-THC too....Skookum1 (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm officially speechless. MastCell Talk 05:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

New study
should probably be incorporated into the side-effects section. It describes adverse effects of anabolic steroid use on fertility and cardiovascular markers in 20 male bodybuilders followed prospectively. In press interviews, the study authors also reported "severe psychological disturbances with behavioral and relationship problems: emotional inconstancy, lack of motivation during training and at work, apathy, depression, aggressiveness, the rebound effect following drug suspension, symptoms of paranoia, sexual dysfunction and family problems," including one psychiatric hospitalization, among the 20 steroid users. MastCell Talk 20:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Disillusioned"
In re what's now footnote no. 27, by Tony Eastley:
 * ''Moreover, anabolic steroid users tend to be disillusioned by the portrayal of anabolic steroids as deadly in the media and in politics

What's meant by "disillusioned" here? Disillusioned how? I read the footnoted article and the word "disillusioned" does not occur; in its current form the sentence implies that users are disillusioned about steroids because of the false media coverage; in reality the word to be used is more like "disaffected" towards media coverage" and skeptical of the "official line" in the media and politics. Please explain this wording, whoever put this in.  Thet use of "disillusioned" strikes me as a POV interpretation of the article in question.Skookum1 (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias and outright misrepresentation in "roid rage" section
The section "counterbalances" studies with many participants and structured interviews with a single longitudinal study with just 7 participants, and claim that this invalidates previous studies. Clear bias here. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Another example: and  are used to claim that "Individual studies vary in their findings, with some reporting no increase in aggression or hostility with anabolic steroid use, and others finding a correlation." The conclusions from those articles are quite different from what the wiki claims:
 * 10665615 CONCLUSIONS: Testosterone administration, 600 mg/wk increased ratings of manic symptoms in normal men. This effect, however, was not uniform across individuals; most showed little psychological change, whereas a few developed prominent effects. The mechanism of these variable reactions remains unclear.
 * 16356691 CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study suggest that the wide range of psychiatric side effects induced by the use of AAS is correlated to the severity of abuse and the force of these side effects intensifies as the abuse escalates.

Which one reports no increase/correlation?? Clearly a case of wishful thinking from whoever wrote the wiki article. 10665615 finds the increase statistically significant. "Testosterone treatment significantly increased manic scores on the YMRS (P = .002), manic scores on daily diaries (P = .003), visual analog ratings of liking the drug effect (P = .008), and aggressive responses on the Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm (P = .03)" The only caveat is that drug response was found to be highly variable. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So why don't you fix it? One person didn't write the article, a large number of people did. Make a positive contribution to the article with the same effort you put in to picking it apart and it will be a better article. --Yankees76 (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried to summarise in a new version of the lead. Can you get access to that review, e-mail me if you need the Pdf. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As you may gather from my edits, and from the previous section, I take a somewhat different view of the subject matter than most of you; generally I just lurk here and have adopted "wait and see" on the article since meddling with it long ago, before I learned more about wikipedia and also because my general activities/interests in Wikipedia are in history and geography and related matters. But on watching the growth of a decidedly negative approach to the subject matter - to the pursuit of research towards content, active "digging for dirt", I finally have to speak up; especially after seeing many of the non-sequiturs in the section I just amended and added some fact templates to; and could add fact templates to my own new material; I fully expect what I added to be reverted, even though it's "obviously true" - the previous logic made no sense in one case - that new printing/labelling technology caused counterfeits and fakes (there's a difference, the latter isn't what it says to be, the former is, often at a higher dosage than available from ordinary manufacturers); the material I added, about there being more people with the necessary technical training, many of them actually doctors and pharmacists who are also users, is standard lore in all the places wikipedia can't cite from - blogs, web forums....it should however be in this or that online bodybuilding magazine.  "Credible sources" must include something other than medical association and police reports.  I'm not a biomedical person and myself don't have hte time or inclination to survey and understand the studies in question, but I DO know that a lot of research in the US is driven by agendas advanced by government and sports association priorities; it's not really independent research.  The reason I say this is to point out that, looking over the refs so far used, and the USPOV tone of much content (such as the "Illegal trade in steroids" section, which was written from the POV o a place where steroids are illegal, namely the US; they're NOT illegal nearly everywhere else....in fact I almost added the sect-globalize to that section, and in some ways it still needs it as the nature of the trade is different in places like Oz and Europe.  The claims made, which I fact-templated, that smugglers also carry other materials, is confounded by the subsequent statement that although smugglers of those other materials were caught, they weren't also busted for steroids.  Illogic abounds in many sources; it may be that the police-org report that was the cite given at the end of the second paragraph was meant for all the preceding two paragraphs; if so, that report is wildly wrong and doesn't actually make sense with what it says vs what it concludes.....obviously I'm sticking my head way out here, as there is a certain moral opprobrium towards these materials evinced by the selection of citations and what kinds of facts are being compiled to expand the article; counter-studies de-bunking roid rage are also out there; I dno't ahve the time to look for them, I know they're there; and I also know there's a large body of contrary story and contrary evidnece to be found in "offshore" studies in German, Russia etc.  I realize language is a barrier, but I do remember reading somewhere in http://www.andropause.com, which is the website of a British HRT/anti-aging clinic, hich says, or references a report that says, that European and Australian research results are often very different from those produced in the United States, where the research agenda is politically-driven; a goal that regular editors on this page should strive for, in the interests of NPOV, is to make sure the contrary-results materials are as assiduously researched and augmented during the improvement of this article.  I know, I know, "So fix it" but medical articles are not my forte nor is medical-related research; all I know is it's out there, same as there are other accounts of the contraband industry available in citable materials.  Only going after one kind of source, and one kind of agenda/critique, is tantamount to serious POV, especially on a controversial subject.  Discussions in the sports section should also mention the status of doping regs in other federations than the quasi-official ones named; and it would be worth adding that the IOC also bans cold medicines and other non-steroidal substances, which are equally as much "doping" as are steroids ("doping" is at at least a bit less pejorative than "cheating", but it's a highly POV word and is used that way intentionally; "dope" in its original meaning was of course heroin, and there's an agenda which seeks to portray steroids in the same light so as to justify criminalization; controversies concerning doping regs and critiques of the anti-doping agenda's narrow blinkers are also "out there in print", including critiques of the IOC's motives....perhaps too complicated for a largely medically-oriented article and also in an editing environment clearly dominated by USPOV.  I'm not meaning to be in attack mode here, I'm habitually prolix and just laying out all the issues and what I know to be available sources, and what I see with the tenor and direction of recent expansions; especially given teh POV and incorrect nature of some of the sources being used, and as noted at least one medical observation that US results and research have a skewed agenda.  This is common knowledge in the user community, and obvious at times from the illogics with which IOC and/or police and or congressional panelists throw to the public winds.  I've said too much for my own safety, perhaps, but if serious wikipedianism is really to be reckoned with, only looking for one side of the research story, and always writing/looking from the anti-steroid and and pro-illegalization point-of-view.....see WP:NPOV, is all I can say.  See next section also.Skookum1 (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User community POV/sources unrepresented
I guess I already seem to have addressed some of my points for this section, which was my original intent to write when beginning my posts. Still, there are a few more user-related POV issues, though I've addressed some of them in my edits; which as noted above need citation, but due to wikipedia's anti-blog, anti-forum citation policies obviously the full scope of "subjective information" can't be covered. But there are online magazines/webzines, and also HRT sites and doctors/consultants who do maintain websites, and http://www.steroidlaw.com has an extensive array of various resources on both medical issues and legal issues. I obviously happen to know something about the underground market (I'm 53, I've been around for what seems like centuries, and am obviously by my tone a user and considering what else doctors push at me for the same symptoms, an advocate and as a result of experience vs propaganda am also offended at media and political barrages which have little to do with the facts, and everything with scoring political points or Neilsen ratings (or whatever the press equivalent is to the Neilsens); the witch hunt smacks at times of McCarthyism; if only we ere looking for crooked politicians as much as we were looking for crooked baseball players....

One glaring bit of POV logic/syntax that quite struck me was the huge slant on contaminated counterfeits/fakes, as if thousands of people were dying. And "large overheads" was laughable - unless bathtubs and blenders are more high-tech than I'm aware of, and also as if labtime can't be rented in some cases, or lab equipment gotten wholesale or second-hand. If that's the quality of the source where that came from, you can ditch that source as out-of-touch. That section also made it sound as if lots of people were dying from abcesses, methanol poisoning etc....well, I've heard of one Calgary Mountie who had a chunk of his gluteus cut out as somebody had sold him Armor-All which he thought was Winstrol-V, and I know guys who've had serious abcesses, and I know I'd rather see my friends have the safety to buy non-counterfeit and definitely non-fake products so there were fewer medical risks than with bona fide products. There are studies out there investigating health problems cause by illegalization, and there are also media accounts of British and German practitioners who rather than scold their patients, or make them feel as if they can't speak to their doctors, encourage them to be open so that they can be studied and monitored. There are hundreds of thousands of fake/counterfeit vials and ampoules on the market, and millions of fake D-bol and anadrol and V-tabs, but there are not hundreds of thousands of deaths, there are not hundreds of deaths, there are not even dozens. "Some" seems understated if called merely a weasel word in that context. And "understatement" barely captures it! And if those causes of death are mentioned, their relative fatalities should be stated ("4 died from methanol poisoning, 10 from abcesses etc) and also the epidemiological rates ("out of an estimated underground-market user population of so many million, this represents a mortality rate of..."). Sticking to citable sources doesn't work very well when the sources don't address their own inefficacies and their evident distortions and illogics are adopted unquestioningly; yes WP:OR and WP:Synthesis must be observed, but equally as much WP:Bad sources and WP:POV sources should be recognized as such (if those aren't sections on wiikipedia guidelines, somewhere they should be someday).

Further on the user theme, the proliferation of anti-aging clinics where those with enough cash can just pay their doctors to write them the scrip, entirely legal, is now commonplace and also growing both as a science and as a client-population; no less than Suzanne Somers in a commentary on faulty cancer research recently pointed out that testosterone is far more benefical to older men than cocktails of viagra and anti-depressants, which was a riff off previous bad research/hype about steroids causing prostate cancer now being debunked; "a lot of men could have lived better lives" was her theme, and it's a common one. So perhaps there should be a section on "Legal use of steroids in North America" or perhaps just "Legal use of steroids", where over-the-counter availability in Latin America, Europe and Asia can be frankly discussed, vs. the conseuqences of prohibition in teh United States. Teh reason any criminal dealing in steroids as well as other illegal drugs (or illegal anything) is because there's money to be made from it because it's illegal. I mean, honestly, does something so patently obvious really need citation from a "verifiable, reliable source" when sources which are claimed to be that clearly don't have their facts, or logics right? Also, as noted in the previous section, there is a growing body of literature from the user community, a user community which includes medical and pharmceutical and other biomedical people, which has been discounted in the "official" literature (official researchers making a point of not reading the peripheral material) and which is dismissed as unscientific (by people who refuse to read it or study what users have studied....in fact, one British research paper somewhere, and more than one German or other European paper I've seen referred to, comments on the distancing that North American researchers and politicians maintain from the experiences of the widespread user community as "unreliable"....and instead study control groups of as little as 20 individuals, who are generally not educated users. Various writing on the subject of designer steroids points out that new, more refined and targeted anabolics are come up with by udnerground researchers because above-ground reserach has been held back by illegalization, vs research in Europe and China which has continued without legla or moral opprobrium.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the hard work that's gone into this article; but I am suggesting that the editors who've been so devotedly working on it widen their net and also step outside their own POV to realize what's missing and also to realize how their own POV, particularly US cultural POVs and political agendas, have influenced their own direction of research. And frankly I have to excuse myself for WP:COI and even WP:AUTO, though for reasons too elaborate to lay out here; but what i can do is point you in the direction of hte materials, and remind you that there's a non-US POV and also pro/advocacy POV out there to be represented, and this article doesn't. Also, the use of uncited subjective opinion from seemingly technically-oriented reports should be viewed with a jaundiced and critical eye, as well as gaps in logic such as the bit about labeeling technology causing a flood of fakes and counterfeits; that was going on BEFORE criminalization and, again as with bathtub gin, it's a sign of something seriously amiss with the clinical reality, is that health problems are being caused, not solved, by criminalization; and even after criminalization coutnefeiting was giong on a long time before the laser printer was invented. Also laughable was the way the wording about "some was even of veterinary grade" or wahtever the precise quote is; the early steroid market was largely veterinary, and some favourite steroids are always veterinary (Winstrol-V, Equipoise for starters, Lanabol I remember had a horse symbol on teh side of it - 50mg nandrolone decanoate). Come to think of it, that emphatic wording in the sentence about veterinary product is POV, same as teh "at all" i took out....

This was meant to be a friendly bit of input; I don't have time, nor the technical inclination, to research all of this; but I felt someone had to point out that by looking only for research which supports one point of view, you're being POV....perhaps without knowing it/realizing it, but you are. I'll see what I can do to find the Australian and German studies which differ in their results (and agenda and conclusino0 from the results of the items you've discussed in the previous sectino; but I do recommend for the sake of this article, and public education and edification, all of you who've ben looking to shore up the anti-steroid POV to start looking at other "verifiable, reliable sources", which do exist, both in int'l medical literature and critiques of IOC policy, and also in the user-community's materials online, which range in quality but some webzines and certain sites are citable; not medical material so much as user-community information, including other accounts of the illegal trade than those summarized i poorly-researched police-org reports. Iv'e stuck my head way out here, but somebody had to say something; there isn't as much research into this kind of thing as there is for cannabis and even opiate user POVs, and generally the underground element don't like their activities discussed (of course) as there's money to be made in keeping things illegal, natch. I believe also if you look through steroidlaw.com there are a few research papers on steroids and civil liberties/individual liberties to be considered/acounted for....not trying to be POV, just pointing out what could make this article more NPOV than it is. And I'd still like to know what that one Australian paper meant by users being "disillusioned"? Stripped of their illusions? Pissed off that the d-bol they bought was fake, or their jug of test isn't working all that well, or that finally looking like a god still doesn't get you the chicks? "Disillusioned"....is that really the word used in the source and if so what did he mean by it? Skookum1 (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The best way forward is probably to suggest some reliable sources dealing with the viewpoints you feel are neglected. Your posts might also be more effective if they focus concisely on specific article- or source-related questions and avoid lengthy expositions of personal opinion. MastCell Talk 04:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above, while lengthy and somewhat of a manifesto/laying down out of the wiki-gauntlet, is not an "exposition of personal opinion". Personal opinion and personal experience are two entirely different things.  I'll do my best to find suitable sources and solicit input (to me, not here) from those who may know where suitable documentation can be had.  At least what opinions I DO display are overt, not covert, as is the case with various forms of in-built bias and USPOV/War On Drugs logic/lines of argument/evidence found in the article.  Issues to do with civil liberties and the moral relativism of those conducting the steroid witch hunt in Congress and the US media are also not matters of "personal opinion" but of public record and public debate.  I can't help it if theyr'e distorting the few facts they have, and ignoring all the rest; it's not my doing.  All I'm doing is pointing it out.  And in terms of "personal experience" I'm also talking about more than just being a user, but I'll leave that to your imagination.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Change
I have made one or two changes which might remove the misrepresentation of one or two of the studies. If someone sees something else then please let me know.

The sentence "Because of the lack of control of production due to steroids being illegal, and as with bathtub gin killing many people during American Prohibition, fake and counterfeit products have been bought and injected by unsuspecting users, some of whom have died as a result of blood poisoning, methanol poisoning, or subcutaneous abscess."

I do not see how the exact number can be had, since sources do not usually specify exact numbers. I think that the word "some", while vague, is sufficient. Uomo vitruviano (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Some" is proscribed in Wikipedia as a weasel word, and because of the skewed intentions of those circulation deaths-in-association-with-steroid-use (which are VERY few, from ANY cause) it is NOT valid to use "some" here, as it gives the impression that this is a common enough occurence so as to be notable. People die from infected insulin needles and certain I-V use all the time, much more commonly than from intramuscular injections (though I stand ready to be countered on that, as I-V injection mortalities and I-M injection mortalities probably are tracked - what are NOT tracked are I-M injections of fake/countefeit products of any kind).  I remain unconvinced that any such figure is a meaningful statistic relative to other mortality rates; its inclusion here at all is a form of anti-steroid user bias and is therefore POV; as is the overall pretext that steroids should be illegal, or that the US/Canadian context is the "right" one.  I realize your emendation does not take in that wider sweep, but it is convenient to those advancing the POV agenda here, howevermuch politely and in good faith they are doing it.  How many died?? is not adequately served by using "some".  Is it 5?  50?  100?  5000?  Two??  And in each case, was it certain that it was the contaminated product that was at fault, and not a contaminated injection site or needle, or just an induration (indurations can result from nurse-given shots too).  I suggest you take a step back and consider the implications of "some" in the context being used, if and sicne "a very few" is what is meant.Skookum1 (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What word is best then? If a source does not specify then how can we? Use the wording of the source. Uomo vitruviano (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, the source does not mention what is said in the sentence before it. Uomo vitruviano (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * consider that the source's mention of such mortalities without providing any mention of the mortality figures is in and of itself inherently dishonest and misleading. WP:Bad sources and WP:Biased sources are major issues for me, which is why I redlinked those concepts just now and will take the issue up at WP:RS.  Another similar abuse of incomplete truths, or rather incomplete non-truths, is the opening of the "Psychiatrict effects" section, where ONE source is used to make the wildly conflated claims:
 * ''Significant psychiatric symptoms including aggression and violence, mania, and less frequently psychosis and suicide have been associated with steroid abuse. Long-term steroid abusers may develop symptoms of dependence and withdrawal on discontinuation of AAS.[95]
 * The cite is "CNS Drugs" - a journal it seems but standing for what? Central Nervous System Drugs I suppose, since psychiatry is the section-subject.  "Have been claimed to be associated with steroid use".  But these are NOT common side effects, and there are all kinds of evidentiary/causality problems with determining if people who exhibit these "disorders" experienced them because of steroids and not because of other factors, e.g. genetic inheritance, environmental factors, industrial toxification, other substance abuse (particularly alcohol) or histories of family abuse, PTSS and so much else.  Imagine - such wildly hysterical claims made by one issue of one journal being presented as though these were unassailable claims and not part of a POV-driven anti-steroid political/medical agenda.  Other psychiatric effects are not mentioend because they are inconvenient - to whit, increased confidence, increased libido, euphoria, motivation, anti-depressant effects, creative impulses, adventurousness.  "Psyhicatric effects" are presented only on the negative side, even though for decades even the US psychiatric community prescribed testosterone as an anti-depressant, even for younger men - until only about 1971.  And German and British and other European doctors still do.  I'm a bit stunned that there could be any question that this page remains POV, given the presence of so much skewed medical-journal contents as "reliable sources" here (when they can shown to be illogical by their own lack of consistency/cogency and failed arguments/logics and only half-present facts and highly subjective perspectives).  Much the same applies to the injection-of-counterfeits/fakes-mortalities in the way of shoddy evidence and even shoddier causality.  "Steroid users bought more Hondas than Fords last year", ergo "Steroid use causes users to favour buying Hondas" is the sort of non-logic that's in operation here.  That such logic s are produced by "qualified" and "certified" medical people is all the more disappointing a comment on the failings of modern education and modern professional self-criticism.  Unless it can be shown that deaths from injections are common there is no point to even mentioning this, other than to say that "some claim that such-and-so causes deaths, but there are no hard numbers available and no formal studies about this", while cites from the user community about at least how many guys have experienced indurations, if not actually died from them, are out there but ignored by the medical community as "subjective opinion" (otherwise known as the horse's mouth).  Similarly in the psychiatric section, again, the second line:
 * ''. Long-term steroid abusers may develop symptoms of dependence and withdrawal on discontinuation of AAS.[95]
 * -omits mention, also from the "subjective" user-community literature, that many users have experienced major health problems because of being arrested for being users and having their medications stripped from them, thereby producing hormonal collapses/reactions. And even just taking the quoted bit at face value, those symptoms of "dependence and withdrawal" will include the very same symptoms that may have led to steroid use in the first place - aching joints, lethargy, decreased libido, muscle wasting, depression - such taht there is a return of those symptoms once the medication is pulled" (="seized by the police, who often use the confiscated materials themselves", which is not citable from police reports, obviously, but widely0-known in the user community).  So since when is the return of negative symptoms after the cessation of a positive medical treatment equatable to something being addictive, which is the implication of "withdrawal symptoms".  Aging, someone quipped once, is the withdrawal symptom from having been young....That it takes ALL THE WAY'' to the end of that section for something closer to the truth of the matter concerning "violence from steroid use" can be found:
 * It has previously been theorized that some studies showing a correlation between angry behavior and steroid use are confounded by the fact that steroid users are likely to demonstrate cluster B personality disorders prior to administering steroids.[106] In addition, many case studies have concluded anabolic steroids have little or no real effect on increased aggressive behavior.''[100][81][107][108]
 * That last sentence should be the lead sentence of this section, or its parent section, not tucked away at the end.....It's late, I didn't mean to respond with so much "personal opinion" (otherwise known as critical thinking), but I suggest you reconsider your removal of the POV template and have a good, long sober look at the half-logics and inbuilt prejudices of much of the cited materials in this article, and also in their arrangement, and also re globalize.Skookum1 (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * CNS Drugs is a reputable journal (impact factor above 4 or so). The study is a review, which quite acceptable per MEDRS. Also, the section is still biased per MEDRS, which says Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim. I'm going to rewrite the section. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I added that source for the one you requested about the difficult with discerning and correlating aggression or psychiatric effects with personality disorders already existing in some number of potential users. I have noticed that not all of the sources in this article are placed exactly after the sentences requiring them, but often several sentences after that or before that, which gives an illusion of a lack of sources when the sources are just in different places. Uomo vitruviano (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding it, I had not read all the abstracts for that section when I placed the tag. But the sentence was still quite a bit off from what the paper abstract actually said. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice the tag on the article, but is there any misinterpreted citations that you see after you did some edits? Uomo vitruviano (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed all of them in the psychiatric effects section (see the edit summaries for which papers were misrepresented). I do have the impression that the review papers in this area are a bit too eager in pointing out the negative effects, even if most RCTs found either no correlation or found that the individual with psychiatric side effects were few (but heavily affected). I'm not sure how to fix this without some "original research" in the form a review of my own. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some areas of the article tilt the sources against steroid use and highlight the sideeffects, other parts focus less on the sides mentioned in sources and focus more on what was not shown to be present in the study. I think that article is spot on in most cases, but some sources might need to be re-read and some rewording done in a few instances. Uomo vitruviano (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Focus on bans in sport etc as POV
I won't bother copying here the various passages about anti-doping and which sports orgs have regs against them; but why is it that similar passages are not found on pages for phenylephrine, phenylalanine, dextromethorphan, pseudoephedrine and countless other substances also banned by the IOC and other sporting organizations (including caffeine....). The repetitive nature of the anti-doping content in this article is part of the negative POV that is one of the reasons for the POV template having been put on the page. Similarly the focus on "negative effects" rather than any discussion of the positive effects that are the reason people self-medicate remains, also, a major POV issue on this page. The inclusion of the lengthy list of sports organizations banning the substances in question in the intro, only to be repeated later (with less detail) later on does not serve what is ostensibly only a pharmaceutical article; unless similar sports-ban listings are on the articles for all other substances banned by the IOC - which include controlled as well as non-controlled over-the-counter substances such as the dangerous cold medicine components I've just listed. Also, in all the listings of negative side effects, no discussion is made of the distinction between, say, the effects of testosterone and nandrolone vs the effects of anadrol or halotestin. Given all this, I'm quite non-plussed that someone in "good faith" could unilaterally remove the POV template from the page after "checking" it. checking it for what? It remains POV, heavily so. It's structured, and written, from the perspective of the anti-steroid political agenda, and teh focus only on citations from reports critical of their use vs reports which debunk many of the so-called conclusions in the cited reports...."find reliable sources" is hard to do when most of the sources already used (particularly the police-driven reports( are NOT reliable sources. And when this category of substances is given a lengthy exegesis on their banning, even though few other similarly-banned substances get such treatment. It may look just fine but in actuality it's loaded with POV logic and selective evidence; but the HUGE listing of sports orgs in the opening paragraphs is completely unneeded and implicitly POV in character, since there are also lots of user community opniions, and also reports by sports ethicists, that such bannings are political in nature, and not actually medically-valid, nor in at least a few cases all that much different than using engineered bicycle frames, skin suits, radical dietary techniques, or specially-weighted shoes, i.e. as far as "cheating" goes. Curiously, despite its toxic nature, alcohol is NOT a banned substance.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, bluntly but at least briefly, what I'm on about with all of the above is that this article is currently in a condition that would resemble the Tibet article or Tibetan people article if no Tibetans were consulted, their sources/ideas/experiences/opinions were discounted, and the only sources provided and the overriding, general perspectives of the article were those from the People's Republic of China or its Public Security Bureau. That may seem like an exaggeration but really it's not; one-sided sourcing, and one-dimensional presentation, are what happens when the people being discussed are excluded from the discussion, and from the evidence.Skookum1 (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sources detailing the opinions or experiences of steroid users, post them. Uomo vitruviano (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly given the strict rigour imposed on sources re this article (in comparison to various other Wikipedia articles where significantly less rigour is applied....), it appears that finding sources which satisfy those placing higher value in the medical-journal reports; e.g. re MastCell's just-now edit, removing info about Rick Collins, who is a well-known user/legalization advocate, this phrase was what was removed for "failing RS":
 * ''that the reporting of the risks associated with anabolic steroids in the media is biased and misinformed.
 * It appears also, that the rating of sources giving opposing views to the risks hyped by the media/medical community is also biased and misinformed. There are quotes/interpretations from reliable sources still on the page which do not make logical sense, or which are based on specious evidence (two sets of twins?  Pretty small sample for such a sweeping conclusion...).  The CNS Drugs cite is used to back up an entirely negative intro to the Psychiatric Effects section; the final sentence of the next section is backed up by three cites - the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Physiology of Behaviour (/title?) - yet is added onto this incredibly negatively-weighted section as if only an afterthought; yet it should clearly be in the lead in this section to place balance against the claims made by the report in CNS Drugs.  If WP:Weight were being applied evenly and even-handedly perhaps there wouldn't be the heavy anti-steroid bias in this section that there clearly is; it's like there's an effort to compile only negatively-flavoured reports.  Confidence, assertiveness, creativity and euphoria - common experiences esp. on testosterone - plsu the many beneficial and not-unrelated effects on aging men re testosterone replacment therapy - are not mentioned at all; and the aforementioned "confidence, assertiveness, creativity and euphoria" are seemingly lumped together under "mania".  And from one lamppost to the other, if serious manifestations of mania are experienced only by 4% of the sample, what is the comparison to people who experience negative psychiatric effects by such substances as SSRIs and numerous others?  Much as with the lack of mortality figures re "deaths from injection", the claims of hypomania that were placed here rather unquestioningly and uncritically - gullibly - were based on rather specious evidence; as well as, to me, clearly "hostile interpretations" of postiive effects.  Unless extroversion is always seen in psychiatry as mania, in which case that doesn't say much for psychiatry and maybe explains why shrinks take as many pills as they preccribe to their patients; to cope with a negative epistemology towwards the view, a set of negative filters on experienced reality. Testosterone in particular is known to induce a sense of sell-being; I get it myself on anadrol and also on deca; quiet, meek people might complain "he's too loud" or "he's too big", but that's the placing of a cultural value on behaviour and dressing it up asap psychiatric diagnosis.  It strikes me taht it's in psychiatry's interest to keep people unhappy and making appointments; they may disclaim that, but when conflated claims of "steroids cause agggresiveness" are made without qualification as to among what percentage of the population, as if all steroid/testosterone use led to dangerous behaviour - which is part of the rationale for why they were criminalized - led to such behaviour; and only only among 12% "mildly" hypomanic and only among 4% "markedly" hypomanic.  Happy, bold, exuberant...yes, no doubt those are undesirable effects, easier to style it "hypomania" .... makes me wonder what the 4% behaved like.  Were they dangerous?  Or just giddy?  Qualitative judgements about in medicine, for all the pretense to rational science; this appears, to me, to be just another one.  Dressed up in medical journals - some medical journals (but NOT the New England Journal of Medicine and other first-rank journals) - and trotted out to condemn steroid use, or frighten people considering using them.  If only most commonly-prescribed anti-depressants, tranquilizers and stimulants had such low profiles of negative psychiatric effects!!  e.g. seizures, radical personality changes, definitely suicide (which has yet to be have a formal connection to suicicde, depsite on WP:RS citation here which claims so).  Show me the bodies, basically.  And on teh hypomania front, show me the lifters who took a shot of test or deca and then went on a rampage at the local shopping mall.  And could it be, gee, that someone on a good stiff 600mg/wk shot of cypionate might, upon lifting heavier, be just a little more enthusiastic about life and appear "hypomanic" to someone needing to be cynical about how well they're doing?  The statistics don't support the wild claims and outright hysteria of the anti-steroid lobby; this, apparently though, is "original research".  And input from noted advocates is dismissed (and deleted) as failing WP:RS and WP:Weight.  Well, "weight" would be a lot easier to provide if so much fluff weren't being presented as if it were iron-clad truth....Skookum1 (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And re Rick Collins as regards WP:Weight, perhaps MastCell should read Rick's bio: here (and no, I'm not one of Rick's clients or regular associates, although many years ago we did correspond).Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about Rick Collins' CV - I get it, he's a lawyer/advocate who specializes in steroid cases. I'm talking about appropriate sourcing - independent, reliable secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Peer-reviewed medical journal, yes - personal website or seminar, no. If Rick Collins has something notable to say, then it will be covered in an independent and notable venue - that's the guiding assumption. In fact, I see Collins once published a paper in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, which we cite no fewer than 5 times (making it the most-cited source in the article, easily outpacing material from the New England Journal of Medicine and other such second-rate publications). Collins' paper in the journal is at least an acceptable source from the standpoint of reliability, though I would still contend we're giving it just a wee bit of undue weight. MastCell Talk 07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you see now why I think the whole article needs a POV check, FA status or not... Xasodfuih (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're preaching to the choir - check a little ways up the page, from a year ago, before this became a featured article. I gave up then, and I'm not sure why I care again now, but the problem is still there. MastCell Talk 07:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A POV check is only going to work if editors working on it are able to step back from undue weight given to various medical studies, and to realize that their own POVs are at play; I'm up front about mine, obviously, but objective, consensual presentation of material is only possible if such presentation is able to take a critical eye towards the biases of various sources (including and especially medical sources). The order and arrangement of cited materials causes implicit synthesis whether you think it does or not; to whit, my point about the New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of Clinical Endocrinology articles which debunk the assertive/negative claims made by such as the CNS Drugs article and others being put only at the end of the section containing the reports their articles cast doubt on.  Or the presentation of obscure claims about mortality without providing any actual mortality figures, or the claims that "significant" negative psychiatric effects being stated flat-out as if it were across-the-board, but only 4% of those studied exhibited even "marked" disorders/side effects, with no mention of positive pyschiatric effects.  I'll definitely, once I have time to dig around the web again, find the British article criticizing US medical researchers focussing only on negative research, and like the NEJM pointing to shoddy research techniques and questionable results.  The problem I'm seeing is unquestioning relaying of flawed studies, especially in "lead" positions liek the intro paragraph on Psychiatric Effects; that whole section should instead have a dixclaimer based on the NEJM and other studies critical of "hostile research".  But beyond that, and this is directed at MastCell, your [


 * recent edit made quite a change in the POV of the section you've rearranged there, even if you think yourself it was a "simplification". Putting "Significant" at the head of that section when there are clearly contesting reports as to whether there is any genuine statistical significance and/or proper methodologies in many reports; you're stating claims as if they were facts, which is like in politics citing a political analysts/p.r. person's op-ed conclusions as if they were factual.  The main premise, if anything, of the sections involved, is that there is growing debate within the medical community as to whether the negative conclusions, and the negative hype, found in many (US) medical studies is relevant at all....there should not be a bald-faced assertion that conclusions of reports which other journals criticize as invalid should be presented as if fully factual and fully conclusive.  My point is that there appear to be efforts here to "prove" that steroids cause psychiatric problems; this is so widely contested in hte literature, even in cites already provided, that to see it presented as if it were the facts is really disturbing; the arrangement of contesting materials such as the NMEJ bit at a far distance from the top-billing giving negative claims is clearly POV.  Many edits and allegedly NPOV/WP:Weight/WP:RS based edits here remind me of "information washing" I've seen on political articles where clearly partisan editors are at work, pretending to objectivity but creating, either through wording or the arrangement of information, a representation of a decidedly POV agenda's version of the "facts".  I'm not a medical person as clearly many of you are, but I am sensible enough to know an agenda when I see one, and overblown misrepresentation of bad research as if it were God's own truth.  I'm grateful that Uomo Vitruviano and Xasodfuih appear to be addressing some of my concerns....the issue that is the title of this section remains in play, however; is there a similar listing on Cold medicines of all the sports organizations which have banned them, and as much detailed information on their harmful effects?  Which are much more real and evident to casual users than they are among steroid users.  BTW in MastCell's edit linked above, the supplantation of "recreational use" in there bothers me; that in and of itself is a POV term, as it makes it sound as if users are taking steroids for trivial reasons; I'm self-medicating due to old injuries and increasing decrepitude - is that "recreational" simply because doctors are too tight-assed to prescribe them to me legitimately, and woudl rather feed me painkillers, anti-depressants and worse, even though those have never helped me, and instead harmed me?  yes, this is personal experience, but not personal opinion; opinion is not experience, and the bias in American/Canadian medicine towards valuable therapeutic methods readily available in other countries is clearly evident to those of us who have had their doctors raise an eyebrow towards us based on prejudices, but they have no problem writing a scrip for dangerous psychoactives or diazepam or xanax?  "Recreational" use of diazepam and xanax et al is a much more serious problem than, say, an older male wanting testosterone or other steroids to increase appetite/libido, vitality, and (as in my case) even for the known analgesic effects for chronic joint-pain; that's not "recreational use", that's unsupervised use becasue of the institutioanl biases preventing access to therapy.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mastcell, I do not see anything from Rick Collins in the sources right now. The only one sourced 5 times that I see is from something else. Uomo vitruviano (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * . Referenced 5 times. Collins is the corresponding author. Skookum1, is there any way I can ask you to state your concerns about the article content in a more focused and concise fashion, without the overlay of general argumentation and commentary? It would make them easier to address. MastCell Talk 23:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Beaver et al. study full text
If anyone has access to the full text of, pleas fill in some details. The abstract is a bit vague. I'm supposed to have access through EBSCOhost, which has scans of Am J Public Health, but the page range in question gives 404, and even the index is f@cked in the 98(12) issue compared to ajhp.org: some articles are missing. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They've fixed their site, so I have the paper now. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bogus info at the end of history section
The 1996 NEJM paper by Bhasin et al. contradicts Geraline Lin. The 2001 paper (also by Bhasin) wasn't the first to show that testosterone was effective compared to placebo. Xasodfuih (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

About abuse in first sentence of Psychiatric effects section
First, abuse as used in that abstract refers to supraphysiological doses for enhancement purposes, which is well within drug abuse definition. Second, narrowing the statement about the psychiatric effects to abuse/supraphysiological puts it into the proper perspective, and it's an exact quote from the source. So, removing "abuse" there for POV reasons is not a good idea. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment about it being POV is because, in the eyes of those hostile to steroid use, any non-medically-supervised dose is "abuse"; there is no definition in the article of what cosnstitutes steroid abuse, as opposed to steroid use. In the user community, an abuser is someone who "never comes off" and is into mega-dosages (1500-2000mg/wk plus) or who takes steroids and doesn't train.  Use (vs. abuse) is planned cycles, careful eating, methodical training, and calculated dosages and non "recreational" use ("recreational" in the user community obviously has a rather different meaning than it does in the "persecuting community"...).  So if the term "steroid abuse" is going to be used, a definition must appear, perhaps the one from the abstract in question i.e. as it relates to those claims.  How did they define a steroid abuser, though?  Simply buying black market and taking it off the books, or are we talking about true abuse, i.e. mega-dosages, drugs-over-training etc.?  In my view, depending on what's in that source paper the abstract recounts, it may very well be that the term "abuse" is adequately defined; but if it's simply being used in a pejorative sense, i.e. as a way to refer to "illegal steroid use", then it's a POV flaw in that paper, and an example of the bad methods and skewed perspective the New England Journal of Medicine (and any number of user community critics, and also types like Rick Collins) have been pointing out for years.  Just because a source, no matter how "weighty" or "reliable" uses a subjective term/defintion doesn't mean it should be used blindly/uncritically.  "Supraphysiological doses for enhancement purposes" almost sums it up, but without knowing more about the individual athletes involved, the use of the term "abuse" (as opposed to "users taking high dosages" is still a POV judgement on unknown individuals, some of whom may be "responsible users" (or, if you wish, responsible abusers).  How is it, y'see, that enhancement purposes are somehow abuse.....silicon implants are likewise "suprraphysiolgoical doses for enhancement purposes" (ok, they're subcutaneous prosthetics, not doses exactly) - is that "silicone abuse"?  Pejorative language in use by trhe scientific community is part of the problem......Skookum1 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "recreational use" is preferable, to distinguish it from legitimate medical use. On the other hand, the term "abuse" is widely used in relevant reliable sources, so it could also be acceptable. I don't see a reason to employ euphemistic circumlocutions like "supraphysiologic doses for enhancement purposes" when reliable sources in the area universally do not. MastCell Talk 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Reliable sources" have shut their eyes, ears and doors to users for over three decades; no wonder they don't have adequate terminologies to describe different kinds of use with; they'd also be more reliable if they wouldnt' use POV language/subjective perspectives as they have been doing, far too much as - once again - the NMEJ has pointed out. "Recreational use" makes all kinds of suppositions about why people take steroids that are not all that easily definable; "abuse" as noted can mean someone taking a dose without working out, either someone who doesn't train at all, or a lifter taking a "maintenance" dose.  Taking large dosages so you can, say, get into squatting huge amounts of weight is only "recreation" in the most abstract use of the term; it's not like people are taking them for fun, which is the implication of "recreational".  They're not idlers, heavy users I mean.  Your choice of what is (to users) a POV term to replace a medical report's definition as-used in their study (though I'd like to know what they consider a "supraphysiologic dose") is rather typical of your emendations here; you're chosing your own "euphemism", except "eu-" as a prefix means "well, good, beneficial"; you're using it to malign....Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're here to advocate for a point of view which has been "ignored" by reliable sources, then it would be worthwhile reconsidering your choice of venue. Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy; it's not a place to Right Great Wrongs, or to "correct" the perceived mistakes of the scientific and medical communities. Vaguely name-dropping the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM, incidentally, not NMEJ) as if it supports your agenda isn't helpful, either - if you feel a specific item in NEJM is underrepresented or misused in the article, then explain yourself concisely and with reference to the source and the article content. MastCell Talk 02:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The simple fact that you placed quotation-marks around "ignored" is an indication of your own POV soapboxing here; you have an axe to grind, as evinced by the article's now-focus on negative aspects of steroid use and the various POV-flavoured edits you've made masked as "correctinos" and "simplifications", even presuming to claim "fixing hte POV". The soapbox hasnt' been mine, MastCell, you've been the one workign on the article....Skookum1 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I have to believe that the previous 18 threads on this talk page speak for themselves. MastCell Talk 05:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Greek infinitives
And now for a quibble of a different kind:
 * The word anabolic comes from the Greek anabole, "to build up", and the word androgenic from the Greek andros, "man" + genein'', "to produce"

My Ancient Greek is rusty, but it's what's used to create medical/scientific terms (not Modern Greek); and the usual usage for what we would invoke the infinitive for in English is not the infinitive -ein form but the first-person -(e)o form. Infinitives are used only in grammatical consturctions, i.e .sentences, not when parsing or naming verbs. I'm pretty sure "to produce" would normally be referred to as geno (with that o as an omega; I'm not sure whether the other is anaboleo or anabolo - the former I think, I don't have my dictionaries here to check.....I realize doctors and pharmacologists don't study Greek any more like they used to, but in older texts I think you'd find things parsed correctly...Skookum1 (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Two randomized controlled trials" are really just one
The article was claiming that "two" randomized controlled trials found no effect on mood. In fact, these are two publications describing the same, single randomized controlled trial ( and ). The authors managed to double-publish it - good for them - but it's misleading to imply that these were two independent studies reaching the same conclusion. In fact, it was one cohort of 43 men, and the authors reported in two different publications that they found no differences in mood. One might think it awfully coincidental, I suppose, that two separate trials both involved 43 men, were both conducted at Charles R. Drew by the exact same researchers, and were both published at the same time - but the authors actually make clear in the text that it's the same cohort. I've fixed this oversight. Parenthetically, the sources in this article need a very careful vetting in terms of how they are used in the text. MastCell Talk 01:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The studies were both already mentioned in the article. I just put them one next to the other before you realized they used the same subjects. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Elderly" vs "aging" re TRT
In looking over the article to see how much coverage there is on the burgeoning growth/popularity of testosterone replacement therapy, I did find a brief bit in the "Medical uses" section but nowhere near the same amount of screentime/bytage given to the anti-steroid info-war materials.....and as described, it's very limited in scope, i.e. "in elderly males". Ahem. While I realize that the term elderly is used in the sources cited, and most of the studies there do seem indeed to ahve focussed only on geriatric use (i.e. post-retirement age, presumably), there must be other resources out there on aging males, whether "middle aged" or "mature" (35/40-55 and 50-65 respectively, roughly), nearly all of whom would blanch at being called "elderly". Suffice to say the life-needs of truly elderly men are going to be very different from men in their '40s and '50s, who are the by-number largest beneficiaries of testosterone replacement therapy. This should be covered in considerably more detail, but as already noted this article has become much more an anti-steroid POV tract over the course of the last year and more and the apparent agenda has been to focus on negative/critical information, and to keep therapeutic appliations in the background, as a sort of side issue. I'm 53 and eligible for testosterone replacement therapy by default (though I'm Canadian and our medical system doesn't have in palce the "you get what you pay for" aspect of private clinics in the US) and I'd rather find it more reassuring if the studies done on testosterone replacement therapy didn't jsut focus on too-short teenagers and "elderly" men in need of a little pick-me-up. This is an area of this article that deserves a lot more attention, but of course it's inconvenient to the anti-steroid lobby to discuss it; a taboo subject in some ways; it's always interesting in the media to see an article on one page ranting about steroid use while in another column on the facing page, even the same page, there might be an artiicle on male hormone replacement therapy, with both articles concern the same substances, and with the latter article sometimes never even mentioning "testosterone" by name, and certainly NOT "anabolic steroids". whic are of course illegal and bad for you, unless your doctor prescribes them.....amazing what a scrip of paper can do huh? Anyway if all those studies truly are only concerning elderly men, then clearly the testosterone replacement therapy section is incomplete as men in their '40s, 50s and early 60s (even late '60s) aren't "elderly"; "aging" would be a better term, but the cites given don't appear to use it...Skookum1 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.andropause.com, which is a British anti-aging clinic, prescribing Andriol (testosterone decaonate I think...) has this to say about "roid rage"
 * ''Q: Doesn't testosterone make men aggressive and hostile?
 * ''A: Because of reports of the abuse of anabolic steroids by athletes, testosterone has suffered a negative public image. The perception is that testosterone is responsible for undesirable male traits such as aggression and hypersexuality. And some people have developed a fear that it will “bring out the beast in men”. These, of course, are myths. They stem from results of testosterone being used by men with normal testosterone levels who took testosterone at doses which were much higher than supplementation doses that are used in men going through andropause.

They used to have a more extensive bibliography on their site, I'll dig for it further; but note that second sentence about the fear that it will bring out hte beast etc...anyone here remember the study on sugar and hyperactivity in kids which showed it was the parents' anxiety that the kids would turn hyperactive if fed lots of sugar that turned the kids running wild, rather than the sugar itself. There's strong placebo effects with steroid use; you can feel "on" right after taking a shot of cyp, even though it won't have any noticeable physiological/systemic effect for a couple of weeks, and behave as if you're on, including lifting stronger and being hungrier. So, as I also remebmer in one of the studies I came across (about five years ago) there were studies suggesting that the belief in roid rage was what induced some men to behave that way, even though they were on placebos. Sort of a medical research version of the Heisenberg principle, the behaviour of the subject changes because it is being examined or, additionally, because it believes that little yellow pill it took will make it angry, when really it was just a sugar pill. I know of all kinds of guys who displayed roid rage-type behaviour "because they were on steroids" but really (as those in the know knew, including guys who sold them shit instead of "the shit") what they were taking wasn't even steroids; it's often belief that something will ahve a certain effect that brings about that effect, not the something itself. this, too, as i recall, was in that NMEJ article on in another journal of that stature, i.e. in challenging the various assumptions and distortions and faulty methodologies of anti-steroid researchers/crusaders.Skookum1 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And the last bit of the andropause.com Q/A also misses on the point that it's really men who already have psychological issues who simply display them more noticeably, perhaps again even because their confidence-to-be-an-asshole is bolstered by the idea that they're on drugs, so that excuses it. That's in some study somewhere, in fact (andropause.com's content hasnt' changed much in 7 years...). Also, because the drugs are illegal, men engaged in criminal activity or who have insecurity issues (say, from being bullied) are those more likely to come into contact with the drug than "stable" individuals; it's about who gets it, not what it does in purely biological terms. In the lifting community, the line goes "if somebody's already an asshole, they're going to be even more of an asshole" but also "if they're a nice guy, there's no real difference" (except they're quite likely to stand up for htemselves if insulted or aggressed upon....and that IS biological/biochemical). As with any drug, including ilquor and nicotine, it's about self-control, not some kind of horrendous "if you take this you'll kill your friends" hysterification.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The messages above are WP:TLDR to me, but is a recent metaanalysis of two dozen RCTs in this area. Should be useful in updating the article. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The war on doping moved here
I agree that IOC and friends banned lots of stuff, including many OTC meds, but why does this article have to delve into that? Xasodfuih (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it was already here (re the section I moved down to the illegal/doping section from the lead). When MastCell insisted on putting it in the lead, it seems only fair/NPOV to udnerscore that it's not JUST steroids which are banned, as that IS a very popular misconception. I'm Canadian - we had athletes disqualified for pseudoephedrine (Silken Laumann), THC (Alex Rebagliati) and another cold medicine that slips my mind re Alexandre Depatie - oh, and Ben Jonson's use of stanozololo of course. So fine, shorten the list but it shoudl be stated flat-out that the list does not include only steroids (it's nearly 200 items long by now but surprsingly t here's no wiki-list - see Talk:Doping at the Olympic Games and note that non-content of that page, which is a "shame list"/"dishonour roll" and another product, it seems, of the anti-steroid lobby's Wiki--WP:Soapbox.Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not do it at Doping at the Olympic Games instead of here? That article could use more attention: no sources for a year! Xasodfuih (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) "Insisted"? The fact that every sporting body bans steroids is a notable aspect which needs to be mentioned in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Ask 100 Wikipedia editors, and I suspect they will all agree. As usual, you've recast it in personal and agenda-driven terms. In any case, the legal status of caffeine is not relevant to this article, certainly not enough so to belong in the lead. Not to mention that the insertion is factually incorrect - not every sporting organization bans caffeine, for instance - it doesn't seem to appear on the NBA's list, at a very preliminary glance, and it is not prohibited but merely monitored by the World Anti-Doping Association. I sense that agendas are getting the better of facts here. MastCell Talk 02:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The lengthy list of sporting orgs was over-kill, but then so is a lot of the quesitonablly-presented and often mirsrepresented materials here. Indeed "agendas ARE getting the better of facts" in this article, and it's been going that way for a while under your careful ministrations.  If you were as assiduously interested in facts as you claim to be, you would have been looking for other points of view and explored what you know to be a controversial subject in NPOV fashion; the article read like, as i said in the edit comments, a POV tract, and it didn't look like that a year or two ago, though it did have its problems then.  I dropped by to comment on the lack of proper representation of other points of view than the roster of half-facts it's become, and even in the week I've been here you've made edits which are clearly POV in nature and/or misrepresentative of what's in the citations.  The way in which materials are assembled always has a POV impact; the same set of facts arranged in a different order and tweaking this word here and that word here can have incredibly POV consequences.  You accuse me of soapboxing but in truth it's you who have treated the article as your own soapbox; I'm seeking to correct that, and for that you're asking me to go away.  Fine, you're giving ME a headache; but I'm serving notice that - even though you seemingly observe talkpage guidelines - the more important matter is that you ahve a clearly-evident POV agenda without admitting to it; I, at least, am honest about where I'm coming from and don't presume to objectivity as a way to advance a political cause.  This page should have its POV template placed back on until the full scope of controversies relating to these drugs is properly addressed, including user community experiences and issues; if you were a truly NPOV editor you'd be out looking through websites and magazines trying to find those cites, and should have been doing that all along, instead of leaving it up to those with opposing views from your own to scramble to find balance for the highly negative content and design/structure you've worked so hard to create here.  It's YOUR SOAPBOX, not mine, that's the problem.  Until this article, again, fully addresses both sides of the controversy, and gives respectful treatment to cites "from the other side", it will always be flawed; and fails even as a scientific article for not properly and fairly addressing the social, political and legal controversies surrounding this class or drugs.  Respecting talkpage guidelines is one thing (and I have a 'disability' that prevents me from thinking in point-form or fifteen-word sentences so shouldn't be punished for it) but respecting wikipedia's principles of NPOV and fairness-in-content should be paramount.  But I will join the ranks of those who have given up arguing with your righteousness and ownership of this page; you can have your sandbox back, I'm taking my pail and shovel with me though.  But it's the lack of fair treatment of controversies such as this one, backed up by invocation of wiki guidelines by those in need of rules when logic fails, that will always bedevil pages such as this one.  There's LOTS of material out there takign issue with all the negative studies you seem so fond of finding; you just don't want to look for them, and don't want to be reminded taht they're out there.  This article should NOT have had an FA, and it should STILL have a POV template, and should keep it until there's more balance and less propaganda.Skookum1 (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL just saw this in your post: "you've recast it in personal and agenda-driven terms" Can you really look at yourself in the mirror and pretend taht's not what you've been doing to the article itself?  Recent correctins of your edits by other editors of here are caess in point.  Don't throw stones in glass houses.....I may be the bravest steroid user who ever weighed in here, but until you conscionably realize your own errors and biases this article does not deserve the FA status it attained and that status shoudl be up for review, if possible.  At the moemnt it's an IOC/DEA soapbox....oh, sorry, that's not quite true, because somewhere out there there's a report from the DEA and anotehr from the AMA and another from the Nat'l Assn of Police Chiefs calling for decriminalization of steroids and other victimless-crime substances.  Another report or three you're not interested in finding though, huh?  Your 'agenda-driven terms" and particular POV have had free rein over this article too long; I'm not enough of a medical-citation person; but I am an interested bystander; if I was, again, a Tibetan, and found an article where only the Chinese point of view ws present in an article about Tibetans, I'd be pretty upset and, unless at risk of imprisonment or a firing squad, would be pretty vocal.  In this case you've bascially threatened me with the Wiipedia rulebook, and no doubt have contemplated deleting my posts as a way to silence the objections to this page's POV-loaded content.  Fine, if you do so, you're proving my point....and removing the need for you to look into the differing points of view and the wider aspects of the social and political and legal issues which you don't think are as important as "keeping this article under control".  As I noted above somewhere, the civil rights issues which are of concern to the user community are very low on the agenda of various parties in the medical-information-war, as re these drugs as well as re THC and others.  And yes, I have emotional contexts in relation to the content here; I went t hrough too much pain because of medical negligence on teh one hand and restrictive/oppressive views towards the medicines that could have seen my vibrant and active instead of crippled and in pain...all because of a political agenda, not a truly medical one.  And I'm not alone; but you're not interested in any of that, you're only looking for ways to prove that steroids cause roid rage, evidently; and hve visibly downplayed criticism of the methodologies in the papers that you've obseesed with citing....I'm gone, except for one more edit to the page; you can have your way with t he page contents, but if any users ask me for information I'll say "well, you can go to the wikipedia page for cites but the page is written by the anti-steroid lobby and is full of their selection of "facts" and little else".Skookum1 (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Skookum1, this is an article talk page, please review WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOT, WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK guidelines, and please limit your commentary so that other editors can focus on article improvement. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to, but they refuse to consider the points and so I have to repeat myself, like a hammer on a bent nail. The far more serious violations of wikipedia guidelines here are not my usual prolixity, but rather that the page itself has become a WP:Soapbox for the anti-steroid POV Until this is addressed, and a wider net of citations is cast, and the focus on negative aspects and only critical/negative studies is ended by a more even-handed approach, and a less US-POV approach to the moral/political issues, this article is POV and is under WP:Own by certain editors.  I may not have the tersity that some require/desire on Wikipedia talkpages, but I do know a cooked goose when I see one.  This article is currently a POV tract, subject to POV editing/censuring on a regular basis; THAT is a more serious problem than any excess verbiage on my part.  And as i represent a point of view that editors to this page have either deliberately ignored or innocently considered "unweighty" is only happenstance; I repeat, the legal and social issues around this class of drugs are not served by this article, and are regularly silenced in this talkpage.  As again here.  "Not a forum" is often invoked by POV-agenda editors as a way to keep conflicting points of view with messing with their ownership of the article they've staked out; and I can point, precisely, to the edit where personal attacks against me began because I was making too much sense.  Fine, as noted elsewhere, I've had my say, but this article does not deserve teh FA it got and I will oppose any future re-nomination and if there's a way to move for its declassification as an FA, i wish I had the time and patience ot put up with Wiikipedia process; I've seen too much propaganda/political manoeuvring in other areas of wikipedia already, I know the game.  Those with teh most passive-aggressive tactics tend to win; it's wikiepdia's loss, and also a loss to truth, and fairness.  Civility is one thing; truth is another.  Apparently Wikipedia is set up to favour the former...if only Wikipedia admins were as concerned with content violations as they are with etiquette violations, this woudl be a better encyclopedia than it already infamously isn't.....I was the editor attacked here, and no other.Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR; again, please stop using the talk page as a soapbox, and focus on specific article improvements. This is not the place to tell us about your time and patience. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where'd you come from anyway? Wiki-Everest?  I'm leaving because it's too aggravating seeing lobbyists in clear control of a page with no sign of showing fairness; the next passage, written during edit conflict, addresses a deleted/censored section whcih sums up my problem with the contrary-to-guidelines POVification of this article.  As an example of the biases at play in the governance of this article, which are the reason for my exhaustive laying-out of the many POV issues this article continues to have, is the now-absence of a line which I'd pointed out which cast the negative POV content flanking it in a bad light:
 * ''In addition, many case studies have concluded anabolic steroids have little or no real effect on, mood or psychological changes.
 * And the citations in that case were the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology. I'd pointed out that it should have been in the introduction to the "Psychiatric effects" section to give balance to the then-very-POV claims made there, instead of being tucked at the end of the next subsection "Mood disorders and hypomania" or "Aggression and hypomania", whatever it was called at the time. There's been a lot of changes to that section since i raised that issue - but, curiously or really not curiously at all, that sentence and its citations have vanished; there's a lot of edits between then and now, I don't know who took it out or what their rationale was. But this is politics, and in politics. optics is everything, and in the absence of other explanations it seems pretty clear someone didn't want soething present which cast aspersions on the "facts" claimed by the studies that this citation makes it pretty clear were criticized as questionable in methodolgy and design; at teh very elast it should have been moved to the "Controversies" section; instead it's gone, and no doubt some kind of rationale that those citations didn't say quite what that sentence did, or that somehow it failed WP:Weight etc were reason to ditch it. maybe I'm wrong, it's still in there somehwere, but I can't find it, and if it IS buried deep in amidst other content, it shouldn't be; it shoudl be a caveat for teh whole medical section. Instead it's been ditched. That may suit you fine, and it's only wikiquette you're interested in; and that's the sad truth of Wikipedia, guidelines, procedures, and wiki-authority being regularly used to silence dissent, and profess little lnterest in teh actual issues that this article continues to fail to properly and fairly address. Xasodfuih, I don't think it was you, by the look of your other edits; I'm sure you know the ref I'm referring to/ its removal is suspect to me, given how it flies in the face of the POV agenda that's been governing/dominating the page.....is this debating the issues or the article? I can't see the difference, adn am always amused by people who claim they can. it's usually because they don't want those issues addressed.....in the article, or in the talkpage. I'm not the one guilty of WP:Soapbox here, I'll say it again; this article has become a soapbox. Punish me if your wish for speaking my mind; it's not me that's damaged the article with a notably POV agenda, and a decidedly non-global point of view, and which even scientific journals have noted is a field full of bad science and politically-motivated (and funded) research. It seems user:MastCell has made a complaint about me; fine, you can let him have his page back, it's been his all this time, and THAT is the problem...not me....Skookum1 (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Some "lore" about classes of steroids that's missing
I was thinking of adding some info sourced from Patrick Arnold articles, e.g.. PA doesn't publish in traditional journals, but is he generally considered (for better or for worse) an expert in AAS. He sources some of his ideas to old journlas from the 60's, but he's also conjecturing. Any opposition to this type of content as long it's properly attributed? Xasodfuih (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, it all depends on how it's presented and used. As a source of medical fact? No. As a rebuttal to more reliable sources? No. As the unreviewed ruminations of a man who engineers designer steroids to beat drug tests and who went to jail for his role in an illegal steroid-distribution ring? Maybe. As a side note, mesomorphosis.com is sort of a canonical example of a poor source for Wikipedia, especially for a current or aspiring featured article. What did you have in mind? MastCell Talk 06:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As an example of the kind of source we should be avoiding, perhaps the text could be proposed first on talk, to assure sources are used and reflected properly. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to use PA's writing for some chemical observations on various classes of AAS, but that won't be necessary anymore because I found a better source. There's a 26-page review paper on that topic due to appear in Steroids. The corrected proof it's already available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.steroids.2008.10.016. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

German soldiers
According to this article in Slate, the use on German soldiers was never proved. The wiki article asserts this to be true without a citation, by the way. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Slate is not a particularly good medical source: you added a citation tag to text that was cited to:
 * Taylor, William N. (1991). Macho Medicine: A History of the Anabolic Steroid Epidemic. McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0899506135.
 * Have you checked that source ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but it's likely rumor-level sourcing in that book. For instance this book (Pat Lenehan, "Anabolic Steroids: And Other Performance-enhancing Drugs", CRC Press) treats the idea as rumor, and it's just as reliable as a source as Taylor's book. Amazon has this on Lenehan's book: "The text recommended not only to the medical professions, but also to teachers and trainers in the education system. —Pediatric Endocrinology Reviews". Xasodfuih (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems about mechanism of musle grow in "Anabolic and androgenic effects" section
The are a number of unsourced statements there, and some are downright dubious. There are three studies used to support the fact that muscle growth happens, but those are RCTs and don't address mechanisms. That section probably shouldn't be discussing mechanisms to beging with, but a reference like would be more appropriate, except that it doesn't support some of the ideas advanced in that wiki article section. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-sequitur in the mechanism of action section
"Anabolic steroids such as methandrostenolone bind weakly to this receptor and instead directly affect protein synthesis or glycogenolysis.[64] On the other hand, steroids such as oxandrolone bind tightly to the receptor and act mostly on gene expression.[dubious – discuss]"

I think this is trying to give examples of AAS with different AR affinities. but the "instead ..." part is not covered by the source. What the source does support is that 17alpha-alkylated AAS bind weakly to AR, and that aromatase in the preoptic area is a good measure of central androgenic effect.

Also, this section needs to be expanded with more explanations for the different mechanisms in androgenic vs. anabolic effects of various AAS. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read the paper in question carefully, and while it supports the claim made on the article on methandrostenolone, which is "Methandrostenolone does not react strongly with the androgen receptor but still exerts its effects through the androgen receptor in vivo", it doesn't support what's said in this article. Here's what the paper says about methandrostenolone (transcribed):

"In general, 17alpha-methylated AAS compounds bind less avidly to androgen receptors and have been reported to be less behaviorally efficacious than T or nandrolone. However, at least one 17alpha-methylated compound, methandrostenolone, is capable of maintaining ejaculatory behavior in rats even though it binds poorly to the androgen receptor as demonstrated in the current study. The reason for this discrepancy is not known, but may relate to differences in neuronal availability, metabolism, or clearance of various 17alpha-methylated compounds. Moreover, it seems unlikely that affinity for the androgen receptor alone explains the behavioral efficacy of AAS compounds since it is generally believed that aromatization plays a role in this process as well. Thus, although DHT and nandrolone bind avidly to the androgen receptor, only nandrolone can be aromatized. This capacity for aromatization may explain, in part, why nandrolone can maintain ejaculatory behavior, whereas DHT cannot."

Nowhere does it say that methandrostenolone directly affect protein synthesis or glycogenolysis, and the general idea is that they don't know what's going besides the discrepancy between receptor binding and observed behavior. So I'm going to rewrite that part in the article to say what's known, or rather not know. But that has to wait because Wikipedia is working very slowly for me at the moment. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wanted: ratio of anabolic to androgenic effects
This is an important topic that's not discussed at all. It's discussed a bit in the SARM article. Xasodfuih (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this covered in sufficient detail now (2 paragraphs + a table). Xasodfuih (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Text removal from the lead
Why was the text: "The quality of such illegal drugs may be low, and contaminants may cause additional health risks. In countries where anabolic steroids are strictly regulated  ..." removed from the lead? (Perhaps the reasoning was lost in the excessive verbiage above.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems a filler disclaimer that holds about all black market/fake/counterfeit drugs. Not sure why it needs to be in the lede. Are there studies showing this problem is worse for AAS than for other trafficked drugs? I have plans to put more specific things in the lede. Stay tuned... Xasodfuih (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

civil rights issues
Since we're at it, I'm not sure what "...and corresponding civil rights issues" is supposed to mean in the lede. The section at the end, which discusses the US decriminalization movement, doesn't offer much insight. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added it, as you probably realize, and should have sought better wording but at the time I was making one or two last nuances before (supposedly) leaving. Inserting it was meant to raise an issue which needs exploring, and there's citations out there from the decrminalization movement, yes, but also from sports ethicists re Olympics/sport fed doping test, as well as things like invasion of privacy, freedom of choice - freedom of choice in health issues, particularly concerning anti-geriatric use (which is NOT "recreational") - and so on, which like your note in the section just above aren't limited only to steroids but are pretty much common to all illegal drugs.  Another aspect, I think explored somewhat by Rick Collins and certainly by George Spellwin, another writer on the "politics of steroids" and who is the proprietor of http://www.elitefitness.com, is the notion and somewhat obvious fact that it is criminalization that has led to the involvement of organized crime on the one hand - inherently a threat to the personal safety of users - and to the proliferation of harmful fakes and counterfeits; the idea that users should have the right to buy safe product - again a common theme in heroin legalization arguments, at least here in Canada (see Larry Campbell and Philip Owen) - and also that if someone is on a "heavy cycle" (abusive or not) and suddenly taken off it because of arrest or interruption of supply, much more serious health issues can arise from the "crash" resulting than from the regular side-effects; the anti-medical nature of policing....it's not the same as forcing withdrawals on a heroin or other opiate addict.  Spellwin FYI has spent time on the floor of his office on his face, violently handcuffed and verbally abused though offering no resistance, while police/DEA ransacked his protein stock looking for steroids - and finding none, but confiscating all his stock anyway; this for being a legalization crusader and public-information advocate/ i.e. an informed user is a safer user, which is a common theme in drug reform for all illegalized drugs.  I don't mean to go on about it, just to give an idea of the complxity of the human issues - the social issues, as you call them - that committed users are faced with; "the right of access to science" rather than having science taking part in a directed search for negative effects, rather than seeking ameilorative measures; or, as in the European/British/Aussie studies/critiques I'm still trying to remebmer where to look for, the search for cleaner methods/pharmaceuticals to achive the same ends; to derail steroids by coming up with something better, to give an option for reduced or negated side effects; this was why prohormones came along, and also why Mssteron came along and why BALCO happened; not just to evade tests, but to come up with better, less damaging products; it's why deca durabolin, in fact, was invented/marketed, likewise primobolan - as a product with less harmful effects than the raw testosterone esters....so, obviously, far too much to add to this article, and all needing citation/distillation but very much part of Cultural, social and political aspects of steroid use or Social and political issues of anabolic steroid use or ??, but not belonging in a medical/pharmacological article...."civil rights issues" seemed to sum it all up best.  "Freedom from persecution" (and defamation/discrimination/stigmatization, whether by doctors or socially....).  Sorry to be so long; you asked I answered; but take it out for now, unless maybe within Rick Collins' website there's a summary page on civil rights-type issues; there certainly is on sites like elitefitness or mesomorphosis or absolutelyhuge and many others.  Mail fraud and internet fraud are somewhat related things, i.e. people need protection from such things, and the easiest path to that is legalization, which takes the business out of the business, as it did with anti-alcohol Prohibition, but they're in the "a fool and his money" category, not quite the same thing as having yourself spied on, defamed, or your civil liberties stripped from you by prosecution because of a victimless "crime" of self-medication, or as in Spellwin's case, only the suspicion of one.  "Our bodies, our selves", effectively.....Happy New Year btw, it's 11:55 pm Dec 31 by my comp's clockSkookum1 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)