Collins Speaks on Steroid Laws and Perceptions

By Charles Geier-
E-mail: Charlie.geier@gmail.com




Attorney Rick Collins
Photo Credit: Bookmasters.com

Along with constituting varying levels of infraction within sports leagues, athletes who are caught using steroids illegally can face prosecution.

As steroids have moved from locker rooms to federal trials and U.S. Congressional hearings, it is important to address the legal ramifications of steroid abuse. In professional sports, athletes are paid salaries into the millions of dollars. As such, many can afford to have high-priced, high-powered lawyers defend them against steroid accusations.

Hofstra University alum Rick Collins describes himself as “the nation's foremost legal authority on performance enhancing substances.” Collins, of the New York law firm of Collins, McDonald & Gann spoke with The World of Sports and Steroids about the legal aspects of steroid use and abuse. Below are some of the questions and answers from that conversation


TWSS: What is your opinion about athletes who illegally use steroids?

Collins: Anyone who is using something which is prohibited by their sport is breaking the moral contract that they have with their organization. There is an aspect of lack of ethics and fraud . . . toward one’s fellow competitors.

TWSS: Do you feel that there is an implied code of ethics that is adopted when one chooses to participate in organized sports?

RC: I think there is certainly an implication in sports that one would conduct themselves in an honorable way. In many sports . . . the use of performance enhancing substances is [not only implied] but also explicitly prohibited.

TWSS: What about in sports where athletes are not breaking any rules by using performance enhancers like steroids?

RC: There is a moral gray area [in these instances].There are some sports where these substances are banned, but are not tested for. In those circumstances, if it is banned by the rules, notwithstanding if there is no effective testing; I believe it is breaking the rules. In sports where there are no rules, one way or the other, then it is much less clear whether one is breaking the contract one has with the sport and the other competitors.

There is a lot of ambiguity as to what a performance enhancer is -- it varies by sport.

TWSS: Do you think the ambiguity that you mentioned makes it harder to have a universal legislation, or set of rules, regarding steroid use in sports?

RC: There is a certain arbitrary nature to all of this, wherein substances like caffeine, which were considered performance-enhancing by certain anti-doping agencies, are no longer considered so.

TWSS: Is the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 [PDF document, see pages 9-12] still the most current legislation regarding steroids in the United States?

RC: No. Back in the late 80’s, Congress began to investigate the idea of athletic cheating by the use of banned substances, and hearings were held. Following the 1988 Olympics, sprinter Ben Johnson tested positive for a steroid and was stripped of his gold medals, which spurred an international doping furor, and resulted in the 1990 legislation which took steroids from prescription drugs . . . to Schedule III controlled substances.

That law remained in effect until the early part of this decade, when congressional hearings were again held, prompted by concerns over doping in sports. Congressmen wagged their fingers at various professional athletes, including baseball players…..

TWSS: This is the (Mark) McGwire, (Sammy) Sosa, (Rafael) Palmiero group?

RC: Sure, Jose Canseco … and when the Balco scandal erupted in 2003, similar to the Ben Johnson doping debacle, that lit a fire under the legislation that ultimately resulted in the anabolic steroid control act of 2004. This changed the definition of an anabolic steroid . . . and paved the way for a change in the sentencing and punishments in federal steroid cases as well.

TWSS: Are anabolic steroids still classified as Schedule III?

RC: They are.

TWSS: Do think the accusation, or admission of steroid use by professional athletes has an effect on the decisions of younger athletes as to whether or not to use steroids?

RC: To an extent, there is a tendency to look up to athletes as role models, because it is in the financial interest of professional sports. I am not sure that they ought to be looked up to as role models, and not only because of steroid use.

TWSS: But do you believe that young athletes feel that to be like these athletes, who have ascended to the heights of their sport, they may need to consider taking steroids?


The Item below contains the full response by Mr. Collins to the question above




RC:
People watching these athletes can see that they have achieved these great performances, and may attribute those performances partly or in total to steroids. However (the penalty for being caught using steroids) is a lasting legacy of shame. It is a double-edged sword.

Also, I find it interesting that while people may wring their hands, and decry the use of steroids, they do not seem to care enough that they stay out of the stands or [away] from in front of the television.




TWSS: Is there specific legislation regarding steroids in New York State?

RC: There is. New York classifies anabolic steroids as a Schedule II drug, and I believe it is the only state in the nation to do so. Steroids are treated as a controlled substance under state law, which means that possession of any amount of anabolic steroids without a valid prescription is considered a Class A misdemeanor, and the unlawful sale or possession with intent to sell is considered a Class D felony, punishable by up to seven years in prison.

TWSS: Are these guidelines the same for any amount of steroids?

RC: There are no cut-offs for amounts in New York state sentencing, unlike the federal guidelines. A Class D felony can consist of one vial or one thousand vials … although a judge would, or certainly, should, treat a high quantity differently than one vial.

TWSS: Would someone who sells steroids be looked at similarly to someone who sells crack -cocaine, in terms of sentencing?

RC: It really depends, and may vary state-to-state or judge-to-judge. As steroids are a controlled substance in most states, they fall into the same category as hard drugs. You have a classification which doesn’t distinguish, in most state courts as well as federally, steroids from other drugs. The amount of media attention which has been paid to steroids, including allegations of so-called testosterone fueled ‘’roid rage’, has made some judges look at steroids as a more alarming drug than crack and cocaine.

TWSS: As far as sentencing goes, is there any legal precedent for steroid cases, or a decision frequently cited?

RC: No. Looking back historically, there was very little interest in prosecuting steroid cases for most of the 1990’s. There is no real ‘seminal steroid case ruling’. Most steroid cases did not go to trial, and still don’t. Most are resolved by pleas -- which keep them from being included in published decisions.

TWSS: In your professional opinion, do steroids deserve to be classified in the same category as some other ‘street drugs’?

RC: In my opinion no. I have always considered steroids to be the ‘apple in the orange crate’ of controlled substances. They are fundamentally different from other controlled substances … unlike the other controlled substances; they are not taken for any psychoactive effect.

Steroids are taken over time to obtain a gradual physical transformation. Surprisingly enough, from a statistical standpoint, steroids are not used primarily as a performance enhancer.

Steroids are cosmetic or appearance enhancing drugs, as used by the overwhelming majority of people who use them non-medically. If one were to look at a pie chart of those who use steroids without a doctor’s prescription, one would find that the [athletes using steroids to improve performance] are a tiny fraction of the chart.

The vast majority of those using steroids non-medically, in my experience, having dealt with thousands of such users, are mature adult males, typically between the ages of 25-45 who are not using steroids for any competitive purpose. They use steroids to build muscle and burn fat, typically follow a strict diet and exercise regimen, do not smoke, and are generally health orient[ed] individuals.

While we can all agree the use of steroids without a doctor’s prescription and monitoring is a bad idea, and poses serious risks including health risks, the people who do so are not in any way similar to a crack addict or a meth addict.

TWSS: Do you feel that the legal classification of anabolic steroids affects the public perception of steroids?

RC: I think throwing anabolic steroids into the same crate as cocaine and heroin has further fueled public misunderstanding of them. The public has generally been kept in the dark about any beneficial effects of steroids, even medically. There are contexts which must be examined.

If steroids are used to cheat in sports, they are bad. If they are used by teenagers -- non-medically -- they are bad. However, if steroids are used medically for a patient, they can be phenomenal and life-saving.