verview: 

"Are cell phones safe?"

In 2008, the $148.1 billion wireless industry had over 270 million (70 KB)   subscribers in the US (87% of the population) who
used over 2.2 trillion minutes (142 KB)   of call time.

The radiation levels in cell phones, known as radio frequency (RF) radiation, are regulated by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC).  Although the FCC and many other US government agencies consider cell phones to be safe when used
properly, there is an accumulating amount of scientific research showing that cell phone use may cause cancer, disrupt
pacemakers, decrease fertility, damage DNA, and increase the risk of traffic accidents. 

According to the FCC and other government agencies, the majority of scientific studies indicate that there are no adverse
health effects from cell phone use. Some scientific studies have pointed out that claims of cell phone dangers, such as cancer
and driving risks, are exaggerated or based on faulty research.

We have researched pro and con arguments, facts, and studies that we could find about cell phone safety, and our
findings below should help readers think critically, educate themselves, and make informed decisions on cell phone
use. [Click here for expanded background]
Sources: Click here
Pro & Con Arguments: "Are cell phones safe?"

PRO Cell Phones CON Cell Phones

1. According to some studies, the use of a cell
phone can slightly decrease the risk of
developing the brain tumors glioma and
meningioma. [1]
1. Studies have shown an association between cell phone
use and the development of glioma, a type of brain
cancer.  According to one meta-study there is a
"consistent pattern" connecting cell phone use and the
increased risk of developing brain cancer. [12]

2. Cell phone radiation, like radio, TV, and visible
light radiation, is non-ionizing and cannot cause
cancer.  Ionizing radiation, including x-rays and
ultraviolet light, produces molecules called ions
that have either too many or too few electrons.  on the side of the head that the cell phone was held. [13]
Ions are known to damage DNA and cause
cancer.  Cell phone radiation lacks sufficient
energy to add or remove electrons from
molecules, and therefore it cannot ionize and
cause cancer. [2]
3. Cell phone radiation levels are tested and
certified by the manufacturer to meet the safe
levels established by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC).
Random tests of phones on the market by
FCC scientists further ensure that radiation
levels meet FCC guidelines. [3]
4. Cell phones do not cause cancer or other
health problems.  The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), US
Government Accountability Office (GAO),
and numerous other agencies have concluded
that there is no evidence in the scientific
2. Many studies have found that long term cell phone use
increases the risk of tumors of the head. According to
one Swedish study, the risk of acoustic neuroma (a
tumor formation on the nerve near the ear) was greater
3. Using a cell phone while driving, even with a hands-free
device, is unsafe and can make accidents more likely.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) estimates that driving distractions, including
the use of cell phones, contribute to 25% of all traffic
crashes. [14]
4. The radio frequency (RF) emissions from cell phones
have been shown to damage genetic material in blood
cells which is a common precursor to cancer. [15]
5. Driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as
driving drunk.  According to researchers at the University
of Utah people who drive while talking on their cell
phones are as impaired as drunk drivers with a blood
alcohol level of 0.08%. [16]
6. Children are at an increased risk for adverse health
effects from cell phone radiation.  One study has shown
that children under the age of eight absorb twice the
amount of radiation into their brain tissue as adults due
 literature proving that cell phones cause brain to their lower skull thickness. [17]
tumors or other health problems. [4] [5]
7. The radiofrequency radiation from cell phones can
5. If cell phones were causing cancer we could damage the DNA in sperm. Cell phone storage in front
pockets has been linked to poor fertility and an
expect a rise in the rate of brain and other increased chance of miscarriage and childhood cancer.
related cancers.  However, according to the According to the Cleveland Clinic Center for
National Cancer Institute, there has been no Reproductive medicine, semen quality "tended to
increase in the incidence of brain or other decline as daily cell phone use increased." [18] [19]
nervous system cancers between the years
1987 and 2005 despite the fact that cell 8. Long term cell phone use can increase the likelihood of
being hospitalized for migraines and vertigo by 10-20%.
phone use has dramatically increased during [20]
those same years. [6]
9. The use of cellphones by people with pacemakers is
6. Many activities that distract drivers are much unsafe.  According to the US Food and Drug
more dangerous than talking on a phone.  Administration (FDA), radiofrequency energy from cell
phones can create electromagnetic interference (EMI)
Research shows that cell phone use is a factor
that may disrupt the functioning of pacemakers,
in less than 1% of accidents and that especially if the cell phone is placed close to the
adjusting the radio or CD player, talking with heart. [21] 
passengers, or eating, and drinking while
driving are all responsible for more accidents 10. Lithium-ion batteries, used in most cell phones, can
than cell phones. [7] [8]   explode from exposure to high heat, or from
overcharging a faulty counterfeit battery. These
explosions have caused injuries and started fires. [22]
7. Studies correlating head tumors and cell
phone use show inconsistent results, may
have been tainted by recall bias (participants
not remembering how often and for how long
they have used their cell phones), and have
not been replicated.  Most studies have not
found any association between cell phone use
and the development of head tumors. [9]

8. Cell phones increase personal safety by

providing an easy means of contacting
others during an emergency.  According to an
American Association of Retired Persons
(AARP) poll, 56% of people over the age of
65 cite safety as a reason they have a cell
phone. [10]

9. Despite popular belief, it is safe for persons

with a pacemaker to use a cell phone. 
According to the American Heart
Association, the radiofrequency emissions
(RF) of cell phones available in the United
States do not affect pacemaker functioning
during normal use. [11]  

Sources: click here

Did You Know?

1. Cordless home phones, television, radio, laptops, and palm held computers all produce radiofrequency (RF) radiation, the same
type of radiation that is produced by cell phones.  

2. The radiation emitted by a cell phone can penetrate 4 - 6 cm (1.6 - 2.4 in) into the human brain (215 KB)  . The amount of RF
absorbed into the head can be reduced by using a wired ear-piece (not a Bluetooth) rather than placing the phone against the ear.

3. A 2002 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (8 MB)   (released in 2009 under a
Freedom of Information Act request) concluded that using a hands free device (Bluetooth, headset,
etc.) does not reduce distraction or make cell phone use safer while driving.  As of Sep. 2009, six states had
passed laws requiring the use of a hands free device while driving.

4. On July 24, 2008, a warning was issued (1 MB)   by the Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute to faculty and
staff to decrease cell phone exposure due to a possible connection between cell phone radiation and brain tumors. The warning
prompted a congressional hearing on cell phone use and tumors (19 KB)  .

Background: "Are cell phones safe?"

On Apr. 3, 1973, the world's first portable cell phone, the DynaTAC (also known as "the brick"), was introduced in
the US by Dr. Martin Cooper at Motorola.  The phone was a foot long, weighed two pounds, and cost $4,000. It
was not until 1983 that the first commercial cell phone system was launched in Chicago by Ameritech Mobile
Communications.

On Feb. 26, 1985, the first safety guidelines (127 KB)   for radio frequency (RF) radiation - the type of radiation used
by cell phones, cordless phones, radio, television, microwaves and wi-fi to transmit their signals - were enacted by
the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ensure that people were not exposed to dangerous "thermal
effects" - levels of RF that could heat human flesh to harmful levels.

RF wavelengths, unlike sound waves and the waves in the ocean, are part of the electromagnetic spectrum -
meaning they move via interaction between their electric and magnetic fields.  RF waves move at the speed of light
(186,282 miles/second) and can penetrate solid objects such as buildings.

The RF radiation from cell phones is contained in the low end (non-ionizing portion) of the broader electromagnetic
spectrum just above radio and television RF and just below microwave RF.  At high exposure levels non-ionizing
radiation can produce a thermal or heating effect (this is how microwaves heat food). Exposure to the high end
(ionizing) radiation of X-rays and Gamma rays is known to cause cancer.  Whether or not exposure to the low end
(non-ionizing) spectrum causes cancer remains debated.

In 1993 concern over a possible link between brain tumors and cell phone use became a major public
issue when CNN's Larry King Live show reported on a husband who had sued a cell phone manufacturer in a
Florida US District Court for causing his wife's brain tumor (the case was dismissed in 1995).

On Aug. 7, 1996, the FCC exanded its guidelines on RF exposure (90 KB)   with input from the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The guidelines created a
measure of the rate that body tissue absorbs RF energy during cell phone use called the specific absorption rate
(SAR).  The SAR for cell phone radiation was set at a maximum of 1.6 watts of energy absorbed per kilogram of
body weight per cell phone call that averages 30 minutes and the cell phone is held at the ear.  SAR levels for cell
phones sold in the US range from a low of .109 watts to the maximum of 1.6 watts. Holding a cell phone away from
the body while using a wired earpiece or speaker phone lowers the amount of radiation absorbed, and text
messaging, rather than talking, further lowers that amount.

The FDA and the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry (CTIA) signed a
research agreement in 2000 to further investigate the health effects of cell phones.  They concluded that "no
association was found between exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones and adverse health
effects."

The safety concerns over cell phone radiation continued into 2001 when the US Government Accountability Office
(GAO) was commissioned by Senators Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) to compile a
report on the safety of cell phones. The final GAO report, "Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone
Health Issues (2.5 MB)  ," issued in May of 2001 concluded that there is no scientific evidence proving that cell
phone radiation has any "adverse health effects" but that more research on the topic was needed.

The $24 million multi-national study known as INTERPHONE (19 KB)   was initiated by the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2001, and its results are expected to be released "relatively quick" according to a
May 2009 press release (as of Sep. 23, 2009 the results have not been released).  It is expected to provide the most
definitive answer to date as to whether or not cell phones cause brain tumors.

Six states have taken legislative action to lessen the possible safety hazards of talking on a cell phone while
driving. New York(96 KB)   was first in 2001.  Five other states (Connecticut [2005] (66 KB)  , California [2007] (146
KB)  , New Jersey [2007] (12 KB)  , Washington [2007] (112 KB)   and Oregon [2009] (27 KB)  ) have since passed
laws prohibiting drivers from talking on handheld cell phones.

In July of 2008 Dr. Ronald Herberman, Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, issued a warning to hospital faculty and
staff (1 MB)   to decrease direct cell phone exposure to the head and body due to a possible connection between cell phone radiation and
brain tumors.  Due to this warning, the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy held a hearing on the possible link between cell phone
use and tumors (19 KB)   in Sep. 2008 to learn more about the possible risks.

In 2008, the $148.1 billion wireless industry had over 270 million (70 KB)   subscribers in the US (87% of the population) who
used over 2.2 trillion minutes (142 KB)   of call time.

In 2009, the debate surrounding the safety of cell phone use while driving was re-ignited when a Freedom of
Information Act request, filed by the Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen, revealed a 2002 report by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (8 MB)   that concluded that using a hands free device does not
lessen "cognitive distraction" or make cell phone use safer while driving. The report had not been previously
released.

Should performance enhancing drugs (such as steroids) be accepted

in sports?
General Reference (not clearly pro or con)
Sharon Ryan, PhD, Chair of the Department of Philosophy at West Virginia University, stated the
following in an Aug. 2008 article titled "What's So Bad About Performance Enhancing Drugs?,"
published in Philosophy and Football:
"It would be interesting to know the effects of PEDs under legalized and carefully monitored
conditions. Athletes are buying drugs from people like Victor Conte, who has no pharmaceutical
or sports medicine credentials, and they are shooting up in locker room stalls. If PEDs were
used properly and developed in reputable labs by top scientists, perhaps the risks of PEDs
would be much lower. Perhaps PEDs could be developed that have very little risk and enormous
benefits. These are serious questions for the scientists to figure out..."

Aug. 2008 - Sharon Ryan, PhD 

Caroline K. Hatton, PhD, Former Associate Director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory,
stated the following in her 2008 book Night Team:
"An ongoing debate simmers about whether performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in
sports. Some say they should be, especially in a pill-popping, tummy-tucking society where it is
acceptable to use medicine to make healthy people better. Others say that sports would become
a competition between pharmacologists, that giving drug use a free rein would open the door to
serious toxicity when risk-taking athletes push the envelope, and that athletes would, more than
ever, feel coerced to dope in order to remain competitive. In a curious dichotomy, perhaps the
only area where there is no doubt or controversy is when it comes to young people: these drugs,
especially anabolic steroids, are unanimously considered harmful to the young."

2008 - Caroline K. Hatton, PhD 

Keith Burgess-Jackson, JD, PhD, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas
at Arlington, wrote the following in a Dec. 5, 2004 article titled "Performance-Enhancing Drugs,"
posted on his website www.analphilosopher.com:
"Part of me--the libertarian part--says that people should be able to use whatever substances
they want when they compete. Those who don't want to risk their lives or health should take up
another line of work. People who don't want to watch supercharged athletes can find another
form of entertainment. But another part of me thinks there should be restrictions on what
athletes can consume. The restrictions would be justified on both paternalistic and fairness
grounds."

Dec. 5, 2004 - Keith Burgess-Jackson, JD, PhD 

David Epstein, Writer-reporter for Sports Illustrated, wrote the following in his Aug. 1, 2006
article titled "Better Cycling Through Chemistry," published in the Guardian:

"Do we want to see the highest possible achievements by men and women who do not use
performance-enhancing drugs? If so, what counts as performance-enhancing? Just this month,
the World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA] discussed banning oxygen tents that endurance-seeking
athletes sleep in in order to simulate a high altitude environment. Apparently WADA really does
want normal men and women. By 'normal,' I mean they have armies of scientists, nutritionists,
coaches, and physical therapists choreographing their every move, but no tents or steroids. 

If sports fans really want to see achievement that they can relate to, perhaps athletes should be
restricted to diets of pizza and beer, and be required to have 40-hour-a-week desk jobs."

Aug. 1, 2006 - David Epstein 

Jasmin Guénette, MA, Academic Programs Director of the Institute for Humane Studies at
George Mason University, wrote the following in his June 18, 2006 article titled "In Defence of
Steroids," published in the webszine Le Québécois Libre:

"Now, should baseball-or any other professional league-ban performance-enhancing drugs?

The answer is yes, if they want to...

Private companies and associations should be able to define what rules will govern them without
any intervention from politicians. A private association has no obligation to accept me if I don't
agree to their rules, just as I should not be forced to join any associations I don't think are fit for
me. This logic should also prevail when it comes to the sale and use of steroids. If a group of
people, let's say Bodybuilders and Co., think performance-enhancing drugs are OK, they should
be left alone if they don't force anybody to follow their path. Sadly, this is not how things are
done. Today, the debate about steroid use is widely dominated by morally superior do-gooders
who believe it's not right for an athlete to use products that help him or her perform better...

I am not suggesting that people should take steroids or use other drugs. But just as I don't want
other people choosing what's right for me, I don't want to choose what's right for others. This is
what respect is all about; not forcing other people to think like you, to act like you and to obey
laws simply because vote-seeking politicians and their allies think some products should be
illegal."

June 18, 2006 - Jasmin Guénette, MA 

Verner Møller, PhD, Professor and Research Director at the Center for Sport at the University of
Aarhus in Denmark, wrote the following in his 2008 book The Doping Devil:

"It has been asserted that sport would lose its power to fascinate and its popularity if medically
hazardous doping practices were not eliminated. But panicked pronouncements of this kind
stand in direct contradiction to the attitude taken toward other forms of culture with which sport
can be compared.

Consider, for example, how we look on with equanimity as ballet dancers submit their bodies to
training regimens that turn some of them into invalids...

Or think about how we continue to appreciate the music of Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison and Janis
Joplin, despite the fact that all of them died as a consequence of alcohol and drug abuse before
they turned thirty. Who really believes that someone who has learned to appreciate their music
might suddenly wake up one day and say it wasn't worth listening to, because he had just found
out that this music was inspired by illicit drugs?" 

2008 - Verner Møller, PhD 

Should performance enhancing drugs (such as

steroids) be accepted in sports?
PRO (yes)
Bennett Foddy, DPhil, Harold T. Shapiro
Postdoctoral Fellowship in Bioethics in the
University Center for Human Values at
Princeton University, and Julian Savulescu,
PhD, Professor and Uehiro Chair in Practical
Ethics at the University of Oxford, wrote the
following in their June 2007 chapter titled
"Ethics of Performance Enhancement in Sport:
Drugs and Gene Doping," published
in Principle of Health Care Ethics:
"It would be much easier to eliminate the anti-
doping rules than to eliminate doping. The
current policy against doping has proved
expensive and difficult to police. In the near
future it may become impossible to police...
Because doping is illegal, the pressure is to
make performance enhancers undetectable,
rather than safe. Performance enhancers are
produced or bought on the black market and
administered in a clandestine, uncontrolled
way with no monitoring of the athlete's health.
Allowing the use of performance enhancers
would make sport safer as there would be less
pressure on athletes to take unsafe enhancers
and a pressure to develop new safe
performance enhancers and to make existing
enhancers more effective at safe dosages...
The removal of doping controls would have
major benefits: less cheating, increased
solidarity and respect between athletes, more
focus on sport and not on rules."
June 2007 - Bennett Foddy, DPhil  Sports that revere records and historical
Julian Savulescu, PhD  comparisons (think of baseball and home
Adrianne Blue, Senior Lecturer in International
Journalism in the Department of Journalism
and Publishing at City University London,
stated the following in her Aug. 14, 2006 article
"It's the Real Dope," published in the New
Statesman:
"Today, sport's dirty little secret is drugs, and it
is high time we made them legal.
Performance-enhancing drugs may not be
desirable, but they are here to stay. What we
can do away with is the hypocrisy.
Insiders know that many - perhaps most - top
players in all sports take drugs to train harder
and feel no pain during play. The trainers,
CON (no)
Richard Callicott, former Chief Executive of UK
Sport, stated in a Nov. 1, 2003 article titled
"Yes or No? Question of the Week: Drugs in
Sport," published in The Times (London):
"As the national anti-doping agency we will
never accept this. Performance-enhancing
drugs are not only prohibited because they
violate the spirit of sport but because they can
damage the health of athletes. The idea of
allowing them in sport could lead to a situation
whereby sportsmen and women are used as
human guinea pigs for a constant flow of new,
unregulated substances. The long-term effects
don't bear thinking about."
Nov. 1, 2003 - Richard Callicott 
Thomas H. Murray, PhD, President of the
Hastings Center, wrote the following in his
2008 chapter titled "Sports Enhancement"
in From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic:
The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book
for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns,
published by The Hastings Center:
"There are several reasons to ban
performance-enhancing drugs: respect for the
rules of sports, recognition that natural talents
and their perfection are the point of sports, and
the prospect of an 'arms race' in athletic
performance...
runs) would become unmoored by drug-aided
athletes obliterating old standards. Athletes,
caught in the sport arms race, would be
pressed to take more and more drugs, in ever
wilder combinations and at increasingly higher
doses...
The drug race in sport has the potential to
create a slow-motion public health
catastrophe. Finally, we may lose whatever is
most graceful, beautiful, and admirable about
sport..." 
2008 - Thomas H. Murray, PhD 
Joe Lindsey, contributing writer
for Bicycling magazine, wrote in an Oct. 23,

sports doctors, nutritionists, physiotherapists
and managers of the big names make sure
banned substances are taken at the safest
and most efficient levels, and when they can,
the governing bodies look the other way...
The main effect of banning such substances
has been to turn performers and their coaches
into liars and cheats. We should legalise
performance-enhancing drugs so that they can
be regulated and athletes on the way up -
whose entourages do not yet include savvy
physiotherapists and doctors - don't overdose
and do themselves damage."
Aug. 14, 2006 - Adrianne Blue 
Lincoln Allison, DLitt, Founding Director of
Warwick University's Centre for the Study of
Sport in Society, wrote the following in an Aug.
9, 2004 article titled "Faster, Stronger, Higher,"
published in the Guardian:
"A sportsman or woman who seeks an
advantage from drugs just moves up to the
level appropriate to his or her underlying
ability...
There are no drugs to enhance the human
characteristics of judgment and leadership. If
there were, would we not want the prime
minister to take them? And if there were drugs
for hand-eye coordination, would we not pay
more to see a performer who had taken them
than one who had not?...
In general, the risk to health from
performance-enhancing drugs is considerably
less than that from tobacco or alcohol, and we
ought not to apply paternalistic moral
assumptions to sport that we are not prepared
to apply to the rest of life."
Aug. 9, 2004 - Lincoln Allison, DLitt 
Norman Fost, MD, MPH, Professor and
Director of the Medical Ethics Program at the
University of Wisconsin, made the following
statement in a Dec. 18, 2006 interview
published by Scout.com (a Fox Sports News
website) titled "Baseball Men - The Skeptic":
"We allow people to do far more dangerous
2008 email to ProCon.org:
[T]he school of thought that advocates
legalizing doping, or holds that an athlete has
the right to choose whether to endanger his
health, is ignoring a completely separate
ethical and legal question: should people have
the right to use a substance that is not legal for
human use under ANY circumstances? The
answer cannot be anything other than 'No.'
And if that is the case, then we have drawn a
line where some substances are OK to take,
and others are not. And if that's the case, then
what's the difference, philosophically, in where
that line is drawn - that more or less
substances are deemed banned? The only
difference is a world where the semblance of
fair play remains, where sports remain the end
product of hard work, determination and talent,
and a world where sports becomes merely
pharmaceutically fueled entertainment. We
can choose that world if we like, but with the
knowledge that the cost is sports as
inspirational and transformative, indicative of
the best traits of us as people. Choose that
road, and sport is no longer sport, no more
noble an endeavor than, say, 'The
Apprentice.'"
Oct. 23, 2008 - Joe Lindsey 
Gary Wadler, MD, Chairman of the World Anti-
Doping Agency's (WADA) Prohibited List and
Methods Sub-Committee, stated the following
in an Oct. 20, 1999 prepared statement for the
hearing on "Effects of Performance Enhancing
Drugs on the Health of Athletes and Athletic
Competition," before the US Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation:
"Doping is a matter of ethics, which affects not
only Olympic athletes but also youth, high
school, college and professional athletes. The
fact is doping threatens to undermine the
ethical and physical well being of children...
We cannot allow performance-enhancing
drugs to undermine the Olympic Movement.
We cannot allow another generation of young
people to approach adulthood with a
pervading sense of cynicism, and a belief in
the power of chemical manipulation rather
than the power of character...
New doping control measures must be rooted
in sport ethics and values; they must flow from
things than play football or baseball while
using steroids. We allow people to bungee-
jump, to ski on advanced slopes, to cliff dive.
To eat marbled meat or ice cream pie every
day if they want. I don't think we want to go
down a path in which we restrict and even
criminalize behaviors just because they have
health risks. And steroids are so low on the list
of drugs or diets that cause serious harm I
don't understand why we would start there."
Dec. 18, 2006 - Norman Fost, MD, MPH  Robert Housman, JD, Partner at Book Hill
Lewis Kurlantzick, LLB, Zephaniah Swift
Professor of Law at the University of
Connecticut School of Law, wrote in his Apr.
12, 2006 article titled "Is There a Steroids
Problem? The Problematic Character of the
Case for Regulation," published in the New
England Law Review:
"Athletes are in a position to make a decision
about what behavior is in their best interest, to
weigh the risks and benefits according to their
own values. And a paternalistic rule that
attempts to prevent the athlete from harming
himself runs counter to the important values of
independence and personal choice. Moreover,
it is likely that the feared harm is neither life-
threatening nor irreversible. Presumably,
under this health rationale, if performance is
enhanced by substances that cause neither
short-term nor long-term harm to the athlete,
these substances should not be banned."
Apr. 12, 2006 - Lewis Kurlantzick, LLB 
Kenan Malik, Senior Visiting Fellow at the
Department of Political, International and
Policy Studies at the University of Surrey and
presenter of the British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC) Radio 4 show Analysis,
stated during a Jan. 4, 2004Analysis episode
titled "Tainted Gold":
"But scientists already help athletes win.
Cyclist Chris Boardman won his Olympic Gold
in Barcelona in 1992 sitting on a specially-
engineered machine. In the Rugby World Cup,
England players wore body-hugging shirts
specifically designed to help evade tackles. In
neither case did the scientific work in the labs
devalue the sporting triumph in the stadium.
Why view drug use differently?
athlete agreement; they must respect athletes'
rights to privacy; and they must be
independently, accountably and fairly
administered..."
Oct. 20, 1999 - Gary I. Wadler, MD 
Partners consulting firm, and former Assistant
Director for Strategic Planning in the White
House Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP), in his Apr. 6, 2005 Washington
Times article "Steroids and the Feds," wrote:
"Performance-enhancing drugs seriously risk
the health and safety of users, especially
young people. The risks of steroid use include:
elevated cholesterol levels, increased
incidence of heart disease, addiction, serious
liver damage, sex-trait changes and often
severe behavioral changes, particularly
heightened aggressiveness. No victory is
worth the damage these substances do to a
person - just ask the parents who told the
hearing their children committed suicide
because of steroid use. Stars who use these
dangerous drugs set a deadly example for
children."
Apr. 6, 2005 - Robert Housman, JD 
Gregory Ioannidis, PhD, LLB, LLM, Barrister
and Lecturer in Law and Research Associate
in Sport Law at the University of Buckingham,
wrote in his Nov. 2003 article "Legal
Regulation of Doping in Sport: The Case for
Prosecution," published in the legal
journal Obiter:
"The strongest justification, perhaps, on the
ban on drugs and furthermore, on the
application of criminal law on doping
infractions, relates to the issues of health.
Many commentators have argued that
interference with the individual's liberty is
unacceptable and, therefore, the ban on drugs
cannot be justified. However, this argument
cannot rebut the fact that doping is both
extremely dangerous and destructive. In
particular, the 'individual liberty' argument fails
to take into account the coercive nature of
doping that is at its most insidious at the State
level."
It's difficult, in any case, for proponents of the
current drugs policy to assume the moral high
ground. Not only are the arguments for a
draconian drugs regime flawed, but the
policies often lead to dubious consequences.
Is depriving a 16-year Romanian gymnast of
her life's dream because she took a couple of
Nurofen tablets really to stand on principle?"
Jan. 4, 2004 - Kenan Malik  Enhancing Drugs in Sport? A Rebuttal to the
Sam Shuster, PhD, Emeritus Professor of
Dermatology at Newcastle University, wrote in
his Aug. 4, 2006 article titled "There's No Proof
That Sports Drugs Enhance Performance,"
published in the Guardian:
"The ethical argument...disappears on
examination. Sport is for enjoyment and
competition, and usually aims to improve; but
what is the difference between increasing skill
and performance by training, and taking
drugs?...
What is more 'fair' - the use of a team of sports
specialists or a simple pill? What is the
difference between training at altitude and
taking erythropoietin to achieve a similar
effect? And why are the strips of adhesive
plaster on the nose - absurdly believed to
increase oxygen intake - more acceptable than
a drug which reduces airway resistance?"
Aug. 4, 2006 - Sam Shuster, PhD 
Carl Thomen, PhD candidate in Sports
Philosophy at the University of
Gloucestershire, wrote the following in a Feb.
28, 2009 email to ProCon.org:
"With reference to performance-enhancing
drugs, if we have discarded the useless 'unfair
advantage' argument because of an unbiased
look at the inherently technologically unfair
nature of professional sport, we are really only
left with worries about harm to athletes. Please
note: harm to athletes, not breast
augmentation patients, Viagra users or the
spaced-out Ritalin generation. We don't worry
when the Isle of Man TT race or the Vendee
Globe claims another life, or when that boxer
on the news gets Alzheimer's. And when
Nov. 2003 - Gregory Ioannidis, LLM, PhD 
Timothy Noakes, MD, DSc, Discovery Health
Professor of Exercise and Sports Science at
the University of Cape Town, wrote in his Dec.
2006 article "Should We Allow Performance-
Article by Savulescu and Colleagues,"
published in the International Journal of Sports
Science and Coaching:
"Sport is meant to be about honesty - what you
see is all there is. Doping is part of an evil
influence extending to match fixing and
gambling that has always been a (hidden) part
of professional sport, but which will likely
ultimately destroy it. If we do not attempt to
control this evil triad, professional sport finally
distances itself from the mystical endeavour it
is meant to be. Without the illusion that
professional athletes are somewhat like
ourselves, just better, their profession has no
appeal. Rather, sport becomes no different
from any other commercially driven activity."
Aug. 26, 2004 - Timothy Noakes, MD, DSc 
Russell Meldrum, MD, Associate Professor of
Orthopaedic Surgery at Indiana University
School of Medicine, wrote the following in his
Spring 2002 article titled "Drug Use by College
Athletes: Is Random Testing an Effective
Deterrent?," published in Sport Journal:
"Drug use is a serious concern, not only for the
concepts of integrity and fair play in
competitive sports, but because of the health
threats to the athletes. Certainly drug testing
programs should continue with increasing
numbers of athletes being tested and
increasing penalties for detection, since these
are most likely means of deterrence. Drug
education programs must also continue in a
further attempt to curtail the use of illegal
performance-enhancing drugs by empowering
the young athlete with the information and
skills to make responsible and healthy
decisions."
Spring 2002 - Russell Meldrum, MD 
Paul C. McCaffrey, JD, Law Associate at K&L

innocent Canadian soldiers are shot by
American pilots buzzing on Army-sanctioned
ephedrine, we're still convinced that sport is
somehow exempt from the influence of the
natural human desire for constant
improvement.
The rationalization is that it is okay for pilots to
take performance-enhancing drugs, for
musicians to use Beta blockers and for our
children to swallow Ritalin because
performance is paramount. But where are our
health concerns now? Perversely, we deny the
'performance is paramount' principle in
professional sport while citing health concerns
about performance-enhancing drugs. We want
better performances from our sports heroes all
the time, but demonize the methods used to
produce such performances while hiding
behind concerns for health that are not
commensurate with our normal paternalistic
attitudes."
Feb. 28, 2009 - Carl Thomen  Should Accept Performance-Enhancing Drugs
Richard Boock, author and sports journalist,
wrote the following in his July 31, 2008 article
titled "Drug Testing Just Dopey," published in
the Sunday Star Times:
"It's unclear why we continue to beat ourselves
up over performance-enhancing drugs, it's not
as if international sport has a great tradition of
being pure and clean. Up until 1968 it was a
free-for-all; over the next 20 years it was only
moderately restricted, and even now the
poachers seem light years ahead of the game-
keepers"
July 31, 2008 - Richard Boock  Because they're all dead."
Gary Roberts, JD, Editor-in-chief of The Sports
Lawyer, submitted the following response in a
Dec. 13, 2004 debate entry titled "What Should
Baseball Do About Drugs," published by Legal
Affairs:
"Home runs are hit only because the player
has great skill at swinging a bat at a little ball
coming at him at over 90 mph. Most of the
folks reading this could take steroids all their
lives and still not be able to hit that little ball.
Gates LLP, wrote the following in his 2006
article titled "Playing Fair: Why the United
States Anti-Doping Agency's Performance-
Enhanced Adjudications Should Be Treated as
State Action," printed in the Washington
University Journal of Law and Policy:
"The illicit use of performance-enhancing
substances -- commonly referred to as 'doping'
-- is irreconcilable with the spirit of sport.
The concept of fair play is central to both the
'spirit of sport' and due process. The use of
illicit substances to enhance athletic
performance is offensive to this concept."
2006 - Paul C. McCaffrey, JD 
George Michael, creator and former host
of Sports Machine on NBC, stated the
following in the Jan. 15, 2007 debate titled "We
in Competitive Sports," aired on National
Public Radio (NPR):
"Baseball owners paid $370 million to players
who were not able to play. Most of them
according to Dr. Andrews, were related to their
use of anabolic steroids. And you now want to
admit--legalize it, and govern it?...
Here's the bottom line. I am not willing to pay
the price for legalizing steroids and
performance-enhancing drugs, because I've
seen too often what it can do. I don't want to
go to the cemetery and tell all the athletes who
are dead there, hey guys, soon you'll have a
lot more of your friends coming, because we're
going to legalize this stuff. The only good news
out of it? They wouldn't hear the news.
Jan. 15, 2007 - George Michael 
Barack Obama, JD, US Senator (D-IL) at the
time of the quote, in his Oct. 2, 2008 interview
on ESPN's Radio show Mike & Mike in the
Morning, stated [as transcribed by
ProCon.org]:
"As a father and an avid sports fan, I
understand the dangers that performance
enhancing drugs pose for athletes, as well as
the teenagers who seek to emulate them, not

If someone wants to earn millions of dollars
being a professional baseball player, he may
feel pressured to use steroids to make himself
the best that he can be. If he doesn't want to
take those health risks, he can take his
chances or go into some other line of work.
Nobody forces anyone to be a baseball player.
That is true for guys who fight oil well fires,
tame lions, or do dangerous stunts for the
movies, as well.
In short, if the public wants to see 500 foot
home runs and there are young men willing to
run the health risks associated with taking
substances that allow them to hit those home
runs and make millions of dollars, why not cut
the pretense of public outrage and let them do
it?"
Dec. 13, 2004 - Gary Roberts, JD  Simon":
Bengt Kayser, MD, PhD, Professor of Exercise
Physiology in the Faculty of Medicine at the
University of Geneva, Alexandre Mauron, PhD,
Professor of Bioethics in the Faculty of
Medicine at the University of Geneva, and
Andy Miah, PhD, Reader in New Media and
Bioethics in the School of Media, Language,
and Music at the University of the West of
Scotland, wrote the following in their Dec.
2005 article "Viewpoint: Legalisation of
Performance-Enhancing Drugs," published
in The Lancet:
"We believe that rather than drive doping
underground, use of drugs should be
permitted under medical supervision... The
boundary between the therapeutic and
ergogenic - ie, performance enhancing - use of
drugs is blurred at present and poses difficult
questions for the controlling bodies of
antidoping practice and for sports doctors. The
antidoping rules often lead to complicated and
costly administrative and medical follow-up to
ascertain whether drugs taken by athletes are
legitimate therapeutic agents or illicit.
...Furthermore, legalisation of doping, we
believe, would encourage more sensible,
informed use of drugs in amateur sport,
leading to an overall decline in the rate of
health problems associated with doping.
Finally, by allowing medically supervised
doping, the drugs used could be assessed for
to mention the effect that these drugs have on
the integrity of sports. As president, I would
use the bully pulpit of my office to warn
Americans about the dangers of performance
enhancing drugs, and I would put greater
resources into enforcement of existing drug
laws. I would also convene a summit of the
commissioners of the professional sports
leagues, as well as university presidents, to
explore options for decreasing the use of
these drugs."
Oct. 2, 2008 - Barack Obama, JD 
Robert Simon, PhD, Professor of Philosophy at
Hamilton College, stated the following in a
Dec. 9, 2004 live internet chat with USA
Today readers titled "Drugs in Sports: Robert
"I would argue that prohibition [of performance
enhancing drugs] is justified because (1)
steroid use makes little sense if everyone
uses; gains are minimal and everyone is
exposed to the risks, (2) how your body reacts
to a steroid is not an athletic talent like running
or hitting, and (3) it's worth protecting the ideal
of sport as a healthy pursuit."
Dec. 9, 2004 - Robert Simon, PhD 
Gary S. Becker, PhD, Professor in the
Departments of Economics, Graduate School
of Business, and Sociology at the University of
Chicago, wrote in an Aug. 27, 2006 entry titled
"Doping in Sports" on the Becker-Posner blog:
"While the case for banning various types of
drugs and other enhancers is strong, the
ability to control doping is limited. For there is
a continuing battle between bans and the
discovery of new enhancers that have not
been banned...
The result is a fragile equilibrium between the
banning of various substances, enforcement of
bans, and the search for new substances and
ways to evade bans on old substances. This is
not a perfect outcome, but I believe it is on the
whole better for competitive sports and for
participants than a policy that allows all kinds
of performance enhancers and stimulants."
Aug. 27, 2006 - Gary S. Becker, PhD 
a clearer view of what is dangerous and what
is not..." 
Dec. 2005 - Bengt Kayser, MD, PhD  Michael J. Beloff, QC, English barrister (British
Alexandre Mauron, PhD  lawyer), wrote the following information in the
Andy Miah, PhD  article titled "Drugs, Laws and Versapaks,"
Radley Balko, Senior Editor
of Reason magazine, wrote in his Jan. 23,
2008 article titled "Should We Allow
Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports?,"
published in Reason:
"Sports is about exploring and stretching the
limits of human potential. Going back even to
the pre-modern Olympics, when athletes ate
live bees and ate crushed sheep testicles to
get a leg up on the competition, sports has
never been some wholesome display of
physical ability alone. Ingenuity, innovation,
and knowledge about what makes us faster
and stronger (and avoiding what might do
more harm than good) has always been a part
of the game...
...A free society isn't really free at all if it
doesn't include the freedom to make what
some may believe are bad decisions."
Jan. 23, 2008 - Radley Balko 
Garvan Grant, journalist at the Sunday
Business Post (Ireland), wrote the following in
his Aug. 3, 2008 article published bySunday
Business Post titled "Don't Spoil the Sports":
"Whether we like it or not, drugs have become
a part of modern sport. Instead of condemning
them, all athletes should be allowed to take
whatever substances they feel will enhance
their performance."
Aug. 3, 2008 - Garvan Grant 
Kate Schmidt, former US Olympic javelin
thrower, wrote the following in her Oct. 18,
2007 article titled "Just Say Yes to Steroids -
Learn, Make Better Choices," published in
the Los Angeles Times:
written as chapter four in John O'Leary's
bookDrugs and Doping In Sport, published in
2001:
"The objects of doping control are clear. The
essence of a sporting contest is that it should
be fairly conducted, with the competitor's
success or failure being the result of natural
talents: speed, skill, endurance, tactical
awareness - honed, it may be, by instruction,
training and body maintenance in its widest
sense. The much used metaphor - a level
playing field - derives from sport. The use of
drugs violates all such notions of equality: the
drug taker starts with an unfair advantage.
Success becomes the product of the test tube,
not the training track. The interests of innocent
athletes need protection by punishment of the
guilty."
2001 - Michael J. Beloff, QC 
Fred Bowen, JD, attorney at the US
Department of Labor and Columnist for
the Washington Post, wrote the following in his
Apr. 18, 2008 article titled "It's a Dangerous
Game," published in the Washington Post:
"Steroids are dangerous. They can hurt a
player's heart, liver and other parts of his body.
Some doctors also think players are tearing
more tendons and ligaments because their
bulked-up muscles have gotten too big for
their bodies.
And no one knows for sure how steroids may
affect a player's health over the long run.
Players may be risking their lives for a chance
to be bigger and stronger today... 
Millions of kids still dream about playing in the
major leagues. They have posters of Nomar
Garciaparra, Barry Bonds and Randy Johnson
on their bedroom walls. MLB is setting the
worst possible example and sending the worst
possible message to kids by doing nothing
about steroid use. Baseball is telling kids that
they may have to take dangerous and illegal
drugs if they want to reach their dreams of
playing in the big leagues."
"In the same way that we have learned about
injury prevention and safety, we need
performance drugs exposed to the hot light of
public scrutiny. We need to legitimize their
use. With a more realistic view of our elite
athletes, parents and kids can make more
informed choices about their extracurricular
activities.
The technology exists to test for levels of most
of the substances on the 'banned drugs' lists.
What if we declared that certain levels of them
in the body were acceptable, while excessive
amounts would result in penalties? Athletes
could satisfy their drive to be faster and
stronger. Drugs could move from the black
market to the legitimate sports-medicine
community. Athletes could stop experimenting
on themselves. It would be safer to take the
substances, and with medical monitoring,
there would be fewer negative side effects...
Track gets faster, nutrition gets more specific
and training techniques improve."
Oct. 18, 2007 - Kate Schmidt 
Gary Cartwright, writer for the Texas Monthly,
in the magazine's Apr. 2008 article "Truth and
Consequences: Yes, Roger Clemens Is a Jerk.
But Congress Shouldn't Make a Federal Case
Over Whether He Lied About Using Steroids,"
wrote:
"Who among us hasn't used performance
enhancers, preferably with ice and an olive?
Steroids, synthetic substances similar to
testosterone, can be as benign as those that
are commonly prescribed for allergies and as
harmful as those that have sent many retired
athletes into physical decline; as with any
medication, the effect depends on the dose
and frequency of use...
For the most part, however, the only thing
certifiably bad about steroids is that they may
improve athletic performance. Somehow we've
decided that the only hardworking
professionals who shouldn't be permitted to
enhance their performances are athletes.
Amphetamines were staples in professional
training rooms in the sixties and seventies...
It is time to admit that not all steroids are
dangerous and that every individual and every
situation cannot be addressed with the same
set of rigid rules. Instead of banning steroids,
Apr. 18, 2008 - Fred Bowen, JD 
Don H. Catlin, MD, Founder and CEO of Anti-
Doping Research, stated the following in a
Dec. 12, 2004 article titled "The Steroid
Detective, published in US News and World
Report:
"If you try to get every last little cheater, you're
going to be pretty frustrated. There are always
going to be ways to beat testing. But if you
don't test, sport is gone, it really is. Then you
might say, well, OK, everybody is going to be
on drugs, and they will all be equal again. But
people will start getting really sick. All these
things are toxic."
Dec. 12, 2004 - Don H. Catlin, MD 
Michael Giltz, freelance pop culture and
politics writer, wrote the following information
in the Dec. 12, 2007 article titled "Mitchell
Report: America Loves Cheaters," published
by The Huffington Post:
"I think cheaters are losers. I think sports like
baseball are a lot less fun when some players
have an unfair advantage. I hate to think of my
team winning with the help of cheaters. I hate
even more to think of kids in high school and
the minor leagues risking their health and
dignity by breaking the law to cheat because
they believe if they don't they'll never make it
to the majors. I don't boo my own team, but I
don't applaud when Jason Giambi's name is in
the lineup and I wish he were traded, however
nice a guy he may be on a personal level. I
just don't like cheaters. And people using
PEDs  [performance enhancing drugs] don't
make a one-time mistake or suffer a slip of the
tongue, the sort of thing anyone might make
and be forgiven for. They choose actively and
aggressively to cheat for months and years at
a time and they sometimes reap millions by
doing so. I hate cheaters..."
Dec. 12, 2007 - Michael Giltz 
Craig Lord, Swimming Correspondent at The
Times, in a May 2, 2008 Swimmers

we should control them. Cool the hysteria;
educate without scaring."
Apr. 2008 - Gary Cartwright  resignation and self-justification that drugs are
Abdul-Karim Al-Jabbar (formerly known as
Sharmon Shah and Karim Abdul-Jabbar),
former National Football League (NFL) running
back, was quoted as having said the following
in a Sep. 7, 2006 ESPN The Magazine article
titled "HGH: Performance Enhancer or Healer":
"The bottom line is we get beat the hell up. We
need whatever's available to keep ourselves
out there... I think anything that's helpful
should be legal, because when you're done,
they fold you up and say goodbye."
Sep. 7, 2006 - Abdul-Karim Al-Jabbar  Donald M. Fehr, JD, Executive Director of the
Scott Long, sports writer and comedian, stated
the following in his June 9, 2006 sports blog
posted on www.baseballtoaster.com, titled
"The Happy Hypocrite Takes on Jason
Grimsley":
"Players have always looked for an
edge... And why wouldn't they do this?  I'm
tired of so-called moralists acting outraged that
players could do such a thing. Are you telling
me that you wouldn't consider taking some
substance if it potentially made you better?
Especially if you were in a profession where
2.5 million dollars a year is the average
salary.  Especially if you knew that there
would be no drug testing. Especially if you
knew that many other workers in your field
might possibly be getting an advantage over
you...
I don't have any problem savoring the prose of
Poe or Burroughs, even knowing they were
junkies.  I don't run from the room when I hear
Nirvana or Alice in Chains rumbling through
the speakers, just because their lead singers
killed themselves using heroin... Personally, I
don't have a big problem with some of
baseball's greatest records being broken by
athletes who are under suspicion as
cheaters..."
June 9, 2006 - Scott Long 
World magazine article titled "You Wearing
The Right (Wrong) Suit And Genes?," wrote:
"Among some there is an attitude of
just part of sport. They're not. They are part of
cheating, part of dirty sport, part of everything
that the Olympic spirit is not... As things stand,
the more the public take hold of the idea that
Marion Jones[disqualified American Olympic
Gold Medalist for the use of steroids] was the
tip of the iceberg, the less faith they will have
in Olympic sports, the less keen they will be to
send their kids to the pool, the smaller the
audience will become... A sport is as good as
the authenticity of its assets."
May 2, 2008 - Craig Lord 
Major League Baseball Players Association
(MLBPA), stated the following in his written
statement for the hearing on "Drugs in Sports:
Compromising the Health of Athletes and
Undermining the Integrity of Competition,"
before the US House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection on Feb. 27, 2008:
"The Major League Baseball Players
Association does not condone or support the
use by players - or by anyone else - of any
unlawful substance, nor do we support or
condone the unlawful use of any legal
substance. I cannot put it more plainly. The
unlawful use of any substance is wrong.
Moreover, the Players are committed to
dispelling any suggestion that the route to
becoming a Major League athlete somehow
includes taking illegal performance enhancing
substances, such as steroids. It does not take
a physician to recognize that steroids are
powerful drugs that no one should fool around
with. This is particularly true for children and
young adults, as the medical research makes
clear that illegal steroid use can be especially
harmful to them.
Playing Major League Baseball requires talent,
drive, intelligence, determination, and grit.
Steroids and other unlawful performance
enhancing drugs (PEDs) have no place in the
game."

Maxwell J. Mehlman, JD, Director of the Law-
Medicine Center at Case Western Reserve
University School of Law, wrote the following
in his Aug. 11, 2004 article titled "What's
Wrong with Using Drugs in Sports? Nothing,"
published in USA TODAY:
"There is nothing inherently wrong with
athletes using relatively safe drugs. People
simply find it distasteful. It offends their
aesthetic sensibilities...
Tastes change, as perhaps they will when
people realize that the ultimate justification for
the policy against all drugs in sports is the
same reason that we get upset when the
neighbors paint their house purple.
Aug. 11, 2004 - Maxwell J. Mehlman, JD  know it."
Feb. 27, 2008 - Donald M. Fehr, JD 
Frank Deford, Senior Contributing Writer
at Sports Illustrated, stated the following in his
Oct. 29, 2003 article titled "Dope and Glory:
Why Don't Fixed Bodies Provoke the Same
Outrage as Fixed Games?," published
in Sports Illustrated:
"Doping is to sport very much like terrorism is
to nations. It is insidious. OK, there's a lot of
bad stuff that's always gone on in sports. But,
at the core, we are always drawn to the
physical majesty of the young men and
women who do wondrous things with their
bodies. Sport is art, aesthetics -- tabulated.
We are outraged at games that are fixed.
Drugs fix bodies. It's the same thing, and we
Oct. 29, 2003 - Frank Deford 
Paul Finkelman, PhD, President William
McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and
Public Policy at Albany Law School stated the
following in his Dec. 11, 2007 article titled
"Baseball, Steroids, Bonds, and Balco,"
published by theHuffington Post:
"I would love to see steroids banned from
sports. They are unhealthy and physically
dangerous. They are a Faustian bargain -
offering immediate success for the price of an
athlete's body, if not his or her soul. Worse yet,
young kids who have no judgment and only
see the glory of a Bonds home run are rushing
to use them. In the process they are
jeopardizing their health to make the team, get
the college scholarship, and maybe make it to
the pros."
Dec. 11, 2007 - Paul Finkelman, PhD 
Lou Gorman, former General Manager of the
Boston Red Sox, stated the following in his
2007 book High and Inside: My Life in the
Front Offices of Baseball:
"There is absolutely no question whatsoever
that baseball has to take dramatic action to
address the use of steroids or any other
performance enhancing drugs, since the use
of steroids is, in essence, cheating. Players
who have used steroids or other drugs to
increase and enhance their performances are
cheating and they have created an unfair and
illegal playing field."

2007 - Lou Gorman 

Greg Skidmore, JD, founder of the Sports Law

Blog, wrote in a Mar. 9, 2004 article titled
"Baseball Fans Not Staying Away," posted on
his website (sports-law.blogspot.com):
"Steroid abuse has been shown to have
horrible consequences, even leading to
serious illness and death, and the negative
effects of newer drugs are not even known.
Players may be leveraging their long-term
health for current glory... 

For the long-term good of both the players and

the game, all of the interested parties should
step forward to put an end to this epidemic."

Mar. 9, 2004 - Greg Skidmore, JD 

Richard Pound, BCL, Former President of the

World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), stated the
following in a Jan. 19, 2003 article titled "The
Enforcer," posted on CBC Sports Online:
"Well, sports is so important to so many
people, particularly young people, and it's a
precursor to how you're going to behave in
other aspects of social intercourse. You look
around the world today and what have you
got? The accounting profession is in the tank.
You've got the business community in the
tank. You've got the Enrons. You've got
political shortcuts and all these kind of things,
that it's very important to have some kind of
activity where you can say to people 'this is on
the level.' You respect the rules, you respect
your opponents, you respect yourself. You
play fair. I think that bleeds over into life as
well. I don't want my grandchildren to have to
become chemical stockpiles in order to be
good at sports and to have fun at it. Baseball,
take your kid out to the ballpark some day and
you say, 'Son, some day if you ingest enough
of this sh[*!], you might be a player on that
field, too.' It's a completely antithetical view to
what sport should have been in the first place.
It's essentially a humanistic endeavour to see
how far you can go on your own talent."
Jan. 19, 2003 - Richard Pound, BCL 

Bud Selig, Jr., Commissioner of Major League

Baseball, wrote the following in his Jan. 15,
2008 "Statement of Commissioner Allan H.
Selig before the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform," posted
on MLB.com:

"Our athletes, prospective ballplayers and our

youth must come to understand that the use of
performance enhancing substances is illegal, it
is cheating, it does long term damage to an
athlete's health, and it puts at risk an athlete's
reputation and integrity. Baseball will continue
to enhance its efforts in this area...

Some have described the use of performance

enhancing substances in sports as an 'arms
race' between the chemists and the cheaters,
on the one hand, and the honest players, the
leagues and the testers on the other hand.
Each is continually improving its methods to
obtain an advantage over the other. Well, if
this is such a war, then as Commissioner of
Baseball I am committed to arm the side of
honesty and fair play by funding laboratory
research to detect the illegal use of these
substances so that drug users will be caught
and the cloud of suspicion over honest players
will be lifted."

Jan. 15, 2008 - Bud Selig, Jr.  

Joe Biden, JD, US Vice President, wrote the

following statements in an op-ed article first
published by the Hartford Courant on Mar. 17,
2005:

"In 1990, when I was chairman of the Judiciary

Committee, I wrote the Anabolic Steroids
Control Act, which added 'anabolic steroids' to
Schedule Three of the Controlled Substances
Act and began to list a host of substances
falling within that definition. In 2004, I
proposed legislation to update that law and
added the substances 'THG' and 'Andro,' and
their chemical cousins, to the list of anabolic
steroids.

The reasons for these changes were simple:

these substances not only pose great health
risks, but they threaten the fundamental
integrity of sport and send the wrong message
to our kids – that cheating to get ahead is
acceptable, no matter the cost.

So I worked hard to ban these substances,

educate our youth and professional athletes,
and reduce this wrongful behavior in American
sports."

Mar. 17, 2005 - Joe Biden, JD 

Jose Canseco, former Major League Baseball

player, in the Mar. 17, 2005 hearing on
"Restoring Faith in America's Pastime:
Evaluating Major League Baseball's Efforts to
Eradicate Steroid Use," before the US House
of Representatives Committee on Government
Reform, stated:

"I do not condone or encourage the use of any

particular drugs, medicine, or illegal
substances in any aspect of life...

The pressure associated with winning games,

pleasing fans, and getting the big contract, led
me, and others, to engage in behavior that
would produce immediate results. This is the
same pressure that leads the youth of today,
other athletes and professionals, to engage in
that same behavior. The time has come to
address this issue and set the record straight
about what risks are involved in that
behavior...

As I sit here today I would be remiss if I did not

again stress that I do not condone the use of
any drugs or illegal substances...I hope that
my message will be received as it is intended,
that we, as professional athletes, are no better
than anyone else. We just have a special
ability that permits us to play ball. We should
not be held up to any higher standard of
behavior than any other mother or father."