Al's Morning Meeting

There is a backup sample to be tested -- but we don't know yet when that will happen. It could be two weeks before the matter is cleared up.

One of the mystifying parts of this story is how suspect levels of testosterone could show up on one day and not on others. To maximize the use of performance drugs, athletes need to use them for an extended period of time. As Fox News pointed out:

For starters, the test looks at the ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone and is highly likely to yield false-positive results.

Sports Illustrated landed an interview with Landis:

Landis says that an elevated level of testosterone is different from a positive test. He says this is a fairly common problem among pro cyclists. He's retaining the services of a Spanish doctor named Luis Hernandez, who has helped other riders shown by tests to have elevated levels of testosterone. "In hundreds of cases," Landis told me, "no one's ever lost one."

It's too early to tell if he's going to be on solid footing or if he's clutching at straws. The next step, he says, is to submit to an endocrine test that may help him prove that he just happens to be a guy walking around with an inordinate amount of testosterone in his blood.

He raised the possibility that the cortisone shots he's been taking for his ravaged right hip -- the hip he'll soon have replaced -- may have had some effect on the test. Then he revealed this: "I've had a thyroid condition for the last year or so and have been taking small amounts of thyroid hormone. It's an oral dose, once a day."

He raised the possibility that that medication may have skewed the test that appears to damn him.

He knows how bad this looks, and told me, "I wouldn't hold it against somebody if they don't believe me."

Sports Illustrated compiled a list of the most famous sports cheating scandals.

Here is a primer on steroid use that could help your coverage. This is from DrugFreeSports.com:

Most healthy males produce between 2 to 10 milligrams of testosterone a day. The hormone's anabolic effect promotes retention of nitrogen, and this helps muscle growth. It helps the male reproductive system to grow during puberty, assists with the growth of body hair and the deepening of the voice. Today, anabolic steroids are chemically manufactured. Steroids can be administered by injection, or can be taken orally. Injectable steroids are longer lasting in the body and can be detected in the body for a longer period of time.

How do anabolic steroids work in the body?
The body produces testosterone predominantly in the testes in the male, and adrenal glands in the female. During puberty the testes (20 or 40 fold increase compared to early childhood levels) release testosterone. This hormone is largely responsible for the changes in muscle, bone structure and density.

Who uses anabolic steroids and why?
When athletes use steroids they might believe that steroids will give them a "winning edge" in developing their power and strength, and increase recovery from heavy workouts. Fuller and LaFountain (1987) found that athletes rationalized their use by trying to justify that using steroids caused no harm either to themselves or to others. Also, individuals perceived their competitors were taking anabolic drugs, so they needed to use to compete at the same level.

Some individuals use steroids because they perceive that increased muscle mass improves their appearance (Yesalis, 1998). Mottram (1996) has suggested that social norms about "bigger being better," feelings of inadequacy, and low self-esteem may influence the younger generation's use of steroids . [See this study for more details on whether higher testosterone really improves athletic performance.]

How prevalent is the use of steroids?
Surveys and anecdotal evidence indicate that the rate of non-medical steroid use may be increasing. Reports of steroid use indicate that between 250,000 and 1 million individuals use. According to Yesalis (1998) more than 300,000 used steroids during one year. The National Institutes of Health (1999) reported that 2.9 percent of 12th graders used steroids.

Which anabolic drugs does the NCAA ban?
Examples of anabolic steroids banned by the NCAA are:

(And other agents)

For more information on banned steroids please visit the NCAA Web site.

What are the different types of anabolic steroids?
From the 1930s to the 1960s, scientists modified the structure of the testosterone molecule to produce anabolic steroids to increase muscle and body protein metabolism at dose levels which tend not to increase other secondary sexual characteristics. They should not be confused with steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as cortisone, corticosteroids.

Are there any differences between oral and injectable steroids?

Oral Steroids:
Oral, fat-soluble steroids can be detected in the body for several weeks or months after a person stops taking them.

Injectable Steroids:
Injectable anabolics are injected into muscle tissue. They are slowly released from the muscles into the rest of the body, and may be detectable for months after last use. The body tolerates the injectable steroids more effectively than the oral steroids. Long-term steroid abusers use them for this reason.

Psyorg.com explains more:

According to Charles Yesalis, Penn State professor of exercise and sports science, the short answer is yes. "Considering available scientific evidence and overwhelmingly consistent anecdotal reports of athletes, we can conclude anabolic steroids are associated with increase in strength," writes Yesalis in the book "Anabolic Steroids in Sport and Exercise."

Anabolic steroids, explains Yesalis, are synthetic versions of the natural hormone testosterone, which drives the development of secondary male sex characteristics. When boys hit puberty, testosterone levels shoot up, causing hair to grow, sex organs to mature, muscles to enlarge and the voice to deepen. The process continues until testosterone levels begin to drop off at age 40.

"Essentially, anabolic steroids induce a second adolescence," says Yesalis. "Many of the same things happen as would in puberty. As testosterone levels elevate, the user experiences increased strength and muscle mass. In a sport like baseball, that strength makes it easier to hit a home run, with stronger forearms to power through the ball and powerful hips to rotate your body quickly." While steroids have a definite impact, Yesalis is quick to remind that they are no replacement for talent. Says Yesalis, "You can't make chicken soup out of chicken feathers."

To boost their strength is not the sole reason athletes turn to steroids, Yesalis adds. "They have been taken for at least 45 years by endurance athletes to recover from workouts rapidly. With steroids, a marathon runner can run longer, a swimmer can do more laps and a cyclist can spend more time pedaling." In sports where endurance is everything, the ability to last longer during workouts and competitions confers a definite advantage.

The problem is that competitive edge comes with serious side effects. In males, Yesalis says, steroid use can cause scarring acne, shrinkage of the testicles, and early baldness in those with a predisposition toward the affliction. In women, the changes are more drastic. The influx of synthetic testosterone typically triggers a "masculinization" that includes the growth of facial hair, balding and deepening of the voice. Yesalis himself has done studies linking steroid use to psychological dependence, use of other illicit drugs and violent behavior.

Without saying just yet that Landis is guilty of anything, here are some previous Al's Morning Meeting stories about performance-enhancing drug use among various levels of athletes:

• High school athletes & steroids
• Steroids & baseball
• Steroids: An epidemic
• High school steroids
  

Airing 911 Calls

My old friend, WSMV-TV (Nashville, Tenn.) anchorman Dan Miller recently wrote in his blog about why journalists should not use 911 phone recordings on the air (and, presumably, online). Before I say more, let me add that for more than 25 years I have been a fan of Dan's. He and I worked together in Nashville. He is a thoughtful and good man. We've had this argument more than once -- so this us not a new position for him.

Dan blogs:

Though many of my fellow journalists and news executives strongly disagree with me, I don't believe we should even be allowed routine access to 9-1-1 calls.

I consider it a gross, uncomfortable intrusion into the agony and deep personal trauma -- or even the simple excitability -- experienced by people placing emergency calls to 9-1-1.

I have heard Dan argue before, as he does in his blog, that airing 911 calls might discourage people from calling 911 in an emergency. He writes:

I truly fear that someday someone -- maybe you -- will hesitate, or decide against calling 9-1-1, simply because you know that your voice, filled with terror or emotion, will likely be heard over and over again on television newscasts.

I suspect if my house was on fire or somebody was attempting to break into my home in the dark of night, the last thing I would consider is how the TV station might treat my call.

I will share a slightly edited version of the note I sent to Dan:

You and I have disagreed on this before, but I want to say it does not help journalism and it does not help democracy to close open records -- 911 tapes are clearly open records. I have often used examples where the use of 911 tapes is clearly defensible and even necessary. Here are guidelines I wrote on how I like to think about airing 911 calls.

There is a case out of Miami, where a woman, Karla Gutierrez, is stuck in her car, sinking in a canal. She called 911 and you can hear the dispatcher never once in more than two minutes instructs her to get out of the car. Many who hear the recording describe the dispatcher as sharp and condescending to Karla. Eventually Karla drowned. The police department said the dispatcher did everything she could do to talk Karla out of car -- but the tapes clearly show something different. (Click here for more background.)

The tapes also show Miami lacked E911 for cell phones -- even though we all pay for E911 for cell phones. Amazingly, the tapes show Karla's call was transferred from the county to the city, even while the car was sinking.

I have other tapes that I use in my training, in which dispatchers lecture kids for calling 911 -- even while the child's parent (in this case, the child's mother) is dying or may have already died in front of the child. 

The tapes shed a bright light on a broken system. WCPO-TV recently did such a project in Cincinnati.

Occasionally the 911 calls show great acts of heroism and bravery. The 911 calls from airplanes and from the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, gave great insight into details of what happened on that day.

To have such a blanket "Never Use" policy is way too rule-obedient.

I suggest that, instead of saying NEVER invade a person's privacy in his or her moment of crisis, we should say, "respect privacy and invade only when there is an overwhelming reason to do so." It is similar to the rule that doctors use -- they ask private, probing questions, but only when they have something to do with medical reasoning. The old notion of "do NO harm" is silly -- of course doctors cause harm when they poke you in the rump, but there is a reason for it.

Dan, it takes a lot of courage to argue for something unpopular, like open records. The public and even the federal administration would love to see records closed more often. But democracies require the free flow of information that government would rather see closed. I often work with journalists from around the world who are amazed by the information we American journalists have at our fingertips. Many would be jailed -- or worse --  for publishing/broadcasting political contributions, tax records and corporate records that we can get free online.

In a democracy, we all must give up some privacy to ensure an open government. In order to find out how much your neighborhood homes are selling for, your information must be public, too. In order to know if others pay their fair taxes, we must see yours. In order to have The Wall Street Journal we must also allow Penthouse. The cost of closing down one in favor of the other is too great. The fleas come with the dog.

States Step in On Stem Cell Research

Since President Bush vetoed the stem cell funding bill, states have stepped in to pay for research without the Feds.

The New York Times points out:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican who helped Mr. Bush win a second term but has long disagreed with him on this research, cited the veto as he lent $150 million from the state's general fund to pay for grants to stem cell scientists. In Illinois, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, a Democrat opposed to most every White House initiative, offered $5 million for similar grants in his state.

Before the announcements, the only money available was $72 million that five states had allocated for the research and $90 million that the National Institutes of Health had provided since 2001 for work on a restricted number of stem cell lines.

Several other governors, including one Republican, M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut, denounced the president's veto, his first, in a sign of the political potency of the stem cell debate.

Within hours, too, the issue sprang to the forefront of some crucial campaigns, including ones for governor, senator and representative in Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri and Tennessee.

Stateline.org said:

Governors and lawmakers in five states -- California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey -- have forged policies to support the controversial science with state funds, but the process has been fraught. Like the bitter debates on Capitol Hill this month, statehouse battles have been pitched, with some lawmakers trying to go even further than the federal government in restricting the science. 

Here is our Al's Morning Meeting stem cell primer page. 

Pet Mummies

I got this cool note from Al's Morning Meeting reader Ori Hoffer:

Thanks so much for the Morning Meeting. Park City Television is a small, local station here in Utah, and while we're not a news station in the traditional sense (no fires, car crashes, murders, etc.), we do a lot of features on local businesses, and I get a lot of great ideas from the Morning Meeting.

A few weeks ago, you made mention of pet mummification by a Salt Lake company called Summum. I jumped on that, and here's the result.

Editor's Note: Al's Morning Meeting is a compendium of ideas, edited story excerpts and other materials from a variety of Web sites, as well as original concepts and analysis. When the information comes directly from another source, it will be attributed and a link will be provided whenever possible. The column is fact-checked, but depends upon the accuracy and integrity of the original sources cited. Errors and inaccuracies found will be corrected.