Homicide and near-homicide by anabolic steroid users

1 Jan 1990

Homicide and near-homicide by anabolic steroid users / H.G. Pope Jr, D.L. Katz

  • Journal of clinical psychiatry 51 (1990) 1 (January); p. 28-31
  • PMID: 2295588

Comment in:

The psychology of anabolic steroid use / J.M. McGraw

  • Journal of clinical psychiatry 51 (1990) 6 (June); p. 260
  • PMID: 2347869


    Abstract

    The authors describe three men, all with benign premorbid psychiatric histories, no evidence of antisocial personality disorder, and no history of violence, who impulsively committed violent crimes--including murder--while taking anabolic steroids. Structured psychiatric interviews of each man suggested that steroids played a necessary, if not primary, role in the etiology of the violent behavior. Although the men conceivably might have exaggerated their reports of the effects of steroids in the hopes of improving their legal positions, information from external sources consistently corroborated their accounts in each case. These observations raise the possibility that steroid-induced violence may pose a little-recognized public health problem.

    Criminality among individuals testing positive for the presence of anabolic androgenic steroids

    28 Feb 2006

    Criminality among individuals testing positive for the presence of anabolic androgenic steroids / Fia Klötz, Mats Garle, Fredrik Granath, Ingemar Thiblin

    • Archives of general psychiatry 63 (2006) 11 (November); p. 1274-1279
    • PMID: 17088508
    • DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.11.1274


    Abstract

    Context: Observations suggest that the use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) may trigger uncontrolled, violent rage. Other observations indicate that certain groups of criminals may use AAS with the intention of being capable of committing crime more efficiently.

    Objective: To examine the proposed association between the use of AAS and criminality.

    Design: A controlled retrospective cohort study of registered criminal activity among individuals tested for AAS use during the period of January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2001.

    Setting: All individuals in Sweden who were tested for AAS use during this period. These individuals were referred for testing from both inpatient and outpatient clinics as well as from centers for treatment of substance abuse.

    Participants: Individuals testing positive for AAS (n=241), with those testing negative for AAS during the same period (n=1199) serving as the control group.

    Main outcome measures: The ratios (expressed as relative risk [RR]) of the incidences of several categories of crime in the 2 study groups.

    Results: The risk of having been convicted for a weapons offense or fraud was higher among individuals testing positive for AAS than among those testing negative (RR, 2.090 and 1.511, respectively; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.589-2.749 and 1.208-1.891, respectively) whereas there were no significant differences with respect to violent crimes (RR, 1.116; 95% CI, 0.981-1.269) or crimes against property (RR, 0.942; 95% CI, 0.850-1.044). When patients referred from substance abuse centers were excluded, a lower risk for crimes against property was observed for the individuals who tested positive for AAS (RR, 0.761; 95% CI, 0.649-0.893) and the risk for fraud in the 2 groups was equalized (RR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.764-1.635). The increased risk for a weapons offense among the individuals testing positive for AAS remained virtually unchanged.

    Conclusions: In addition to the impulsive violent behavior previously shown to be related to AAS use, such use might also be associated with an antisocial lifestyle involving various types of criminality. However, the existence and nature of this possible association remain unclear and call for further investigation.

    Androgenic-Anabolic Steroids (AAS) and Violent Behaviour

    1 Jan 2004

    Androgenic-Anabolic Steroids (AAS) and Violent Behaviour / Egil Haug, Jørg Mørland, Bjørnar Olaisen, Kurt I. Myhre. - Oslo, Norway : Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), 2004.

    • PMID: 29319969
    • Bookshelf ID: NBK464750
    • ISBN: 82-8121-004-4,
    • ISSN: 1503-9544
    • Report from Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC) No. 04-2004


    Background

    Because of the widespread opinion in the population that the use of androgenic-anabolic steroids (AAS) induce aggressiveness and violent behaviour, in 2002 the Norwegian Ministry of Justice considered suggesting to the Parliament that such use should be made illegal. However, experts disagreed upon whether any such connexion was proven. The Ministry therefore commissioned a systematic review of the scientific evidence from a group of medical doctors with experience in forensic medicine, substance abuse, anti-doping work and health technology assessment.

    Search strategy and study selection

    The bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, PsycLit, Toxline and the databases of INAHTA and the Cochrane collaboration were searched with a combination of terms signifying aggression, violence, criminal behaviour and androgenic-anabolic steroids (Appendix 1). Animal studies and case reports were excluded. Only studies published in English, German or Scandinavian languages were considered. The search was last performed in August 2003.

    All studies considered possibly relevant were retrieved and read independently by two group members. The studies finally included were read and discussed by all group members.

    Results

    The literature search identified 1677 articles, 146 of these (listed in Appendix 2) were retrieved in full text. All of these were registered in Medline or Embase, or both.

    25 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, primary data from some of these studies were reported in more than one article. There were six randomized placebo-controlled studies (13-19), four other controlled studies (20-24) and fifteen observational studies (25-39). Among the latter seven were studies of the general population (25-31), three were of body-builders (32-34), two of unselected criminals from prison populations (35-36), two were of criminal users of AAS (37-38) and one of dead presumed users of AAS (39). Details of the included studies are found in the evidence tables in Appendix 4.

    Main conclusions

    1. There is good evidence that low doping doses influence the level of aggressiveness only slightly or not at all.

    2. There is no evidence that moderate doping doses (75-200mg AAS daily orally or 50-100mg daily as injection) increase aggressiveness.

    3. No studies have been done with different AAS concurrently or as repeatedly over long periods of time. The doses used in the experimental studies are far lower than doses used as doping. Accordingly, there is no evidence based on experiments of the effect of such regimens or doses.

    4. In the experimental studies using the highest doses there is some evidence that high doses of AAS in some individuals may trigger mania or hypomania, mental states that may include increased aggressiveness.

    5. In the population studies there is a clear association between the use of AAS, aggressiveness and violence (both as perpetrator and as victim). It is not clear whether there is any causal connection. In the subcultures with much use of AAS there is also more use of alcohol and illicit drugs, more high-risk behaviour and more acceptance of violent behaviour.

    6. There exist some case series and a number of case reports describing persons who have used AAS and performed violent acts. However, these publications are purely descriptive and do not give good evidence on causality.

    Summing up There is insufficient scientific evidence to decide whether there is a causal link between the use of AAS, aggressiveness and violent behaviour.

    On the other hand, the scientific evidence cannot disprove that such a causal link exists, especially after use of high doses of AAS by susceptible individuals.

    Keywords: Testosterone Congeners; Violence; Androgens; Androgenic-anabolic steroids.

    TJD-AD 2021-021 Appeal Decision - Football

    14 Sep 2021

    Related case:

    TJD-AD 2021-014 Disciplinary Decision - Football
    May 14, 2021


    On 14 May 2021 the TJD-AD decided to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Ostarine.

    In First Instance the TJD-AD accepted that the postive test result was caused by contaminated supplements the Athlete had used although the Athlete had acted with a degree of negligence.

    Herafter the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) appealed the TJD-AD decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal. ABCD requested the Appeal Tribunal for a sanction of 4 years and contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate how the prohibited substance had entered his system.

    ABCD asserted that the Athlete had not mentioned his supplements on the Doping Control Form and that the second batch of supplements in question were inadmissable for analysis because they were were delivered unsealed and were compounded after the Doping Control in August 2019. Also after 2 months the Athlete had not kept the empty supplement vials of the first batch.

    The Appeal Tribunal agrees that under the Rules the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional.
    Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 14 September 2021 to reform the Appealed Decision and to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete.

    TJD-AD 2021-014 Disciplinary Decision - Football

    14 May 2021

    Related case:

    TJD-AD 2021-021 Appeal Decision - Football
    September 14, 2021

    In October 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Enobosarm (Ostarine). After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete filed a statement in his defence.

    The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and stated that all the supplements he had used were provided by his football club. At first the analysis of these supplements in the Rio Lab did not reveal prohibited substances. Yet analysis of another batch of these supplements from a compounding pharmacy, provided to the Athlete after the Doping Control in August 2019, confirmed the presence of traces of Ostarine and Anastrozole in two products.

    ABCD disputed the admissibility of the analysis of the second batch due to these supplements were compounded and provided to ABCD after the Doping Control and due to these supplements were delivered in unsealed condition.

    The Rapporteur finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

    Based on the evidence the Rapporteur concludes that the violation was not intentional and that a contaminated supplement was the source of the positive test.

    The Rapporteur considers that the Notification after 2 months hampered the Athlete in finding the source of the contamination, whereas he was tested before without issues. Further the Athlete's conduct was considered and his degree of negligence since he failed to mention his supplements on the Doping Control Form

    Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 14 May 2021 to impose a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 8 August 2019.

    TJD-AD 2021-007 Appeal Decision - Athletics

    29 Apr 2021

    Related case:

    TJD-AD 2021-005 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics
    March 9, 2021

    On 9 March 2021 the TJD-AD decided to impose a 4 year period on an Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone, Modafinil and Oxandrolone. Also a 4 year period of ineligibility was imposed on the Athlete's sports Doctor for the administration of these substances.

    Hereafter the Doctor appealed the TJD-AD decision with the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal.

    The Doctor denied that he had acted intentionally and that the substances were used as prescibed medication for the treatment of the Athlete as an amateur in order to recover from his injuries. Yet ABCD's medical team deemed that Oxandrolone is an invalid medication for the treatment of injuries and Canrenone is only allowed with a TUE when other effective medications were unavailable.

    The Rapporteur finds that the Doctor only seeked a medical justification for the administration of the substances and that he ignored the breaches of anti-doping rules. Further the Rapporteur observes that the Doctor repeatedly failed to attend the hearings without a jusitification or due to unsubstantiated Covid-19 contraction.

    In view of the anti-doping rules the Rapporteur rejected the Doctor's arguments for annulment of the Appealed Decision and concludes that the Doctor intentionally had administered the prohibited substances. There was also no medical justification for the application of these prohibited substances.

    Therefore the TJD-AD Appeal Tribunal decides on 29 April 2021 to dismiss the Doctor's appeal and to uphold the sanction of a 4 year period of ineligibility imposed in the Appealed Decision.

    TJD-AD 2021-005 Disciplinary Decision - Athletics

    9 Mar 2021

    Related case:

    TJD-AD 2021-007 Appeal Decision - Athletics
    April 29, 2021

    In September 2019 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete after he tested positive for the prohibited substances Canrenone, Modafinil, Oxandrolone. 

    Also the ABCD reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Athlete's sports doctor for the administration of these substances. After notification a provisional suspension was ordered and the Athlete and the Doctor filed a statement in their defence.  

    The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that the substances were used as prescribed medication to recover faster of his of persistent injury that hampered his sports participation.

    Both the Athlete and the doctor were aware that prohibited substances were administered and claimed that the treatments were valid and only for medical purposes because he was an amateur athlete and not a professional athlete. 

    ABCD contended that the substances were used and administered intentionally to improve sports performances. It rejected the argument that he was an amateur because as an athlete he is anyhow submitted to the anti-doping rules.

    Also ABCD arguded that the Athlete had fully participated in several competitions as high performace athlete while he had used these prohibited substances. Evidence of the alleged medical treatment was only provided at the end of the proceedings.

    The TJD-AD Rapporteur agrees with the ABCD that the prohibited substances clearly intentionally were used and administered. In addition the Athlete had acknowledged that he failed to check his medication, nor had mentioned the substances and other medication on the Doping Control Form and had made no application for a TUE. 

    Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 9 March 2021 to impose a 4 year period on the Athlete, starting on the date of the provisional suspension, i.e. on 12 September 2019. Further a 4 year period of ineligibility is imposed on the Doctor, starting on the date of the hearing, i.e. 2 February 2021.

    TJD-AD 2019-149 Disciplinary Decision - Football

    22 Feb 2019

    In April 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the football player after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Hydrochlorothiazide.

    After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

    The Athlete admitted the violation and explained that he had used the substance for weight loss.

    The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. .

    The Rapporteur deems that under the Rules the violation was intentional and he considers that the Athlete had not mentioned the use of the substance on the Doping Control Form, nor had he applied for a TUE.

    Therefore the TJD-AD decides on 22 February 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 23 January 2018.

    TJD-AD 2019-174 Disciplinary Decision - Cycling

    12 Mar 2019

    In July 2018 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the mountain bike rider after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold.

    After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD).

    The Athlete admitted the violation, denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction.

    The TJD-AD Rapporteur finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

    The Rapporteur concludes that the violation was not intentional and regards that the Athlete is an is an amateur rider who had not received anti-doping education. Further he considers the Athlete's degree of negligence and that there had been delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

    Therefore the TJD-AD Decides on 12 March 2019 to impose an 18 month period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 24 June 2018.

    TJD-AD 2019-173 Disciplinary Decision - Armwrestling

    28 Feb 2019

    In August 2017 the Brazilian Doping Control Authority (ABCD) has reported an anti-doping rule violation against the armwrestler after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Metandienone.

    After notification a provisional suspension was ordered. The Athlete filed a statement in his defence and he was heard for the Brazilian Sports Justice Anti-Doping Tribunal (TJD-AD). His request to lift the provisional suspension was dismissed.

    The Rapporteur finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation.

    The Rapporteur deems that there were no grounds for a reduced sanction and considers that there had been substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete.

    Therefore the TJD-AD Decides on 28 February 2019 to impose a 4 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete, starting on the date of the sample collection, i.e. on 10 June 2017.

    Category
    • Legal Source
    • Education
    • Science
    • Statistics
    • History
    Country & language
    • Country
    • Language
    Other filters
    • ADRV
    • Legal Terms
    • Sport/IFs
    • Other organisations
    • Laboratories
    • Analytical aspects
    • Doping classes
    • Substances
    • Medical terms
    • Various
    • Version
    • Document category
    • Document type
    Publication period
    Origin