Cops Around The Country Getting Busted For Using Steroids

Steroids — they’re not just for linebackers anymore. Some police officers, presumably seeking to get any edge they can to survive on the streets, are getting busted for ‘roiding it up in increasing numbers.

AOL rounds up recent busts of steroid-using cops in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Oregon, quoting a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman:

“It’s a big problem, and from the number of cases, it’s something we shouldn’t ignore. It’s not that we set out to target cops, but when we’re in the middle of an active investigation into steroids, there have been quite a few cases that have led back to police officers.”

Police say they use the drugs to recover from injuries rather to improve their statistics, but we’ll see what Hall of Fame voters have to say about that.

Cops’ Use of Illegal Steroids a ‘Big Problem’ [AOL]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. ReaperRob says:

    No Officer, the law applies to you as well.

  2. Blueskylaw says:

    “Police say they use the drugs to recover from injuries rather to improve their statistics”

    I bet if the police discovered steroids in my car that same excuse would not work very well for me.

    • Necoras says:

      IANAL but I don’t think steroids are usually an illegal or controlled substance. You’re perfectly within your rights to take as many steroids and hgh as you want, so long as your job (such as being a professional athlete) doesn’t preclude it. I’d imagine the issue here is that police departments prohibit their officers using these substances, not that they’re illegal.

      • RandomHookup says:

        Actually, they are: Federal law placed anabolic steroids in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) as of February 27, 1991.

        http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/steroids.html

        If you have a prescription, they are okay…otherwise, no.

      • ChuckECheese says:

        All anabolic steroids (there are other types) are controlled substances in the U.S. You can take them as directed with a doctor’s prescription. Here is where the drug laws truly fail. The sorts of penalties assessed for illegal steroid possession & use are far greater than their potential harm to individuals or society. Steroids were scheduled in an attempt to reduce their availability and to scare people away from using them. This has the unnecessary consequence of turning high school jocks and petty napoleon police into felons.

        • Mom says:

          Not so much. Unlike something like heroin, “controlled” means that they’re only available by prescription. If the cops (or high school jocks) really needed the steroids to recover from an injury, the doc would write a prescription, the cops would take the drugs according to the prescription, and nobody would have a problem.

          • ChuckECheese says:

            Not so much yourself. “Controlled” means they are scheduled in the list of controlled drugs. Drugs are scheduled according to their perceived medical benefit, potential for abuse, and for sundry unmentionable political reasons. By reading between the lines of your snark, I think you think that drugs are scheduled only if they get you ‘high.’ Not so.

            If you are responding to the second part of my post, then my point still stands – the potential criminal liability for using steroids far exceeds the limited potential for harm they have to the user or society. Punishments should fit the crime; here they don’t.

            Why did we get into this mess of making the penalties for AS use so excessive? Probably because people involved in our sports-industrial complex realized that the wholesome images (and consequent profitability) of high school football and major league baseball would be tarnished by association with track marks, shrunken testicles and liver failure. People saw McGwire’s bloated body and broken HR records and started screaming “do something!” So they passed a law.

            It is technically illegal to use any prescription drug without a valid prescription. And Teena Marie is dead.

            • tsukiotoshi says:

              Don’t steriods also often cause a spike in aggression and often provoke violent behavior from users? It was my understanding that reason was why they were controlled substances, not because people thought it was ruining baseball. But, I could be wrong.

              • sifr says:
              • ChuckECheese says:

                Just like with that bugaboo supplement, ephedra, a few people got sick and died from unwise use, leading to extreme publicity-driven overreaction. There are several other substances (e.g. alcohol, tobacco, baby aspirin, iron supplements) that cause more accidental deaths each year, but their access is far less controlled, if at all. I don’t think that steroids “often” cause a spike in aggression. There is such a thing as roid rage, but I don’t think it is as big a problem even as, say, the heartbreak of psoriasis.

                Now, don’t think I’m defending police casual use of steroids – I’m not. We should be subjecting them to wholesome meals and exercise in the sunshine instead of hormones. Yet it is reasonable to assess the amount and severity of risk before deciding to spend large amounts of resources on control of a perceived social problem. And this is just overblown. On the other hand, the illicit use of steroids feeds into cops’ sense of being ‘on the edge’ of society: The line is sometimes thin indeed. I’d rather have them on testosterone than on meth.

        • Alvis says:

          “The sorts of penalties assessed for illegal drug possession & use are far greater than their potential harm to individuals or society.”

          There, I fixed it for you.

          • ChuckECheese says:

            Your version is better. Thank you. On the other hand, internet-editors probably shouldn’t be encouraged …

      • Thorzdad says:

        There’s a huge difference between anabolic steroids (the sort that are usually associated with abuse…Exactly the sort that these cops are getting busted for) and the sort of anti-inflammatory steroids that one’s doctor might prescribe to help heal an injury.

        Anabolics (and their kin) are typically used to build muscle mass and strength. These are the compounds the cops are abusing. They’re going for that bulked-up, ass-kicker look that’s all the rage with authoritarian groups these days.

      • Blueskylaw says:

        “Cops’ Use of Illegal Steroids a ‘Big Problem’ [AOL]“

  3. Mcshonky says:

    I bwoke his little neck after he ran a stop sign.

    Sorry Your Honor.

    • regis-s says:

      Yeah, I wonder how long it will be until “‘roid rage” will be used as a defense when some steroid monkey in a cop uniform beats the living crap out of somebody for no reason.

  4. David Doe says:

    I understand its common practice to refer to police as doing a very dangerous job, and in some places it probably is, but in general being a police officer is one of the safest professions. There are hundreds of common jobs which are far far more dangerous. Being a clerk in a 7-11 is hundreds of times more dangerous.

    • Marlin says:

      That and also the biggest reason cops quit is due to boredom.

      • ChuckECheese says:

        This ‘boredom’ may have something to do with the type of person who goes into policing in the first place. A lot of police have high stimulation requirements. Think bungee-cord jumping, rough sports, titty bars, crazy sex, fast cars, loud music, illegal drugs/steroids, etc. Their jobs are ‘boring’ because their stimulation needs aren’t being met, not because the job is more boring than others. I remember the first thing a cop friend said to me when I told him what I do for a living. He said, “That sounds really boring.” Excitement is what matters to these people.

        • Chest Rockwell says:

          So in other words, cops are very similar to mafiosi?

          I suppose ’twas always thus.

          • ChuckECheese says:

            I remember my old roommate, a U.S. Marshal. He was going out on the town one night, dressed in black baggy pants, wife beater shirt, leather jacket, shaved head, black knit cap, some ethnic style of Nike shoes. I said sarcastically, “You look very thuggin’ tonight.” He smiled and replied with sweet guilelessness, “I do? Cool. Thanks.” And there you go.

    • ttw1 says:

      So what you are saying is that for every officer killed in the line of duty, hundreds of 7-11 clerks are killed. Interesting.

      • David Doe says:

        Actually yes more clerks are killed than police officers, if you get a list of the top most dangerous professions police officer does not even make the list. Which is actually part of the problem because many police get into the job thinking it will be exciting chasing “bad guys”, but thats not their actual job. Most of the time they deal with normal everyday people who are not criminals, just some guy who was a few minutes late for work so went over the speed limit, or a guy and his wife having an argument.

        Clerks in stores actually get more first hand experience with dangerous criminals the clerk is there when the guy is actually committing the crime, the police usually arrive 30 minutes later.

  5. Urgleglurk says:

    Just what our society needs. Armed law officers now with potential ‘roid rage.
    Why does that make me feel less safe?

  6. rpm773 says:

    Dealer: “Are you a cop?”

    Buyer: “Yes”

    Dealer: “Oh, in that case, I have a special formula some other cops have had good results with.”

  7. Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

    “I know I had an ounce when I was busted, why am I being charge for possession of a half ounce?” (Oops. Never mind…)

    Police, using drugs? Most likely, drugs confiscated as evidence?
    Like this hasn’t been happening as far back as I can remember.

  8. MooflesThaCat says:

    Every cop I know has done or is doing steroids. Hell, I got it for them most of the time. There has also been an occasion when a cop stole steroids from my glove box (during an illegal search of my car btw). No, cops do not believe that laws apply to them

  9. partofme says:

    “You have a right to do whatever you want with your body” crowd in 3…..2…….1……..

    • pop top says:

      What’s so wrong with that crowd?

      • partofme says:

        There’s nothing so inherently wrong about that crowd, but I would venture to guess that most of them would not show up toeing that line in this discussion. Because as soon as you admit that yes, there may in fact be some limits concerning what one can do with one’s own body, you either have to begin asking yourself difficult questions or just let cognitive dissonance set in. Most people (note the ‘most’, not ‘all’) people don’t like to ask themselves the difficult questions.

        • Bill610 says:

          Though I hardly ever even take a drink myself, I count myself as believing that you have the right to ingest whatever you want–though the substances you ingest should never serve as an excuse for harm you do under their influence.

          That said, there are a number of reasons why people who believe as I do might find problems with police using steroids:
          1) They’re employed to enforce the law, and current law says that you can’t ingest whatever you like, so enforcing that law while using steroids is the height of hypocrisy.
          2) Using steroids while working in law enforcement is reckless, much like drinking while behind the wheel of a car.
          3) While, as other posters have noted, police work is not as inherently dangerous as the hero worshippers like to pretend it is, and with much of that danger coming from automobile accidents rather than battles with villains, one thing that makes it MORE dangerous is the War on Drugs. So again, using illegal drugs because your job is dangerous because you’re going after people who use illegal drugs seems incredibly stupid, doesn’t it?

          • pop top says:

            While I agree with you in general, why do you equate taking steroids while working to driving drunk? You don’t get that “roid rage” unless you’re abusing it, and you can take steroids (and most drugs) without abusing them.

            • partofme says:

              You can take steroids without abusing them, but most steroid users dose with many times the amount that would normally be prescribed for medical reasons. Furthermore, as Dr. Gary Wadler from NYU said, there used to be legitimate medical reasons to prescribe anabolic steroids. Those reasons have diminished with the development of better drugs. Use = smaller doses for a medical reason before we had better drugs. Abuse = what people do now, and what we put restrictions on for the general welfare.

              • sifr says:

                No, there are still legitimate reasons for prescribing AAS. TRT/HRT (testosterone replacement therapy / hormone replacement therapy), for example. But because Congress, the press, and the general public (that’d be you people) constantly demonize AAS without any sound scientific basis, it’s extremely difficult to get prescribed even when there is a glaringly legitimate medical need, because doctors have been cowed into believing they’ll lose their license if they prescribe AAS even in the extremely low doses used in HRT.

                Way to go, public!

                • partofme says:

                  I don’t demonize it. I cite the professional medical researchers who claim that there are better drugs for most of the uses. There are still necessary uses. But remember that we’re making a distinction between use and abuse. That generally boils down to what the doctors say… and is quite the far cry from the General Law of Usability.

                  • sifr says:

                    You cited one doctor who’s well-known for being on an anti-steroid crusade, to the detriment of the actual facts. For every Dr. Wadler you can cite, there’s a Dr. Norman Fost with an equally valid, but opposite point of view.

                    Here, here’s Wadler demonstrating a distinct lack of ability to back up his claims with facts: http://www.steroidlaw.com/images/steroids_0002.wmv

                    • partofme says:

                      Forget everything any doctor has said. That doesn’t matter. The fact that one could even bother to care about what the doctors say proves my actual point, which is that the General Law of Usability is false. Steroids are just another example of a matter in which we need to have an actual discussion that goes beyond the General Law of Usability. I don’t care about the actual result of that discussion. For all I know, your point of view is right. For all I know, it’s not. I don’t care. But one can’t make the argument “These particular things are ok because of XYZ” and then go home and remain satisfied with the idea that the General Law of Usability applies.

                  • ChuckECheese says:

                    There really aren’t alternative drugs for many of the uses of hormones. If you need, say, testosterone, you need testosterone. There is only one drug available to try to get a man’s body to produce more testosterone on its own (clomid), the use is off-label, and it has some potential scary side effects. T is prescribed to older men to combat some of the sx of aging, and to people with HIV and other potentially wasting diseases to keep them stronger. And it is true that steroid terror has created a situation wherein people who would benefit from low dose HRT cannot find a cooperative doc. Speaking of those alternative treatments that are supposed to be available: A woman I know is having a hard time with menopause. She is losing her hair, getting belly fat, has high blood fats and her bones are thinning. She’s miserable. So, her doc puts her on Boniva, Crestor, niacin, minoxidil, and a couple other drugs. Tells her to “go on a diet” to lose the belly, but she’s at a healthy BMI – she’s masculinized, not fat. HRT would fix all her problems- she could just rub on some hormone cream, but 3 docs have refused to prescribe it to her because of hormone terror. She took the pill her entire adult life till menopause, but somehow, now, HRT is a no-go. There’s lots of non-scientific illogical behavior even among docs.

                • sifr says:

                  By the way, Wadler is pretty much on an anti-steroid crusade. He’s hardly unbiased. Watch “Bigger, Stronger, Faster” to see Wadler caught up in his own admissions that what he spouts about AAS is largely untrue (and also discussion of the Benoit case, and how AAS weren’t involved. They were about as involved as first-person shooter videogames are involved when someone commits a violent crime and they find Call of Duty in their XBox at home. The media, and those trying to make a political point, jump on the correlation, ignoring the complete lack of causation).

                  • partofme says:

                    Throw away what that particular doctor says then. I do not dispute that there remain legitimate uses. I dispute that the existence legitimate uses means that the General Law of Usability is correct. In fact, I point out that since we are essentially required to debate the concept of legitimate use, the General Law of Usability must be incorrect.

            • Bill610 says:

              Perhaps I’ve succumbed to some of the hype–I have never used them myself, and it’s not my area of expertise. I can accept the possibility that steroids, like pretty much any other substance, can be used in a responsible manner. I guess steroids’ reputation just fit neatly enough into the issues we see with modern paramilitary policing that I didn’t consider that aspect. Thanks!

          • partofme says:

            I agree with everything you say. My point is that we suddenly acknowledge that there are situations where the General Law of Usability (you can put what you want in your body) has limits. So, it is not in fact a general law. Therefore, when we encounter it, we may have to actually jump into the murky waters and debate whether various substances should be legal for personal use based on some logic besides just the General Law of Usability.

            • 12345678nine says:

              I have never heard anyone from the “It’s your body, do what you want” crowd with any sort of brains say anything like you should be able to drive while drunk. Obviously, this is a bad idea and dangerous for others. While I agree people should be able to do what they want with their bodies, I think everyone would agree that the line is drawn where what you do with your body affects those around you.

              Being a weapon weilding police officer with power means you have to live up to certain standards. Your job directly effects the wellbeing of others, and there are already a hell of a lot of horrible cops out there.

              You really think this topic just threw a wrench into the idea that a person should be able to do what they want with their body?
              That’s weird.

              • partofme says:

                “…the line is drawn where what you do with your body affects those around you.” This is exactly my point. The General Law of Usability is invalid, as what you do to your body will often (strictly speaking, one could argue will always) affect those around you. Every single time we have to have a discussion which is concerned with the nature of what you do with your body, how it affects others, and whether we will tolerate it. You can’t ever just skip this discussion by claiming the General Law of Usability.

                • 12345678nine says:

                  What do you mean by ” The General Law of Usability”? I have never heard that term before. Is there a general law? You seem to be the only person generalizing here, so I am confused. Please explain.

                  • partofme says:

                    I am referring to all arguments which boil down to “You can do what you want to your body”. Guess what? You can’t. That rule is bad. I’m using a nearly Socratic method to poke around at this issue and convince people that like to start and end arguments with “You can do what you want to your body” to quit doing so. The good thing about this method is that it gets people invested enough that they might actually be open to realizing that they’re relying on a bad argument. The bad thing about this method is that sometimes people miss the point altogether.

                    • 12345678nine says:

                      Like I said, I don’t know anyone who really believes that people can do ANYTHING they want even if it harms others. No one says it is as simplistic as that. People require common sense. Some people are not responsible, and they do bad things. Some people can’t handle their alcohol, but I will never be for prohibition. Why? Because people should be able to drink if they want to. They should also be held responsible for their actions. If someone smokes some weed in their home, I don’t think cops shuld bust in their home, shoot their dogs, frighten their family, and throw them in jail.

                      People SHOULD be able to choose what is right for them. They should also be held responsible for their actions. You should be of a clear mind on the job where you are in possession of a lethal weapon, obviously. If you want to go to a bar after work and have some beers? Sounds good. Should you drink up until an hour before your shift starts and drive into work drunk? Um, no.
                      Steroids are not a recreational drug. They are not used for their effect to be maintained for only a few hours. That is definitely not why a cop would be using them.

                    • partofme says:

                      And absolutely anything you do to your body will affect others. The question is how much and in what situations. Therefore, you have to make the distinctions you just made. Every time. There is no general principle that gives you the right to do what you want with your body. The problem is that if one person thinks they should be able to do something (maybe they actually think that the effects on others are low-impact), they fall back on “I can do what I want!” In actuality, if they think the effects are low-impact on others, THAT’S the argument they should make. The problem is that this is usually a harder argument to make (because there always are effects on others, and ‘low-impact’ is subjective), so people fall back on “I can do what I want”… and it fails. Then they get confused as to why people don’t believe them. I hope I’ve gotten the point across as to why people don’t believe them.

            • dolemite says:

              The only limit is how much damage you want to do to yourself. If another human being wants to self destruct, that’s perfectly fine with me, and within their rights.

      • Ouze says:

        I think that’s an OK crowd, myself.

      • jason in boston says:

        As long as no one else gets hurt, absolutely nothing.

    • hansolo247 says:

      Here. Are we free or not??

    • JennQPublic says:

      Exactly. If you want to smoke crack, it’s not my place as your fellow citizen to deprive you of your freedom.

      If we allow others to decide what we are ‘allowed’ to do to ourselves, I reserve the right to lock up any of my girlfriends who sleep with unsuitable men. Because it’s bad for them. And when they get knocked up by that dolt, I’ll be footing the welfare bill. So I should get to decide for them.

      Also, running is bad for your joints, and I don’t want my tax dollars to have to pay for some hot-foot’s medical bills, so no one will be allowed to move faster than a walk. Safety first!

      • partofme says:

        The point is that just like we can’t reserve the right to restrict everything (your examples are satisfactory), we also can’t just let people do anything they want because of the General Law of Usability. We have to encounter each thing and decide what we want to do with it. The General Law of Usability is not enough. There are conditions and qualifiers. Some are reasoned and well-thought out, some aren’t. We can approach the problems and make progress without having to resort to something as naive as the General Law of Usability. My message to that crowd is that the next time your entire argument is the GLU, don’t be surprised if others walk away unconvinced.

  10. Jubes says:

    The previous owner of my house was a cop. I’m not sure if he did steroids, but we found a LOT of evidence of his other recreational habits. When we met the neighbours we heard about how he went on a big coke bender, streaked down the street and then crashed his car into the front of my next door neighbour’s house. He got fired after the police chief canvassed the street and found out lots of other fun information about him.

  11. RadarOReally has got the Post-Vacation Blues says:

    I’m not saying every cop is bad, and I think most do go into it with a true desire to serve and protect. But I don’t think you can deny that the profession more often than others attracts a certain sort of person, that has anger management issues. It’s scary to think they’re on steroids on top of it.

  12. evilpete says:

    That is all we need, more physically aggressive cops.

  13. Reading_Comprehension says:

    with taser user among officers on the rise, who needs steroids? besides, a well-placed punch to the throat goes a long way, regardless of your muscle mass

    • pop top says:

      Uh…cops aren’t supposed to punch people at all, let alone in the throat. What the hell?

      • tsukiotoshi says:

        Even when disarmed and forced into hand to hand combat? I would think it’s ok then. I would agree cops aren’t supposed to go around punching people without provocation, though.

        • evnmorlo says:

          A throat-punch is lethal force. Cop will get in trouble if the person dies and they weren’t struggling with a weapon. (Of course saying “he was grabbing for my gun” is probably excuse enough)

        • pop top says:

          I think that situation would come up very rarely (someone being able to get close enough to a cop to disarm them without being Tasered or shot first), but even if it did, you would NEVER punch someone in the throat unless you intended to kill them.

      • indeeme says:

        They aren’t supposed to use steroids either, but they do that…

  14. Straspey says:

    I make my own…

    erm…never mind….

  15. vinmega says:

    In NJ they just found out that alot of cops were on steroids. Now we have to pay for man boob reduction operations in the future…Yet NJ hates gun rights, but is OK with giving guns to a bunch of roide’d up cops…

  16. evnmorlo says:

    Using steroids to perform your job is a lot different than using them for vanity or to win a competition. Yeah, there are side-effects, but more than half the population is on prescription drugs with extensive side-effects.

    • Doncosmic says:

      In what way do these steroids help the cops do their jobs? If they were in any way justified to help them do their jobs, they could get a prescription for them.

    • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

      “Using steroids to perform your job is a lot different than using them for vanity”
      They don’t need a lot of muscle to sit in a patrol car and eat donuts.
      The ONLY reason for cops to be pumped up is vanity. A gun and badge are all the “equalizer” they need.

      • evnmorlo says:

        Vanity is probably part of it, but every cop needs to manhandle suspects once in a while. The fact that they mostly sit around only makes chemical assistance more necessary.

        • Bill610 says:

          This is why “peace officer” has fallen out of fashion and been replaced with “law enforcement officer”. A culture which encourages police violence, conceals or condones it, and fosters a mindset that says it’s okay to break the law in order to better enforces it is…well, pretty much where we’re headed.

        • Bill610 says:

          It’s also worth remembering that steroids, as I understand them, at least, are not a magical muscle-building elixir. They only increase the benefits you will get from exercise. So if your lifestyle is all donuts and sitting around, steroids won’t make you any stronger.

  17. ZakiSea horse says:

    Steroid use is high in the military as well.

  18. lstorm2003 says:

    Just so you know, Police Officer / Law Enforcement doesn’t even make the top 10:

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/

    1. Commercial Fisherman
    2. Logging
    3. Aircraft Pilot
    4. Farmer / Rancher
    5. Roofer
    6. Structural Iron or Steel Worker
    7. Refuse Workers
    8. Industrial Machinery Installation
    9. Truck Driver
    10. Construction Worker

    • DarksSideMoon says:

      I’d be interested to see how they define “Aircraft Pilot”. That number seems rather high unless they include private pilot crashes. It could also be skewed due to places like Alaska that are inherently more dangerous to fly in than most other areas.

      • sonneillon says:

        Also keep in mind military aircraft pilots and occasionally having our choppers get shot down, also rescue choppers and storm chasers.

    • vicissitude says:

      Just so you know, law enforcement shouldn’t even be on the list…

    • aaron8301 says:

      I’m number 9! WOOHOO! Wait – what? My job isn’t dangerous. Trucks are by far the safest vehicles on the road with accident rates far lower than cars, and truck drivers are far less likely to get injured in an accident. How the hell is this considered dangerous?

      I say this list is complete bullshit.

  19. comedian says:

    “You gotta admit, Lieutentant… the guy’s got a hell of a muscular ass. ” — http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0030102/quotes

  20. Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

    Methinks Phil is the only one at the office today.

  21. ForrestWhitakersLazyEye says:

    Ahhhh, this story makes me happy. Hypocrites getting what’s coming to them.

  22. sweetgreenthing says:

    I should have guessed! It all makes so much sense now!
    I hope every single cop they catch gets fired publicly. On TV, live. It’s like watching COPS, but backwards.

  23. sifr says:

    So, other than being made illegal by Congress because BASEBALL MUST BE PROTECTED, why do all of you think steroids are bad? And please, cite peer-reviewed research, not sensationalized news coverage.

    • sifr says:

      For example, http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/darkes/aggression-01.htm

      “In general, although there has been tacit acceptance of the direct relationship between AAS use and aggression in most quarters, a review of the literature finds that support for this relationship is equivocal. In fact, in studies that controlled for extraneous factors through rigorous inclusion criteria and random assignment, there is little evidence to suggest that moderate AAS use leads to aggressive behavior. “

    • 12345678nine says:

      I don’t know much about steroids, so i don’t know why they are really used in the first place besides the people I know who use them to appear more buff.
      What is the reasoning behind using it? Are the effects long term or temporary?

  24. quail says:

    Next in the cross hairs will be firefighters. Steroid use there is a known secret as well. And sorry, going after cops for steroid use is like collecting the low hanging fruit. Everyone knows it happens. Just as it happens in the military.

  25. u1itn0w2day says:

    This isn’t a recent phenomia, this has been going on for decades at this point. Every gym I’ve been a member have had cops dabbling in something. Too bad the drug enhanced officers ruin and smear ruin all the good work steroid/drug free cops do.

    Number one as a police officer they are supposed to be the calm ones and figure out how to resolve the situation. A roid raged cop using firearms and hurling their vehicle 100 mph can’t be a good thing. They’re supposed to use training AND stay in shape. Staying in shape doesn’t mean 12oz curls, donuts or just hitting the weight room a couple times a week. Fitness should be part of your daily routine no matter what the profession.

    They’re a ton of cops that want to do the job 100% legit and then there are those that are in the job for adrenaline and status. It’s not about right or wrong it’s about the rush. If you’re relying on adrenaline to do your job/any job maybe you should find another line of work.

    Top it off you have the hypocrisy of arresting people for basically the samething your doing. I’ve read several surverys of law enforcement applicants and in many cases they’ve have to raise the admitted occurances of illegal drug use to anywhere from non to 15 or so. We’re not talking juveniles either, apparently many college grads did that much drugs after 18. They say they cant find qualified candidates otherwise.

    • sifr says:
      • u1itn0w2day says:

        Yes roid rage.

        First the study was based on moderate use, probably legal doctor supervision type steroid use. Second the study tended to focus on agression ie the neuro transmitters brain pathways involved in aggression.

        The effects of steroids aren’t just about muscle mass and hormones. Steroid use decreases recovery time, less recovery time = more energy or a more energetic individual. Half the cops out there already are living off the adrenaline of their job. Throw in a power hungry you wont defy me or get away from me mentality this IS a recipe for disaster. Also since decreased recovery time a cop especially (pardon the expression) will cop an attitude of invincibility(By the way the original article cited a steroid/drug dealing cop-did the arrogance come from a false sense of security because they percieved themselves as more than “fit”) .

        I personally have seen steroid users do things like THROW weights and other objects and under go complete mood and personality changes. Throw some side effects like high blood pressure this could irritate a cop or anyone already in a highly charged or emotional state. This study tells you it’s not intended to refute anecdotal evidence or observed occurances of probable roid rage.

        Steroids or crack, I don’t my cops performing their duties under the influence.

        • sifr says:

          Nothing you just cited is a direct result of taking AAS. “roid rage” is a myth, except in cases of severe abuse. And I can promise you that cops aren’t taking 2-3g/week on top of various 17aa orals.

          What you just described is someone who’d be an agressive asshat without the AAS. The AAS don’t cause that condition. It may amplify it, sure. But so would alcohol. So would caffeine.

          AAS aren’t the culprit in your scenario.

        • sifr says:

          Furthermore, scientific studies — none of them — can “refute anecdotal evidence”. Data are the antithesis of anecdote. That’s why science isn’t based on anecdote. Anecdotal evidence is about as accurate as what your cousin’s sister’s friend’s friend’s pen pal once heard the guy down the street saw one time a long time ago. In the dark. In the fog. And the guy down the street is blind and deaf.

  26. mcgyver210 says:

    Any LEO caught breaking the laws they are supposed to be enforcing should be held accountable to a higher standard period IMO especially since it is so easy for them to get away with it because they wear a badge & are above the laws. As for when a LEO breaks the law or uses excessive force and gets caught they are usually put on Paid Administrative Vacation oh sorry I met Leave. Next they are investigated by other LEOs before any very unlikely criminal charges are brought up against them.

    Stories like this go no where because they will not have the laws applied equally & most likely wont even go to trial as you or I would.

    The fact is if any civilian breaks the same law they will be charged & have to defend their selves & they wont be investigated by friends & family first.

  27. vicissitude says:

    With U.S. Marshals being eliminated around the country, jails moving into private business, it won’t be long before all U.S. law enforcement is converted to private business. It’s the big agenda to privatize everything to eliminate taxes. Our Judicial, Law enforcement and Political systems already suffer rampant corruption here in the U.S. Imagine just exactly how much more corruption America will have to endure after the ‘Freedom From Taxes’ campaign is successful. Enjoy your tea! :)

  28. The Steer says:

    Please. It’s so easy for us to legally use juice. All it takes is a sympathetic doc. We do it all the time on the force.

  29. goldgecko4 says:

    Heavily muscled, especially angry cops belong in my private-time fantasies, not on the streets.

  30. gman863 says:

    Although not employed in Law Enforcement, I feel sorry for those officers (likely the vast majority) who stay in shape strictly by the book – exercise and healthy eating.

    If a department syspects their officers are using, random drug testing would be a cheap and effective method of addressing the issue. I doubt the Unions would be able to block this since random drug testing is normally a condition of employment in most government and civilian occupations.

    If an officer tests positive for steroids and has an otherwise good record, they should be offered an option for suspension, demotion and rehab on a first offense so long as the test wasn’t tied to other bad behavior. Although some may disagree, I’m basing this on the reality that rehab will likely cost taxpayers far less than the cost of recruiting and training a replacement.

    On a related note, there should also be minimal physical fitness standards for law enforcement officers who work “in the field”. Sadly, I’ve seen a few motorcycle cops in the area who are so obese it’s doubtful they could chase a suspect more than a few feet. It’s a good thing these cops are riding Harleys or Gold Wings; if they were on horses the SPCA would nail them for animal curelty.

  31. DovS says:

    Given the side effect of steroids known as “Roid Rage”, steroid abuse among cops could cause some serious rights issues and could threaten conviction rates.

  32. mariusvinchi says:

    Steroid use can certainly explain “overly aggressive” officers. Having witnessed a “roid-rage” incident, its terrifying to think that those charged with protecting society are perhaps its greatest danger!

  33. Jake B says:

    Those on the right side of the law probably don’t mind the idea of more powerful cops, certainly their impressive stature would allow them to avoid the use of lethal force in some confrontations. The down side maybe the reported tendency of some combinations of hormones to cause higher levels of aggressiveness.
    I just saw the movie Solder on TV last night (Kurt Russel) in which the newest solders were genetically engineered for better performance, so our police force is doing a little tinker on their own.

  34. Mr Fife says:

    Hey! if you report a cop for being a drug user, then YOU might be a terrorist! Cops don’t need to obey laws, nor do politicians, corporate big wigs, the idle rich, etc…

  35. NORMLgirl says: