In practice, I have yet to hear of anyone prosecuted for a personal use situation.
But that doesn't mean it's legal. The best way to answer the question is with an article I wrote for Dave Palumbo's RX MUSCLE magazine (you can subscribe at
www.rxmuscle.com). It states the federal law, gives an example from state law, and speculates a bit. Here's a condensed version:
VETERINARY IMPLANTS:
STEROID LAW LOOPHOLE?
By Rick Collins, J.D.*
For as long as rules will be made, there’ll be attempts to find loopholes in them. The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 added juice to our nation’s list of controlled substances, making its sale, possession or importation a federal crime. But you already know that, right? Having those little tablets and vials in your hot sweaty hands constitutes a federal drug crime, even if just for personal use. So, creative muscleheads have struggled to devise ways to score and use their gear by bending the rules but not breaking them. But is it possible?
Welcome to the Animal Farm
America loves its beef. To meet the demands of the hungry public and maximize ranchers’ profits, we aspire to make our feedlot cattle as big and beefy as possible before slaughter. To get our bovine friends that way, we jack them up a bit with trenbolone or testosterone. Not in the form of tablets and vials as traditionally favored by human juicers, but in the form of veterinary implants like Finaplix®. “Fina” is a veterinary implant containing trenbolone acetate, a potent androgen with little if any estrogenic activity. The product is sold by feed stores and farm supply houses, and is manufactured in two forms Finaplix-H (for heifers) and Finaplix-S (for steers), with differing total dosages. A competitor has manufactured two similar products: Component-TH and Component-TS. Pure trenbolone acetate implants must be distinguished from Revalor-S® and Synovex-plus® implants, which contain a significant dose of estradiol in addition to trenbolone acetate and testosterone propionate, respectively. The cartridges are designed to be administered subcutaneously to the ears of cattle with a special implant gun.
What does all this have to do with bodybuilding? Imaginative bodybuilding chemists have discovered a variety of methods to adapt the implants for human consumption. They’ve developed underground conversion kits, generically called “Fina kits,” to extract the anabolic steroids and to separate the hormones in the mixed androgen/estrogen implants. The end result is a “home brew” of trenbolone or testosterone ready for intramuscular injection. The short-acting anabolics typically produced require frequent and often painful injections, and may be unsterile and contain impurities such as methanol. Although the kits contain perfectly lawful components – filters, tubes and the like – the facts and circumstances surrounding possession may arguably be sufficient evidence for a charge of criminal possession of drug paraphernalia, a crime in many states.
Why would bodybuilders take the risks instead of simply buying injection-ready vials or ampoules? It’s primarily to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the federal controlled substance “rules” that apply to anabolic steroids.
Bovine Implants and the Federal Steroid Rules
Congress criminalized anabolic steroids by amending the Controlled Substances Act to include juice in Schedule III. The U.S. Code defines anabolic steroids in 21 U.S.C. § 802(41). Subparagraph (A) spells out what substances are included in the definition of an anabolic steroid. But subparagraph (B) provides an exemption for veterinary implants, because the mode of administration was thought to limit potential human abuse. The law excludes “an anabolic steroid which is expressly intended for administration through implants to cattle or other nonhuman species and which has been approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for such administration.” Here’s the catch, however. The subparagraph goes on to say:
(ii) If any person prescribes, dispenses, or distributes such
steroid for human use, such person shall be considered to have
prescribed, dispensed, or distributed an anabolic steroid within
the meaning of subparagraph (A).
The Code of Federal Regulations [21 CFR § 1300.01(b)(4)(xxviii) and 21 CFR § 1308.26] repeats the same limited exclusion for veterinary anabolic steroid implant products. [Note that the DEA’s own website misinforms the public – despite my bringing it to their attention – by ignoring the exclusion and claiming instead that Finaplix-S is just an “other name” for the Schedule III anabolic steroid, trenbolone (see
www.dea.gov/pubs/scheduling.html,).]
So, cattle implants are not controlled substances -- as long as they’re prescribed, dispensed or distributed for animals. If somebody sells an implant to another bodybuilder for human use, he’s subject to prosecution for distribution of a controlled substance. While it seems clear, there are unanswered questions as to the issue of mere personal possession. We have to speculate a bit, since there’s no case law on the issue.
The Devil in the Details
We often hear the term “diverted for human use.” While neither the U.S. Code nor the federal regulations use the term “divert,” the word appears in the Federal Register. The DEA used it when they published their Final Rule on the topic [Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 192, Rules and Regulations, Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, 21 C.F.R. Part 1308, Schedules of Controlled Substances: Excluded Veterinary Anabolic Steroid Implant Products, 62 F.R. 51774 (October 3, 1997)]. The rule states:
“The veterinary anabolic steroid implant products which are
described in 21 CFR 1308.26 are excluded from application of the CSA in
relation to their production, distribution, and use in animals only. If
any person distributes, dispenses or otherwise diverts these products
to use in humans, he/she shall be deemed to have distributed a Schedule
III controlled substance and may be prosecuted for CSA violations.”
The rule uses “otherwise diverts” and not “prescribes” as the statute and regulation do. Is the difference important? It sure could be. While nothing in any of these laws, regulations or rules explicitly says “possessing” these products for self-administration is criminal, I wonder how broadly aggressive DEA agents might construe the concept of “otherwise diverts” presented in the rule? Could a person in possession of a small quantity of cattle implant cartridges and a conversion kit (suggesting his own personal use) be charged with possession of a controlled substance? Could the absence of the word “diverts” in the statute and regulation be a basis to challenge a prosecution? A future case may resolve these issues. [Note that state laws may vary. For example, the cattle implant exclusion in New York doesn’t protect anyone “who knowingly and willfully administers [cattle implants] to himself or another person” (Public Health Law § 3306(i).]
Summing it all up
Veterinary implants offer some unique and unresolved legal issues for the hardcore bodybuilder. However, anyone thinking that they’ve found a magic loophole that simply guarantees that they’ll “steer” clear of potential prosecution is clearly mistaken.
© 2003 by Rick Collins, JD. All rights reserved
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
