The Facts
One of the most controversial aspects of modern medicine and the reason for the state’s concern, trading with anabolic steroids is mowing on the agenda of the contemporary system of justice. Forgetting about both the health of the people using steroids and the sports ethics, people resort to buying and selling anabolic steroids, which brings irreparable harm to the sportsmen’s health and their reputation. Despite the prohibition to sell and buy anabolic steroids, people still continue the trade. There is no doubt that such a state of affairs must change once the ad for all.
It is obvious that the case is completely clear. Learning that the company sells the alleged anabolic medicine to sportsmen, the plaintiff filed a case to make the illegal anabolic trade cease and promote fair and just competition among the sportsmen. Claiming that selling anabolic substances discredits both the sportsmen and the company, the plaintiff was completely right. However, because of an unfortunate misconception, a usual medicine was taken for an anabolic substance. As a result, the company filed a counter-claim, accusing the sportsman of libel.
The Issue
Considering the peculiarities of the case from the viewpoint of the defense, one can claim that the situation that the accused was trapped in was rather controversial. It is necessary to mark that the initial charge was made based on the assumptions, which is definitely a sore spot of the case. However, it must be taken into account that Martinez, the accused, was guided by the idea that people buying the given product would have been involved in a crime without even knowing it (Willhite). Therefore, it is evident that Martinez had the reasons for serious concerns. These must be considered extenuating circumstances that could be the basis for the reconsideration of the case.
However, taking the viewpoint of the prosecutor, one can see the controversy of the situation. No matter what the label has been caused by, it still remains a crime that the defendant must respond to. Since the law presupposes that the actions drag certain responsibilities, Martinez will have to take the responsibility for his actions as well. Therefore, it is beyond any possible doubt that the judgment passed in the case does not correspond to the norms of justice and does not take account of each peculiarity of the case. To be more precise, the jury should have considered the point of view of the sportsman as well before passing the sentence.
The Previous History
Marking the previous history o the case, it must be mentioned that the drug store where these medicaments could be easily bought by practically any sportsman posed a threat to the fair sport games and broke the law of the country. Since the trade prejudiced the fair competition and threatened the career not only of the plaintiff, but also of a number of other players, D. Martinez considered it reasonable to apply to the court so that the steroid trade could come to an end. As LeVert marked, “In Mexican pharmacies, steroids can be purchased as over-the-counter drugs” (LeVert 54).
However, it moist be admitted that the decision has been taken in haste. Trading anabolic medicaments or the similar substances is a widespread phenomenon that can be found even online (Finley 96), it is obvious that the case must be considered once again, which means that the case is still to be considered. In addition, it is worth mentioning that the reasons that drove Martinez to apply to the court were not taken into account.
The Holding
According to the facts of the legal case, the situation looks in the simplest way. It is obvious that there is the one and only possible way to solve the complicacy that has emerged. In the case where D. Markham opposed Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Kathleen D. Patterson and Rocky C. Tsai; McGuireWoods and Gordon W. Schmidt in the case against illegal anabolic steroid trade, the sentence passed by the jury demands reconsideration. Since the anabolic steroids trade in the United States and their transportation from Mexico to the U.S. has reached its peak and beaten all previous records, it is evident that someone must out a stop to the anabolic trade. However, in the given case, it seems that the verdict passed by the jury was the one and only possible. Therefore, it can be considered that no possible appellations can be made. According to the facts and the evidence that are presented in the case, there are no other possible decisions to be taken. It is clear that the sportsman has been accused unfairly, whereas the company might continue the malpractice, trading the illegal drugs. As Rutstein marked, “Steroids have the terrible power o transform anyone. Unfortunately, these stories are not being played out in novels, but on police blotters. Even cops themselves aren’t immune from steroids” (Rutstein 56), which means that the given situation is the reason for concern.
Reference Page
Finley, L.F. (2008) Hawking Hits on the Information Highway: The Challenge of Online Drug Sales for Law Enforcement. Bern, CH: Peter Lang.
LeVert, S. (2004) The Facts about Steroids. Singapore, SG: Marshal Cavendish.
Rutstein, J. (2005) The Steroid Deceit: A Body Worth Dying for? Boston, MA: Custom Fitness Publishing, LLC.
Willhite, J. Steroid Hormone Product Cases. The Law Offices of Wallace and Graham.