ShareThis Page

Vandergrift man pleads guilty to role in steroid distribution ring

Jason Cato
| Thursday, June 4, 2009

A Vandergrift man pleaded guilty in federal court Thursday to his role in a steroid distribution ring that made and shipped illegal performance-enhancing drugs across the nation.

David Edward Retter, 36, pleaded guilty to conspiracy. U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab scheduled a sentencing hearing for Oct. 30. Retter faces 24 to 30 months in prison.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Houghton said Retter received "a complete underground anabolic steroid laboratory known as Hell Fire Labs" from two co-conspirators — Andrew W. "Heretical" Rhodes of Auburn, Wash., and Jason "Freak" Hobbs of Anderson, Ind.

After federal drug agents raided Rhodes' house, Retter "became extremely nervous about his illegal activities," Houghton said. Rhodes and Hobbs had Retter ship his lab to an Arkansas man who took over his role in the operation, Houghton said.

Retter did not comment yesterday in U.S. District Court, Downtown, other than to briefly answer questions from the judge. He agreed to being part of the ring from May 2006 to February 2008. Houghton said the ring distributed nearly 190,000 doses of steroids. The ring distributed steroids that included testosterone, methandrostenolone and nandrolone decanoate, court documents state.

Hobbs, 31, also pleaded guilty yesterday to a conspiracy charge. His sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 11.

Rhodes is scheduled to plead guilty to conspiracy on June 10.

Kristen Mealer, 36, of Timbo, Ark., pleaded guilty to conspiracy on May 12. He will be sentenced on Oct. 30.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me