Andro was available as an OTC supplement until early 1999 and wasn't pulled from the market (and subsequently outlawed) until after that point. Although it does appear to stimulate testosterone production to a very limited extent, the actual effects (positive and negative) are still unknown.

During "the chase", andro was not outlawed by either MLB OR the federal government (unlike synthetic testosterone or other similar compounds). It is now, but to condemn someone in an ex post facto manner seems slightly odd to me.

The other issue being brought up is McGwire appearing before Congress. The simple fact is that he did not belong there with other active players. Questions directed toward him regarding the current state of MLB, the MLBPA, and drug testing had no application to him at all and justified the "I'm retired" answers he was giving. And the questions of "Did you use steroids" while everyone else was being asked "do you use steroids" (past vs present) was nothing more than bringing a certain amount of tabloid exploitation to Congressional hearings.

Did McGwire use compounds stronger than andro during his career? Possibly. However, what possible basis could there be (during hearings being held to determine the course of future policy based on the present) for asking questions regarding his career, which has ended three years prior by that point? If he says yes, what has anyone gained? Certainly the future of MLB policy wouldn't be in any way influenced by it; it looked like baiting for a scoop to me. If he says no, then has there been any gain by anyone there? Will MLB policy have been improved by him answering any of those questions at all? The answer is no.