Baseball Musings: Finding the Mark

December 02, 2004

Finding the Mark

One other aspect of the Giambi testimony struck me as interesting. Greg Anderson had a pretty good con going.

Giambi said Anderson had suggested getting his blood tested for mineral deficiencies and taking supplements to counter those shortages; it was a snapshot description of the legitimate business BALCO performed for athletes.

Giambi called Anderson upon returning to the States, then flew to the Bay Area in late November or early December 2002 and met him in Burlingame at a gym down the street from BALCO, he told the grand jury. From there, the two men went to a hospital for Giambi to provide blood and urine samples, which were taken to BALCO, Giambi testified.

Either during that meeting or in a phone conversation shortly thereafter, Giambi said, Anderson began discussing various performance-enhancing drugs he could provide the ballplayer. Also, when Anderson received the results of Giambi's blood and urine tests, Anderson told him he had tested positive for Deca Durabolin, the steroid Giambi said he had obtained at the Las Vegas gym. Giambi said Anderson had warned him to stop using it, saying it could stay in his system a long time.

At the time, baseball was implementing its first-ever steroids-testing program at the major-league level, during the 2003 season. It is illegal to obtain steroids or human growth hormone without a doctor's prescription.

So Anderson would use the excuse of testing for "mineral deficiencies" to really test for steroids. Probably, once he knew that an athlete was already taking the drugs, he would tell them to stop the ones they were on and take his. I'd like to know what happened if the player came back negative; did Anderson not take those players on assuming he couldn't sell them the expensive illegal drugs?

Posted by David Pinto at 01:05 PM | Cheating | TrackBack (0)

Comments

I noticed this exact same thing. Also, why the blood sample if a simple urine sample would tell you if the guy was on steriods? I'm pretty sure it's because Growth Hormone doesn't show up in urine, but it does in blood. Can anyone tell me if I'm wrong or right on that last part.

This was a good insurance for Anderson, and could really lessen any penalties. He didn't get these guys started, he just offered better products.

Posted by: andy from Alaska at December 2, 2004 05:38 PM

i know this is a little off topic, but bear with me... are there any lawyers out there? grand jury testimony is supposed to be sealed/secret... now the doj is pondering an investigation, but it seems like that would get you nowhere ala novak and the wilson leak.

if someone were serious about wanting to find out the source, couldn't they (particularly giambi and now bonds) fille a libel suit against the sf chronicle? the defense to libel is truth, but getting the chronicle and the journalist to prove truth would mean revelaing their source, no? they can't defend by saying it's true, i saw the testimony; how can a jury test the veracity or legitimacy of the testimony without a physical copy and where it came from?

as a free speech advocate, i am just pondering the possible effectiveness of such a route... that said, are they not bringing these cases because they are true and it would be a frivolous suit?

anyway, any insight would be helpful.

Posted by: otis at December 3, 2004 08:34 AM

Dave, at the risk of being obsequious, it seems to me you are entitled to props and a kudo or two. That's kinda like a safety pin; the concept is obvious-- once you think of it... I missed it completely anyway.

Posted by: john swinney at December 6, 2004 10:53 PM