February 14, 2008
Failing Bonds
Prosecutors responded to Bonds's call to dismiss charges against him by making public a failed drug test:
U.S. baseball home run king Barry Bonds tested positive for steroids in November 2001, just a month after hitting his record 73rd home run of the season, U.S. prosecutors said Thursday.
The allegation came in a legal filing in his steroid perjury case that referred to Bonds' long-time trainer, Greg Anderson.
My question is, who tested him? Was this Major League Baseball on a probable cause test, or was this BALCO?
Update: As noted overnight in the comments, the prosecutors made a mistake:
U.S. attorney spokesman Josh Eaton now says that the reference in Thursday's government court filing regarding Bonds testing positive was actually referring to a November 2000 test that was previously disclosed in the indictment of Bonds and had already been reported.
That drug test was included in the indictment unsealed last year, when prosecutors said the test was for a player they called "Barry B."
I bet Bonds's lawyers will have a field day with this.
Posted by David Pinto at
08:23 PM
|
Cheating
|
TrackBack (0)
I believe these "tests" were the ones done by Victor Conte to determne whether his athletes were showing signs of banned or illicit substances in their blood.
It still doesn't answer the question prosecutors have to prove - did Bonds knowingly take steroids - and also were the questions asked in the deposition of Bonds precise enough to be airtight with regard to intentionally lying.
Most lawyers (including the former prosecutor Kevin Ryan) have stated that the questions were poorly phrased and will injure the government's case.
I'm thrilled the government made this typo in a filing where they stated there was no way that Bonds could have been confused.
Also thrilled it was carried on the sports station, every sports website, and will probably be reported in several morning newspapers.
Bonds' attorneys say "Thanks!"
That's the test that Victor Conte said was misattributed to Bonds (mislabeled at the lab). He may be lying, but while people question the chain of custody related to some seven year old gauze and syringes, if I remember right, all they've got here is a report, not the actual blood sample. So there's no chain of custody at all because there's no direct evidence.
Although the judge in this case seems very sympathetic to prosecutors, she also knows she'll have to rule -- and hasn't yet -- on whether this information can even be used as evidence against Bonds at all.
The government's case is not about steroids use anyway, but about Bonds obtaining or using different substances while knowing that they were steroids, at particular times, except it's not necessarily so clear which substances at which times. You gotta wonder why they even tossed this in.
Sometimes the feds seem to just cut and paste from "Game of Shadows," never mind that, when it comes to single sourcing, that book far surpasses anything Kitty Kelly ever wrote.
The government was so eager to lash out at Bonds for daring to ask the judge to dismiss the case they made a factual error.
Hmm..I am sure that will go down well with the judge. Maybe Bonds will charge them with perjury, or just say that they thought it was right?