If you think Barry Bonds is guilty of using steroids during his career, especially during the years before the Balco scandal erupted, raise your hand. Hmm. Lots of hands going up out there.
Today’s big news is that Barry Bonds was indicted for perjury, stemming from his testimony to a grand jury investigating the Balco case in 2003. Bonds appeared before the grand jury under a grant of immunity from prosecution for anything he might admit to. To hear the the grand jury’s indictment tell it, Bonds was knowingly evasive and misleading in his testimony. There is also the matter of some test results from 2000 that are allegedly connected to Bonds. Supposedly, these test results show the presence of steroids in his system at that time.
The New York Times had a number of articles throughout the day, among them one on the indictment (linked above, and which made page 1 of the print edition this morning) and another about the timing of the indictment. In the second piece, the paper quotes Victor Conte, regarding those test results said to implicate the slugger:
Victor Conte, who founded Balco and served four months in prison for illegally distributing steroids and money laundering, said he did not believe the test result would be a problem for Bonds. Conte acknowledged that Balco tested its clients blood for steroids, growth hormone markers, and a range of other chemicals. But he said it would be difficult for the government to prove that the test actually belonged to Bonds because of gaps in the chain of custody. Further, he said, many legal hormone treatments in 2000 contained ingredients that could cause elevation of steroid levels in the blood.
“I was aware of this all along, so to see this now, what they say is their smoking gun, I don’t see it,” Conte said in a telephone interview.
If Conte’s right, then the government is going to have a bit of a challenge proving their case. There has been much suspicion that Bonds has been using various “supplements” — including some of Balco’s more famous products, the cream and the clear — but the proof has been more elusive. The Times also notes:
The perjury charge requires proving Bonds knowingly gave false testimony under oath and such knowledge would likely have to be proved circumstantially, [Tony] West[, a former Federal prosecutor,] said, adding: “If he told someone else — and I suspect you’re going to see that may be the kind of evidence that’s going to support these perjury charges. Telling people other than Greg Anderson.”
Anderson was released from jail, where he’d been for the last year after refusing to testify about Bonds to the grand jury, shortly after the indictment was announced. Did Anderson turn state’s evidence, or was he let go because the government was finally able to press forward with the case based on other evidence? Hard to say.
Based on some comments within the Times article about the timing of the indictment, it may well be that Federal prosecutors are holding back on some of the evidence against Bonds. It seems to me that unless they have people who can testify that Bonds told them he was using steroids, they may be in for a challenge.
Even if they can prove the 2000 lab results belong to Bonds, there is still the matter of whether he knew what he was using. He should have known. What kind of fool would use supplements without knowing what they are and what effect they may have? Well, the kind of fool who hires someone to be a trainer and puts his faith in that individual, for one. Change the example a bit, and consider medication prescribed by a doctor.
How many people would just take a drug, not knowing exactly what it was or what its effects were? Surprisingly many, I suspect. After all, the doctor knows what he or she is doing, right? So whatever was prescribed must be the right thing to treat what ails you, no? I would imagine that Bonds’ attorneys might make a similar argument. Sure, he was using various vitamins or supplements provided by Balco, or by his trainer. Did he know what was in them? That’s where it gets tricky. I have a hunch his defense team will argue that he didn’t.
So unless the feds have credible witnesses (and they may) who can testify that Bonds knew what he was using and what it would do, it’s going to boil down to a he-said/he-said kind of game. At least, that’s my suspicion. If they do wind up getting their man, it will be eerily reminiscent of how the government finally put Al Capone behind bars. They couldn’t convict Capone for all of the nefarious deeds he, or his minions, committed. Instead, they managed a conviction on tax evasion charges.
Will Barry Bonds be found guilty or not? At this point, it’s hard to say. Given how long the government waited to file their case against him, one would hope their case is air-tight. Otherwise, it begs the question, “What have you been doing the last four years and why did you waste time chasing after Bonds?”
Unlike in the anti-doping world, under the judicial system Bonds is entitled to the presumption of innocence. It’s the government who will have to prove him guilty of perjury. One thing seems pretty certain: With the cloud of a Federal court case hanging over his head, I suspect Barry Bonds won’t be getting another contract to play baseball. I can’t imagine any team that would gamble millions of dollars on a player who might spend a significant amount of time in a courtroom, rather than on the field. And I can’t imagine any team gambling on a player who might wind up being the designated hitter on the “Club Fed” team.
Bonds’ indictment no doubt warms the hearts of those who believe he is guilty of using steroids and lying to the grand jury. Despite the presumption of guilt that such a scandal, with its attendant media circus, often creates in the mind of the public, when it comes time for a jury to decide Bond’s fate, they will be starting from a presumption of innocence. (Assuming they can find 12 people who have never heard of this case and/or have no opinion about it either way. My guess is that will be hard to do in San Francisco.)
In the case of Barry Bonds, I’m not sure what to believe. But as someone who is a strong advocate for the presumption of innocence, I’ll wait to see if the government can prove their case. Given all the stories about Bonds over the last few years, it would be easy to believe he’s guilty as sin. It’s up to the prosecutors to present a solid case. Sometime in the not-too-distant future, we’ll see if they’re able to do so.
In a precedent post, I asked what was the part of medical product which was use to dope.
Here is a Donati’s report which can done some ideas about the flail.
http://www.playthegame.org/News/Up_To_Date/WADA_releases_new_Donati_report_on_trafficking_of_doping_substances.aspx
and particularly:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/Donati_Report_Trafficking_2007-03_06.pdf
Thank you Jean C. I’m reading it right now – Really – Thank you.
Jean C – I have read EVERYTHING – I am numb with shock. I thank you for directing me and anybody else who bothers to look at this line of information.
–
I can tell you that this information was not known to me. I am astounded and at this moment, unable to do anything but try processing what I have found out. Now I can begin to understand the situation better, and perhaps discuss it with more clarity.
–
Having said this – I do not think I wish to change my stance as far as Floyd Landis is concerned.
–
I can see absolutely why the level of “suspicion” is so high concerning the whole doping situation – at the same time, I believe more then ever that ALL sides of the problem has to be equally addressed.
–
With the astounding information you turned me us on to – we still cannot forget that this situation must be handled With the idea of “justice” in mind at all times.
–
If the level of corruption is as intervowen as the information – then we must guard ourselves from becoming as unethical as the “people and groups” we are trying to stop.
–
I realize I am being vague – but you must give me time to process all this new information, before I feel able to address it more directly.
–
One last thing Jean C. – thank you.
Well I don’t doubt for a second Bonds is guilty. Look at how his home runs total was elevated along with his muscle mass in what would otherwise be seen as the twilight of his career. Definite better via cookin’. But I think it is very interesting they nail Marion and Barry for lying, not the real use. That means the WADA code of tests is woefully inadequate and Pound is actually correct in assuming virtually all riders dope: the doping cops just can’t catch them. Gotta love that better mouse trap.
*
But I also don’t doubt that they have Bonds dead to right on the perjury charges. They would be loathe to put him up on trial if they did not have some hot smoking guns tucked away. This case will be a slam dunk: expect a plea bargain from a “for once” humble Bonds once all of the posturing is over. I would be quite glad to see him rot in federal prison for a few years.
Jean C, the report you’ve cited on world doping deserves a discussion topic of its own. Quick notes: this is not a WADA report, it does not appear that WADA sponsored it or even helped to pay for it, and on the front page WADA says that the opinions in the report are not those of WADA. It would be nice if WADA would stand behind the report, instead of publicizing it and casting doubt on it at the same time. Also, on the front page WADA says that we have little or no data on doping world-wide, which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the conclusions reached in the report on world-wide doping. All this being said, it’s my personal opinion that doping IS a major public health problem, and that the number of people doping probably IS in the millions. I will read the report more carefully this weekend.
…
On to Mr. Bonds.
…
BSMB, don’t be so quick to assume that the feds have the goods on Barry Bonds. One of the major questions I’m seeing discussed, at the NY Times and elsewhere, is: why bring the indictment NOW? There does not appear to be any new information available for the prosecution — it looks like this same indictment could have been brought a year ago based on the same evidence. The only possible new evidence I can imagine is if the feds recently got a witness, like Greg Anderson, to agree to testify. Of course, the feds don’t have to set forth everything they know in the indictment …
…
If there’s no new evidence, why bring the indictment now? To be sure, organized baseball must have done whatever it could to get this indictment issued earlier, to prevent Bonds from breaking Aaron’s home run record. It didn’t happen then — why now? The NY Times reports that the U.S. attorney in charge of the indictment is stepping down; perhaps this was the event that pushed all concerned to issue the indictment.
…
I’m speculating, but if this was a strong case, I don’t think the government would have sat on the case for so long. In comparison, look how quickly the Michael Vick case moved: from discovery of the facts to indictment to plea bargain.
…
This is going to be a very difficult case to prove. It’s not like a WADA case, where the ADAs have the benefit of the “strict liability” rule, and the ADAs don’t need to prove that the athlete knowingly doped. In this case, at a minimum, the feds will have to prove that Bonds knew he’d doped, and lied to the grand jury about it. It’s not 100% clear to me whether the feds will ALSO have to prove that Bonds actually doped. It may be enough to prove that Bonds THOUGHT he was doping …
…
BSMB, remember that organized baseball did not have a testing program for doping until relatively recently, and that baseball’s program is NOT run by WADA. You can ask why WADA could not catch Marion Jones, but WADA had nothing to do with failing to catch any of the dopers in baseball.
…
BSMB, you’re right that if the prosecutors DO have a case against Bonds, it’s not likely to go to trial. In that event, we’ll see a Michael Vick – type plea bargain. Bonds could probably avoid jail time if he cops a plea.
Larry — may I also recommend something closer to home — have you read “ANTI-DOPING: THE FRAUD BEHIND THE STAGE” By: Sandro Donati ? I have never heard of this but it does seem to be legit since Donati is Head of research, anti-doping expert for CONI — Italy. One does get a much clearer picture as to the reasons behind peoples “extraordinary amount of suspiciousness” — and that Larry is just the tip of the iceberg.
–
http://www.playthegame.org/Home/Knowledge Bank/Authors/Sandro Donati.aspx
–
Please excuse my lack of comment on the present Rant — I do not follow baseball — the one sport that I have interest in is cycling.
–
There is a small tidbit that we should be aware of that may or may not be taking place in the very near future — which sheds some light on the power struggle that is between ASO and the UCI in the present:
–
News flash with — minimal interpretation — Finding faces behind the European cycling scene news. — Source — Cyclingnews, November 16, 2007
–
French firm РLagard̬re Sports signed an agreement to purchase German race owner Upsolut a sports marketing company Рwhich owns two German ProTour races, the Deutschland Tour and the Vattenfall Cyclassics.
–
In addition to the two cycling races, Upsolut organises the Hamburg Cityman triathlon and markets two professional teams, the FC St. Pauli (soccer) and the Hamburg Freezers (ice hockey).
–
Upsolut, based in Hamburg, employs 40 people and has a reported annual budget of around 10 million Euros.
–
Lagerdère Sports also a part owner of the Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO). Lagerdère Sports also owns Sportfive, Europe’s largest sports marketer, and this year also bought IEC, a Swedish sports marketing company.
–
Lagerdère Sports Chairman and CEO Olivier Guiguet said: “Upsolut entitles the introduction of a Lagerdère Sports events division and will benefit from numerous synergies with Sportfive and IEC to expand its activity.”
–
It has been speculated that the acquisition will allow the ASO to add the two German races to its stable and to develop its own series of races in competition with the UCI’s ProTour.
–
Well, well, well — dear fellow readers, it certainly looks like that the veneer of civility between the UCI and ASO is micron thin.
–
For those who have thought that the world of cycling will be divided between UCI – Pro-Tour sanctioned races and the non-sanctioned — ASO – “Classics” — it would appear that the stakes are getting higher.
–
Should we then wonder why Jean-Francois Lamour decided to “bail” on WADA? Should we ask ourselves — “Does ASO really think it can just fight the UCI and get away with it?”
–
Not if the deal is green lighted by the German Kartellamt, a cartel investigation institution. If it is – it will take effect on January 1.
–
Plenty of time for ASO to put a nice package together — Looks like there are some very serious players in the game folks – with lots of Euros.
Morgan,
Happy to see that you are satisfied with my “gift”.
I never read the report my english skills were not enough but I have heard a part of them.
Jean C – they are terrific sources for learning the recent past history of cycling’s battle with doping and of course the ever present problem of cheating.
–
Interestingly enough Jean C – it is a translation into English from the Italian. A very impressive piece that clarifies many aspects of our present problems. I really recommend the other readers of this column to check them out. WARNING – it is easy reading but it is not short – I can promise you all though that you will not be bored by it. My only comment in this moment towards them is – WHY does the general public not get such information back in the States?
–
It is very possible that perhaps I am the only one who did not know – but I must say – being aware of such information would only help the “fandom” to appreciate the struggles in cycling now.
–
You have done excellent service Jean C Рtowards expanding our knowledge base in these matters. Danke Sch̦̦n as it is said in these woods. (:-))
Jean,
Thanks for the links. Fascinating reading. Most appreciated. I think you sell yourself short on your English skills, by the way. You seem to do quite well expressing yourself here. I’d imagine that your reading of our language is pretty good, too.
BSMB,
I can see how scandals like the Bonds accusations can give the impression that everyone is doing it and able to beat the system. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of the testing methods used by WADA and their affiliated labs. Though, to be fair, in Bonds’ case, no WADA-affiliated lab did any tests. Got to wonder what would have happened if the UCLA lab had been doing steroid profiles on major league baseball over the years.
Larry,
I haven’t had time to read all of the articles over at the NYT web site, but the indictment does raise the question of “Why now?” I certainly wonder what other evidence the feds might have on Bonds. If the case goes to trial (assuming that Bonds doesn’t cut a plea deal), maybe we’ll get to see what they have.
Morgan,
That’ a pretty interesting story about the changes in ownership. Thanks for posting it.
The Bonds case is getting interesting. I am a bit undecided as what to think. On one hand, there seems to be both a major change in his power hitting as well as his physique which is suspicious. One the other hand, we don’t know of any good evidence that he doped, although as the federal case develops, that may change. However, as he now is in the federal justice system, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty (or he confesses). The feds seem to have a predilection for using perjury charges to get prominent people they can’t otherwise get: Nixon would have faced perjury charges had he not resigned, Clinton did face such charges, and of course Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury but had the prison sentence commuted.
Jean C:
I read the summary in your first link and will read the full report as time allows. One thing I noticed in the summary is that many of the groups accused are not sports related, such as general gym rats, military and law enforcement, body guards, etc. I know that the US military has often made amphetamines available to personnel involved in lengthy missions, which I consider to be at least quasi-legal. Whether they still do this or not, I have no idea, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
I think it’s likely that Bonds used doping substances. It is not clear that he is /guilty/ of using them, since their use may not have been a violation of any rule or law at the time he may have used them.
Whether he knowingly lied about using them in testimony in a way provable to the level of perjury won’t be known until a case is presented.
Having sat in the very same grand jury room and done my duty to consider testimony and render indictments, I’m aware that not everything alleged can be proven to criminal standards. Still, a grand jury can be inclined to indict a ham sandwich is the US Attorneys ask for it, and the only reason this wasn’t done earlier is that it was not requested of the grand juries that were seated.
Deciding to do it now was a choice by the current Attorney, and not doing it then was a choice by the predecessor in office. I’ll presume there are legal, tactical reasons for the choice. It is too cynical to believe Bonds was allowed to complete his season before doing it — that would serve no prosecutorial need, and it would have made more of a statement to have disrupted his season than to let him play it out.
TBV
William,
Go pills are still used by the Air Force for their pilots on long flights, like, say the Stealth bomber pilots who were flying missions from a base in Missouri over to Afghanistan and back (no kidding, they really did that). The use of those pills has been linked to some of the “friendly fire” incidents in Afghanistan, as well as some tragic mistakes in judgment that led to unnecessary civilian casualties.
…
I suspect they’re still being used in other parts of our armed forces, too.
…
TBV,
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Bonds may well have used steroids. Being mixed up in the whole Balco affair makes that a real possibility, given how other cases worked out. But can the government prove that he knowingly lied about steroid use when testifying to the grand jury could be another matter altogether.
William, you’re right, there’s a lesson to be learned here, which is don’t lie to the federal government. The lying will get you into worse trouble than the matter you’re lying about. One distinction to note is that Clinton was charged with lying about something that had nothing to do with the nature of the investigation: there’s no crime in having sex with an intern.
…
TBV, the non-medical possession of steroids has been illegal in the U.S. since about 1990. So it may well be that Barry Bonds’ use of steroids was in violation of the law. I’m not an expert in this field, so I won’t speculate about whether Bonds could have used steroids without ever having taken possession of them. Also, I think the U.S. attorney who brought the indictment is an outgoing U.S. attorney and not a newly appointed U.S. attorney — yes, the impending change possibly explains the timing of the indictment. Agreed that it’s possible to get a grand jury to do amost anything. My guess is that the government’s case here may be relatively weak.
Larry,
Here’s a question for you. A number of nutritional supplements have been sold that are precursors to various steroids, on the theory that more of those in an athlete’s body would lead to production of more hormones, which would lead to various beneficial effects. That’s the thinking, anyway. Any idea on whether those supplements are actually legal? Is it merely the possession of known steroids that is illegal, or would the possession and use of such precursors fall under that same law?
…
The reason I’m asking, of course, is that what Bonds may have taken (in addition to “the cream” and “the clear”) could be such supplements. I wonder if that could have caused the alleged positive test for steroids dating back to 2000, or whether that was from the use of one of Balco’s shadier products.
…
It’s been pretty well established that such supplements can cause a person to test positive in various anti-doping tests. I wonder what the legal ramifications of using those supplements (like, say, Mark McGwire using Andro back in the late 1990s) would be.
Rant, I’ll try to do some research on this later for you. This is a messy area of law, particularly if we’re getting into the area of herbal and “natural” supplements, which get special treatment under the law. My guess is that it’s going to depend on the supplement.
…
You can start to see why the WADA code imposes “strict liability” and does not require the ADAs to prove how the prohibited substance got into the body of the athlete.
The way I understand Bond’s legal position in his testimony is that he didn’t know that the things he was being given to use were steroids, thus giving him plausible deniability. Even a positive test isn’t necessarily a sign of knowledge, because it could be argued that he believed it was from legal supplement/precursors as noted above.
What is really not clear to me is whether the ’91 law on steroids is a strict liability law, or one that requires knowledge and intent. I suspect it requires knowledge and intent, which explains the position of Bonds’ testimony, and why it may be difficult to prove he lied — even with a positive test. Without documentation that shows he /knew/ and proceeded anyway, I don’t know where the case lies.
TBV
And I will never get used
…
to the inability of wordpress
…
to preserve my neatly
…
inserted line breaks.
..
TBV
TBV,
Some “brilliant” person programming this version of WordPress must have decided to strip the paragraph breaks from comments displayed on the page.
…
It’s a major annoyance, and one that I hope to track down and correct. Anyone out there who’s an expert in PHP and WordPress that has a solution, feel free to drop a line. It could save me a whole lot of time digging through endless code trying to figure out where the heck this problem is coming from.
Rant,
Thanks for your thanks but we must thank Mr. Donati for his great works and to take a strong and dangerous position against drug and mafias.
..
For the problem, I do’nt know wordpress, but I think the function nl2br from php could help you.
See http://us.php.net/nl2br
Our replies are stored in a DB, so this function could be use when the reply is send (before storing) or every time the reply is displayed.
TBV, yes, you’re almost always going to have to prove some kind of intent in order to convict under U.S. criminal law. The level of intent varies by law – for example, with possession of steroids, I think you’d going to have to prove intentional possession, but you might not have to prove that the defendant knew they were steroids. It might just be enough that the defendant knew he was in possession of a tube of something-or-other that later proved to be steroids. I’d have to do the research to see what intent is required. But in any event, there’s no “strict liability” – if Bonds can prove that he was injected by Dick Pound’s navy frogmen, he’s probably off the hook.
…
As far as the lying charge, the feds are going to have to prove that Barry Bonds knew he was lying. So, even if the feds DO prove that Bonds took steroids, that doesn’t by itself prove that Bonds KNEW he was taking steroids. What the feds may try to prove is that Bonds knew of the test results – so maybe he didn’t knowingly take the steroids, but that he learned later on that he had unwittingly taken steroids.
…
Rant, yes, there are a number of steroid-like products out there that are not covered under the federal law prohibiting unprescribed sale or possession of steroids. I found the following on the U.S. DEA site:
…
“Over the last few years, a number of metabolic precursors to either testosterone or nandrolone have been marketed as dietary supplements in the U.S. These dietary supplements can be purchased in health food stores without a prescription. Some of these substances include androstenedione, androstenediol, norandrostenedione, norandrostenediol, and dehydroepiandtrosterone (DHEA), which can be converted into testosterone or a similar compound in the body. Whether they promote muscle growth is not known.”
…
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/brochures/steroids/professionals/index.html
…
It appears that all of these “legal” products are prohibited substances under the WADA code and the NCAA rules. I don’t know if the drug tests can distinguish between these products and the steroid products that are available only by prescription.
Jean,
Good tip. Now I just have to find where in the code to drop that in. Most appreciated.
Larry,
Thanks for the research. Interesting stuff.
You can introduce the modification in “http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/wp-comments-post.php” .
You have to apply the nl2br function on the 4th field which could be named “comment”,
you would find something like that:
$comment = trim(($_POST[‘comment’]));
to transform like that:
$comment = trim(nl2br($_POST[‘comment’]));
Jean,
Thanks. we’re getting closer. That actually shows up in a file related to the “theme” used in this site, as well. It’s not quite the solution, but it’s going down the right path, I believe.
…
It turns out all these comments are displayed as list items, and it appears that something is removing the paragraph tags and replacing them with line breaks within each comment. That’s my impression, because when I get at comments in the editing environment, the paragraph breaks are where the authors put them and displaying properly.
…
If any other ideas come to mind, don’t hesitate to pass them along. They’re most appreciated.
Rant,
Maybe I don’t understand your last post.
To have a “carriage return” with html, we must have the caracters or , they are the uniq to say to browsers to jump at next line.
When we put text like I am doing, the software need to translate the “CR” into the precedent string. Your editing environnement is different of our “invite” environnement, because of security concerns. In this case there is no problem.
bold ? can I write html inside my reply?
..
In file wp-comments-post.php, have you tested my suggestion?
Jean,
When I look at a comment through the administrative side of WordPress, I can actually see the paragraph tags where they ought to appear, so paragraphs display correctly in that instance. I’ve tried your suggestion in the file you mentioned, and with the change in there it’s still doing the same thing.
…
Somehow, something is being interpreted differently on the administrative side of WordPress than on the page you see here. Where that difference is occurring is obscure (at least, to me) at this point.
…
As you’ve discovered, HTML tags (bold, href, blockquote, and a number of others) work within the comments.
…
I appreciate the help a great deal, by the way.
It’s strange because after that I will write a break line html and it should disappear but a link lien en francais…
Other paragraph for test>
barry bonds is cool like that go bonds