Nice work Craig.

Best Regards

John

i read thru the whole thing too and yes i know i should be doing other stuff like writing and i agree with you that it sure looks as if he was trying like heck to shield/defend anderson and not his own self.

and we wonder why anderson is loyal

i can't see any way they are gonna get him on perjury and i wouldn't be surprised if the whole indictment was done as a favor to bud selig and novitsky just to keep bonds out of baseball

Recalling the Giambi testimony, BALCO recruited him by offering a urine screening to measure zinc levels, then approached him about their brand of steroids when the urine tested positive for what he was already taking. If BALCO followed a similar MO with Bonds, there could be a way to prove guilt independently of Greg Anderson.

A second point: if Bonds did indeed pay Anderson $15,000 a year, isn't that anecdotal evidence that Bonds didn't think he was paying for steroids? Anderson was spending an awfully large amount of time with Bonds, after all, and that is the way he made his living. That's an awfully small bill for full-time personal training and a full steroid regimen as well.

Recalling the Giambi testimony, BALCO recruited him by offering a urine screening to measure zinc levels, then approached him about their brand of steroids when the urine tested positive for what he was already taking. If BALCO followed a similar MO with Bonds, there could be a way to prove guilt independently of Greg Anderson.

But Conte has said repeatedly that BALCO didn't give anything to Bonds. Conte is not shy about giving up his clientele, and he has already pleaded guilty so he doesn't need to protect himself.

A second point: if Bonds did indeed pay Anderson $15,000 a year, isn't that anecdotal evidence that Bonds didn't think he was paying for steroids?

You know, I know nobody on the planet believes Bonds didn't use/didn't know he was using, but his testimony is entirely consistent with him not knowing. Imagine that Bonds bumps into Anderson and they get to talking, and Bonds complains that his current trainer isn't doing a good job and Bonds wants to replace him. Anderson senses an opportunity to pick up a new client which will help his career big time, but he also knows that Bonds is getting old, and so there's nothing Anderson can do about the aches and pains and exhaustion and such that Bonds is suffering. So he tells Bonds he has a new training regimen, and starts dosing Bonds without Bonds' knowledge. Bonds starts doing better, and he thinks Anderson is doing a great job. Anderson wins an important client, boosts his own career as a trainer, and everyone's happy. Except Jeff Novitzky.

But you're right; $15K does seem low for regular training and a full course of steroids. And the regular training is easily provable. (The $15K is less so.)

I was under the impression that a lot of the Balco athletes were provided steriods for free in exchange for the free publicity their "results" would bring. Of course this leaves open the window that the athletes were told they were being given legal supplements, rather than steroids.

Of course this leaves open the window that the athletes were told they were being given legal supplements, rather than steroids.

That's precisely the point I'm not sure of. Could someone really dope up a client without their knowledge? If you're sleazy enough, there's plenty of motive: the client raves about the amazing results that no other trainer was able to get. But this implies the client ignores the shrinking balls, mood rushes, cycling on and off, etc, which doesn't seem plausible. Maybe if you tell the client you're going to be working on the edges of legality, and will get results similar to steroids? Maybe the client asks for the premium package and then carefully doesn't ask what's in any particular rub? I suppose it could be done, but that would imply a huge breach of trust by the trainer, combined with huge naivete by the client.

Wasn't Zaireeka really meant to be heard in Vierkanalton Sound?

I can’t believe that BALCO lawyer Troy Ellerman went to all that trouble—and now is in jail for over two years—to leak this to Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada. I mean, I suppose it seemed nice and explosive at the time of the leak, but this is pretty mundane testimony from a rather boring and unpleasant witness. Why on earth does one risk their livelihood and freedom over it? Is fame—even the vicarious kind stemming from seeing your anonymous handiwork in some sportswriters’ book—worth it? God, I hope not.

It's been common knowledge for quite a while now that Ellerman leaked the testimony so that he could point the finger of blame at the prosecutors (the government) for doing it, hoping that it would help get his client get off the hook, figuring that people would assume that the government would have the most vested interest in seeing the testimony leaked.

And in fact, quite a few people right here on this very web site believed precisely what he wanted everyone to believe. Like most criminals, he never figured that his crime would ever get traced back to him; it had nothing at all to do with him seeking fame.

I have nothing of my own to add, but I thought Jim Caple had the most profound thing to say about PEDs that I saw all winter, in this off-the-wall piece about fantasy camps:

The last time I played baseball competitively was on a Minnesota town ball team in the mid-90s, and after pitching seven-plus innings the first day of games at fantasy camp, I swallowed aspirin and ibuprofen as if they were M&Ms;, occasionally forgetting how many doses I had taken or how far apart. And I wasn't the only one.

When suspected steroid users claim that they assumed the substance they took was B-12 vitamin or flaxseed oil instead of steroids, I used to roll my eyes and say there is no way an elite athlete earning so much money would put something in his body without knowing exactly what it is. I'm not so sure now. At one point, a player offered me a pill from his prescription bottle and said it would relieve the pain in my shoulder. He said it was a triple dose of ibuprofen, but the sad fact is, he could have handed me just about anything -- and as long as he said it would either make my shoulder stop aching or help me play better, I would have swallowed it and held out my hand for more.

And this, remember, was just for a meaningless fantasy camp game. Lord knows what I would have been willing to take if there were multimillion dollar contracts available.

6 - There was a discussion between Bonds and the prosecutor regarding cycling in the testimony. Bonds posed the question about whether steroids required cycling and he said he had never done that. But, if everything were taken orally in daily supplement packets as described by Bonds and Giambi, they could cycle on/off without knowing.

Wasn't Zaireeka really meant to be heard in Vierkanalton Sound?

Maybe on your planet, Quork.

It's been common knowledge for quite a while now that Ellerman leaked the testimony so that he could point the finger of blame at the prosecutors (the government) for doing it, hoping that it would help get his client get off the hook, figuring that people would assume that the government would have the most vested interest in seeing the testimony leaked.

Good point, Joey. I had forgotten about that and didn't really think about it all that much (that paragraph, though coming at the beginning, was a bit of an afterthought).

Amazing to me that he thought it wouldn't be traced back to him, though.

As for who it would have helped, the government was still fighting as of Friday to keep this thing sealed, so that certainly puts to rest the notion that they had an interest in having it out there. Indeed, after reading the thing, I can see why they don't want it out there: it reveals the weakness of their attorneys' questioning and the weakness of the subsequent indictment.

But, if everything were taken orally in daily supplement packets as described by Bonds and Giambi, they could cycle on/off without knowing.

You could take it without knowing, but I would think that the fluctuating hormonal levels would create noticeable side effects.

Three cheers for a steroid thread where everybody is respectful and on topic! Figures it's the shortest steroid thread in Primer history.

Incidentally Craig your suggestion that Bonds appears to be trying not to give up Anderson in his testimony is the only plausible explanation I've seen for Anderson's behaviour -- well to the extent that it can be explained.

Let's add to the thread. Because DeWitt of the Cardinals came out today and said that the distraction of the court case was a concern with Bonds for this season, the other athlete BALCO cases should be watched for their timing and the judge's attitude.

The Tammy Thomas case made progress today. The defense motion to throw it out on the basis that her testimony was (1) not material or (2) obtained by badgering the witness was denied. The judge said samples in her case could be used. They are a lot more solid evidence than the Bonds samples because they were administered by the USADA and still existed. I've never seen her testimony so I don't know if she had developed the "I didn't know what I was taking" angle. The timing is what's most important in looking at her case because it's simpler than the Bonds case. She was charged in December 2006 (that's a SIX). It's silly to think Bonds is going to be required for court before November 2008, especially when you consider Tammy Thomas has no money and was trying to be a law student when this started.

Trevor Graham was indicted in early November 2006 (that's a SIX). No idea where his case stands. His trial was scheduled for September 2007, then November, then who knows.

Damon Stubblefield has pled guilty and has not been sentenced to my knowledge. His sentence will be revealing.

Marion Jones is not nearly as relevant as she was in a different court because she was part of a massive check fraud scheme in New York.

Yeah, it will certainly be a while before this thing goes to trial.

As for distractions leading up to trial? That all depends on how involved chooses to be in his case. He's already waived appearances at hearings, and he's likely to do so again. Personally speaking I don't know how I'd allow myself to be detached from my lawyers as they draft motions and form strategy, but given Bonds' stated apathy regarding everything in his testimony, I can see him kind of ignoring it all and just letting it happen.

Ultimately: probably little distraction for him going forward, and probably no trial before he would choose to retire voluntarily.

The Tammy Thomas case made progress today. The defense motion to throw it out on the basis that her testimony was (1) not material or (2) obtained by badgering the witness was denied. The judge said samples in her case could be used. They are a lot more solid evidence than the Bonds samples because they were administered by the USADA and still existed.

Right; Thomas was challenging the fact that the government had seized and retested the samples without a warrant. Illston ruled that she had given the samples to USADA so the USADA could do what it wanted with them, including turning them over to the government. The case should give Kevin pause -- if he ever paused to think, that is. In that case, they had samples, chain of custody, tested formally by the UCLA lab, and the government still thought it needed to retest the samples in order to use them against Thomas. WRT Bonds, all they have is a piece of paper.

(Thomas's alleged perjury is really puzzling, by the way. She had already been banned for life, and she had immunity before the grand jury. Why on earth would she bother to lie?)

Conte talking about the inaccuracy of the reporting regarding the "positive" testosterone test.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2008/03/06/2008-03-06_victor_conte_reports_on_barry_bonds_test.html?page=1

Thomas's alleged perjury is really puzzling, by the way. She had already been banned for life, and she had immunity before the grand jury. Why on earth would she bother to lie?

Pretty much all of the athletes called to testify in the BALCO case were granted use immunity, and yet we now clearly know that some of them lied anyway.

Why do some of these elite athletes lie despite being granted immunity? Entitlement, arrogance, disdain for authority, a general feeling of being above the rules, and an overwhelming concern for one's own legacy. These people live in an almost entirely different reality than most of us do.

Why do some of these elite athletes lie despite being granted immunity?

I watched Science of Steroids on National Geographic Channel recently. Dr. Yesalis had a quote on this subject. Paraphrased, an athlete would rather admit to any heinous crime than admit using steroids. Even if he/she couldn't get in trouble. For some reason it's the ultimate shame.

It seems sort of obvious to me why it would be the ultimate shame, in much the same way JFK admitting that Ted Sorensen had written much of "Profiles in Courage" would have shamed him.

In other words, if you are widely praised for having a certain ability or talent, wouldn't having to admit to the world that you (for lack of a better word) cheated to get that be kind of crippling to your self image? Even if you knew or suspected that everyone else was also doing it, I think it would be tough to admit to something like that publicly.

Interesting column from Victor Conte here regarding Bonds's alleged elevated testosterone levels. As usual, RTFA, but here's Conte's main point:

This lab report purportedly showed that the level of free testosterone could not be measured because it was above the 5.00 ng/dl detection limit of the instrument used.

It is my opinion, however, that this 5.00 reading is not an absolute value or result. It simply indicates that a determination could not be made because the level of free testosterone was greater than could be detected by the instrument.

So, we don't know whether the free testosterone level was 5.1 or 50 or ng/dl (the abbreviation for nanograms per decilitre.)

All we know is that no result could be reported because the amount was above 5.00. This laboratory's normal range for a male 20-49 years was between 0.95 and 4.30 ng/dl. It is certainly possible that the level of free testosterone was just 5.1 and yet undetectable.

If that were the case, then the level would have only been 16% above what would have been considered to be normal, which is insignificant. (Note that free testosterone is the unbound fraction that represents less than 1 percent of total testosterone.)

I watched Science of Steroids on National Geographic Channel recently. Dr. Yesalis had a quote on this subject. Paraphrased, an athlete would rather admit to any heinous crime than admit using steroids. Even if he/she couldn't get in trouble. For some reason it's the ultimate shame.

Yes, I understand that, and it's logical. But in her case, she had already been caught, multiple times, and banned for life. She wasn't in the position of a Bonds or Clemens, who would want to protect their legacies even if they happened to be guilty; she had no legacy. She couldn't even create plausible deniability by lying.

In other words, if you are widely praised for having a certain ability or talent, wouldn't having to admit to the world that you (for lack of a better word) cheated to get that be kind of crippling to your self image? Even if you knew or suspected that everyone else was also doing it, I think it would be tough to admit to something like that publicly.

Again, she had already been caught and 'convicted.' Not just in the so-called "court of public opinion," but in the "court" of the USADA. (And it wasn't public, either; it was before the grand jury, and she didn't necessarily know at the time that certain scumbag reporters would obtain and publish the secret testimony.)

It seems sort of obvious to me why it would be the ultimate shame, in much the same way JFK admitting that Ted Sorensen had written much of "Profiles in Courage" would have shamed him.

In other words, if you are widely praised for having a certain ability or talent, wouldn't having to admit to the world that you (for lack of a better word) cheated to get that be kind of crippling to your self image? Even if you knew or suspected that everyone else was also doing it, I think it would be tough to admit to something like that publicly.

Like Barack Obama plagiarizing speeches? Like Linda Lovelace choking? Like Milosh not being able to play tennis?