But how was his aim? Did he get it all in the cup?

(had to get it out of the way)

If I'm getting the drift here, the sample in question did not test positive initially when MLB was doing their pilot testing program, but something was detected when the feds retested it more recently. Assuming that Bonds' lawyers will argue that whatever was found was something that Anderson gave Bonds without telling Bonds what it was, how does this evidence help prove that Bonds perjured himself?

Well it helps in the sense that there'd be 0% chance that he wasn't just taking Flaxseed oil and arthritis balm. Before there was say a 1% chance that was possible...it ends that argument.

But was that ever the argument? Not here, but in court. Like somebody said in the last Bonds piss thread, this is more damning evidence against Greg Anderson. Too bad Greg Anderson isn't on trial.

Bonds MLB Piss Test 2003 was such a fun video game.

Is that available on Wii, Crispix?

Bonds MLB Piss Test 2003 was such a fun video game

Its just too bad that after all the 'roids, Bonds was only available on the Wii.

...how does it help ... Bonds perjured himself

Before you can prove Bonds knowingly lied; you have to prove he lied. So the piss test and the calendars will go to show that Bonds was getting ass injections and it wasn't Vitamin Pee. Then you can get Estalella and Bell, etc. to testify how he use to talk about getting the juice.

One element without the other would leave a hole so bit even a Big 10 running back could get through it.

No one has ever given me a plausible argument why Anderson would sub designer, presumably extremely expensive, steroids in without getting paid for them. The cheap "you will get caught" stuff is ~$1000 a cycle right? How much could this super secret undetectable stuff laundered so it doesn't come back to you cost? Bonds couldn't have been paying THAT much for a personal trainer could he?

One element without the other would leave a hole so bit even a Big 10 running back could get through it.

That hole must not need to be too big... either that or the Doak Walker award must be for terrible running backs considering 2 of the 3 finalists (and the eventual winner this year) were from the Big 10. That same winner torched South Carolina in his bowl game for 120+ yards. Or Beanie Wells, who, despite a concussion, ran for over 100 yards (on just 16 carries) against Tejas.

Bonds couldn't have been paying THAT much for a personal trainer could he?

Its not like Bonds just happened to have this guy as his personal trainer... presumably he sought him out because of his access to designer steroids. He justified paying the man large amounts by calling him a "personal trainer."

I dunno, between the other thread with the Giambis saying that Anderson told them that the Clear was NOT steroids, and Bonds coming back clean on a 2003 pee test, the defense is looking in pretty good shape here. Wouldn't it be worth the Big Bucks to have a non-steroid, non-detectable PED?

Is anybody else surprised that one of the top drug labs in the county found nothing, but yet Novitzy found something?
Is anybody surprised that both sides have been arguing in court over releasing this exact information, the judge having squashed the request once, and that the hearing for this exact evidence is going to be heard again on Thursday, yet the Government leaked it, early ...

witch!

Uh... is the "obituaries" tag really appropriate?

Bonds MLB Piss Test 2003 was such a fun video game

Exactly what I thought. I thought "hey, that sounds like a video game that I would most certainly rent and/or buy."

Game developers take note.

Uh... is the "obituaries" tag really appropriate?

Negro leagues would be a better tag.

No one has ever given me a plausible argument why Anderson would sub designer, presumably extremely expensive, steroids in without getting paid for them. The cheap "you will get caught" stuff is ~$1000 a cycle right? How much could this super secret undetectable stuff laundered so it doesn't come back to you cost? Bonds couldn't have been paying THAT much for a personal trainer could he?

No one has ever given me a plausible argument why Anderson and Conte would lie about not having given these steroids to Bonds.

Bonds was getting ass injections

As always, its obvious that some people's obsession with this subject has nothing to do with the drugs.

So his anonymous test wasn't anonymous. It didn't test positive. He said he took the cream and the clear and didn't know they were steroids. He didn't test positive after taking the cream and clear, so if he really didn't know they were steroids, he had reason to believe he did not take steroids- because his test came back negative.

Seems to me that it's hard to prove perjury with this hanging out there.

And, if I were the judge I'd be issuing sanctions against the prosecutor for violating my order not to release the evidence publicly. My sanctions might include excluding the very evidence that violated my order. Or, perhaps I would hold them in contempt like Anderson and toss them in jail for a while.

The recent spate of leaks and sneak previews can't be a positive sign for the feds, can it? Other posters are way more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am. Is this something that confident and professional prosecution teams do as a matter of course?

And, if I were the judge I'd be issuing sanctions against the prosecutor for violating my order not to release the evidence publicly. My sanctions might include excluding the very evidence that violated my order. Or, perhaps I would hold them in contempt like Anderson and toss them in jail for a while.

The only reason I haven't ranted about this is the Troy Ellerman situation, where it turned out it was the defense attorney leaking things. But assuming that the government leaked it, I would indeed be doing what Eugene says: excluding the evidence and sending some people to jail. To leak the very evidence that the Bonds team has asked to have sealed is completely beyond the pale. It's unethical, and contempt-worthy.

So David, you are saying the informants (referred to as "the people" in the article) should be in trouble? I take it the judge is unsealing all the documents tomorrow because of the leaks.
A negative test result followed by a positive test result on the same sample is suspicious in itself. At a minimum, it demonstrates that test results are not reliable.

Or Beanie Wells, who, despite a concussion, ran for over 100 yards (on just 16 carries) against Tejas.

Scoreboard, ############!

HORNS UP

A negative test result followed by a positive test result on the same sample is suspicious in itself. At a minimum, it demonstrates that test results are not reliable.

Or that he was using steroids not tested for previously.

Depending on how the tests are proffered, catching less than 100% of users is just as damning to reliability as a false positive. Other factors of course weigh in the favor of false positives, but wrong is still wrong.

Or that he was using steroids not tested for previously.

The leak is that he has tested positive for "regular" steroids - ones that wouldn't be the Cream or Clear and thus he was taking steroids he knew to be steroids.

Proper labs have significant protocols here. One of the problems with the public's understanding is that a good lab won't have a false positive off of a single analysis. Frinstance. In my lab, we test most assays in at least duplicate preps. No one in their right minds runs n=1. Everything is n=2. And if the samples differ by any significant margin (dependent on the sample type's consistency), then you re-inject the original preparations in triplicate. Then if they agree with the oriignal and stil disagree, you re-prep in triplicate.

ALL of that should be done *prior* to determining the *FIRST* failed test. You have to demonstrate that the positive test was not a function of analyst error or cross-contamination. How does it get contaminated? Well, any decent analysis also prepares fresh standards (rather than relying on a library), and if you have the standard open (and you likely will due to solution stability issues), then contamination is a real possibility. A "false positive" from a decent lab is nigh impossible, because you don't rely on a single injection to give you that value. There should be at least 8.

And as such, I hate the layman discussion of "false positives".

Well there is the possibility that the entire sample is contaminated. Meaning you get the consistent results you're talking about, but ...

I know that Tyler Hamilton's A sample tested positive at Athens but he was cleared after a handling error destroyed the B sample.

I don't know whether there was a B sample in this case. I doubt it since there wasn't supposed to be any consequences to a positive test (beyond future testing if enough people failed)

Then there's a secondary issue. If what Bonds tested positive for the second time around was something meant to be caught the first time then you've got some explaining to do since one assumes both labs follow the protocols you outlined.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2009/02/03/2009-02-03_barry_bonds_2003_urine_samples_believed_.html

This one says it's "the clear" - which would not invalidate the mlb test.

Thanks Eddie. Makes a lot more sense, but gets back to the point made by several others. Doesn't advance the perjury arguments much if he's proven to have taken the clear.

No one has ever given me a plausible argument why Anderson and Conte would lie about not having given these steroids to Bonds.

Yay, a negative argument irrelevant to the point posed! That helps answer my questions.

No one has ever given me a plausible argument why Anderson would sub designer, presumably extremely expensive, steroids in without getting paid for them. The cheap "you will get caught" stuff is ~$1000 a cycle right? How much could this super secret undetectable stuff laundered so it doesn't come back to you cost? Bonds couldn't have been paying THAT much for a personal trainer could he?

Well, you are assuming that such drugs were in fact subbed, but anyway . . . Much of the cost is presumably tied into the development of drugs - manufacturing them once they're developed is not necessarily expensive. Anderson could have swapped them in for his friend when he was trying to come back after a major injury, and then kept doing it later on. Having Bonds go to Balco for the vitamin testing and having great results when combined with intensive personal training was undoubtedly fantastic advertising - and when other players got good but not great results, they might have requested "extra" treatment, providing Balco a nice profit.

And yes, Bonds probably was paying a fortune for the personal training - though a fraction of what he was making, of course.

So now you should try to answer David's question, which is relevant. What do BOTH Anderson and Conte have to gain by lying about giving the steroids to Bonds?

Good to see you back Backlasher.

Best Regards

John

Bonds MLB Piss Test 2003 was such a fun video game.

BTW, shouldn't the headline for this thread match the actual one?

What do BOTH Anderson and Conte have to gain by lying about giving the steroids to Bonds?

Well Conte's denial isn't of the same import as Anderson's. What Conte has said is that he didn't deal directly with BALCO's baseball clients. He supplied Anderson and doesn't know what happened after that.

Quoting Conte now about Bonds. "Can I say, you know, that Barry Bonds did not use drugs? I can't say that, because I don't know that."

Ron, Conte's denials are important not because they exonerate Bonds directly, but because they discredit Novitsky, who claimed under oath that Conte had admitted giving steroids to Bonds. And so much of the case, including the chain of custody of evidence, depends on Novitsky.

And IMO Conte's denial is credible because he has not been shy about naming other athletes (e.g. Marion Jones) who he did supply.

And IMO Conte's denial is credible because he has not been shy about naming other athletes (e.g. Marion Jones) who he did supply.

I agree with all that. But to be fair, Marion Jones did sue him, so Conte let it all hang out with regards to her usage.

Thinking about it - Conte would have a good reason to lie about supplying Bonds with steroids - but only if he was doing so without telling Bonds. Dosing somebody without their knowing would open him up to other criminal charges.

Doesn't advance the perjury arguments much if he's proven to have taken the clear.

Depends on when he took it. Taking the clear during 2003 only goes to show that what he terms "flaxseed oil" is indeed the clear, which is indeed THG. It may also show that there is some authenticity to the Anderson calendards.

Nevertheless, I feel the need to clarify one item. There is some guy that use to work at Playboy who is writing what he terms "bombshells." I suspect there are fanboys that are lapping it up. I wasn't around for the thread, but I presume there would have been a thread. Unfortunately, I presumed some of the fine denizens of this site would have cleared the grievous and heinous errors in this article.

COUNT ONE does not depend on the legal classification of the THG. Count One deals with Bonds doping on November, 2000; December 2001 and January 2001. Only on November 2000 does the prosecutor just ask about "steroids". (I presume there is going to be a positive steroids test from this time period, but we will find out later today). For December 2001, he doesn't ask anything about "steroids"; he asks about testerone. For January 2001 he asks about "steroids" and "flax seed oil" and the "cream". Despite whatever bad journalism you may read, the only time the classification of THG could possibly be relevant in count 1 was November, 2000.

COUNT TWO does not depend on the legal classification of THG. Sount Two deals with Bonds getting stuck Iin the ass and otherwise) and receiving injectables. If Bonds received an injection from Anderson, or received anything to be injected from anyone other than a licensed physician, he has lied. The former is probably the only lie that can amount to perjury. The legal definition of THG has absolutely nothing to do with Bonds getting stuck in the ass and otherwise.

COUNT THREE does not depend on the legal classification of THG. Count Three deals with Bonds getting hGH from Anderson. This is probably the hardest count to prove based on what we know from the leaked evidence because we are not aware of any hGH test. THG has nothing to do with hGH.

COUNT FOUR does not depend on the legal definition of THG. Count Four deals with the timing of when Bonds took what he knows as "flaxseed oil", the "clear", the "cream" or "steroids". Bonds first alleges he only took the clear (or what Mr. Anderson calls flax seed oil) during 2003 home stands. It was because he was tired due to his father's battle with cancer. He later waffles and takes it back to "after the 2002 season". He emphatically states he does not take it in 2001. The legal classification of THG would not matter when he took "flax seed oil" or the "clear".


COUNT FIVE is an obstruction of justice count based on the perjuries in the other four counts. The feds have at least three dates to show that Bonds was lappin the Conte cocktail. If they have a test on those dates THAT SHOWS ANY STEROID INCLUDING THG, then there are going to be some big problems for Mr. Bonds.

Ron, Conte's denials are important not because they exonerate Bonds directly, but because they discredit Novitsky, who claimed under oath that Conte had admitted giving steroids to Bonds. And so much of the case, including the chain of custody of evidence, depends on Novitsky.

You think Bonds' lawyers are going to try a Furman? I doubt it. If the case does depend on Novitski, there is a problem. However, I don't think that we have instances of Novitski magically finding Bonds piss soaked drawers and those getting sent to a lab. That wouldn't help much on the perjury count anyway, unless Novitski stole the piss soaked drawers in 2001.

The evidence is the calendars showing when Bonds was getting dope, and then other evidence showing that he in fact was dirty during this time. The latter is mainly going to be from paper test reports, and other more formal piss tests.

In those piss tests, I hope Novitski wasn't holding the cup. I also hope he wasn't the one who magically found the vial with Bonds Dirty Piss written on it, while he was alone.

Novitski's foiables only count if we doubt that Bonds was taking anything at all. But I hope most of the wired world knows that Bonds was dirty. He took PEDs. That case was closed a long time ago, and bringing it up only serves to distract from the real questions.

Somehow, people have twisted this into whether or not "Bonds knowingly took steroids." Then they claims that is a witch hunt.

That may be what we are interested in, but its not what this case is about. This case is about whether Bonds lied about getting the cream, the clear, hGH, and injectable steroids from Anderson prior to 2003 and specifically in January and December of 2001.

The recent spate of leaks and sneak previews can't be a positive sign for the feds, can it? Other posters are way more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am. Is this something that confident and professional prosecution teams do as a matter of course?

As David mentions, the last time there were leaks, it was the Defense that made the leaks. And yes---these leaks play into the defense case perfectly. They are able to try to get you to think its about "knowingly taking steroids", then its leaked two witnesses that will testify that Anderson told them it was "an alternative to steroids" They leak a 2003 test for the clear, and they can get people to say, "he admitted to taking the clear" (except a couple of people, who still think Bonds didn't admit to taking the clear). If the leaks don't get enough of that type of conversation going, you can count on Playboy to "sort through tons of evidence" and write an article that doesn't track the indictment in any way whatsoever.

The Prosecution was fine on the seal being taken off the case. The Defense didn't want everything in public, because "it would prevent Bonds from being able to impanel a fair jury."

But its a new age and a new climate. We will see it all soon. We will have less secrets.

Thanks for the breakdown Backlasher--it helps clear up a few questions. You gonna stick around for the big event this aft?

Best Regards

John

Thanks for the breakdown Backlasher--it helps clear up a few questions. You gonna stick around for the big event this aft?

JB,

Thanks for all the kind words. I hope I can make the start of the Great Evidence Release Thread. If the thread doesn't get erased or I don't get banned, I will check in during the overnight after its had a chance to simmer and perculate.

Thanks for all the kind words. I hope I can make the start of the Great Evidence Release Thread. If the thread doesn't get erased or I don't get banned, I will check in during the overnight after its had a chance to simmer and perculate.

Cool--part of it is enlightened self interest; I find your takes useful in clarifying my thoughts for articles I'm writing.

I may not always agree but I never miss what you have to say.

Best Regards

John

(39)
You need to get a copy of the update indictment. Your counts don't track the current one.

And IMO Conte's denial is credible

You are in a very small minority of you believe anything that Conte says about anything is credible.
If Bonds fate comes down to Conte's credibility against Novitsky's then Bonds is in trouble.

You need to get a copy of the update indictment. Your counts don't track the current one.


Eddie is right, its much worse than I thought. Here is the breakdown by count in the superceding indictment (if there is another, let me know).

(1) Ever taken a steroid
(2) Ever take steroids in Nov. 2000
(3) Did you ever take testerone from Anderson
(4) Ever take Flax seed oil, cream or clear in January 2001
(5) Ever get a syringe or injectable from Anderson
(6) Ever get hGH from Anderson
(7) Every get Hgh in Dec. 2001
(8) Ever get HgH in Jan 2002
(9) Every get flax seed prior to 2003
(10) Only took flax seed in 2003 during homestands
(11) Ever receive any oils from Anderson prior to 2003
(12) Ever take "flaxseed " on Dec. 2001
(13) Ever take "flax seed" cream or clear in Dec. 2001
(14) Ever take flax seed cream or clearn in Jan. 2002
(15) Obstruction

So, the legal classification of THG might pay a roll in count 1 and 2, if and only if that is the only steroid Bonds ever took. I presume by the precision of those questions, they are going to have him on some good ol fashion ass-injecting steroids in Nov. 2000. They don't specifically ask about cream and clear in Nov. 2000.

Did they break the seal on the piss tests?

Well, you are assuming that such drugs were in fact subbed, but anyway . . . Much of the cost is presumably tied into the development of drugs - manufacturing them once they're developed is not necessarily expensive. Anderson could have swapped them in for his friend when he was trying to come back after a major injury, and then kept doing it later on. Having Bonds go to Balco for the vitamin testing and having great results when combined with intensive personal training was undoubtedly fantastic advertising - and when other players got good but not great results, they might have requested "extra" treatment, providing Balco a nice profit.

And yes, Bonds probably was paying a fortune for the personal training - though a fraction of what he was making, of course.

Please tell me you don't actually have the belief that Bonds was on Flaxseed oil/Arthritis balm with that "were in fact subbed" comment. Well actually do tell me that, I have a bigfoot hunting trip I'd like to sell you in New York City. But let's get this straight:

1. You are saying that Conte/BALCO, who were responsible for those development cost, are selling Anderson designer undetectable steroids no one else has heard of at relatively cheap, enough-to-cover-manufacturing costs.

2. Anderson is then slipping Bonds anabolic steroids against his will---which doesn't end up angering Bonds at all upon discovering at least the possibility I might add---at the cost of STILL thousands and thousands of dollars in order for Bonds to tell other Big Leaguers what great, almost unnatural results he gets with Anderson?

1. You are saying that Conte/BALCO, who were responsible for those development cost, are selling Anderson designer undetectable steroids no one else has heard of at relatively cheap, enough-to-cover-manufacturing costs.

FYI, Conte/BALCO didn't develop anything; Patrick Arnold did. BALCO just manufactured/distributed.

The evidence is the calendars showing when Bonds was getting dope, and then other evidence showing that he in fact was dirty during this time. The latter is mainly going to be from paper test reports, and other more formal piss tests.

I presume by "calendars" you mean things that Anderson apparently isn't going to authenticate and that (contrary to speculation from last week) the Giambis apparently can't authenticate.

Please tell me you don't actually have the belief that Bonds was on Flaxseed oil/Arthritis balm with that "were in fact subbed" comment.

Actually, I don't give a damn either way. I was merely providing one plausible explanation for Bonds honestly not knowing he was using steroids - i.e., a combination of Anderson wanting to help his friend out, and Conte wanting to have the best player in the game as his client for the purpose of marketing to other (paying) players. BTW, when are you going to provide a plausible explanation for why Conte and Anderson are denying that Bonds used steroids provided by them, an explanation that doesn't involve Bonds being in the dark?

FYI, Conte/BALCO didn't develop anything; Patrick Arnold did. BALCO just manufactured/distributed.

Point remains the same, it's not as though Arnold gave the formula/development to BALCO for free.

Eddie is right, its much worse than I thought. Here is the breakdown by count in the superceding indictment (if there is another, let me know).

Okay, I'm letting you know. You're still out of date. A second superceding indictment was issued in December of last year; the government was forced to drop 4 counts.

1) Did Anderson ever give you a steroid.
2) Did Anderson give you testosterone in 12/01
3) Steroids, flaxseed, cream in 1/01.
4) Did Anderson ever inject you.
5) Did Anderson ever give you hGH.
6) Did you get cream/flaxseed from Anderson before 2003.
7) Did you get flaxseed from Anderson before 2003.
8) Did you get oils from Anderson before 2003
9) Did you get cream/flaxseed from Anderson around December 2001
10) Are you sure you didn't get cream/flaxseed from Anderson around December 2001?
11) Obstruction.

There's an awful lot of duplication there. Note that all this talk about what Bonds did or didn't do mostly misses the point; only count 3 is a generic question about Bonds' steroid use, while the others are about Bonds relationship with Anderson and steroids.

I presume by "calendars" you mean things that Anderson apparently isn't going to authenticate and that (contrary to speculation from last week) the Giambis apparently can't authenticate.

I'm not sure what you are reading, but it certainly seems like the Giambi Baseball family can testify to the meaning of the calendars.

But I gather from this post you are changing your argument. I presume that you now believe that Bonds did in fact dope, lie about the doping, but might be able to get off because Anderson's contempt of court is going to create an evidentiary loop hole that is going to allow Bonds to go free?

If that is so, we have come along way baby.

I may have missed the evolution of this change, so it probably seems more drastic to me than some of the other regulars. Just so I know where we are at:

(1) Do we still have anyone that denies Bonds took PEDS.
(2) Do we still have anyone that denies that Bonds took the clear.

If so, please explain the theory relative to the known information regarding the positive tests. Are we advancing a "Novitski conspiracy" argument.

(3) Is there anyone who does not believe that Bonds lied to the Feds.

If so, we have 14 counts of perjury (unless there is a new superceding indictment). Which of those 14 counts do you believe was Bonds being truthful.

(4) Are there those who believe, he will definately beat the perjury charge. If so, for what reason on each one of the 14 counts.

Note that all this talk about what Bonds did or didn't do mostly misses the point; only count 3 is a generic question about Bonds' steroid use, while the others are about Bonds relationship with Anderson and steroids.

Am I reading your #3 correctly, that if Bonds took something <u>that he believed to be flaxseed oil</u>, but he took it in early 2001, then he perjured himself? In other words, as I read that, the government doesn't have to prove that Bonds <u>knowingly used steroids</u> to prove their case (with respect to count #3). Is that right?

I'm not sure what you are reading, but it certainly seems like the Giambi Baseball family can testify to the meaning of the calendars.

That's not what the AP reported the other day; it was linked to here in a thread that passed with few comments.

But I gather from this post you are changing your argument. I presume that you now believe that Bonds did in fact dope, lie about the doping, but might be able to get off because Anderson's contempt of court is going to create an evidentiary loop hole that is going to allow Bonds to go free?

I'm not changing any argument; I'm simply discussing the court case now, independent of the larger issue wrt Bonds. You're assuming what Anderson would testify to; I'm not.

Point remains the same, it's not as though Arnold gave the formula/development to BALCO for free.

No, but it was presumably a flat fee, not a per unit cost. In other words, a sunk cost. At which point, Balco had to figure out how much it actually cost to manufacture, and then decide how to maximize profits.

Am I reading your #3 correctly, that if Bonds took something that he believed to be flaxseed oil, but he took it in early 2001, then he perjured himself? In other words, as I read that, the government doesn't have to prove that Bonds knowingly used steroids to prove their case (with respect to count #3). Is that right?

I was paraphrasing. The specific claim of perjury is this exchange:

Q: In January 2001 were you taking either the flax seed oil or the cream?
A: No.
Q: And were you taking any other steroids?
A: No.

It's actually the underlined response -- underlined in the indictment itself -- that the government is claiming represents perjury. So to answer your question, I was actually mis-summarizing. If the relevant charge had been phrased as I did, the government wouldn't have to show that he knew it was a steroid. In fact, they were really only accusing him with regard to "other steroids," perhaps because they didn't have any evidence that he was using cream/clear as early as January 2001.

It's actually the underlined response -- underlined in the indictment itself -- that the government is claiming represents perjury. So to answer your question, I was actually mis-summarizing. If the relevant question had been phrased as I did, the government wouldn't have to show that he knew it was a steroid. In fact, they were really only accusing him with regard to "other steroids," perhaps because they didn't have any evidence that he was using cream/clear as early as January 2001.

Thanks, David.

I think the Giambi's testimony would be more to decipher what was on the Bonds' calendar-Jason knew what was what on his and he'll probably be asked to give his opinion as to the shorthand on Bonds' (calendar).

Best Regards

John

I think the Giambi's testimony would be more to decipher what was on the Bonds' calendar-Jason knew what was what on his and he'll probably be asked to give his opinion as to the shorthand on Bonds' (calendar).

No, we all agree on that point; the problem is that -- according to the story I'm referencing -- Giambi doesn't know what was on his. (Or, to be more precise, doesn't know what the things on the calendar mean.) According to that story, all Giambi can say is that Anderson gave him lots of pills but didn't tell him what those pills were, and so he can't correlate any particular symbol on the calendar with any particular substance.

David:

Which story is that? (There are so many so a little pointing would help *g*)

Best Regards

John

Which story is that? (There are so many so a little pointing would help *g*)

I don't know precisely which story David was referring to, but I read this one:

Legal experts say prosecutors might want to establish that calendars Anderson developed for Giambi that allegedly scheduled the player’s various drug and vitamin regimen are similar to calendars allegedly created for Bonds. However, Giambi’s grand jury testimony on the subject is vague. Prosecutor Jeff Nedrow asserted that notations for “Y” and other letters are codes for “testosterone pills or steroid pills,” but Giambi testified that he did not know what the pills contained.

Giambi: “I don’t know. [Anderson] didn’t really explain them. He just had told me to take them. And it had … he explained it had something to do with my system. That’s what he explained. I don’t, he didn’t go into depth about what they were for. But he just kind of said to take it in conjunction with all the other stuff.”

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-giambi020209&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

I'm not changing any argument; I'm simply discussing the court case now, independent of the larger issue wrt Bonds. You're assuming what Anderson would testify to; I'm not.

Excellent, then you do believe Bonds doped, You do believe he lied about doping?

As for the admissability of the calendars. I think I'll wait for the information to be presented before I make any conclusions about the calendars admissability. I would think you would too.

Excellent, then you do believe Bonds doped, You do believe he lied about doping?

I'm really unclear how you got that from what I wrote.

As for the admissability of the calendars. I think I'll wait for the information to be presented before I make any conclusions about the calendars admissability. I would think you would too.

If only you were as patient with regard to the other alleged evidence, and thus your conclusion that "Bonds doped" and "he lied about doping."

There's an awful lot of duplication there.

No duplication. All are seperate counts of him lying. They had to break it up into things like lying in 2001 and lying in 2003 because the defense made them do it. It was a nice simple five count indictment to start. However, Bonds attorneys claim they didn't understand it, so we had to go with a longer version.

RE: That story Ray linked was from our friend Playboy. The one that told you that Bonds would get off because he would not think that THG was a steroid. We don't have the transcript yet, but here is how The WorldWide LEADER in sports described what they got:

Giambi testified Anderson sent him several different drugs, including testosterone, "the cream" and "the clear." Giambi added Anderson gave him advice on the use of human growth hormone.

"Did Mr. Anderson provide you with actual injectable testosterone?" Nedrow asked Giambi.

"Yes," replied Giambi.

Then, in reference to an alleged steroid calendar from January 2003, Nedrow asked, "OK. And this injectable T, or testosterone, is basically a steroid, correct?"

"Yes," Giambi replied

"And did he talk to you about the fact it was a steroid at the time?" Nedrow asked.

"Yeah, I mean, I -- I don't know if we got into a conversation about it, but we both knew about it, yes," Giambi told the grand jury.

Giambi said Anderson described "the cream" and "the clear" as "an alternative to steroids, but it doesn't show on a steroid test."

"And he started talking about that it would raise your testosterone levels, you know, which would basically make it a steroid ... or maybe he said it's an alternative of taking an injectable steroid. That might be a better way to put it," he said.

Linkarino

Now, if ESPN is correct, then Playboy leaves out a lot of important details doesn't he? So instead of jumping to conclusions like some of the others, I'd like to read all of Giambi's testimony before I decide how valuable it will be to have him testify to the calendars.

If only you were as patient with regard to the other alleged evidence, and thus your conclusion that "Bonds doped" and "he lied about doping."


I'm plenty patienty. I've got a shitload of evidence for those two conclusions and it looks like they are the correct conclusions. If you still need more evidence then you have reached what we call "analysis paralysis"

But it seems that you are unwilling to answer those questions. It looks like you believe he doped and lied about doping, you just want to try to defend him using the technicalities present in the rules of evidence. It looks like you are even comfortable that those technicalities arise through contempt of court.

ESPN sez the evidence against Bonds has now been unsealed:

A federal judge on Wednesday unsealed hundreds of pages of court documents at the heart of the government's criminal case against Barry Bonds, including positive drug tests that prosecutors linked to the home run king.

The documents also include a transcript of a taped conversation between Bonds' personal trainer and personal assistant discussing injecting the slugger, plus a list of current and former major leaguers, including Jason Giambi, who are scheduled to testify for the government at Bonds' upcoming trial.

The former San Francisco Giants slugger is charged with lying to a grand jury when he said he never knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs. His trial is scheduled for next month.

Federal prosecutors allege that Bonds used steroids, including a once-undetectable designer drug.

In the court documents, prosecutors say Bonds tested positive in 2000 and 2001 for the steroids methenelone and nandrolone. Prosecutors want to use those test results to show Bonds lied when he told a grand jury in December 2003 that he never knowingly used steroids.

In addition, a government-retained scientist said he found evidence that Bonds used the designer steroid THG upon retesting a urine sample Bonds supplied as part of baseball's anonymous survey drug testing in 2003.

Major League Baseball contracted Quest Diagnostics and Comprehensive Drug Testing to carry out its anonymous drug testing in 2003. In April 2004, federal agents obtained a search warrant and seized urine samples held by Quest in Nevada and codes to match the samples from CDT in Long Beach, Calif.

When agents discovered a spreadsheet containing a list of all players who tested positive, they obtained a second search warrant and seized all samples. The legality of the second search remains in dispute, with three district court judges ruling for the Major League Baseball Players Association and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holding an en-banc hearing in December on the government's appeal.

Then, in reference to an alleged steroid calendar from January 2003, Nedrow asked, "OK. And this injectable T, or testosterone, is basically a steroid, correct?"

"Yes," Giambi replied

BL, are you saying that in this portion of the transcript Giambi is testifying that "injectable T" on the calendar decodes to testosterone? Because to me it seems like Giambi is just agreeing that testosterone is a steroid.

BL, are you saying that in this portion of the transcript Giambi is testifying that "injectable T" on the calendar decodes to testosterone? Because to me it seems like Giambi is just agreeing that testosterone is a steroid.

Exactly. I thought BL was a little more sophisticated than this, to understand that in front of a jury, the prosecutor gets to assume facts not in evidence and lead witnesses, but that the prosecution's statements don't actually constitute admissible evidence. Note that Giambi doesn't even claim that Anderson told him this; he just says that he "knew" it.

Exactly. I thought BL was a little more sophisticated than this, to understand that in front of a jury, the prosecutor gets to assume facts not in evidence and lead witnesses, but that the prosecution's statements don't actually constitute admissible evidence. Note that Giambi doesn't even claim that Anderson told him this; he just says that he "knew" it.

I'm actually a pretty simple guy, with pretty simple ways. Nonetheless, I do have the acumen to be able to get answers with non-leading questions, and I do have the acumen to solicit responses that can go to the trustworthiness of a record.

BL, are you saying that in this portion of the transcript Giambi is testifying that "injectable T" on the calendar decodes to testosterone? Because to me it seems like Giambi is just agreeing that testosterone is a steroid.

I'm saying that Giambi can testify to when he received injections and whether that correlates to what is on his calendar.