Bonds blockbuster: The Clear was legal
by AgitationStation on Jan 14, 2009 10:35 PM PST
Email
PrintBonds Blockbuster: The Clear was legal
Taking the Clear – the star drug of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative – was not a crime, according to expert testimony included in grand jury documents.
Not only was the performance-enhancing drug tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) not specifically banned when athletes squirted “The Clear” under their tongues to gain an edge, the testimony also indicates that the drug wasn’t categorized by the Justice Department as a steroid until January 2005, long after the drug laboratory had been shuttered.
THG was classified as an illegal steroid on Jan. 20, 2005, the date that the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 took effect. The Act eliminated the previous requirement to prove muscle growth and listed 59 specific substances instead of the previous 23 as anabolic steroids. The new law closed the designer drug window exploited by Conte. But it was not retroactive.
So much more at the link, including speculation by lawyers who think the government will have difficulty proving perjury since the questions Bonds answered were "impossibly vague" and Bonds is technically correct that he didn't take steroids. All sorts of other insights into BALCO, the Cream and the Clear: what they do and whether or not they are steroids or can be proved to be steroids, and the government's bungling of the BALCO investigation and prosecutions as well. Fun stuff.
54 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
good
he has unfairly been the poster boy just because he was so good before taking steroids.
www.punditpolitics.com - Political IQ Tests, Pundit Blog, News and Opinion.
I thought it was the other way around
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 14, 2009 11:04 PM PST up reply actions
I think him being one of the biggest gaping assholes in recent memory has a lot to do with his "unfair" treatment.
by thejd44 on Jan 14, 2009 11:34 PM PST up reply actions
+1
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on Jan 15, 2009 7:13 AM PST up reply actions
which would also explain why Roger Clemens is under indictment
Oh, wait …
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
Innocent until proven guilty with one exception
Roger Clemens is guilty unless proven innocent. (IMO)
They guy is a piece of work and should never be allowed in HOF. All the potential trouble he may be in is all on him and his big mouth.
The Bonds stuff goes back father than the Clemens stuff
Clemens is under investigation right now. It seems that it might be harder to prove anything with Clemens since there aren’t tons of BALCO documents, just the word of one guy (who isn’t very trustworthy).
But I’m with you on Clemens. He should be treated the same as Bonds.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
In America, you are innocent until proven guilty.
And in the steroid era, everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
Let the cards fall where they may………
No, in the court of law you're innocent until proven guilty
I can decide based on a lot of obvious signs who I think took steroids. My decision doesn’t take away their freedom.
I don’t understand why people constantly confuse the legal realm – which is designed to not put innocent in people jail more than it’s designed to put guilty people in jail – with the realm of “it’s pretty effin’ obvious.”
As for Bonds: So one of the 800 things he was putting in his body was, technically, not illegal. Does that really change anything?
by thejd44 on Jan 14, 2009 11:35 PM PST up reply actions
jd44
I was merely making a commentary on the steroid era. I personally don’t care if Barry Bonds took steroids or not. It just amuses me that a grand jury can waste this much time and our taxpayer money on utter bullshit like this. Comprende’ senor’?
Woohoo!
Someday I’d like to become a politician/bureaucrat whose sole purpose is to waste taxpayer money.
That said, the Bonds thing is taken way out of proportion. The guy might be something of a dick, but I think he’s handled himself fairly decently given how much of a villain he’s made out to be.
Remember when that weird guy wandered over to him in left field?
He seemed cool about it.
"To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes."
by VORP is too nerdy on Jan 15, 2009 5:30 AM PST up reply actions
Barry Bond: Ambassador of Friendship
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Jan 15, 2009 6:26 AM PST up reply actions
LOL
"All your baserunner are belong to Greg Smith" ~ walk off bunt
by Philip Christy on Jan 15, 2009 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
I get more cynical as I get older...
…I don’t even believe in “innocent until proven guilty” in a court of law anymore. Maybe I watch too many true crime and true detective shows and read too many books, but they’re just words. Granted, for the most part, we do do a very good job of it and the end results are correct, but there are still way too many mistakes. Organizations such as The Innocence Project are quite busy, and for good reason.
I believe that once the system “fingers” you for something it becomes an uphill battle to defend oneself against the relative endless resources of the prosecution. It doesn’t help that too many jurors believe “He was arrested and prosecuted… he must have done something wrong.”.
Agree with your point on the difference between the legal realm and not, though.
"If I've got baggage, he's got a whole set of Louis Vuitton." ~ Milton Bradley on Barry Bonds
I didn't say the system worked perfectly, or even very well at all.
Just that “innocent until proven guilty” is supposed to be the standard for a courtroom, and it doesn’t apply across all avenues. Kinda like when people yell “It’s a free country!” as they’re about to do something that really has nothing to do with the freedoms we have.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions
Unless you are the BART cop....he's clearly guilty until proven innocent - oh wait, the
people of Oakland know that there is no way he could be innocent. What a sham.
by 33SwisherSweet on Jan 15, 2009 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not sure what you're trying to provoke here
but it’s the closest I’ve ever come to flagging for a CGV.
by green star oakland on Jan 15, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
Seriously?
typical bay area passive aggressive statement right there…. “ohhh im sooo offended… were the open minded bay area, unless you don’t think exactly like me….” I’d call you a typical liberal but im sure that would get me flagged.
"I Will Not Relent, I Am Driven"... Clutch
Bring Back The Bash!!!
I think you just did call me something, and it was probably intended as an insult,
but that’s much less offensive to me than your posting taunts about an extremely emotional and volatile situation on an A’s discussion site.
I don’t care what your opinion is, and you have no idea what mine is, but this is not the place for that subject.
by green star oakland on Jan 15, 2009 7:36 PM PST up reply actions
Personally, I couldn’t care less about the sentiment you were expressing - you were making a provocative political statement regardless of what position you espouse, which is a clear CGV. I’m flagging your first comment and voting strike-and flagging this one and voting strike as well. I guess you’ll have to sign up for another 3 or 4 accounts at this rate.
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
oy. ok, I don't know how to preview. ignore the strikethrough.
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
I think Shippee33’s contributions to this thread are pointless and absurd, but as to the “provocative political statement” aspect, I submit that the central difference between his comments and many of your own is simply that his are less artful/abstruse, and that he is being flagged for insufficient cleverness rather than the content of his remarks.
Selecting “Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are” as your signature line, for example, constitutes political commentary. It’s more wink-wink sophisticated than Shippee33’s blather about “typical liberals”, and it’s not provocative because most people who read this site either agree with the mocking sentiment expressed therein or don’t recognize the quote. But if I was a Sarah Palin/GOP booster, wouldn’t it be provocative to me? And if so, why is it not a CGV?
Look, neither your comments nor Shippee33’s bother me. I think the ban on political statements is sort of silly.
Nevertheless:
1. You (of all people) wielding the sword of righteousness against the evils of provocative political statements amuses me to no end.
2. It seems that so long as political statements are allusive or esoteric or slyly rendered, all is well, but if you happen to combine forthrightness, bad writing, and inanity, the CGV’s come a-flying.
3. Actually, I wouldn’t have a problem with classifying bad writing and inanity as CGV’s, but a) those aren’t the rules, and b) I’d get banned pretty quickly, so possibly it’s not the best plan I’ve ever hatched.
by 74mk on Jan 16, 2009 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
agree most of the way 'round
I have never made any bones about skirting up to the edge of the rules myself, and have welcomed one and all to flag me for it.
I do think there’s a qualitative difference between sly allusions and big fuck-yous, though; shippee’s was clearly a big fuck-you.
my internet search says i have nothing to worry about unless i have problems breathing, or bleed when i use the toilet @('.')@
Yeah, true
The other (important) distinction is that you’ve established a long history of conviviality, whereas Shippee33 … not so much.
What about Clemenes?
I was never a Bonds fan but do think it is unfair if Bonds goes to trial and not Clemens. Clemens to me is more of a dirt bag then Bonds could ever be.
He isn't on trial for illegal drugs
He is on trial for perjury. Whether the drugs were legal or not is immaterial.
Depends on the grand jury question, in question. If they asked if he ever took any illegal steroids
his yes answer is now validly correct. If they asked if the took THG, then he may have perjured himself.
by theblackpearl on Jan 15, 2009 8:36 AM PST up reply actions
exactly right
Prosecutor: "Let me be real clear about this. Did he [Anderson] ever give you anything that you knew to be a steroid? Did he ever give you a steroid?"
Bonds: "I don’t think Greg would do anything like that to me and jeopardize our friendship. I just don’t think he would do that."
Prosecutor: "Well, when you say you don’t think he would do that, to your knowledge, I mean, did you ever take any steroids that he gave you?"
Bonds: "Not that I know of."
by AgitationStation on Jan 15, 2009 8:39 AM PST up reply actions
I'm no perjury expert
but given that the deposition took place AFTER the reclassification of “the clear” as steroids, it seems to me that its legality at the time he took it is irrelevant. All the prosecutor asked is whether to his knowledge (as of the deposition date) he had taken steroids. As of that date, “the clear” was a steroid.
This seems “interesting but legally irrelevant” to me.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
"anything you knew to be a steroid"
I’m not a lawyer, but perjury is notoriously difficult to prove. As the lawyers in the article point out, there is a lot of ambiguity here.
by AgitationStation on Jan 15, 2009 8:55 AM PST up reply actions
I read this as asteroid
"However, at Elias, I think they keep track of the amount of sunflower seeds spit in a dugout each night." - Brad Ziegler, 8/7/08
A steroid asterisk?
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on Jan 15, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions
It's difficult to prove, yes.
But that doesn’t mean that A) Bonds didn’t lie, or think he was lying even if it turns out he technically wasn’t and B) That the concept of prosecuting somebody for perjury is a waste of time, as some here have indicated.
It might be a losing battle, but I think it’s a battle that has to be fought.
by thejd44 on Jan 15, 2009 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
Sure
I expect this to ultimately get dismissed for lack of evidence, probably before trial. They don’t have much.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Personally, I think the BBWAA should do all in their power to prevent a ham sandwich from entering the HOF
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
If this is true...
…and I’m not saying or suggesting it’s not true… then wouldn’t it have been obvious to everyone involved at the time? At the very least, obvious to defense attorneys?
"If I've got baggage, he's got a whole set of Louis Vuitton." ~ Milton Bradley on Barry Bonds
BWAAAAA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAAAAA
a man has to have something to help the petite vanilla bean scones go down @('.')@
If he ain't going to jail, then SIGN BONDS NOW!
Lineup:
Buck – CF (or Sweeney)
Cust – RF
Bonds – DH
Holliday – LF
Gumby – 1B
Chavez – 3B (until he breaks after the third game of the season)
Ellis – 2B
Suzuki – C
Crosby – SS (or perhaps we could have the DH in place for BoCro and let the pitcher hit instead).
That lineup would score us a nice pile of runs.
"However, at Elias, I think they keep track of the amount of sunflower seeds spit in a dugout each night." - Brad Ziegler, 8/7/08
What about the Clean?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Dunno about the Clean, but Bonds definitely has the Jerk part down
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
