Bonds in the clear?

by JI on Jan 15, 2009 10:16 AM PST Comment 50 comments

It could explain why Barry Bonds’ attorneys believe the grand jury questions to him were impossibly vague and why the focus of the BALCO case veered from prosecuting distributors of illegal anabolic steroids and money launderers to catching world-class athletes lying about drug use.

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.

Linky

0 recs | Comment 50 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

What about the perjury business?

I thought that was the only serious thing he’s facing anyhow. But then I’ve willfully ignored pretty much everything regarding this case so if the problem is that he was using the clear and said he wasn’t using illegal steroids under oath then he’s probably OK.

Fuck it when can we sign him on an incentive based deal?

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 15, 2009 10:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

They could have signed him last year.

They won’t.

Nobody will and you have MLB’s head management to thank for that.

by Matthew on Jan 15, 2009 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Collusion still exists

by Mariner John on Jan 15, 2009 10:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The players' union ain't what it used to be.

by JI on Jan 15, 2009 10:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

or

they’re hoping to use some of the big names to mask the fact that this is a extremely widespread problem.

either way, if I’m a voter, I would vote in Bonds first ballot and smack the living daylights out of anyone who doesn’t. Bonds was basically a HOFer by the later 90s anyway. this whole busniess only changes the matter on wether he is the ABOSALUTE BEST HITTER OF ALL TIME, or just one of the best with Babe and Williams.

by RollingWave on Jan 16, 2009 1:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah yeah

isn’t there a players’ union dispute with MLB regarding this? Anyway, if there’s one GM who would be canny enough to do it it seems like Zduriencik is him.

by Bearskin Rugburn on Jan 15, 2009 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Its not a GM's decision to sign Bonds

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2009 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If the Clear wasn't a banned/illicit substance when Bonds took it,

and the question was “did you knowingly take banned substances”, if Bonds answered “No”, then there is no perjury.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 15, 2009 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't there still the issue of the Cream though?

---
Juuuust a bit outside!!
http://www.rightfieldbleachers.com

by Jack Moore on Jan 15, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't like this form of determining cheating.

If a player takes something a firm specifically manufactures that will have anabolic effects but isn’t on the banned substance list, that has to still be cheating. It’s like sneaking a wooden knife through a metal detector.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Legally you are wrong

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Metaphorically too.

by JI on Jan 15, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Semantically, as well.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 15, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ethically he's got a point.

Formerly dpseadvr.

by Kermit. on Jan 15, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I hate the topic of steroids, and deeply regret throwing my 2 cents into the conversation.

Please ignore my comment.

Formerly dpseadvr.

by Kermit. on Jan 15, 2009 12:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Is there a rule against wooden knives on planes?

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 15, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the point was a matter of ethics. It clearly wasn't illegal based on the definitions,

but if the substance provides the same effect as something that IS banned, wouldn’t that be substance be cheating as well?

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Cheating implies a breaking of an established rule though

and this particular substance did not, at the time, fall afoul of any rule.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Jan 15, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Once an established ruleset is in place ethics become meaningless

It doesn’t make sense to ask if behaviour is ethical when it’s clearly defined as acceptable or unacceptable by an established set of rules.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 15, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

How is it not a steroid?

while it’s not specifically an androgen substitute, it’s an androgen agonist, increasing the sensitivity TO androgen. Artificially enhancing sensitivity is the same as taking synthetic androgen (a natural anabolic steroid produced by your body). I don’t get how this isn’t cheating?

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 12:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Because baseball said it's not?

by Matthew on Jan 15, 2009 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The writers make the rules not baseball.

by JI on Jan 15, 2009 12:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because it wasn't against the rules.

That’s what determines what constitutes cheating.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 15, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That seems to be pretty clearly not a steroid by that definition

by Graham on Jan 15, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Semantically yes. Isn't the point, however, to snuff out people gaining an advantage through unnatural means?

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If it wasn't against the rules, it wasn't against the rules

by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The intent of the rules ins't knowable.

We can only follow the letter of the law.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 15, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What is "unnatural"?

And if everyone uses it , do people gain an advantage?

If the goal is to snuff out “unnatural” performance aids, why haven’t corticosteroids been banned yet?

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jan 15, 2009 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

unnatural from an endocrinological standpoint. Increasing androgen receptor affinity is direct chemical alteration of your body with the end result being increase of androgen activity.

This in no way differs from just taking androgen.

The argument is useless, because I’m positing that the MLB should be treating this as cheating, and everyone else is arguing that the letter of the law doesn’t ban it, therefore players should be able to do it.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This in no way differs from just taking androgen.

You’re missing a clear distinction between the act and the consequences of the act.

by Graham on Jan 15, 2009 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm afraid I am. please do explain (and I do mean this sincerely without snark)

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 15, 2009 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The outcome of two different processes might be the same the said processes can be demonstrably different

This is how loopholes are formed.

by Graham on Jan 15, 2009 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ow

by acblue on Jan 15, 2009 11:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The third 'the' should be a 'but'

by Graham on Jan 16, 2009 9:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My point is that the outcomes are not different and neither are the processes.

I doubt the Union/League care to worry about the biochem occurring at a cellular level, and that is the only place where they would be a difference. That difference, also, is only at the very beginning of the process. Everything downstream of receptor binding (where allllll the party people be at) is identical.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 16, 2009 9:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Except the the biochemistry is what defines it as a steroid

The specifics matter.

by Graham on Jan 16, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My point is that the MLB can't treat this as cheating for past cases

without grossly violating fairness.

If they want to change the rules and treat this as cheating going forward, I’m totally okay with that, but any behaviour that took place under the ol rules that didn’t ban it needs to be governed by those old rules.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Jan 16, 2009 9:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exercise also increases testosterone levels

Baseball has to draw the line somewhere. Which supplements are legal and which aren’t. Is it legal to eat a steak even if this leads to increased muscle mass? What if that beef contains steroids and hormones that make it taste delicious (and add more muscle to the consumer)? Baseball had a lax policy before about what you could and could not take. Now they are more strict. Deal with it. Its history and bitching about it won’t change anything.

If there isn’t a rule against doing something and it gives a player an advantage he can turn into a huge payday then they will do it all the time. Now there are rules so they don’t.

by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The key is that THG hasn't been shown to be a muscle builder in humans.

My read on this is that THG (active ingredient in the Clear) has not been shown in a clinical trial to enhance muscle growth. Without that, you can’t legally define it as a steroid. That changed in Jan 2005 when the Justice Department categorized THG as a steroid, but BALCO had been shut down by then.

The thing that could look real bad for the Feds is that they knew that THG wasn’t, legally, a steroid back in 2003. This makes it look like they knew they couldn’t go after Bonds for taking illegal drugs so they just try to set a perjury trap for him. I think this really strengthens Bond’s case.

From the article

On Oct. 23, 2003, just a few weeks before Bonds testified, prosecutor Jeff Nedrow questioned Catlin before the grand jury.

Nedrow: "There is actually a list promulgated in the federal criminal code of several steroids which are outright prohibited. Is that correct?"

Catlin: "Yes."

Nedrow: "Is THG on that list in the federal code?"

Catlin: "No."

by PDXTai on Jan 15, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs