PDA

View Full Version : Feds to get hands dirty...



Team Clark
12-27-2006, 03:00 PM
How long do you think it will take for the names to be "leaked"?



SAN FRANCISCO -- Government investigators are entitled to the names and urine samples of about 100 Major League Baseball players who tested positive for illegal drug use in 2003, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The court's ruling could bolster the government's perjury case against Barry Bonds if his name is among those who tested positive. The slugger has been the target of a perjury investigation since he testified before a grand jury that he didn't knowingly ingest illegal drugs.

Greg Anderson, Bonds' personal trainer, is currently in prison for refusing to testify in the perjury probe. Anderson was previously convicted of steroids distribution.

Investigators seized computer files containing the test results in 2004 during raids on three labs involved in the Major League Baseball testing program the previous year.

The samples had been collected by the league as part of a survey to gauge the prevalence of steroid use. The results were to be kept secret.

Michael Weiner, general counsel for the Major League Baseball Players Union, didn't immediately respond to a telephone call and e-mail seeking comment.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press

penantboundreds
12-27-2006, 03:01 PM
I want to know every single name.

Mario-Rijo
12-27-2006, 03:04 PM
I want to know every single name.

Here, Here! I 2nd that motion!!!

:KoolAid:

registerthis
12-27-2006, 03:06 PM
I want to know every single name.

You probably DO know every name. That's the sad part of this.

Team Clark
12-27-2006, 03:31 PM
You probably DO know every name. That's the sad part of this.

That's an excellent point. This list would only "confirm" our suspicions. :(

Dracodave
12-27-2006, 03:36 PM
The confirmation of suspicions might actually lead to a more balanced game-plate for the MLB? If this is what it takes, and I do not by any means wish for the worst..but..

I know no one wants to hear their hero cheated, or their idol was a fraud but sometmes you have to ask yourself, if its for the best that we know or for the best we dont know?

Team Clark
12-27-2006, 03:42 PM
The confirmation of suspicions might actually lead to a more balanced game-plate for the MLB? If this is what it takes, and I do not by any means wish for the worst..but..

I know no one wants to hear their hero cheated, or their idol was a fraud but sometmes you have to ask yourself, if its for the best that we know or for the best we dont know?

I agree with that notion as well. What I fear is the fan backlash. Could the backlash be more severe than the last strike? Possibly.

Johnny Footstool
12-27-2006, 03:50 PM
I agree with that notion as well. What I fear is the fan backlash. Could the backlash be more severe than the last strike? Possibly.

I think backlash from a cover-up would be worse.

Bud Selig and MLB really have no choice but to release those names to the public and suspend the players.

Dracodave
12-27-2006, 03:52 PM
So true. I don't know what to say to that, because the outcome of that is going to be walking into your house slapping the kids in the face than basically laughing while everyone else stands there going :eek:.

registerthis
12-27-2006, 04:10 PM
I think backlash from a cover-up would be worse.

What do they have now?

Baseball hasn't exactly been forthcoming with information about steroid use during the last decade or so. It's been their dirty little secret for some time.

Team Clark
12-27-2006, 04:19 PM
I think backlash from a cover-up would be worse.

Bud Selig and MLB really have no choice but to release those names to the public and suspend the players.

They are in the midst of a cover-up IMO. Time to pull a "Rose". :laugh:

I like your suspension idea but that will never happen. Not to mention Baseball would be missing a large majority of the fans favorite players for awhile. Baseball would be like the '91 Reds. AAAA

Johnny Footstool
12-27-2006, 04:20 PM
What do they have now?

Baseball hasn't exactly been forthcoming with information about steroid use during the last decade or so. It's been their dirty little secret for some time.

True, but it's becoming less and less of a secret. There are actual numbers now. Actual names, not just whispers and speculation.

It's getting harder to ignore the elephant in the room.

HumnHilghtFreel
12-27-2006, 04:21 PM
They are in the midst of a cover-up IMO. Time to pull a "Rose". :laugh:

I like your suspension idea but that will never happen. Not to mention Baseball would be missing a large majority of the fans favorite players for awhile. Baseball would be like the '91 Reds. AAAA

What do you do then? Make an example of a few of the big-time offenders, sweep the debris under the rug and promise to keep a sharper eye on things from here on?

flyer85
12-27-2006, 04:24 PM
Not sure that the results would bolster a perjury charge. Supposedly(at least what has been reported) is that Bonds didn't deny taking steroids, he denied knowingly taking steroids. He left open the possibility that "supplements" given him by his personal trainer may have contained steroids. Of course we know he would be lying but without the testimony of Anderson it is hard to see them making a perjury charge stick. The test results may prove he was taking steroids but they wouldn't prove he knowingly took them(as absurd as that may seem in the case of Bonds).

registerthis
12-27-2006, 04:24 PM
True, but it's becoming less and less of a secret. There are actual numbers now. Actual names, not just whispers and speculation.

It's getting harder to ignore the elephant in the room.

Yes, but I think a great reason why people are so upset by the steroid use is that they believe the MLB powers-that-be were well aware of what was going on for years and elected to turn a blind eye to it in the name of ratings and cash (I'm thinking specifically of Sosa-McGwire, and Bonds).

Now, whether or not there was an active campaign to supress evidence--I haven't yet seen an indication of that. But I think a lot of people view MLB as complicit in the negligent and illegal activities undertaken by their star players. MLB is now only acknowledging the painfully obvious.

Team Clark
12-27-2006, 04:26 PM
What do you do then? Make an example of a few of the big-time offenders, sweep the debris under the rug and promise to keep a sharper eye on things from here on?

That is a great question. One I certainly do not have an answer for. No wonder Bud wants to retire. Sad thing is...what you proposed in jest may actually HAPPEN!

Team Clark
12-27-2006, 04:27 PM
Not sure that the results would bolster a perjury charge. Supposedly(at least what has been reported) is that Bonds didn't deny taking steroids, he denied knowingly taking steroids. He left open the possibility that "supplements" given him by his personal trainer may have contained steroids. Of course we know he would be lying but without the testimony of Anderson it is hard to see them making a perjury charge stick. The test results may prove he was taking steroids but they wouldn't prove he knowingly took them(as absurd as that may seem in the case of Bonds).

I agree. Nothing worse than a Prosecutor with an agenda. Mike Nifong says "Hi". :(

Bonds is guilty of being a jerk. That is something they can prove.

flyer85
12-27-2006, 04:29 PM
Yes, but I think a great reason why people are so upset by the steroid use is that they believe the MLB powers-that-be were well aware of what was going on for years and elected to turn a blind eye to it in the name of ratings and cash .., and for the most part MLB has gotten a pass on the entire issue while McGwire has been left to hang. If MLB would come clean and accept that at least they were complicit by turning a blind eye to what went on, then it would be easier for the cheating players to come clean. However, in the current state MLB has accepted ZERO responsibility for what went on and any player that comes out and admits steroid use is turned into a pariah.

And even though Bonds is a lying jerk it really seems like there is a witch hunt to get him when now it is clear that steroid use was not just a problem isolated to a few players.

Team Clark
12-27-2006, 04:32 PM
.., and for the most part MLB has gotten a pass on the entire issue while McGwire has been left to hang. If MLB would come clean and accept that at least they were complicit by turning a blind eye to what went on, then it would be easier for the cheating players to come clean. However, in the current state MLB has accepted ZERO responsibility for what went on and any player that comes out and admits steroid use is turned into a pariah.

I never thought of the situation that way but it really is the truth. Great post.:thumbup: Out of Rep points.:thumbdown

registerthis
12-27-2006, 04:40 PM
I never thought of teh situation that way but it really is the truth. Great post.:thumbup: Out of Rep points.:thumbdown

You're just generous today, TC. ;)

registerthis
12-27-2006, 04:42 PM
And even though Bonds is a lying jerk it really seems like there is a witch hunt to get him when now it is clear that steroid use was not just a problem isolated to a few players.

You know, I've had the same thought recently. Not that I am defending Bonds, but during the past couple of years, it's become glaringly apparent that steroid use amongst MLB players runs far and deep. It definitely runs deeper than Barry Bonds.

HumnHilghtFreel
12-27-2006, 04:46 PM
And even though Bonds is a lying jerk it really seems like there is a witch hunt to get him when now it is clear that steroid use was not just a problem isolated to a few players.

He's the only clear cut supposed user that is about to break a hallowed MLB record, too. Not that it justifies how much more he's villified, but it gives some reason to it.

Handofdeath
12-27-2006, 05:26 PM
I want to know every single name.

I've got a name for you. How about Giles?:D

jojo
12-27-2006, 05:46 PM
Prediction: more than 50 of the 100 names will be pitchers yet people will still beat their chests and proclaim Bonds shouldn't be in the hall of fame even though steroids was a wash between improved pitching and offense and even though Bonds' name won't be on that list.....


BTW, between methamphetamines, steroids and GH, there likely hasn't been a *clean* game in the major leagues for maybe 35 years.....

Steroids are bad but if the government truly wanted to set an example by targeting sports pop icons in order to modify the behaivor of teens, wouldn't it make more sense to demonize the rampant use of amphetamines in mlb? Afterall for every teen taking a steroid, there is likely 10,000 using meth.... And for every major leaguer who took steroids in the last three decades, there was probably 100 that took meth at least once in their career....

Handofdeath
12-27-2006, 05:51 PM
Prediction: more than 50 of the 100 names will be pitchers yet people will still beat their chests and proclaim Bonds shouldn't be in the hall of fame even though steroids was a wash between improved pitching and offense and even though Bonds' name won't be on that list.....


BTW, between methamphetamines, steroids and GH, there likely hasn't been a *clean* game in the major leagues for maybe 35 years.....

Steroids are bad but if the government truly wanted to set an example by targeting sports pop icons in order to modify the behaivor of teens, wouldn't it make more sense to demonize the rampant use of amphetamines in mlb? Afterall for every teen taking a steroid, there is likely 10,000 using meth.... And for every major leaguer who took steroids in the last three decades, there was probably 100 that took meth at least once in their career....

I'm not quite sure that your numbers are accurate but you are absolutely correct. Players have been popping Speed for decades.

Always Red
12-27-2006, 06:05 PM
I'm not quite sure that your numbers are accurate but you are absolutely correct. Players have been popping Speed for decades.

"Greenies" go way back- to the 50's or even earlier. Mantle, Mays (and his famous "red juice") nearly all of the stars of the time took them; they sat around in bowls, like M&M's, back in the day.

By that criteria, there hasn't been a clean game in 50 years maybe.

Kind of gives a new meaning to the "M&M Boys", eh? ;)

Team Clark
12-27-2006, 06:13 PM
You're just generous today, TC. ;)

I'm still in the Christmas spirit! :evil:

IslandRed
12-27-2006, 06:55 PM
I read Will Carroll's blurb on it at BP.

This could hurt long-term in another way. I was surprised at how easily the union caved in on the testing and penalties, given their rhetoric in the past. This test was done in 2004, it wasn't even official at that point, it was just a "survey" test, and one where it was not supposed to be possible to match individuals with positive tests. MLB botched it, several dozen guys are going to be thrown under the bus as a result, and the union's going to want a pound of flesh.

Highlifeman21
12-27-2006, 07:14 PM
I think backlash from a cover-up would be worse.

Bud Selig and MLB really have no choice but to release those names to the public and suspend the players.


But how can they suspend players who committed no penalty in 2003? You can't use 2006/2007 laws and apply them to the past.

What was "legal" in 2003 is now "illegal" in 2007.

cincinnati chili
12-27-2006, 07:22 PM
Terrible, terrible decision by this appeals court. Just because a few jackbooted feds want to impress their bosses or get their names in the paper, several players names are going to be dragged through the mud. And if MLB/the labs weren't competent enough to keep the testing anonymous, I have zero faith that the testing was reliable.

redsfan4445
12-27-2006, 07:30 PM
I wonder what will be said if Clemens is one of them.... does he loose his HOF votes as well?

cincinnati chili
12-27-2006, 07:46 PM
It takes a minute, but... If anyone wants to read or download the decision, you can download the PDF file here (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/410347FABA0293F388257251006DF1D1/$file/0510067.pdf?openelement) - at least until the 9th circuit pulls it down.

RedsManRick
12-27-2006, 07:50 PM
Yeah, I imagine a few guys' HOF status hangs in the balance. Imagine the reaction if a sure fire HOF like Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson or Jeff Bagwell tested postive. Now what? It's one thing to single out Big Mac, Bonds, and Raffy Palmeiro, but do the voters really wanted a gigantic, gaping hole in the HoF.

Caveat Emperor
12-27-2006, 08:03 PM
And if MLB/the labs weren't competent enough to keep the testing anonymous, I have zero faith that the testing was reliable.

In fairness to MLB, they did keep the testing anonymous -- until a court order was signed for the result to be turned over, nobody knew who from the "survey test" had actually come back positive AFAIK.

Chip R
12-27-2006, 08:48 PM
But how can they suspend players who committed no penalty in 2003? You can't use 2006/2007 laws and apply them to the past.

What was "legal" in 2003 is now "illegal" in 2007.


Good point but Bud could use the "Best interests of baseball" clause.

jmcclain19
12-27-2006, 09:36 PM
I wonder if everyone will still be gung ho about violating personal privacy if one of the names on the list happens to be Aaron Harang or Edwin Encarnacion or someone else important to the Reds that you would never in your right mind imagine being on that list.

Just a thought.

Chip R
12-27-2006, 09:52 PM
I wonder if everyone will still be gung ho about violating personal privacy if one of the names on the list happens to be Aaron Harang or Edwin Encarnacion or someone else important to the Reds that you would never in your right mind imagine being on that list.

Just a thought.


Since these were from 2004, I don't think either one of these guys are in trouble.

Jpup
12-27-2006, 09:57 PM
I doubt guys like Bonds are going to be on the list. Those guys knew how to cover things up. Even if those names were found to be guilty, MLB would probably have gotten rid of any evidence. I don't trust those suits for anything. I blame baseball, as much as anyone, for allowing it to get this far. It's time to get a real commissioner with a spine to clean up the game for good. Let's quit worrying about what happenned in the past, and worry about what's happening in the game today.

Those names being released isn't going to help anyone fix the current problems inside of Major League Baseball. The steroid problem combined with the terrible collective bargaining agreement will continue to bite baseball until they clean it up. The salary imbalance of baseball is more suspicious than the drug problems. This is another area where baseball can learn for the National Football League. Every team should be on a balanced playing field. Baseball needs a salary minimum and cap that makes sure that every team is spending the same amount within a certain percentage. Those are things for another topic, but it is just another thing that taints the game IMO.

The owners are flush with cash right now, according to media reports, it's time to fix the problem before it starts getting bad because it's going to get to the point where teams start shutting down due to lack of interest from the fan base. There comes a point where people will not go watch a bad team. When that day will come, I have no idea, but it will come sooner than we think.

George Foster
12-27-2006, 10:26 PM
I bet anyone a case for their favorite adult beverage that Brett Boone is on that list.

The feds are more interested in where the players got their steroids. They want to build a case against Bonds trainer. It pisses them off he won't testify. They want to build a case against him, and hang over his head a 20 year sentence, so he will roll over on Bonds. Bonds can only pay him so much to keep quite and that is what he is doing now. I'd serve a year sentence for contempt of court for a couple of million. However NO ONE can pay me to do 20 years. He will roll over on Bonds like a french prostitute.:thumbup:

Yachtzee
12-27-2006, 10:47 PM
But how can they suspend players who committed no penalty in 2003? You can't use 2006/2007 laws and apply them to the past.

What was "legal" in 2003 is now "illegal" in 2007.

But use of illicit drugs, including steroids, was "illegal" in 2003, it's just that there was no testing regime/suspension policy at the time to enforce it. Had a player been busted for illegal use of steroids by the feds, I believe baseball could have suspended that player just like they suspended Steve Howe umpteen times for getting busted for cocaine. However, it is only recently that the Players Union has agreed to make testing for steroids part of the collective bargaining agreement. Without a testing regime, a ban on steroids really not worth the paper it's printed on.

Goten
12-27-2006, 11:47 PM
[QUOTE=Jpup;1218422]I doubt guys like Bonds are going to be on the list. Those guys knew how to cover things up. Even if those names were found to be guilty, MLB would probably have gotten rid of any evidence. I don't trust those suits for anything. I blame baseball, as much as anyone, for allowing it to get this far. It's time to get a real commissioner with a spine to clean up the game for good. Let's quit worrying about what happenned in the past, and worry about what's happening in the game today.

Palmerio anyone?

Reds Nd2
12-28-2006, 01:19 AM
Wow, I mean just wow! I mean just an unbelievable the violation of the 4th amendment.


This test was done in 2004...

several dozen guys are going to be thrown under the bus as a result...

and the union's going to want a pound of flesh.
The survey testing was done during Spring Training of 2003.

Nope, no they won't. Maybe some persistent rumors, like Clemens, but we won't be seeing several dozen guys thrown under a bus. Not yet at least. Let's not overreact to the latest court decision, in which a three panel decision overturned three lower court decisions. This case will be heard again.

It appears that the MLBPA is the only one fighting this in the courts. IMO, everyone involved in the survey testing should be fighting this, including the owners. Even if the union want's a "pound of flesh" (and I agree they should if this ruling is ultimately upheld), they will have to wait until the next agreement is bargained in 2011.


But how can they suspend players who committed no penalty in 2003?
MLB won't.


Terrible, terrible decision by this appeals court...

Just because a few jackbooted feds want to impress their bosses or get their names in the paper, several players names are going to be dragged through the mud...

And if MLB/the labs weren't competent enough to keep the testing anonymous, I have zero faith that the testing was reliable.
I totally agree that this was a terrible decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but I believe this will get overturned.

The Feds have had this information since April of 2004 and we haven't seen any names yet. I doubt we ever will. If there were going to be leaks, we would have seen them already. I mean, we haven't even seen the names of the ten players they actually had a warrant for.

While I have questions about why the tests weren't ultimately anonymous, mistakes will be made, but I still have faith in the reliabilty of drug testing. Such as it is. Personally, and this is another discussion entirely, I believe all of the pro sports (that have testing for performance enhancing drugs) should combine their resources to find the best available tests for all PED's.


In fairness to MLB, they did keep the testing anonymous -- until a court order was signed for the result to be turned over, nobody knew who from the "survey test" had actually come back positive AFAIK.

Your correct, MLB did keep the test results anonymous. Given the magnitude of 1,438 PED tests, (and that's just a bit over the test of 1,200 players on the 40 man roster) it's a given that that MLB/drug testing labs would have had a code linking the players to the drug tests.

I do have two questions though.

1. Why did the IRS, who had a warrant for the survey tests of ten players related to the BALCO investigation, take the test results of the other other 1,428 players?

2. What does AFAIK mean?

IslandRed
12-28-2006, 01:38 AM
The survey testing was done during Spring Training of 2003.

Good catch.


MLB did keep the test results anonymous. Given the magnitude of 1,438 PED tests, (and that's just a bit over the test of 1,200 players on the 40 man roster) it's a given that that MLB/drug testing labs would have had a code linking the players to the drug tests.

It was a survey test. There was to be no punishment for positive results, so there was no need to have a code linking a specific name to a specific sample. That's what MLB told the players, from what I read. They didn't just promise not to release the results; they said it wasn't even going to be possible to link specific players to failed survey tests. It didn't happen that way.

Perhaps "pound of flesh" was a little melodramatic on my part, but if the names come out -- and you're right, the appeals process may intervene -- it's going to do some damage to player-owner relations, which is a shame because in the last few years they've been working together better than... well, pretty much ever.

Reds Nd2
12-28-2006, 01:40 AM
I wonder if everyone will still be gung ho about violating personal privacy if one of the names on the list happens to be Aaron Harang or Edwin Encarnacion or someone else important to the Reds that you would never in your right mind imagine being on that list.

Just a thought.
Unless those players were on the 40 man roster during spring training of the 2003 season, I don't see any problem. Especially when it comes to EE. Random drug testing was instituted in the minor leagues for the first time in 2001. Then again, I've never been "gung ho about violating personal privacy".

Reds Nd2
12-28-2006, 01:54 AM
But use of illicit drugs, including steroids, was "illegal" in 2003, it's just that there was no testing regime/suspension policy at the time to enforce it.

Anabolic steroids were legal to possess and sell without a prescription untill Congress added them to the list of Schedule III drugs in 1991. Still, it's neither MLB's place, nor WalMart's place to enforce the laws of the land.

Reds Nd2
12-28-2006, 02:32 AM
It was a survey test.There was to be no punishment for positive results, so there was no need to have a code linking a specific name to a specific sample. That's what MLB told the players, from what I read. They didn't just promise not to release the results; they said it wasn't even going to be possible to link specific players to failed survey tests. It didn't happen that way.
Yes it was, and there hasn't been any punishment yet. There never will be any punishment from the survey testing.

But with over 1,400 tests, and a need to make sure the tests were from players on the 40 man rosters, and not from me and you, there had to be a way to make sure the tests were legitament.

BTW, the MLBPA also signed off on survey testing in 2002.

gonelong
12-28-2006, 10:03 AM
2. What does AFAIK mean?

Google is your friend. :)

AFAIK: As Far As I Know

GL

fearofpopvol1
12-28-2006, 12:40 PM
I can definitely see both sides of the coin here. On the one hand, it is a violation of privacy. On the other, if you're not guilty and you played fair to begin with, what do you have to worry about?

Unfortunately, as much as it pains me to say it, I do think worrying about the past now is irrelevant. We should concentrate more on the future and hope that indeed the game is cleaned up. I think Bud Selig should've been fired a long time ago and it amazes me that he acts so innoncent through all of this.

CougarQuest
12-28-2006, 12:41 PM
Wow, I mean just wow! I mean just an unbelievable the violation of the 4th amendment.


I totally agree that this was a terrible decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but I believe this will get overturned.

Based on what?

Personally, I was flabergasted at many of Judge Cooper's (the lower court judge) conclussions, which were in direct conflict with well established higher court rulings.




1. Why did the IRS, who had a warrant for the survey tests of ten players related to the BALCO investigation, take the test results of the other other 1,428 players?


Because all test results were in the same ledger. They can't cut out only the names the search warrant was issued for. The ledger is a single item. The names listed in the search warrant were in the ledger.

Team Clark
12-28-2006, 12:45 PM
Because all test results were in the same ledger. They can't cut out only the names the search warrant was issued for. The ledger is a single item. The name listed in the search warrant were in the ledger.

From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the IRS does not automatically hand over any findings to any other agency. The US Atty for example can not subpoena IRS records, only the IRS can. In turn the IRS has to prosecute their own findings. (Good thing I'm not a lawyer)

CougarQuest
12-28-2006, 02:01 PM
From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, the IRS does not automatically hand over any findings to any other agency. The US Atty for example can not subpoena IRS records, only the IRS can. In turn the IRS has to prosecute their own findings. (Good thing I'm not a lawyer)

From first hand knowledge, I can tell you that during any criminal investigation getting IRS records almost takes an act of god. It's convoluted and I'm not going to get into THAT whole thing. Anyone who has worked with the FBI, there used to be an old saying, they want all your information, but won't share their information (which is no longer true) so they can make the case and your left out standing in the cold. Well the IRS brings that to a whole new meaning, {but it's not because they want to make the case and leave you standing out in the cold}.

Without being able to see what "documents" were taken and how they were found, it's hard for me to take any side on this. There are many issues being addressed by the court on this situation. I'll say this, Just because other peoples names were found in co-mingled papers, does not make it automatically a violation.

Team Clark
12-28-2006, 02:48 PM
I'll say this, Just because other peoples names were found in co-mingled papers, does not make it automatically a violation.

Excellent point. The "guilt by association" saying applies here. :thumbup:

cincinnati chili
12-28-2006, 07:15 PM
Originally Posted by Reds Nd2: Wow, I mean just wow! I mean just an unbelievable the violation of the 4th amendment.

I totally agree that this was a terrible decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but I believe this will get overturned.

Originally Posted by Reds Cougarquest:
Based on what?

Based on the balancing of the likely harm with the meager potential benefits. Remember, this information is not going to solve a murder. It's going to be used to improve the government's case in a perjury trial.

The players had a reasonable expectation of privacy under both California and U.S. law that their medical information would be kept secret. And based on recent history, it is abundantly clear that "sealed" documents and testimony in federal cases involving athletes do not stay sealed. If this gets admitted as evidence in a court case, it will come out. Harm is likely.

Compounding this situation is the fact that none of these players were given a chance to appeal these findings or to oversee the testing to make sure that Sample # 105 really went with player #105, etc. In other words, some players who did not juice will probably get labeled as juicers.

The other thing that people rarely mention is that even if Bonds tested positive in the 2003 tests, that is unlikely to be sufficient for a perjury charge. He can simply say that he didn't know he was juicing, even if he was juicing.

So in essence, on a scale of 1-100, we're talking about evidence that has a probative value of about a "1" at a negative constitutional cost of about a "99."

Reds Nd2
12-28-2006, 07:41 PM
Based on what?

Personally, I was flabergasted at many of Judge Cooper's (the lower court judge) conclussions, which were in direct conflict with well established higher court rulings.

Because it overturned three lower court decisions and even this three panel court wasn't totally in agreement. Judge Sidney R. Thomas own statement in giving his disenting opinion, "It's a seizure beyond what was authorized by the search warrant, therefore it violates the Fourth Amendment." I haven't read any of the lower court rulings, and not being lawyer, I wouldn't know if the rulings were in conflict with other rulings.


Because all test results were in the same ledger. They can't cut out only the names the search warrant was issued for. The ledger is a single item. The names listed in the search warrant were in the ledger.

The test results were on computer files though, not a ledger book. Now, while my computer literacy ends at clicking on the big blue E, it seems to me the govenment could have easily acquired the information covered under their search warrent without taking "confidential records for every player were seized, (http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=570&Itemid=42) along with confidential records of thousands of other people with no connection to baseball, including many with no connection to sports."

Reds Nd2
12-28-2006, 07:42 PM
Google is your friend. :)

AFAIK: As Far As I Know

GL


Thanks GL. I couldn't get the image of the AFLACK duck out of my head.

Reds Nd2
12-28-2006, 07:47 PM
There are many issues being addressed by the court on this situation.

Cougar, you mentioned Judge Cooper's (the lower court judge) conclusions. Do you have a link, or is there somewhere online, where I could read the lower courts rulings? I may not understand any of it, but it should be an interesting read. Thanks.

CougarQuest
12-28-2006, 08:28 PM
Based on the balancing of the likely harm with the meager potential benefits. Remember, this information is not going to solve a murder. It's going to be used to improve the government's case in a perjury trial.

The court system doesn't differentiate whether it's for a murder or for theft when they make their decisions.


The players had a reasonable expectation of privacy under both California and U.S. law that their medical information would be kept secret. And based on recent history, it is abundantly clear that "sealed" documents and testimony in federal cases involving athletes do not stay sealed. If this gets admitted as evidence in a court case, it will come out. Harm is likely.

Compounding this situation is the fact that none of these players were given a chance to appeal these findings or to oversee the testing to make sure that Sample # 105 really went with player #105, etc. In other words, some players who did not juice will probably get labeled as juicers.

The other thing that people rarely mention is that even if Bonds tested positive in the 2003 tests, that is unlikely to be sufficient for a perjury charge. He can simply say that he didn't know he was juicing, even if he was juicing.

So in essence, on a scale of 1-100, we're talking about evidence that has a probative value of about a "1" at a negative constitutional cost of about a "99."

I would have to assume that the judge knew this when he/she signed the search warrant?

Medical information can be obtained on anyone, with probable cause.

I think there's been a lot of speculation {in here and in the media} on what the purpose of all this search warrrant obtained information is for.

Based on whats been speculated in the media, personally I would have gone a different direction then how this investigator went about things. But then again, I don't know exactly what is trying to be proven. The biggest problem I've seen is that a "white colar investigator" is trying to conduct a drug investigation and handling it like a white colar investigation instead of working with drug investigator to solve this drug investigation.

CougarQuest
12-28-2006, 08:42 PM
Because it overturned three lower court decisions and even this three panel court wasn't totally in agreement. Judge Sidney R. Thomas own statement in giving his disenting opinion, "It's a seizure beyond what was authorized by the search warrant, therefore it violates the Fourth Amendment." I haven't read any of the lower court rulings, and not being lawyer, I wouldn't know if the rulings were in conflict with other rulings.

There are many times that the lower courts get overturned. There are many judges/court of appeals judges that are too slanted one way or the other. There is one judge in Hamilton County that routinely overrules findings only to almost always get overturned. A three court panel not all agreeing is not in any stretch of the imagination an unusual occurance.


The test results were on computer files though, not a ledger book. Now, while my computer literacy ends at clicking on the big blue E, it seems to me the govenment could have easily acquired the information covered under their search warrent without taking."[/I]

No one said it was a ledger book, only a ledger. The courts have determined that a ledger does not limit itself to a book or paper. Until the court determines and can keep up with the continual progress of computers and how each and every system works, this will always be a problem no matter what kind of case is being investigated.

Computers have created a huge problem in the court system. To get information out of the computer, you not only need a search warrant to physically obtain a computer, but a search warrant that includes all the components that make the computer and the information stored within them. What exactly is a computer? Are cell phones? They store cell phone numbers and names, text messaging, etc. Are pagers computers? How about digital cameras? Cars have computers in them to make them run and when you are involved in a wreck, a huge amount of vital information can be obtained from them.

And I've never seen where information from a computer from a search warrant is taken at the scene. The entire computer is taken and a forensic investigator obtains the information at their lab. If, in this case, they brought a computer forensic investigator with them to the scene, my understanding from talking to several of these guys is they make a copy of the entire computer files. He then searches the copy.

Now for example, if they are investigating child porn, the investigator would receive not just obvious nude photos of juveniles, but all nude photos that may include adults and photos of clothed juveniles. If they are investigating a drug dealer and looking for their suppliers, &/or phone numbers, or weights or a tally sheets {a ledger}, then the investigator would get everything that was in the "file" that contained that information.

From reading that 105 page finding, I still have a lot of questions. It's not clear how exactly this information was obtained from the computers. I'm still trying to figure out why he really wants all this information or why it's needed for his investigation.

CougarQuest
12-28-2006, 08:44 PM
Cougar, you mentioned Judge Cooper's (the lower court judge) conclusions. Do you have a link, or is there somewhere online, where I could read the lower courts rulings? I may not understand any of it, but it should be an interesting read. Thanks.

Just what was cited in the appeals court findings.

George Foster
12-28-2006, 09:22 PM
Anabolic steroids were legal to possess and sell without a prescription untill Congress added them to the list of Schedule III drugs in 1991. Still, it's neither MLB's place, nor WalMart's place to enforce the laws of the land.

That's why the feds and the courts want to know where they got they steroids. They are treating this as any other illegal drug sale. It is WalMarts place to enforce the laws of the land. It is their responsibility to make sure a licensed doctor call's in a prescription. They could lose their license to sell drugs at that particular pharmacy if they give out drugs without verifying this.
If MLB knew it's members were taking an illiegal drug and did nothing about it you can be charged with complicity. Definitions of complicity at Dictionary.com. ... the state of being an accomplice; partnership or involvement in wrongdoing: complicity in a crime. ...


I still think this all goes back to Bond's trainer. They want to put pressure on him to roll over on Bonds. If you start questioning baseball players where they got their juice....they will rat out Bond's trainer, who it turn will rat out Bonds. Federal prosecutors sort of don't like it when you refuse to testify.

Team Clark
12-28-2006, 10:10 PM
There are many times that the lower courts get overturned. There are many judges/court of appeals judges that are too slanted one way or the other. There is one judge in Hamilton County that routinely overrules findings only to almost always get overturned. A three court panel not all agreeing is not in any stretch of the imagination an unusual occurance.



No one said it was a ledger book, only a ledger. The courts have determined that a ledger does not limit itself to a book or paper. Until the court determines and can keep up with the continual progress of computers and how each and every system works, this will always be a problem no matter what kind of case is being investigated.

Computers have created a huge problem in the court system. To get information out of the computer, you not only need a search warrant to physically obtain a computer, but a search warrant that includes all the components that make the computer and the information stored within them. What exactly is a computer? Are cell phones? They store cell phone numbers and names, text messaging, etc. Are pagers computers? How about digital cameras? Cars have computers in them to make them run and when you are involved in a wreck, a huge amount of vital information can be obtained from them.

And I've never seen where information from a computer from a search warrant is taken at the scene. The entire computer is taken and a forensic investigator obtains the information at their lab. If, in this case, they brought a computer forensic investigator with them to the scene, my understanding from talking to several of these guys is they make a copy of the entire computer files. He then searches the copy.

Now for example, if they are investigating child porn, the investigator would receive not just obvious nude photos of juveniles, but all nude photos that may include adults and photos of clothed juveniles. If they are investigating a drug dealer and looking for their suppliers, &/or phone numbers, or weights or a tally sheets {a ledger}, then the investigator would get everything that was in the "file" that contained that information.

From reading that 105 page finding, I still have a lot of questions. It's not clear how exactly this information was obtained from the computers. I'm still trying to figure out why he really wants all this information or why it's needed for his investigation.

Thanks Cougar. :thumbup: Good info. (Now I feel really dumb) :laugh:

jmcclain19
12-29-2006, 03:42 PM
The latest update from today.

8 of the 10 players implicated in the BALCO scandal tested positive.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292006/sports/eight_of_balco_10_failed_steroid_test_sports_brian _costello.htm

Bonds lawyer says his client wasn't one of them.

I know eight of the BALCO 10

Barry Bonds
Gary Sheffield
Jason Giambi
Jeremy Giambi
Armando Rios
Marvin Bernard
Randy Velarde
Benito Santiago

Anyone know who the other 2 are?

marcshoe
12-29-2006, 05:24 PM
Wasn't Bobby Estalella one?

Reds Nd2
12-31-2006, 04:46 PM
Just what was cited in the appeals court findings.

I'm only part of the way through it now. It's a bit difficult for a layman to understand, or at least it is for me. It's still very interesting to read though.

I do have a question though. I believe it's Judge O'Scannlain, who, during his opinion, mentions that other courts have viewed the application of Tamura differently than himself when it comes to computer searches. This isn't meant as a slam against him, but how do we know this Judges opinion is the correct one?

Very interesting points you made in your earlier post. Thanks for the explanation of the term ledger.

Degenerate39
12-31-2006, 08:39 PM
The MLB is turning into an episode of The Sopranos

Reds Nd2
01-01-2007, 12:39 AM
The MLB is turning into an episode of The Sopranos

No, not really.

Team Clark
01-01-2007, 09:56 PM
No, not really.

Actually that would be the NFL! :laugh:

Reds Nd2
01-01-2007, 10:07 PM
Actually that would be the NFL! :laugh:
Seriously.

Whatever happened with the job you were interviewing for in Houston?

reds44
01-01-2007, 10:13 PM
The latest update from today.

8 of the 10 players implicated in the BALCO scandal tested positive.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292006/sports/eight_of_balco_10_failed_steroid_test_sports_brian _costello.htm

Bonds lawyer says his client wasn't one of them.

I know eight of the BALCO 10

Barry Bonds
Gary Sheffield
Jason Giambi
Jeremy Giambi
Armando Rios
Marvin Bernard
Randy Velarde
Benito Santiago

Anyone know who the other 2 are?

Eight of BALCO ten failed steroid test
Barry Bonds - OF - SF - Dec. 29 - 9:45 am et
It was revealed Wednesday that eight of the 10 players implicated in the BALCO investigation failed steroid tests in 2003.
According to his attorney, Bonds wasn't one of the eight. "My response to that is that's all well and good, but that means two players didn't test positive and Barry is one of the two," attorney Michael Rains said. "What a terrible break for the government that eight of the 10 players tested positive, but Barry didn't. I think it's another nail in their coffin in trying to go after Barry." A terrible break for the government or a tribute to Bonds' chemist. Other players implicated in the BALCO investigation included Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Benito Santiago, Randy Velarde, Marvin Benard, Armando Rios and Bobby Estalella. Dec. 29 - 9:45 am et
Source: New York Post

Interesting

Team Clark
01-01-2007, 10:14 PM
Seriously.

Whatever happened with the job you were interviewing for in Houston?

They don't need any more waitresses at Hooters. I'm not "the right type" I guess. :laugh:

Reds Nd2
01-01-2007, 10:38 PM
Sexual discrimination. :laugh:

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
01-01-2007, 10:40 PM
That's an excellent point. This list would only "confirm" our suspicions. :(
What if someone like Griffey were on that list, would you still want to know.

Team Clark
01-02-2007, 08:04 AM
What if someone like Griffey were on that list, would you still want to know.

Yes, I would want to know. For personal reasons I would like the opportunity to discuss that with him if that were ever the case. I seriously doubt that he would ever pop positive for anything but Prayers and Vitamins. (maybe a little Vicodin for a broken hand too) :laugh: