Feds Get Bonds' Steroid-Laced Urine

[Balta1701]

For anyone who hasn't yet seen it, there's a major update in the case today. The government appears to have flipped one of Bonds's former teammates, former Giants backup catcher Bobby Estalella (2000-2001) is expected to be called as a witness to testify that Bonds actually knew specifically what he was taking and discussed it with him.

 

It's also rumored that the government will call both Jason and Jeremy Giambi in the case. You can probably assume they'd testify about the same thing - no need to establish that Bonds Juiced, you need to establish that Bonds knew what he was taking, and if he spoke to them about them, that's multiple witnesses.

[Soxbadger]

Depending on the testimony it may be relevant it may be irrelevant.

 

The Giambi testimony looks pretty worthless, just saying that they were also on drugs supplied by Anderson doesnt exactly mean anything in terms of Bonds. Even if they say "Anderson told us the cream and clear were steroids" it doesnt mean that he told Bonds.

 

Estella may prove to be more damning, but the question is whether or not the jury will find him believable.

 

Id argue that Estella is a former drug user that had a career which never panned out and is trying to make a name for himself by ruining Bonds.

 

But, Bonds should consider this troubling depending on what he told Estella.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Okay hilariously that was on the page I read, I just figured that it would be in the eligibility section not the voting section.

 

So a voter can legitimately keep bonds out if they think that using steroids impacted integrity, sportsmanship or character.

 

And they could keep him out if they felt that perjury impacted integrity and character.

 

I of course dont like how subjective it is, but rules are the rules. It will be interesting to see what voters do, as they have never had to vote on either Rose or Jackson.

 

Should be interesting.

How could getting into a sports hall of fame not be subjective? its all subjective, even the statistical arguments.

 

[Balta1701]

Depending on the testimony it may be relevant it may be irrelevant.

 

The Giambi testimony looks pretty worthless, just saying that they were also on drugs supplied by Anderson doesnt exactly mean anything in terms of Bonds. Even if they say "Anderson told us the cream and clear were steroids" it doesnt mean that he told Bonds.

 

Estella may prove to be more damning, but the question is whether or not the jury will find him believable.

 

Id argue that Estella is a former drug user that had a career which never panned out and is trying to make a name for himself by ruining Bonds.

 

But, Bonds should consider this troubling depending on what he told Estella.

There's very little reason to call the Giambis unless they interacted specifically with Mr. Tetrahydrogestrinone.

[Soxbadger]

Fair enough.

 

I just find statistics easier to argue, .300 versus .330, etc.

 

How do you compare:

 

Taking steroids, with stealing signs, with doctoring baseballs, with being accused of a crime, with being convicted of a crime.

 

I just wish there was more guidance.

[Soxbadger]

Balta,

 

Perjury is one of the most difficult cases to prove. You basically just bring everything and the kitchen sink and hope that it sticks.

 

From the article:

 

Prosecutors also plan to call Jason Giambi and his brother, Jeremy, as witnesses at Bonds' trial so they can testify that Anderson gave them performance-enhancing drugs, The New York Times reported on its Web site Thursday night.

 

The newspaper said prosecutors want to use testimony from the Giambis, teammates in Oakland in 2000 and 2001, to show that Anderson developed doping calendars for them. Then the prosecutors could argue that Anderson made similar calendars for Bonds, the Times said, citing an unidentified person briefed on the government's evidence. The newspaper said the person spoke on condition of anonymity because he didn't want to jeopardize his access to sensitive information.

 

So it does not look like they will testify that they directly interacted with Bonds. They may, but thats not what the article indicates.

[Balta1701]

Fair enough.

 

I just find statistics easier to argue, .300 versus .330, etc.

 

How do you compare:

 

Taking steroids, with stealing signs, with doctoring baseballs, with being accused of a crime, with being convicted of a crime.

 

I just wish there was more guidance.

The same way you compare putting up an OPS of 800 in the dead ball era to putting up an OPS of 800 today. You start using more and more complex statistical tricks to tease out that effect, but then you realize that Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs against all-white pitching and wonder what he'd have done in an integrated league, but then you also realize that Babe Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer and did so without any sort of modern training techniques, etc.

 

The statistics can only take you so far in so many comparisons.

[NorthSideSox72]

The same way you compare putting up an OPS of 800 in the dead ball era to putting up an OPS of 800 today. You start using more and more complex statistical tricks to tease out that effect, but then you realize that Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs against all-white pitching and wonder what he'd have done in an integrated league, but then you also realize that Babe Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer and did so without any sort of modern training techniques, etc.

 

The statistics can only take you so far in so many comparisons.

Exactly. And for that matter, how do you compare certain areas of stats, like power (SLG, HR, etc.), to other areas, like hitting for average? The balance between them, and their relative value, is subjective.

 

[Soxbadger]

I guess I think its different comparing different eras, with completely different crimes.

 

Thats just my opinion and I believe thats why they let people vote on it.

 

Each person selects the HOF based on their own opinion.

 

My opinion is if Gaylord Perry is in, Bonds is in, Clemens is in etc etc.

 

In my opinion if you compare Bonds to other HOF "integrity, sportsmanship or character", I think Bonds is not even close to the worst. Therefore if I was to judge HOF credentials based upon other HOF inductees, I would conclude that Bonds should be in the HOF.

 

Are there any other HOF caliber players who have been kept out due to the "integrity, character, or sportsmanship" clause?

 

Because Jackson and Rose are kept out by being ineligible, not because people didnt vote for them.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I guess I think its different comparing different eras, with completely different crimes.

 

Thats just my opinion and I believe thats why they let people vote on it.

 

Each person selects the HOF based on their own opinion.

 

My opinion is if Gaylord Perry is in, Bonds is in, Clemens is in etc etc.

 

In my opinion if you compare Bonds to other HOF "integrity, sportsmanship or character", I think Bonds is not even close to the worst. Therefore if I was to judge HOF credentials based upon other HOF inductees, I would conclude that Bonds should be in the HOF.

 

Are there any other HOF caliber players who have been kept out due to the "integrity, character, or sportsmanship" clause?

 

Because Jackson and Rose are kept out by being ineligible, not because people didnt vote for them.

Mac has been kept out for that reason. I think you will see Sheff out for the same reason.

 

Also, who else do you see as worse on "integrity, sportsmanship and character" who is in the Hall?

 

[Soxbadger]

1. Ty Cobb

 

2. Gaylord Perry

 

3. Phil Niekro

 

4. John McGraw

 

5. White Ford

 

Those are just a few off the top of my head.

 

Cobb was perhaps a racist, perhaps a murderer.

 

Perry admittedly cheated.

 

Niekro admittedly cheated.

 

Ford admittedly cheated.

 

It should be of note that when Cobb was elected to the HOF, he received more votes than Ruth, Wagner, Mathewson and Walter Johnson.

 

To me it appears that all that mattered was how they played the game, not what people thought of them. Otherwise Cobb would not have gotten all the votes he did.

 

Just my opinion.

 

(Edit)

 

Im not sure Big Mac and Sheff statistics make them sure bets for the HOF.

 

When a player is questionable I think thats when you start to ask about character etc, to make the final decision. But Bonds statistics massacre both of them.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Soxbadger

[NorthSideSox72]

1. Ty Cobb

 

2. Gaylord Perry

 

3. Phil Niekro

 

4. John McGraw

 

5. White Ford

 

Those are just a few off the top of my head.

 

Cobb was perhaps a racist, perhaps a murderer.

 

Perry admittedly cheated.

 

Niekro admittedly cheated.

 

Ford admittedly cheated.

 

It should be of note that when Cobb was elected to the HOF, he received more votes than Ruth, Wagner, Mathewson and Walter Johnson.

 

To me it appears that all that mattered was how they played the game, not what people thought of them. Otherwise Cobb would not have gotten all the votes he did.

 

Just my opinion.

 

(Edit)

 

Im not sure Big Mac and Sheff statistics make them sure bets for the HOF.

 

When a player is questionable I think thats when you start to ask about character etc, to make the final decision. But Bonds statistics massacre both of them.

OK first, you are making a leap here that is unsupported by facts. You think that because someone got in and has some sort of issue of character or sportsmanship, that must mean the voters don't care. That's not the case, I am sure. Character, integrity and sportsmanship by nature are not yes/no qualifications, they are subjective, just like all the other qualifications. It will therefore always be a mix of those things.

 

Second, I don't put on-field "edging" like what Ford, Perry et al, on anything like the same level as what Bonds or Rose did. Putting some vaseline on the ball when pitching is minor in comparison to giving yourself a full-time unlevel playing field advantage by way of an illegal substance. Its also minor in comparison to betting on baseball while playing or coaching it. These are per se ILLEGAL acts, which ALSO present major consequences on the field. There is nothing illegal about scuffing a baseball a bit, and in fact some people contend that sort of edging is not even a big deal.

 

[Soxbadger]

Today is a slow day at work (haha).

 

You think that because someone got in and has some sort of issue of character or sportsmanship, that must mean the voters don't care. That's not the case, I am sure. Character, integrity and sportsmanship by nature are not yes/no qualifications, they are subjective, just like all the other qualifications. It will therefore always be a mix of those things.

 

No thats not my argument at all.

 

My argument is that if cheating prevents you from being in the HOF, then all cheaters should be kept out.

 

I am basing my opinion, on how I would vote, based on what other voters have done before. They voted in cheaters, they voted in bad guys (Cobb), so why if I was a voter would I diverge from what has always been?

 

econd, I don't put on-field "edging" like what Ford, Perry et al, on anything like the same level as what Bonds or Rose did. Putting some vaseline on the ball when pitching is minor in comparison to giving yourself a full-time unlevel playing field advantage by way of an illegal substance. Its also minor in comparison to betting on baseball while playing or coaching it. These are per se ILLEGAL acts, which ALSO present major consequences on the field. There is nothing illegal about scuffing a baseball a bit, and in fact some people contend that sort of edging is not even a big deal.

 

And thats a fine opinion, but I find what Bonds did less wrong than what Ford, Perry, etc did.

 

First of all, I dont believe that govt has a constitutional right to control what an adult ingests unless it poses a significant risk to other people.

 

Second of all, some people dont think steroids are a big deal and dont think it has a major impact on the performance of a baseball player.

 

So in my opinion what they did was worse.

[nitetrain8601]

Bonds is not guilty!

[NorthSideSox72]

First of all, I dont believe that govt has a constitutional right to control what an adult ingests unless it poses a significant risk to other people.

 

Second of all, some people dont think steroids are a big deal and dont think it has a major impact on the performance of a baseball player.

 

So in my opinion what they did was worse.

Then there isn't much discussion to be had. You have now, in this thread, said that his illegal acts shouldn't be illegal, the evidence out there (which is substantial) isn't enough, that there is no morality clause, steroids may nothave a major impact on performance (in which case, why did he choose to shrink his balls?), and you think a scuffball is worse than illegal steroid use.

 

I give.

 

[Soxbadger]

You have now, in this thread, said that his illegal acts shouldn't be illegal, the evidence out there (which is substantial) isn't enough, that there is no morality clause, steroids may nothave a major impact on performance (in which case, why did he choose to shrink his balls?), and you think a scuffball is worse than illegal steroid use.

 

All of that is my opinion, I dont even understand why you are arguing against my opinion.

 

I dont say your opinion that scuff balls being not as bad as steroids is wrong.

 

Now on to the substance. Yes I have said his illegal acts should not be considered illegal, just like I dont think Rosa Parks "illegal act" of not sitting in the back of the bus should be considered illegal. I believe there is a fundamental problem with the govt creating arbitrary rules about what adults can ingest without proof that it is some how going to harm society.

 

I never said that there was no "morality clause", I said that I could not find it. If you look at my posts, I quote the eligibility requirements and link the url that you posted. It was merely the fact that I did not continue reading to the voting section because I figured that "moral" clause would be in the "eligibility section." Sorry for being honest and saying that I could not find it, and asking if anyone else could so that I could review it.

 

After I looked at it, Im pretty sure that I said they could legitimately keep Bonds from the hall.

 

I never said the evidence wasnt enough, Ive never even commented on the evidence outside of the perjury case, in which ive stated from the evidence ive seen it does not appear to be enough. No one has shown me more evidence where there is a transcript or testimony of another witness saying "I heard Bonds say he was taking roids." Ive seen no smoking gun in the perjury case. Once again my opinion.

 

Steroids may not have a large impact on performance and there is some question as to what negative side effects there may be to the "cream" and the "clear". I am not a Dr or Pharmacist, so Im not really qualified to speak on this issue. I have seen many different scientific tests

 

http://www.smm.org/buzz/blog/do_steroids_h...s_hit_home_runs

 

Here is an interesting quote from a professional player:

 

"The truth is, there were so many guys taking steroids for a few years, and they couldn't hit like Barry Bonds. In my opinion, a guy hitting with a corked bat is taking a bigger advantage than someone who was on steroids,” said Twins outfielder Shannon Stewart. "If Bonds was doing all of this ... you still have to hit the ball. He still was going to hit 40 or 50 (each season), with or without steroids."

 

Now I am not a professional baseball player nor am I a Pharmacist, nor am I scientist.

 

But I have yet to see any concrete evidence that the steroids Bonds took are far worse than anything that has ever been done in baseball.

 

So its not about giving, its about why do you have such a problem that people may have a different opinion than you?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes I have said his illegal acts should not be considered illegal, just like I dont think Rosa Parks "illegal act" of not sitting in the back of the bus should be considered illegal.

Really? Seriously? You're making this comparison?

 

[The Critic]

Really? Seriously? You're making this comparison?

It's an apt comparison. She wouldn't get her ass off that bus seat, and he (allegedly?) stuck a needle in his.

Same thing....exactly the same thing....

[Soxbadger]

Im making the comparison that through history laws have been made that have been later deemed unconstitutional. Black people were treated unfairly in the US for hundreds of years, the idea that the govt could regulate what was ingested by adults is relatively new in comparison.

 

 

I believe that it is unconstitutional for the govt to regulate what adults ingest, unless there is a clear threat to public safety, or the drug is so powerful that ingestion can lead to immediate death.

 

Other than that, I believe the govt does not have the right to stop an adult from taking things.

 

I think the case and point of this is alcohol. Alcohol is one of the only known substances to be harmful to basically every human organ, there are no health benefits, yet I can go buy as much alcohol as I want. On the other hand, whatever Roger Clemens was taking seems to have actual health benefits. It made his body stronger and him able to recover faster, he could compete at the age of 40 like he was much younger.

 

Why is the govt restricting drugs that make people feel better, that make them recover quicker?

 

I dont even hear arguments that what Bonds or Clemens did is "harmful" or will kill them, so what is the problem? And even if the drugs were going to kill them isnt that Bonds or Clemens choice? If I want to smoke cigarettes I can, yet if I want to take HGH, I cant?

 

Do I believe that some one taking HGH is going to be a danger to society?

 

No

 

Do I believe some one taking HGH is more likely to commit a crime?

 

No

 

Do I believe that some one taking HGH is more likely to hurt some one else?

 

No

 

Now, why is HGH illegal where as alcohol is not?

 

From the mayo clinic:

 

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/growth-hormone/HA00030

 

Are there any risks to taking human growth hormone if you don't need it?

 

Taking human growth hormone can cause a number of side effects, including:

 

* Swelling in your arms and legs

* Arthritis-like symptoms

* Carpal tunnel symptoms

* Headaches

* Bloating

* Muscle pain

* Diabetes

* Abnormal growth of bones and internal organs

* Hardening of the arteries

* High blood pressure

 

Some evidence shows that side effects of human growth hormone treatments may be more likely in older adults than in younger adults. Also, because the studies of healthy adults taking human growth hormone have been short term, it isn't clear whether these side effects could eventually dissipate or become worse. For instance, though human growth hormone produced arthritis-like symptoms, it isn't clear if this would progress into arthritis. More study is needed.

 

Notice the side effects are very mild compared to anabolic steroids.

 

Now ive looked into the cream and the clear, they seem to be TGH. I have not found any scientific information on those drugs.

 

I understand that many people in the United States feel that if the govt says its wrong or bad, that it must be and that we shouldnt ever second guess or question the govt. But I am not one of those people, I believe that the govt has been wrong many times (not letting certain people vote, not letting certain people have equal rights, prohibition, etc etc) and I think that the people should constantly question the govt and make the govt prove that the laws they are creating are valid and constitutional.

 

I believe that adults should be able to do whatever they want to themselves, provided they are not posing a risk to others. I so far have seen very little evidence to suggest that what Clemens or Bonds did put any other humans at risk.

[ThunderBolt]

Was this urine found on Matt Cassel by any chance?

[G&T]

Im making the comparison that through history laws have been made that have been later deemed unconstitutional. Black people were treated unfairly in the US for hundreds of years, the idea that the govt could regulate what was ingested by adults is relatively new in comparison.

 

 

I believe that it is unconstitutional for the govt to regulate what adults ingest, unless there is a clear threat to public safety, or the drug is so powerful that ingestion can lead to immediate death.

 

Other than that, I believe the govt does not have the right to stop an adult from taking things.

 

I think the case and point of this is alcohol. Alcohol is one of the only known substances to be harmful to basically every human organ, there are no health benefits, yet I can go buy as much alcohol as I want. On the other hand, whatever Roger Clemens was taking seems to have actual health benefits. It made his body stronger and him able to recover faster, he could compete at the age of 40 like he was much younger.

 

First, the government did make alcohol illegal and it only increased crime did not deter use. Prohibition eventually ceased. So to use your comparison, most of the country would have to rebel against the prohibition on HGH in order to make it legal. That will never happen because most people don't use it.

 

Second, alcohol has consistently been shown to have health benefits particularly in reducing heart disease. Moderation is key. Obviously it has detrimental effects as well, but you

 

Third, HGH has legal uses which highlight its benefits and limit its risks. The government is attempting to prevent those who don't need it from using it.

 

[Soxbadger]

First, the government did make alcohol illegal and it only increased crime did not deter use. Prohibition eventually ceased. So to use your comparison, most of the country would have to rebel against the prohibition on HGH in order to make it legal. That will never happen because most people don't use it.

 

First of all its speculation that "most people wont use it" as we have no way of predicting the future. At one point people would have said "most people will never use Botulism", but now we have Botox.

 

Second, alcohol has consistently been shown to have health benefits particularly in reducing heart disease. Moderation is key. Obviously it has detrimental effects as well, but you

 

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcohol/SC00024

 

Fair enough there are very limited health benefits, it does not really change the argument that HGH which has health benefits and less risk should be illegal, while Alcohol with limited health benefits and high risk should be legal.

 

Third, HGH has legal uses which highlight its benefits and limit its risks. The government is attempting to prevent those who don't need it from using it.

 

Well there is the problem. Bonds was getting his drugs from Dr's who clearly believed that Bonds needed to use it.

 

Who creates the definition of need?

 

Is it only those who will die, only those who will suffer?

 

What if taking the drug makes you perform better, is that need?

 

People get prescriptions from Dr's for high anxiety etc, do they really need it?

 

Im not comfortable letting the govt decide who needs what, Im more comfortable letting adults decide and let them bear the consequences.

[G&T]

First of all its speculation that "most people wont use it" as we have no way of predicting the future. At one point people would have said "most people will never use Botulism", but now we have Botox.

 

I said most people "don't" use it, and based on its current use (or lack thereof), I will say that there will not be enough desire for HGH to be legalized.

 

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alcohol/SC00024

 

Fair enough there are very limited health benefits, it does not really change the argument that HGH which has health benefits and less risk should be illegal, while Alcohol with limited health benefits and high risk should be legal.

 

The Mayo Clinic site you posted to specifically states that there is not enough information to form a conclusion regarding the long term effects of HGH use. I'd say you are speculating as to its risks and benefits. You have only made conclusory statements as to its health benefits.

 

Well there is the problem. Bonds was getting his drugs from Dr's who clearly believed that Bonds needed to use it.

 

Who creates the definition of need?

 

Is it only those who will die, only those who will suffer?

 

What if taking the drug makes you perform better, is that need?

 

People get prescriptions from Dr's for high anxiety etc, do they really need it?

 

Im not comfortable letting the govt decide who needs what, Im more comfortable letting adults decide and let them bear the consequences.

 

Huh? So every prescription drug should be made legal for everyone to consume? Those doctors did not "clearly believe" Bonds needed it. They clearly believed they could make money off the deal. There are people who are far more educated than I who can make a determination as when someone "needs" a drug. And to answer your question, people with high anxiety likely cannot function in society without medication. So yes, I'd call that a need.

Furthermore, you have no clue what will happen if you take HGH with other drugs. Most people have no clue what they are putting in their bodies or how those substances interact.

 

[Soxbadger]

So every prescription drug should be made legal for everyone to consume?

 

I personally think that adults should be able to consumer whatever they like, so long as it does not pose a threat to others, nor does it pose a significant threat of immediate death.

 

The reason why we prescribe medicine such as penicillin is because if you let everyone take it for every cold, it would eventually create more resistant strains. Therefore it poses a threat to others to allow people to take certain drugs without Dr's approval.

 

I have yet to see any literature on how HGH usage could negatively effect anyone except the person taking it.

 

Does HGH have health benefits greater than cigarettes, in my opinion, yes.

 

Therefore I believe that Bonds should have been able to take HGH, especially under the supervision of Dr's.

 

Im not comfortable letting the govt be our "mother" and telling us what is harmful and what isnt. Maybe they can force me to each vegetables or that I should stop eating Big Macs.

[G&T]

I personally think that adults should be able to consumer whatever they like, so long as it does not pose a threat to others, nor does it pose a significant threat of immediate death.

 

The reason why we prescribe medicine such as penicillin is because if you let everyone take it for every cold, it would eventually create more resistant strains. Therefore it poses a threat to others to allow people to take certain drugs without Dr's approval.

 

I have yet to see any literature on how HGH usage could negatively effect anyone except the person taking it.

 

Does HGH have health benefits greater than cigarettes, in my opinion, yes.

 

Therefore I believe that Bonds should have been able to take HGH, especially under the supervision of Dr's.

 

Im not comfortable letting the govt be our "mother" and telling us what is harmful and what isnt. Maybe they can force me to each vegetables or that I should stop eating Big Macs.

 

My problem is something that I mentioned in my last post. Any prescription could cause immediate death when mixed with other drugs. And the reason you give for prescribing penicillin is wrong. Drug resistance was not understood until well after the drug was first used. Under the logic you cite, Clorox should be by prescription because bacteria can become resistant to it.

The reason it is by prescription is because people don't have a clue when they are supposed to use it or what they can use it with.

 

HGH does have some health benefits, and, as I said earlier, it can be prescribed for the prescribed to maximize those benefits while minimizing the risks. And no, I don't have an example of how it could effect others. Further, if in fact, there are no drug interactions and it can be used fairly safely, then fine. I'll agree with you. But I won't agree that people should have access to any drugs they want.