Baseball Steroid Thread

[Chuck Nessa]

Buy a shirt.

[Dan Gould]

Buy a shirt.

is that aimed at me or everyone else?

Cuz I'm selling shirts, actually.

[alocispepraluger102]

this thing is better news than the presidential race. i am sure many interesting spins, twists, and lies lie ahead.

good old bud will take care of things.

[Free For All]

The guys get shirts.

[7/4]

The guys get shirts.

[Dan Gould]

Now SI is reporting that Waxman, the chairman, has sent a letter to Hardin to, in effect, watch his mouth:

In his letter to Hardin, Waxman notes that lawyers for both sides have made "inadvisable" comments, but refers to Hardin's lunch-eating jibe as "beyond any personal enmity that exists between Roger Clemens and Mr. McNamee." Waxman adds that he does not know Hardin's "intent in making this statement, but under one interpretation, it can be seen an attempt to intimidate a federal law enforcement official in the performance of his official duties."

Waxman has never met Novitzky, and said that he is not aware of Novitzky's plans regarding the hearing but informed Hardin that "it is not your client's prerogative to dictate who attends or does not attend the hearing."

[Soulstation1]

that is funny about the rocket's wife juicing before their SI swinsuit photos

[Tim McG]

that is funny about the rocket's wife juicing before their SI swinsuit photos

Silicone.

[Tim McG]

Excellent column in the Times about why the Clemens report that tried to establish that his late-career numbers are "in line" with others is a lot of hokum, for the simple statistical problem of "selection bias". By only comparing him to other pitchers with late-career success like Schilling and Ryan, Clemens people have ignored the universe of pitchers with increasingly poor performances.

Keeping Score

Report Backing Clemens Chooses Its Facts Carefully

By ERIC BRADLOW, SHANE JENSEN, JUSTIN WOLFERS and ADI WYNER

Published: February 10, 2008

Last week, Roger Clemens made the rounds on Capitol Hill to rebut charges by Brian McNamee, his former trainer, that he used steroids and human growth hormone late in his career. In addition, Clemens’s agents from Hendricks Sports Management have provided a report loaded with numbers — 45 pages, 18,000 words and 38 charts — to support his position. You can find the report at the Web site www.rogerclemensreport.com.

But the value of evidence is not measured by the weight of a report; when examined carefully, the Clemens report does not make a convincing case for his innocence.

The report hinges on a critical question: Was Clemens’s late-career success highly unusual? If so, an unusual late-career improvement lends credence to the Mitchell report’s assertion that he used performance-enhancing drugs at various times from 1998 onward. The Clemens report tries to dispel this issue by comparing him with Nolan Ryan, who retired in 1993 at 46. In this comparison, Clemens does not look atypical — both enjoyed great success well into their 40s. Similar conclusions can be drawn when comparing Clemens with two contemporaries, Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling.

Yet such comparisons tell an incomplete story. By comparing Clemens only to those who were successful in the second act of their careers, rather than to all pitchers who had a similarly successful first act, the report artificially minimizes the chances that Clemens’s numbers will seem unusual. Statisticians call this problem selection bias.

There is no doubt that Clemens was a great pitcher, but the question is whether he was much better past 36 or 37 (when he is suspected of having taken performance-enhancing drugs) than would have been expected based on his early career.

A better approach to this problem involves comparing the career trajectories of all highly durable starting pitchers. We have analyzed the progress of Clemens as well as all 31 other pitchers since 1968 who started at least 10 games in at least 15 seasons, and pitched at least 3,000 innings. For two common pitching statistics, earned run average and walks-plus-hits per innings pitched, we fitted a smooth curve to all the data from these 31 pitchers and compared it with those for Clemens’s career.

Relative to this larger comparison group, Clemens’s second act is unusual. The other pitchers in this durable group usually improve steadily early in their careers, peaking at around age 30. Then a slow decline sets in as they reach their mid-30s.

Clemens follows a far different path. The arc of Clemens’s career is upside down: his performance declines as he enters his late 20s and improves into his mid-30s and 40s.

The report correctly observes that he is not the only pitcher to excel at a comparatively old age, but it fails to note that he has taken an unusual path to that late-career success.

Another key shortcoming of the Clemens report is that it focuses almost exclusively on his E.R.A. But a pitcher’s E.R.A. is affected by factors, like defense, that have nothing to do with his pitching. It is also affected by other factors, like the order of events — a triple, for instance, can be hit with the bases empty, or the bases loaded. So a pitcher’s E.R.A. tends to bounce around a lot, and these ups and downs can help obscure patterns in career numbers.

Because E.R.A. can be so unreliable, analysts prefer to look at basic building blocks of talent like strikeout, walk, hit and home run rates. Clemens’s walks-plus-hits rate, for instance, follows an even more unusual trajectory late in his career, one that raises some suspicion.

Other measures suggest Clemens performed similarly to his contemporaries. But these comparisons do not provide evidence of his innocence; they simply fail to provide evidence of his guilt.

Our reading is that the available data on Clemens’s career strongly hint that some unusual factors may have been at play in producing his excellent late-career statistics.

In any analysis of his career statistics, it is impossible to say whether this unusual factor was performance-enhancing drugs.

The Clemens report argues that his longevity “was due to his ability to adjust his style of pitching as he got older, incorporating his very effective split-finger fastball to offset the decrease in the speed of his regular fastball caused by aging.” While this may be true, it is also just speculation: there is not a single number in the report quantifying the evolution of Clemens’s pitch selection.

Statistics provide powerful tools for understanding the world around us, but the value of any analysis invariably comes down to choosing a useful statistic and an appropriate comparison group. Statisticians-for-hire have a tendency to choose comparison groups that support their clients. A careful analysis, and a better informed public, are the best defense against such smoke and mirrors.

And here are the accompanying charts:

So, every human being has to progress and/or digress in absolutely the same fashion.

Hm.

Ever hear of an anomaly?

[Tim McG]

Professional athletes take plenty of risks. So hip replacements, crippling chronic pain due to sports related injuries, trauma induced brain injury or paralysis and shoulder/wrist/knee surgeries aren't enough for you?

Why steroids or HGHs are singled out as the most insidious things to do harm to an athlete is beyond my comprehension.

[Larry Kart]

So, every human being has to progress and/or digress in absolutely the same fashion.

Hm.

Ever hear of an anomaly?

But didn't Clemens' people compile the stats/charts they originally promulgated in an attempt to demonstrate that his big late-career uptick was not an anomaly?

[Aggie87]

Professional athletes take plenty of risks. So hip replacements, crippling chronic pain due to sports related injuries, trauma induced brain injury or paralysis and shoulder/wrist/knee surgeries aren't enough for you?

Those things you mention (which are all degenerative) are not even in the same ballpark as performance enhancing drugs - and you know it.

<inserting random, non-value added blank lines>

Why steroids or HGHs are singled out as the most insidious things to do harm to an athlete is beyond my comprehension.

You've made that clear that you simply don't understand why performance enhancing drugs are bad.

Many,

many times.

[Chalupa]

Pettitte, Radomski, Knoblauch won't testify at steroid hearing

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3241579

[Aggie87]

interesting...

Rocker says he failed MLB drug test

ATLANTA (AP) -- John Rocker claims he flunked a drug test ordered by Major League Baseball in 2000 and that he, Alex Rodriguez and other Texas Rangers were advised by management and union doctors following a spring training lecture on how to effectively use steroids.

"Bud Selig knew in the year 2000 John Rocker was taking the juice," the former pitcher said Monday of the baseball commissioner on Atlanta radio station 680. "Didn't do anything about it."

Rocker was suspended for the first 14 days of the 2000 season by Selig for making racial and ethnic remarks the commissioner deemed insensitive. The penalty, originally set to cover 28 days, was reduced by an arbitrator following a grievance.

"As part of the disciplinary process, Mr. Rocker was referred to the confidential Employee Assistance Program," Major League Baseball said in a statement. "Any test of Mr. Rocker would have been conducted by professionals who ran the EAP. Those professionals were obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the result and to use it in developing a treatment and education program for Mr. Rocker. Further discipline was not an option legally available to Major League Baseball at that time."

Rocker said that doctors from management and the players' association, following a spring training talk with the Texas Rangers about steroids and other topics, pulled himself, A-Rod, Rafael Palmeiro and Ivan Rodriguez aside. Rocker was with the Rangers in 2002.

"Look guys, if you take one kind of steroid, you don't triple stack them and take them 10 months out of the year like Lyle Alzado did," Rocker said the doctors told them. "If you do it responsibly, it's not going to hurt you."

Rocker did not identify the doctors.

Baseball did not have a drug-testing agreement between management and the players' union until September 2002 and did not have random testing with penalties until 2004.

Gene Orza, the chief operating officer of the players' association, declined comment.

[Dan Gould]

Pettitte, Radomski, Knoblauch won't testify at steroid hearing

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3241579

Well that is certainly interesting. Why would Pettitte be such a "bad witness" and why would he continuously "contradict himself"? Is that a legitimate inability to remember things, or a refusal to commit to the truth in order not to bury Clemens?

I would presume that at minimum, the committee will release transcripts of Pettitte's and Knoblauch's interviews, so that people can see what was asked and how it was answered.

Here is what the Daily News is reporting:

Pettitte has asked Waxman (D-Calif.) to excuse him from the hearing because the Yankee pitcher does not want to provide testimony that could hurt Clemens, a source said.

If Pettitte has already given testimony in his interview that would hurt Clemens, why the reticence to do it in public? He doesn't want to tell the truth with Roger sitting next to him? I think the real problem for Pettitte is going to be the fact that the New York press is going to keep pushing him about what he knows and what he said. If he were smart he'd answer the questions on Wednesday, and then when he shows up at camp on Thursday, he could have simply said, "I answered all questions truthfully under oath at the committee hearing. I'm not here to talk about the past."

Edited February 12, 2008 by Dan Gould

[Dan Gould]

Thinking more about it, if Pettitte had nothing but helpful things to say about Clemens, he would be unlikely to have begged out of appearing. So it makes more sense that, as is being reported, he simply doesn't want to repeat them in front of the world and with Clemens sitting next to him.

The Times broke the story first, and here is what they had to say:

Pettitte asked not to testify publicly because he did not want to say something to hurt Clemens while in the glare of national television coverage, according to the staff person and a government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Pettitte, who gave a deposition behind closed doors last week, is a longtime friend, former teammate and workout partner of Clemens. Like Clemens, he was also a client of McNamee, the personal trainer who stated in the Mitchell report that he injected Clemens at least 16 times with steroids and human growth hormone in 1998, 2000 and 2001.

Pettitte has admitted McNamee was truthful in the Mitchell report about injecting him with H.G.H. in 2002.

McNamee’s lawyers say that Pettitte, in the past, talked with both McNamee and Clemens, separately, about Clemens’s use of H.G.H.

Clemens has strongly denied taking any performance-enhancing drugs, and is believed to have repeated those denials in a sworn deposition last week. His lawyers say Clemens will testify that he did not talk with Pettitte about drug use and that he never used steroids or growth hormone.

After Pettitte gave a two-and-a-half-hour deposition to committee lawyers Feb. 4, he emerged looking shaken, and since then many people involved in the case say they think he gave sworn testimony that could hurt Clemens.

[Tim McG]

Professional athletes take plenty of risks. So hip replacements, crippling chronic pain due to sports related injuries, trauma induced brain injury or paralysis and shoulder/wrist/knee surgeries aren't enough for you?

Those things you mention (which are all degenerative) are not even in the same ballpark as performance enhancing drugs - and you know it.

<inserting random, non-value added blank lines>

Why steroids or HGHs are singled out as the most insidious things to do harm to an athlete is beyond my comprehension.

You've made that clear that you simply don't understand why performance enhancing drugs are bad.

Many,

many times.

Geez, Aggie.

This isn't a good vs bad argument.

It is a pointless argument vs a ridiculous argument.

No one is suggesting steroids or HGHs aren't bad for you, OK? I seriously cannot comprehend why you refuse to see the risks athletes take at certain harm to thier own bodies isn't somehow equatable or, at the very least, a hypocritcal indication of how athletes already sacrifice their bodies.

Why, I ask, is it so damned important what it is these athletes do to harm their bodies in order to perform their duties? Like steroids should be the only focus here? How many times do athletes play hurt, Aggie? Ask yourself [please], is it so important we stop steroids or is it more important to understand then stop/reduce the harm these guys do to themselves in order to remain employed?

Ignore Dan.

See the big picture.

[Tim McG]

For further investigation, Your Honor, I offer Jeff Novitzky.

To wit:

Judge in Bonds case skeptical of Novitzky

By Jonathan Littman, Yahoo! Sports

February 10, 2008

Before a jury gets to decide if it believes Barry Bonds, the judge in the case may decide whether she believes Jeff Novitzky, the lead BALCO investigator.

Susan Ilston, the highly regarded district judge in the Bonds perjury case, is one of four federal judges who have condemned the tactics and questioned the candor of the indefatigable IRS agent Novitzky, according to a recent appellate decision.

The January 24, 2008, decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, concerning Novitzky’s extension of a warrant for 10 BALCO-related Major League players into a bold grab for the drug-testing records of about 100 players, has brought into greater focus starkly opposing judicial views on the aggressive methods of BALCO prosecutors and investigators.

The Bonds perjury case began and may end with Novitzky, who three former fellow investigators said has had a longstanding vendetta against the slugger. Mike Rains, Bonds’ attorney, has said Novitzky and others unfairly tried to lead his client into a perjury trap.

And, yes, this is the same Jeff Novitzky that obtained confessions from former New York Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski and former New York Yankees trainer Brian McNamee that formed the backbone of the Mitchell Report.

Novitzky was contacted for this article and declined to comment.

Novitzky high-jumped 7 feet in high school and played basketball at San Jose State before an injury. And early in the BALCO investigation he went so far as to join Bonds’ Burlingame gym, an unusual step for an IRS agent. Dr. Don Catlin, the director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory and the man who decoded the mystery BALCO steroid “the clear,” has called Novitzky a hero.

It was Novitzky who several years ago sought out narcotics agent Iran White to go undercover in Bonds’ gym. It was Novitzky who scoured BALCO’s garbage for evidence of steroids. It was Novitzky who filed the affidavits and served the search warrants on BALCO and Bonds’ trainer, Greg Anderson, that turned up alleged evidence of steroid use by Bonds and other athletes.

Nearly every key question asked of Bonds in the grand jury room can be tied to documents (Bonds claimed to have never seen before) obtained by Novitzky. Many of the documents the prosecutors used that day to prod Bonds about alleged drug use originated from the agent's searches.

The Bonds legal team is expected to mount a court challenge on Novitzky's integrity and motives that could potentially lead to the inadmissibility of key evidence and testimony – shaking the foundation of the high profile perjury case.

“(Novitzky) is their star witness,” said Julia Mezhinsky Jayne, a San Francisco criminal defense attorney who has argued criminal cases before Judge Ilston. “But the government doesn't want this to be a case of Novitzky versus Bonds. The defense is going to work pretty hard to suppress the documents Bonds was presented with at the grand jury. As for the prosecution, the more Novitzky is discredited, the more they have to come up with other evidence.”

Red flags have already been raised on Novitzky in the recent appellate decision. Three district judges and one appellate judge concluded that his conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. Two appellate judges disagreed.

In December 2004, Ilston quashed the subpoenas served on the labs doing the testing for Major League Baseball, ruling that the government’s conduct was unreasonable and constituted harassment.

“I think the government has displayed … a callous disregard for constitutional rights,” she said in open court. “I think it’s a seizure beyond what was authorized by the search warrant, therefore it violates the Fourth Amendment.”

The dissenting Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas noted that Novitzky appeared to have intentionally deceived the court, charging that the agent’s affidavit for a search warrant “did not disclose that a grand jury subpoena had been issued for the same material and that a motion to quash the subpoena was pending in the same district.”

The controversy surrounding the searches of the labs and offices that collected the specimens and performed MLB’s drug testing at the time – Comprehensive Drug Testing (CDT) and Quest Diagnostics – has the potential to become a precedent-setting case on the privacy of medical records and the limits of unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The recent appellate decision may receive a full hearing of 11 judges in the Ninth Circuit Court, and possibly find its way to the Supreme Court. With or without further appellate proceedings, Novitzky’s conduct is likely to hang over the Bonds perjury trial.

Why have Ilston and so many other judges publicly denounced Novitzky’s conduct? On January 16, 2003, the government served a subpoena on CDT and, “Asked for every drug testing record of every Major League player,” said Elliot Peters, who represents the Players Association in the case. “We said, ‘Oh come on.’ “

After extended negotiations, Peters said the government then asked for 10 names.

"We asked if they’d withdraw the (subpoena for every record of every player)," Peters said. "They never did.”

Peters said the Players Association remained unconvinced that the government had any intention of holding to the reduced list. On April 6, 2004, two days before the union and the testing lab were required to respond to the grand jury subpoena for 10 players or be in contempt, the union told the government it intended to file a motion to quash the subpoenas.

It was filed the next day. On that same day, knowing there would be an early hearing on the government’s right to obtain the testing data, Novitzky and the Justice Department applied for search warrants from federal magistrates to search testing offices and labs in Long Beach and Las Vegas.

On April 8, accompanied by 11 federal agents, including a computer expert, Novitzky raided Comprehensive Drug Testing’s Long Beach office. By noon, Novitzky learned that his fellow agents had “discovered a hard-copy document with names and identifying numbers for all MLB players.” Meanwhile, a distraught lab director handed the agents a document with drug test results for the 10 BALCO players – seemingly what the subpoena had requested.

But Novitzky didn’t stop there. His group copied a massive computer directory called Tracey, containing hundreds of files on CDT’s wide-ranging sports drug testing programs. There were 2,911 files that had nothing to do with MLB drug testing, as well as MLB files that had “information on 1,200 players with multiple test results.”

By boldly raiding the testing lab’s office, Novitzky and the Justice Department defied the ongoing court proceedings, grabbing tests and information they never would have obtained through the still-active subpoena process.

Novitzky’s abrupt search appeared to rob the Players Association of a lawful right to a court defense. Three weeks later, using information that Novitzky had culled from the huge computer directory taken from the testing lab’s offices – never authorized in the original 10-player warrant – the government was granted new search warrants for the approximately 100 players who had tested positive for steroids.

The Players Association sought the return of the specimens and records seized. On August 19, 2004, a district judge in Nevada granted the union's motion, ruling that “the government callously disregarded the affected players’ constitutional rights” and ordered the return of all specimens, notes and memos “other than those pertaining to the 10 BALCO players named in the original search warrant.”

By the late summer and winter of 2004, the fight over the specimens and records of the 100 players wound its way to Judge Ilston’s court, where she demonstrated skill at challenging the government in open argument.

Ilston exposed that Novitzky and the government knew that in the search warrant proceedings – unlike the subpoena process – the objections of the Players Association and other parties would not be heard. Ilston got the BALCO prosecutor to admit that the government had done an end run around another district judge scheduled to hear the motion to quash the subpoena, a hearing that never occurred because of Novitzky's search. The court transcript makes clear that Ilston is not a judge who takes kindly to deceptive argument or conduct – whether on the part of the defense or the prosecution.

In granting the motion for return of seized property, Ilston chastised the government for taking the case “from one judge to another judge,” adding that the government’s unauthorized search will destroy the ability “to confidently provide testing under promise of privacy."

She added that not only would the search irreparably injure Major League Baseball, "I can’t imagine that there’s going to be any voluntary agreement (by the Players Association) to do this kind of testing.”

She also flatly rejected the government’s bald assertion that seizing the nearly 3,000 computer files – nearly 99 percent of which had nothing to do with their original search – was authorized under the plain view doctrine, a legal principle stipulating that officers can seize without a warrant contraband or evidence found in plain view during a lawful observation.

“I find absolutely staggering the implications about what you say about the plain view doctrine in the computer set up," Ilston said. "Nothing is in plain view because with the disk, you look at it, you don’t see anything until you stick it in the computer.”

The new 2-1 appellate opinion did not rule on the plain view question, and went so far as to withdraw its earlier opinion, which directed the magistrate to ensure that the government did not retain, “separate, unrelated evidence.” Under the current ruling the government appears to be able to hold onto all sorts of seized evidence – related or not.

Except that as long as the issue remains tied up in court, the BALCO team has been ordered to return everything, including their notes related to the searches, records and specimens of the 100 players. The deadline for filing a motion for a hearing before an 11-judge Ninth Circuit panel is in early March.

Since the records so far have been sealed, the public doesn't know the extent to which Novitzky’s conduct on those search warrants may become directly relevant in the Bonds case.

But there is also the human factor. “Bias and interest are tremendous ways to impeach a witness,” said Mezhinsky Jayne, the criminal defense lawyer. “The government is going to work hard to diffuse whatever negative statements may come out about Novitzky. They are not ignorant to the fact that he's turning out to not be the best witness.”

If the Bonds case does go to trial, the jury and Judge Ilston are likely to pay rapt attention to the cross examination of Jeff Novitzky.

“He's a zealous guy,” said Peters of the IRS investigator. “All of them. They all went over the line.”

[Aggie87]

Geez, Aggie.

This isn't a good vs bad argument.

It is a pointless argument vs a ridiculous argument.

No one is suggesting steroids or HGHs aren't bad for you, OK? I seriously cannot comprehend why you refuse to see the risks athletes take at certain harm to thier own bodies isn't somehow equatable or, at the very least, a hypocritcal indication of how athletes already sacrifice their bodies.

Why, I ask, is it so damned important what it is these athletes do to harm their bodies in order to perform their duties? Like steroids should be the only focus here? How many times do athletes play hurt, Aggie? Ask yourself [please], is it so important we stop steroids or is it more important to understand then stop/reduce the harm these guys do to themselves in order to remain employed?

Ignore Dan.

See the big picture.

Huh?? It's important to stop steroids, period. Everyone knows and understands they are harmful - including the ball players. You seriously think they don't already understand that, and that we all need to become more educated about steroids before we actually *DO* something about them??

[Tim McG]

Geez, Aggie.

This isn't a good vs bad argument.

It is a pointless argument vs a ridiculous argument.

No one is suggesting steroids or HGHs aren't bad for you, OK? I seriously cannot comprehend why you refuse to see the risks athletes take at certain harm to thier own bodies isn't somehow equatable or, at the very least, a hypocritcal indication of how athletes already sacrifice their bodies.

Why, I ask, is it so damned important what it is these athletes do to harm their bodies in order to perform their duties? Like steroids should be the only focus here? How many times do athletes play hurt, Aggie? Ask yourself [please], is it so important we stop steroids or is it more important to understand then stop/reduce the harm these guys do to themselves in order to remain employed?

Ignore Dan.

See the big picture.

Huh?? It's important to stop steroids, period. Everyone knows and understands they are harmful - including the ball players. You seriously think they don't already understand that, and that we all need to become more educated about steroids before we actually *DO* something about them??

No, Aggie.

What I am saying is the uproar over steroids and HGHs is hypocritical if we aren't also willing to look at then curb the wanton physical abuse of athletes, and on a wholesale basis, to keep them in the game. That is far and away more insidious and permanently harmful to the athlete than any steroid or HGH ever used. And you can bet the ranch on it.

Please read this first before responding, OK?

I'd really apprecaite it, Aggie.

Edited February 12, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

The government has no case and they know it.

[Dan Gould]

For further investigation, Your Honor, I offer Jeff Novitzky.

To wit:

Judge in Bonds case skeptical of Novitzky

By Jonathan Littman, Yahoo! Sports

February 10, 2008

Before a jury gets to decide if it believes Barry Bonds, the judge in the case may decide whether she believes Jeff Novitzky, the lead BALCO investigator.

Susan Ilston, the highly regarded district judge in the Bonds perjury case, is one of four federal judges who have condemned the tactics and questioned the candor of the indefatigable IRS agent Novitzky, according to a recent appellate decision.

The January 24, 2008, decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, concerning Novitzky’s extension of a warrant for 10 BALCO-related Major League players into a bold grab for the drug-testing records of about 100 players, has brought into greater focus starkly opposing judicial views on the aggressive methods of BALCO prosecutors and investigators.

The Bonds perjury case began and may end with Novitzky, who three former fellow investigators said has had a longstanding vendetta against the slugger. Mike Rains, Bonds’ attorney, has said Novitzky and others unfairly tried to lead his client into a perjury trap.

And, yes, this is the same Jeff Novitzky that obtained confessions from former New York Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski and former New York Yankees trainer Brian McNamee that formed the backbone of the Mitchell Report.

Novitzky was contacted for this article and declined to comment.

Novitzky high-jumped 7 feet in high school and played basketball at San Jose State before an injury. And early in the BALCO investigation he went so far as to join Bonds’ Burlingame gym, an unusual step for an IRS agent. Dr. Don Catlin, the director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory and the man who decoded the mystery BALCO steroid “the clear,” has called Novitzky a hero.

It was Novitzky who several years ago sought out narcotics agent Iran White to go undercover in Bonds’ gym. It was Novitzky who scoured BALCO’s garbage for evidence of steroids. It was Novitzky who filed the affidavits and served the search warrants on BALCO and Bonds’ trainer, Greg Anderson, that turned up alleged evidence of steroid use by Bonds and other athletes.

Nearly every key question asked of Bonds in the grand jury room can be tied to documents (Bonds claimed to have never seen before) obtained by Novitzky. Many of the documents the prosecutors used that day to prod Bonds about alleged drug use originated from the agent's searches.

The Bonds legal team is expected to mount a court challenge on Novitzky's integrity and motives that could potentially lead to the inadmissibility of key evidence and testimony – shaking the foundation of the high profile perjury case.

“(Novitzky) is their star witness,” said Julia Mezhinsky Jayne, a San Francisco criminal defense attorney who has argued criminal cases before Judge Ilston. “But the government doesn't want this to be a case of Novitzky versus Bonds. The defense is going to work pretty hard to suppress the documents Bonds was presented with at the grand jury. As for the prosecution, the more Novitzky is discredited, the more they have to come up with other evidence.”

Red flags have already been raised on Novitzky in the recent appellate decision. Three district judges and one appellate judge concluded that his conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. Two appellate judges disagreed.

In December 2004, Ilston quashed the subpoenas served on the labs doing the testing for Major League Baseball, ruling that the government’s conduct was unreasonable and constituted harassment.

“I think the government has displayed … a callous disregard for constitutional rights,” she said in open court. “I think it’s a seizure beyond what was authorized by the search warrant, therefore it violates the Fourth Amendment.”

The dissenting Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas noted that Novitzky appeared to have intentionally deceived the court, charging that the agent’s affidavit for a search warrant “did not disclose that a grand jury subpoena had been issued for the same material and that a motion to quash the subpoena was pending in the same district.”

The controversy surrounding the searches of the labs and offices that collected the specimens and performed MLB’s drug testing at the time – Comprehensive Drug Testing (CDT) and Quest Diagnostics – has the potential to become a precedent-setting case on the privacy of medical records and the limits of unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The recent appellate decision may receive a full hearing of 11 judges in the Ninth Circuit Court, and possibly find its way to the Supreme Court. With or without further appellate proceedings, Novitzky’s conduct is likely to hang over the Bonds perjury trial.

Why have Ilston and so many other judges publicly denounced Novitzky’s conduct? On January 16, 2003, the government served a subpoena on CDT and, “Asked for every drug testing record of every Major League player,” said Elliot Peters, who represents the Players Association in the case. “We said, ‘Oh come on.’ “

After extended negotiations, Peters said the government then asked for 10 names.

"We asked if they’d withdraw the (subpoena for every record of every player)," Peters said. "They never did.”

Peters said the Players Association remained unconvinced that the government had any intention of holding to the reduced list. On April 6, 2004, two days before the union and the testing lab were required to respond to the grand jury subpoena for 10 players or be in contempt, the union told the government it intended to file a motion to quash the subpoenas.

It was filed the next day. On that same day, knowing there would be an early hearing on the government’s right to obtain the testing data, Novitzky and the Justice Department applied for search warrants from federal magistrates to search testing offices and labs in Long Beach and Las Vegas.

On April 8, accompanied by 11 federal agents, including a computer expert, Novitzky raided Comprehensive Drug Testing’s Long Beach office. By noon, Novitzky learned that his fellow agents had “discovered a hard-copy document with names and identifying numbers for all MLB players.” Meanwhile, a distraught lab director handed the agents a document with drug test results for the 10 BALCO players – seemingly what the subpoena had requested.

But Novitzky didn’t stop there. His group copied a massive computer directory called Tracey, containing hundreds of files on CDT’s wide-ranging sports drug testing programs. There were 2,911 files that had nothing to do with MLB drug testing, as well as MLB files that had “information on 1,200 players with multiple test results.”

By boldly raiding the testing lab’s office, Novitzky and the Justice Department defied the ongoing court proceedings, grabbing tests and information they never would have obtained through the still-active subpoena process.

Novitzky’s abrupt search appeared to rob the Players Association of a lawful right to a court defense. Three weeks later, using information that Novitzky had culled from the huge computer directory taken from the testing lab’s offices – never authorized in the original 10-player warrant – the government was granted new search warrants for the approximately 100 players who had tested positive for steroids.

The Players Association sought the return of the specimens and records seized. On August 19, 2004, a district judge in Nevada granted the union's motion, ruling that “the government callously disregarded the affected players’ constitutional rights” and ordered the return of all specimens, notes and memos “other than those pertaining to the 10 BALCO players named in the original search warrant.”

By the late summer and winter of 2004, the fight over the specimens and records of the 100 players wound its way to Judge Ilston’s court, where she demonstrated skill at challenging the government in open argument.

Ilston exposed that Novitzky and the government knew that in the search warrant proceedings – unlike the subpoena process – the objections of the Players Association and other parties would not be heard. Ilston got the BALCO prosecutor to admit that the government had done an end run around another district judge scheduled to hear the motion to quash the subpoena, a hearing that never occurred because of Novitzky's search. The court transcript makes clear that Ilston is not a judge who takes kindly to deceptive argument or conduct – whether on the part of the defense or the prosecution.

In granting the motion for return of seized property, Ilston chastised the government for taking the case “from one judge to another judge,” adding that the government’s unauthorized search will destroy the ability “to confidently provide testing under promise of privacy."

She added that not only would the search irreparably injure Major League Baseball, "I can’t imagine that there’s going to be any voluntary agreement (by the Players Association) to do this kind of testing.”

She also flatly rejected the government’s bald assertion that seizing the nearly 3,000 computer files – nearly 99 percent of which had nothing to do with their original search – was authorized under the plain view doctrine, a legal principle stipulating that officers can seize without a warrant contraband or evidence found in plain view during a lawful observation.

“I find absolutely staggering the implications about what you say about the plain view doctrine in the computer set up," Ilston said. "Nothing is in plain view because with the disk, you look at it, you don’t see anything until you stick it in the computer.”

The new 2-1 appellate opinion did not rule on the plain view question, and went so far as to withdraw its earlier opinion, which directed the magistrate to ensure that the government did not retain, “separate, unrelated evidence.” Under the current ruling the government appears to be able to hold onto all sorts of seized evidence – related or not.

Except that as long as the issue remains tied up in court, the BALCO team has been ordered to return everything, including their notes related to the searches, records and specimens of the 100 players. The deadline for filing a motion for a hearing before an 11-judge Ninth Circuit panel is in early March.

Since the records so far have been sealed, the public doesn't know the extent to which Novitzky’s conduct on those search warrants may become directly relevant in the Bonds case.

But there is also the human factor. “Bias and interest are tremendous ways to impeach a witness,” said Mezhinsky Jayne, the criminal defense lawyer. “The government is going to work hard to diffuse whatever negative statements may come out about Novitzky. They are not ignorant to the fact that he's turning out to not be the best witness.”

If the Bonds case does go to trial, the jury and Judge Ilston are likely to pay rapt attention to the cross examination of Jeff Novitzky.

“He's a zealous guy,” said Peters of the IRS investigator. “All of them. They all went over the line.”

I personally believe that the government is over-reaching in trying to get these MLB players names when the tests were understood to be anonymous, but the fact is that the whole article - and let's remember that this is the LOSING side of this issue that is doing the bitching and moaning - is about that issue alone, except for this little tidbit:

Nearly every key question asked of Bonds in the grand jury room can be tied to documents (Bonds claimed to have never seen before) obtained by Novitzky. Many of the documents the prosecutors used that day to prod Bonds about alleged drug use originated from the agent's searches.

This statement is 100% false, unless you describe items seized by a warranted search as somehow tainted because Novitsky was in the room. Virtually everything that the prosecutors asked Bonds about in the grand jury room related to documents, including the infamous drug calendars, obtained from Greg Anderson's apartment when a search and arrest warrant was executed by DOZENS of agents. Its an outrageous attempt to smear the man when its implied that he's the one who found them, and he's such a bastard (Bonds never saw them before, doncha know) he probably manufactured them, too.

[Dan Gould]

Geez, Aggie.

This isn't a good vs bad argument.

It is a pointless argument vs a ridiculous argument.

No one is suggesting steroids or HGHs aren't bad for you, OK? I seriously cannot comprehend why you refuse to see the risks athletes take at certain harm to thier own bodies isn't somehow equatable or, at the very least, a hypocritcal indication of how athletes already sacrifice their bodies.

Why, I ask, is it so damned important what it is these athletes do to harm their bodies in order to perform their duties? Like steroids should be the only focus here? How many times do athletes play hurt, Aggie? Ask yourself [please], is it so important we stop steroids or is it more important to understand then stop/reduce the harm these guys do to themselves in order to remain employed?

Ignore Dan.

See the big picture.

Huh?? It's important to stop steroids, period. Everyone knows and understands they are harmful - including the ball players. You seriously think they don't already understand that, and that we all need to become more educated about steroids before we actually *DO* something about them??

No, Aggie.

What I am saying is the uproar over steroids and HGHs is hypocritical if we aren't also willing to look at then curb the wanton physical abuse of athletes, and on a wholesale basis, to keep them in the game. That is far and away more insidious and permanently harmful to the athlete than any steroid or HGH ever used. And you can bet the ranch on it.

Please read this first before responding, OK?

I'd really apprecaite it, Aggie.

Don't you get it, Aggie?

Pitchers play with pain, and then they blow out their elbow, and Tommy John surgery is painful, and it really should be as illegal as steroids because it helps you pitch better and players go through so much to stay in the game. Its all just so bad, and so wrong. We shouldn't let steroids pervert the game, and we shouldn't let modern medicine extend careers. Its wrong, wrong, wrong, and its hypocritical if you can't understand that.

[Dan Gould]

Well, usually its been the Daily News, and to a lesser extent the Times and Post, breaking the stories on Clemens. But this time its Newsday getting into the act, and just as I said last night, if Pettitte had nothing to give but the testimonial equivalent of a glass of warm milk, he wouldn't have a problem testifying in public about his friend.

BY JIM BAUMBACH AND ROBERT E. KESSLER | jim.baumbach@newsday.com

and robert.kessler@newsday.com

February 12, 2008

The affidavit of Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte helps to support the account of Brian McNamee, Roger Clemens' former trainer, that he gave Clemens injections of banned drugs, according to a ranking member of the congressional committee investigating the use of illegal drugs in baseball.

Newsday.com first reported the story last night after interviewing Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) yesterday. Davis said that in an affidavit given to the House Oversight Committee, Pettitte's account matches McNamee's in most details, but that in a separate affidavit to the committee, Clemens said both are mistaken.

Sources said McNamee has told investigators that in the winter of 2002, he, Clemens and Pettitte were working out together at the gym in Clemens' Houston home. According to the sources, McNamee says that during a break in the workout, Pettitte went over to McNamee by himself and asked: "How come you don't give me the stuff you give Roger?" McNamee supposedly replied, "Because it's illegal."

Pettitte admitted that McNamee eventually gave him shots of human growth hormone, according to the Mitchell Report on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball.

In his affidavit, however, Clemens said Pettitte is mistaken in thinking that in their conversations about medications, he was referring to steroids or HGH.

McNamee has said he gave Clemens at least 16 injections of steroids or HGH.

Originally, Clemens, McNamee, Pettitte and Kirk Radomski, who received five years' probation last Friday after pleading guilty to supplying many ballplayers with steroids, were scheduled to testify tomorrow at a public hearing in Washington. But Davis said that with Pettitte reluctant and Radomski saying he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against further self-incrimination, only McNamee and Clemens will testify.

Davis said Pettitte's reluctance to testify in public about his dealings with McNamee and his longtime idol Clemens is understandable. Both the Democrats and the Republicans on the committee agree.

"We know what \ is going to say," Davis said, adding that Clemens will be confronted with Pettitte's statement when he testifies and will be given a chance to respond to it.

According to Davis, Clemens does not attack Pettitte in his deposition, saying his memory is different and that memories can fade over time. A spokesman for Clemens' lead lawyer, Rusty Hardin, did not return a message.

Let's think about this ... is it remotely plausible to believe that Clemens was referring to "medications"? That's about as plausible as the claim that McNamee injected him with Lidocaine, which only a doctor could possess and McNamee has no training in administering.

What "medications" would Clemens be referring to? Are there other things McNamee was giving him, and how did he obtain them? If Clemens says "lidocaine" then he's a really contemptible liar because that is something that lasts one to two hours and no one would think its such a big advantage to be receiving.

If indeed McNamee responded "because its illegal", what did Pettitte say? That is the real question, because its not an issue of faulty memories, he's just spoken to Clemens, and then asked McNamee about the "stuff". If they really didn't understand, why wouldn't Pettitte say, wait a minute - I'm not talking about steroids, I'm asking about the medications you're giving Roger.

The more you think about it, the more you realize that the committee is still erring when they let Pettitte avoid public testimony. You've got three witnesses to a conversation. Why have only two testify, and use one guy's words to challenge one of the others? You need Pettitte up there, to respond directly to Clemens.

Mr. Pettitte, is it possible that Roger was speaking of "medications" not steroids?

Mr. Congressman, he knew exactly what we were talking about.

Remember too that Pettitte was deposed before Clemens. They didn't hear that Clemens claimed that they have faulty memories and that he was referring to "medications". So they never had the chance to seek clarification from Andy.

As incomplete as this testimony may be, its still particularly damaging. The committee members can kiss Clemens ass all they want - when the world hears about this, if its not game, set, match, I think we're at Triple Headache Point (as old Bud Collins used to refer to love-40 ).

[Noj]

I'm so sick of seeing this crap on Sportscenter. It needs its own show so I can watch my damn sports highlights in peace. I do not care who did steroids or who lied or if Roger and Andy are still pals.