Baseball Steroid Thread

[Quincy]

Very interesting new information from the Daily News:

Roger doesn't sign his emails "Rog" or "Roger" or even Rocket.

He signs them "22"

I knew he was vain enough to insist that his salary always end in "22" but that is ridiculous.

You can read the email exchange here and the full motion to dismiss here.

And he spells kinda funny. Dushbag?

[Dan Gould]

I find it kind of strange how different media outlets are picking up the story that Clemens DNA "will be found" on the syringes and gauze, when the source is only McNamee's filing in their motion to dismiss the claim. I mean, they've been saying all along that they believe Clemens' DNA will be shown to exist along with traces of steroids. Is this really a new, more conclusive claim? When I first saw the report on mlb.com I thought, has someone used his connections with the Feds to break the story about the testing of the syringes, which we've heard nothing about since their existence was revealed in February? But no - its just what is said in his filing.

But then I thought about the wording that was used in the filing. There was another bombshell that no one is really picking up on. In the part of the filing that said that in lieu of dismissing the suit, grant our motion to move the case to the New York district court, they listed a number of reasons (outside of the fact that they made mincemeat out of the claim that Texas should have jurisdiction) like where McNamee works and lives and the proximity of witnesses and the fact that Clemens has had a home in New York and has the resources to travel there for a trial, whereas McNamee is virtually indigent and has no connection to Texas.

Anyway - in the section that listed witnesses was this:

Kirk Randomski CAN testify that he shipped steroids to Roger Clemens' home.

This is huge, because Randomski never said these things to the Feds or Mitchell, and a direct connection to a steroid dealer could mean that Roger would be indicted very soon, theoretically, since its clear that the first thing the Feds want to do to nail Roger is find his supplier outside of McNamee.

But look again - "CAN testify". That's a lot weaker than what they said about the syringes - "WILL show".

Here's the theory I came up with last night. I think that McNamee's attorney, who has been dealing with the Feds successfully for a period of time, has gotten word that the syringes yielded DNA evidence, that they've got a single person's DNA on multiple syringes/gauze pads, and maybe trace elements of PEDs.

SO, because now the lawyers know that DNA evidence was recovered, they are confident in their belief that it will be shown to be Roger's DNA, once the Feds seek a DNA sample. Therefore "will show" was used instead of "we believe that Roger's DNA is on that evidence".

Does that make sense to you guys?

[Dan Gould]

Well, huge news on the Clemens front this morning that sheds light on the whole "Kirk Randomski can testify that he shipped HGH to the Clemens home" part of McNamee's court filing:

Randomski turned over to the Feds receipts for a shipment of HGH to Clemens "care of" McNamee, coinciding with the time that Debbie Clemens used HGH for her SI cover shoot.

If this is true, that's it for Roger. Even if the HGH were for Debbie, he told a whopper of a lie under oath to Congress about his wife's use, where the PEDs came from, etc. That's lying to Congress. That's a felony conviction.

So long, Roger. Your drive, determination and character might have set you apart on the diamond, but in the end, it destroyed you. No Hall of Fame and it will be jail time soon enough.

[Dan Gould]

The Times and the Daily News are reporting that McNamee and his lawyers provided DNA samples to Federal agents in September. As the Times puts it:

The request for McNamee’s DNA sample suggests that readable DNA has been found on the items that McNamee submitted. Experts in criminal investigations said it was highly unlikely that authorities would request DNA samples without having something with which they could be compared.

The same experts said the biggest challenge in using DNA material in an investigation was finding enough of it to read on a piece of physical evidence.

Traces of McNamee’s DNA on the items would not, in and of itself, be damaging to Clemens. But McNamee’s DNA is necessary as part of the overall examination of the items. Only if Clemens’s DNA and drug traces were both discovered on the items would authorities have evidence that would bolster their investigation.

“McNamee handed over the materials, so you don’t need his DNA to link him to them,” said Erin Murphy, a professor of law at University of California, Berkeley, and an expert in forensic evidence. “But you do need his DNA to determine if there is DNA from more than one person” on the items.

If they got DNA samples, there's no question that they secured DNA from the items McNamee turned over. If you eliminate McNamee's DNA and find Clemens' DNA, then it is Game, Set, Match and Roger will be wearing somewhat wider pinstripes soon.

[Quincy]

Although I didn't do it this year for the past 15 some odd years I've videotaped the All-Star game. During these cold and grey days without baseball I'll sometimes watch one or two during the winter. It works nicely as it's rare that I remember who wins, and it's kind of a kick to see players in old uniforms, or see how much smaller some of them were when watching the older games.

So I pop in a tape of the 2004 game. The tape leads off with a campaign spot of John Edwards speaking on behave of John Kerry saying "he won't leave us behind." Oof. It was all downhill from there believe it or not. The game led off with one of those nutty FOX whacky promo jobs inspired by the Blues Brothers of the Clemens family driving a car around Houston and also featured Barry in another. A steroid parade in other words.

Had the tape in for almost an hour (only half paying attention as I was on the laptop) and never saw the game itself thanks to all the pregame stuff despite some fast forwarding. No news here but so much of the Fox junk about the game is not aging well, not that it was ever good to begin with.

Okay, enough of the game break, back to DNA samples!

Edited November 25, 2008 by Quincy

[T.D.]

My eyes glazed over long ago, but Team Bonds just fired a big shot in the PR war.

Edited January 15, 2009 by T.D.

[Aggie87]

Report: McGwire's brother details steroid use

NEW YORK (AP) -- Mark McGwire's youngest brother says in a book proposal that he injected the former baseball star with steroids, according to Deadspin.com.

Jay McGwire is circulating a manuscript titled The McGwire Family Secret: The Truth about Steroids, a slugger and Ultimate Redemption, the Web site reported Wednesday. Jay McGwire, a body builder, said his brother started using steroids in 1994 and that he injected Mark with Deca-Durabolin.

"Mark is a man I think most would like to forgive because his reason wasn't nefarious -- it was for survival," the proposal says, according to the Web site. "My bringing the truth to surface about Mark is out of love. I want Mark to live in truth to see the light, to come to repentance so he can live in freedom -- which is the only way to live."

Jay McGwire, who says he has a strained relationship with his brother, could not be reached for comment Thursday. Telephone numbers for his home and fitness center in California were disconnected.

Mark McGwire repeatedly has denied using illegal performance-enhancing drugs. When he testified under oath before Congress in 2005, however, he wouldn't discuss whether he did.

"Who knows what might have happened if I didn't get Mark involved with all the training, supplements, the right foods, steroids, and HGH?" the Web site quoted Jay McGwire as writing. "He would not have broken any records, and the congressional hearings would have gone on without him. Maybe Barry Bonds wouldn't have ever gotten involved with the stuff, either."

[Tim McG]

And the government's case against Bonds just went off with all the fury of a wet firecracker:

Bonds blockbuster: ‘The Clear’ was legal

By Jonathan Littman, Yahoo! Sports

Jan 14, 8:57 pm EST

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

Taking the Clear – the star drug of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative – was not a crime, according to expert testimony included in grand jury documents.

Not only was the performance-enhancing drug tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) not specifically banned when athletes squirted “The Clear” under their tongues to gain an edge, the testimony also indicates that the drug wasn’t categorized by the Justice Department as a steroid until January 2005, long after the drug laboratory had been shuttered.

Yahoo! Sports has examined sealed grand jury testimony given by drug-testing expert Dr. Donald Catlin in 2003 and BALCO lead investigator Jeff Novitzky in 2004. Both men testified that THG was not a steroid according to the federal criminal code. Furthermore, Novitzky testified that “there’s never been any studies to show whether or not THG does, in fact, enhance muscle growth.”

The judge in the Bonds perjury case lifted a protective order in November that had prevented about 30,000 pages of documents in the far-reaching BALCO case from becoming public. This is the first in a series of Yahoo! Sports stories that will broaden the understanding of the BALCO investigation, which has resulted in the prosecution of several athletes for perjury or lying to a federal agent and has cost taxpayers an estimated $55 million since the investigation began in 2003.

Bonds, baseball’s single-season and all-time home run king, faces 10 counts of perjury and one charge of obstruction of justice in what legal experts say is probably the final stage of the BALCO investigation. Bonds’ trial is scheduled to begin March 2 in San Francisco, and the deadline for his attorneys to file pretrial motions is Thursday. Bonds, who has been out of baseball since the end of the 2007 season, has pleaded not guilty and has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing.

Prior to the filing of charges, Bonds already was portrayed by some as a hulking personification of baseball’s steroid era, making him an ideal target for the government.

“If you’re going to topple a symbol of the evil of steroids, there’s no one better that you can put in the dock than Barry Bonds,” said Roger Abrams, a professor at the Northeastern University School of Law. “Knock him over and the kids will listen.”

Evidence that the Clear was legal and technically not a steroid until the Anabolic Steroids Act of 2004 took effect in January 2005 could emerge as central to Bonds’ defense, experts say. Perjury questions must be unambiguous to win a conviction, and the testimony of Catlin and Novitzky could establish that the government knew about ambiguity concerning the Clear before Bonds took the stand.

Experts say prosecutors might have intentionally asked Bonds what they knew to be ambiguous questions – never defining steroids or making a distinction between drugs that were illegal or merely banned by many major sports.

“This case has been presented as Barry Bonds lying about steroids,” said Christopher Cannon, a San Francisco defense attorney with extensive experience in federal perjury cases. “The government’s theory is that he was taking the Clear. If the government knows the Clear wasn’t a steroid – then when Barry said he wasn’t taking a steroid, he was telling the truth.”

The Clear

An undetectable steroid developed by BALCO that has been central to the Bonds investigation.

The Cream

A testosterone-based substance designed to mask steroid use.

The indictment cites questions posed to Bonds in the December 2003 grand jury hearing about whether he was getting the Clear or the Cream from his personal trainer, Greg Anderson, in December 2001. The ballplayer was also asked whether he was getting “the flaxseed oil or the Cream in 2000.”

The Cream, another creation of BALCO founder Victor Conte, was a 10 percent testosterone cream mixed with the masking agent epitestosterone. The drug was not meant to be anabolic, but to disguise the effect of anabolic drugs like the Clear from testers.

Prosecutor: “Let me be real clear about this. Did he [Anderson] ever give you anything that you knew to be a steroid? Did he ever give you a steroid?”

Bonds: “I don’t think Greg would do anything like that to me and jeopardize our friendship. I just don’t think he would do that.”

Prosecutor: “Well, when you say you don’t think he would do that, to your knowledge, I mean, did you ever take any steroids that he gave you?”

Bonds: “Not that I know of.”

Bonds’ attorneys could argue that even if he took the Clear, he wasn’t lying when he responded by saying “Not that I know of.”

“It’s reasonable to think that the person answering a question about steroids would think they were asking about an illegal steroid,” said Charles La Bella, a former U. S. attorney and chief of the criminal division for the Southern District of California who now practices criminal defense in San Diego.

“[A jury] wants unambiguous terms.”

More than two months after Bonds testified, the government dropped clues that it was aware that the Clear was legal – and not a steroid. Buried in the February 2004 BALCO indictment of Conte, the government charged that the Clear or THG lacked directions in its labeling and was a “‘designer steroid’ or ‘steroid-like derivative,’ which would provide ‘steroid-like’ effects without causing the athlete to test positive for steroids.”

The U.S. Attorney’s office in San Francisco declined to comment.

Conte wrote the following in an unpublished manuscript called “BALCO”: “There were actually two different species of The Clear from 2000 through 2003. The first was the anabolic steroid norbolethone, which was used successfully through the 2000 Sydney Olympics, helping Marion Jones win five medals that year, including three golds. It was only when I found out that the testers had identified strange metabolites in the urine samples of some of the athletes associated with BALCO at the Sydney Olympics that we moved on to the second designer steroid THG.”

Although norbolethone was illegal, no evidence has emerged to suggest the substance was given to Bonds or any other baseball players alleged to have received drugs through BALCO or Bonds’ trainer Greg Anderson. In an interview with Yahoo! Sports, Conte said that by January 2001 select BALCO athletes were receiving THG, and norbolethone had been shelved for good.

According to sources, the prosecution is expected to argue at trial it has proof that aside from the Clear and the Cream, Bonds took other banned steroids. The defense is likely to counter with chain-of custody and test admissibility arguments.

But prosecutors could have difficulty proving Bonds was lying when he said he didn’t recall getting the Clear or the Cream on earlier dates, but recalled receiving them on later dates. That much is apparent from the grand jury testimony of Catlin, the founder of the UCLA Olympic Laboratory, and the chemist credited with decoding THG. Novitzky, who spearheaded the entire BALCO investigation while working for the IRS, also testified about the Clear.

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

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

Catlin: “Yes.”

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

Catlin: “No.”

Two months later – after most of the 30 some athletes had testified – Novitzky addressed the grand jury. Nedrow asked him about Catlin’s response when asked whether the Clear, beyond being a substance banned by most sports, was “actually an anabolic steroid?”

Novitzky: “He said it was another matter when looking at federal criminal law and the problem that you run into there is there’s a certain amount of steroids that are listed under criminal law that say: Hey, these substances are definitely steroids. And then there’s a catchall phrase that says if it’s not one of these substances, then if you can say pharmacologically or chemically related to testosterone, which in this case THG is, and you also have to show that it enhances muscle growth in human beings.

“And that’s the problem that we’ve run into with THG and which Dr. Catlin testified to the grand jury, is that there’s never been any studies to show whether or not THG does, in fact, enhance muscle growth.”

If Novitzky’s understanding of the law is correct, the fact that no studies had been done on the substance meant that possessing or taking THG was not a crime. However, the FDA announced Oct. 28, 2003, that THG was “an unapproved new drug” and could not be “legally marketed without FDA approval.”

Major news organizations announced that the FDA had ruled THG an illegal steroid. But all the FDA had done was to rule that THG was not a dietary supplement and therefore could not be legally marketed without FDA approval.

Novitzky and Catlin had already testified that the testing on humans necessary to determine THG’s legal status had never been performed.

Catlin acknowledged in the grand jury that tests had been done only on baboons: “THG – well we are just beginning – we don’t know anything really about the kinetics and the time course and how long it lasts. We are waiting for the studies of the baboon to tell us some of that. But a baboon is not a man. It’s complex. We cannot give THG to a human being without FDA approval, which we would never get.”

THG was classified as an illegal steroid on Jan. 20, 2005, the date that the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 took effect. The Act eliminated the previous requirement to prove muscle growth and listed 59 specific substances instead of the previous 23 as anabolic steroids.

The new law closed the designer drug window exploited by Conte. But it was not retroactive and had no effect on the charges against anyone caught up in the probe. Conte served four months in prison beginning in December 2005 after pleading guilty to a single count of laundering $100 and steroid distribution. But as federal drug cases go, it was minor. Forty of the 42 counts against Conte were dismissed, and Anderson was the only other of the four accused co-conspirators sentenced to jail. BALCO vice president James Valente and track coach Remi Korchemny received probation.

Neither Conte nor Anderson was charged with distributing THG. In fact, nobody in the seven-year BALCO investigation has been charged with possession or trafficking of the drug. Less than $2,000 of drugs was found in the highly publicized raid of the Burlingame, Calif., laboratory in 2003.

Besides the staggering amount of taxpayers’ money the investigation has cost, BALCO spawned Congressional hearings, countless television news accounts and the best-selling book “Game of Shadows.” Yet the lack of a federal criminal punch made it difficult for the government to bring traditional charges against athletes for taking drugs.

The paucity of illegal profits and drugs raises the question whether prosecutors realized that the only potential for criminalizing the behavior of athletes who took banned substances was to set perjury traps or bait athletes into lying to the grand jury or to a federal agent.

“It sounds like a misuse of the grand jury,” said John Bartko, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in San Francisco who has tried perjury cases. “They go and try to trip the guy into lying.”

The government believes it has tripped Bonds, but whether he falls will be determined in court. The fact that the key drug he is accused of taking was legal and not recognized as a steroid under federal law could complicate the case, experts say.

“I don’t understand why the government would seek an indictment after obtaining Catlin’s expert testimony that the Clear was not a steroid,” Cannon said. “Why come up with an indictment based on an ambiguous definition?”

[Dan Gould]

Iirc from Game of Shadows, the chemist who created this stuff simply used a steroid that was developed years earlier but was passed up because there were better options available. It tested "Clear" in drug screens simply because its a steroid that the test isn't looking for. So saying that its not a steroid, or not proven to be one, is kind of questionable to me. You can say its not on the list of specific steroids, but proving it is a steroid is not a problem, and it ought to fall into the catch-all that was included at the end of the list of steroids.

[WorldB3]

The retirement of Jeff Kent brings up some interesting thoughts on HOF voting. For the most part Kent was considered clean (I am not sure myself, but that’s just my opinion) but even so his stats benefited greatly from steroids. His best years and the ones that should/will get him into Cooperstown were with the Giants and hitting in front of or behind Bonds. How many down the middle fastballs did he get so he wouldn’t get walked in front of Bonds? How many more RBI opportunities did he have because Bonds was always walked in front of him? To Kent’s credit he delivered when the opportunity was there but its an example that I hope writers take the steroids arguments out of it when looking at players that played in the steroids era.

Edited January 24, 2009 by WorldB3

[T.D.]

Regardless of drug issues, Kent's one of those players (see Murray, Eddie; Rice, Jim Ed) who will have trouble in HoF voting because of his bad relationship with baseball writers. I'm pretty familiar with Kent's early career with the Mets, and he's a really prickly personality who was hated to a remarkable degree by his teammates (club had to more or less get rid of him for that reason), as well as by the media.

[7/4]

Bonds blockbuster: ‘The Clear’ was legal

A reminder that several weeks ago Jim asked us not to post entire articles here due to copyright reasons. It's okay to post 2-3 sentences, after that just provide the link. Aside from keeping the band out of trouble it'll save space too.

Come on....no one really has issues with it. I've seen moderators do it and/or even comment on a post that wasn't edited.

Edited January 24, 2009 by 7/4

[Dan Gould]

Regardless of drug issues, Kent's one of those players (see Murray, Eddie; Rice, Jim Ed) who will have trouble in HoF voting because of his bad relationship with baseball writers. I'm pretty familiar with Kent's early career with the Mets, and he's a really prickly personality who was hated to a remarkable degree by his teammates (club had to more or less get rid of him for that reason), as well as by the media.

There's another factor working against him: Joe Morgan. He doesn't like to see any other second baseman get into the Hall, especially those whose lifetime stats exceeded his own (see Sandberg, Ryne).

Of course Morgan doesn't have a vote but you can bet that he'll be mouthing off about why Kent doesn't belong in the next five years.

[T.D.]

Does Joe Morgan still carry so much weight? I get the impression he's turning a lot of people off. Certainly the New York-based "sports media critics" ridicule the bejezus out of him. And I've seen increasing criticism elsewhere.

[Dan Gould]

Does Joe Morgan still carry so much weight? I get the impression he's turning a lot of people off. Certainly the New York-based "sports media critics" ridicule the bejezus out of him. And I've seen increasing criticism elsewhere.

Who knows? He's outlasted Fire Joe Morgan.

(Did I hear correctly that Steve Phillips is joining Miller and Morgan in the booth for Sunday Night Baseball? If that won't bring Fire Joe Morgan back, nothing will.)

[Jazzmoose]

There's another factor working against him: Joe Morgan. He doesn't like to see any other second baseman get into the Hall, especially those whose lifetime stats exceeded his own (see Sandberg, Ryne).

Of course Morgan doesn't have a vote but you can bet that he'll be mouthing off about why Kent doesn't belong in the next five years.

And I'll have to agree with him. Of course, when it comes to Sandberg, he can kiss my ass...

[WorldB3]

There's another factor working against him: Joe Morgan. He doesn't like to see any other second baseman get into the Hall, especially those whose lifetime stats exceeded his own (see Sandberg, Ryne).

Of course Morgan doesn't have a vote but you can bet that he'll be mouthing off about why Kent doesn't belong in the next five years.

And I'll have to agree with him. Of course, when it comes to Sandberg, he can kiss my ass...

I kind of agree, the Hall should be for the greats, Sandberg was borderline great. Hard work and consistency should be rewarded but where do you dtaw the line, you might as well let Fred McGriff and Harold Baines in to the Hall.

[Quincy]

I kind of agree, the Hall should be for the greats, Sandberg was borderline great. Hard work and consistency should be rewarded but where do you dtaw the line, you might as well let Fred McGriff and Harold Baines in to the Hall.

It depends if you want to have some sort of representation by position or not. McGriff & Baines were both from 2 of the easiest positions to fill. Along with catcher a second baseman's career is short-lived compared to the other positions. Your throw is more difficult that of the shortstop's and sometimes you get set up with collisions on the double play and can be blindsided with injurious results. Within the class of second baseman Sandberg rates very high (forgetting current players somewhere in the top 10 when the glove is considered.) Whereas McGriff & Baines have fine numbers, they rank much lower in their respective positions amongst the all-time greats.

Also fielding is such an important part of being a great second baseman yet fielding stats are often misleading. A high fielding percentage can be a sign of someone who never gets to the ball in the first place, whereas the more modern fielding measures are harder to explain and can have faults of their own (a staff of many fly ball pitchers can throw off the numbers.) Some suggest Bobby Grich should have been put in the Hall years ago as a combination of a great glove and very good bat for the position, but when one looks at the batting numbers and compares them to outfielders' hitting stats most just shrug their shoulders at the idea that he's worthy.

[Chalupa]

Report: Clemens' DNA in syringes

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3880712

[Dave James]

Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, told the Post that the DNA testing "won't matter at all. It will still be evidence fabricated by McNamee," Hardin was quoted as saying. "I would be dumbfounded if any responsible person ever found this to be reliable or credible evidence in any way."

What dumfounds me is that anyone would hire this moron to represent them. If Clemens hopes to avoid some serious jail time, the first thing he should be doing is replacing his lawyer.

Up over and out.

[Dan Gould]

Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, told the Post that the DNA testing "won't matter at all. It will still be evidence fabricated by McNamee," Hardin was quoted as saying. "I would be dumbfounded if any responsible person ever found this to be reliable or credible evidence in any way."

What dumfounds me is that anyone would hire this moron to represent them. If Clemens hopes to avoid some serious jail time, the first thing he should be doing is replacing his lawyer.

Up over and out.

I don't see how there are chain of custody issues - he put the material in the box, stored it in the basement. His wife knew about it. The box was moved in subsequent relocations. They can establish their continued possession of the material. And the claim that it isn't reliable or credible - does Rusty really intend to argue that while being Clemens friend and trainer, he conspired, years ago, to screw Clemens at some unknown time in the future? Forget whether or not they find traces of steroids - how does McNamee have Clemens' blood on the gauze unless he did in fact inject him? And if he did inject him, what is plausible, that PEDs were injected, or B-12 and Lidocaine? Furthermore, Clemens says that the injections were in the clubhouse or trainer's room. He took this medical waste home from there, in front of everyone?

And certainly, McNamee's explanation of why he kept the material is backed up by the events of the past 14 months. He said that he feared that if the shit hit the fan, Clemens would distance himself, would try to put the blame on him, would be a dishonest scumbag just as McNamee has witnessed (or came to perceive) while he was working for him. Remember that McNamee said that Pettitte would cop to the PED use, because he's that sort of person who would want to tell the truth when pushed. But he said that Clemens would never admit it, and could probably convince himself that he never used.

But the bottom line: McNamee saved the stuff to protect himself against Clemens. And Clemens, from the moment he went on 60 Minutes and had his first press conference, demonstrated that his instinct was correct: he did need to protect himself from Clemens.

[Dan Gould]

One law professor's view of the recent reports about Bonds' upcoming trial:

The last 36 hours have offered much insight into the diversity of evidence that prosecutors will use to demonstrate that Barry Bonds used steroids. It is now known that prosecutors possess test results that link Bonds to additional types of performance-enhancing drugs than previously known, that Bobby Estalella, a teammate of Bonds in 2000 and 2001 who has admitted to steroid use, will testify that he has first-hand knowledge of Bonds using steroids, and that Jason Giambi and Jeremy Giambi will testify that the former personal trainer they shared with Bonds -- Greg Anderson -- developed doping calendars for them. It thus appears that prosecutors possess an impressive array of physical, testimonial and circumstantial evidence that is poised to confirm widespread suspicions about Bonds and steroids.

More here.

When the Giambi's testify that Anderson gave them their doping calendars, told them what they were taking, explained everything about it ... that's very strong circumstantial evidence that Bonds also knew what he was taking, and knew what the doping calendars were about. But it will be real interesting if Estalella actually can testify to a direct conversation in which Bonds said he used.

Estalella could become a crucial witness for the prosecution. If, for instance, Estalella can recount a conversation he had with Bonds in which Bonds admitted that he used steroids, Estalella's testimony would probably devastate Bonds' defense, which rests heavily on the premise of ignorance.

But in the end, should his lawyers pull it out on the basis that the Clear wasn't recognized as a steroid at the time, or if he gets off because of the poor phrasing of the questions, it won't matter in the end. There will be so much evidence of Bonds' steroid use that the reputation of the home run "king" will be permanently destroyed.

[Chalupa]

Here's some more on that...

Report: Retested Bonds sample positive

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3881897

[Dan Gould]

The full Times report is a little more detailed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/sports/b...&ref=sports

Bonds can argue about chain of custody issues with the BALCO test results, but there are no chain of custody issues with the samples and results from the anonymous "survey" tests done in 2003. And those apparently show Bonds testing positive for BALCO's designer steroids as well as other steroids.

[Dan Gould]

Here's some more on that...

Report: Retested Bonds sample positive

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3881897

I'm real curious to see the transcript of the conversation between Greg Anderson and Bonds' former business partner that will be released today. We've seen the Grand Jury transcripts and we've heard about doping calendars and we watched Bonds' physique and head grow in completely abnormal ways. But this will be the first bit of evidence direct from Silent Greg.