PDA

View Full Version : One Lucky Prison will have a hell of a baseball team...


WhiteSox5187
02-03-2009, 02:47 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3881897

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

Bonds tests positive for PED and DNA on McNamee's syringes proves to be Clemens. Tests are being run to see if there are traces of steroids in these syringes.

Two of the best players of the 1990s and 2000s have proven not only to be total frauds, but also bald faced liars.

BleacherBandit
02-03-2009, 02:56 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3881897

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

Bonds tests positive for PED and DNA on McNamee's syringes proves to be Clemens. Tests are being run to see if there are traces of steroids in these syringes.

Two of the best players of the 1990s and 2000s have proven not only to be total frauds, but also bald faced liars.

Well, you had to believe that he was using roids if you watched the 2002 playoffs. It seemed as if he hit a home run every other at-bat that post-season. Ridiculous.

KRS1
02-03-2009, 03:00 PM
The syringes shouldn't even be considered as submittable evidence in a court of law.

Chrisaway
02-03-2009, 03:02 PM
I am Jack's complete and utter suprise.

Iwritecode
02-03-2009, 03:21 PM
Two of the best players of the 1990s and 2000s have proven not only to be total frauds, but also bald faced liars.

In other news, grass is green and water is wet...

doublem23
02-03-2009, 03:29 PM
In other news, grass is green and water is wet...

I don't know, Bonds was just cleared of a lot of steroid suspicion. The steroids he's been most linked to are "the clear," the designer supplement produced by BALCO, but it wasn't considered an illegal steroid when Bonds was taking it. It was finally outlawed in 2005, IIRC, and by then BALCO had shut its doors. Regardless of your personal feelings on it, at the time Bonds was taking it, it was legal. He was no more guilty of "juicing" than a guy just taking an over the counter protein shake or powder.

http://deadspin.com/5131861/maybe-barry-bonds-wasnt-lying-after-all

WhiteSox5187
02-03-2009, 03:30 PM
I don't know, Bonds was just cleared of a lot of steroid suspicion. The steroids he's been most linked to are "the clear," and "the cream," the designer supplements produced by BALCO, but both of them weren't considered illegal steroids when Bonds was taking them. They were finally outlawed in 2005, IIRC, and by then BALCO had shut its doors. Regardless of your personal feelings on these supplements, at the time Bonds was taking them, they were legal. He was no more guilty of "juicing" than a guy just taking an over the counter protein shake or powder.
I don't think he was just taking the cream and clear. From what i've read of Game of Shadows it sounds like he was on every steroid/supplement known to man.

chaotic8512
02-03-2009, 03:37 PM
Two of the best players of the 1990s and 2000s have proven not only to be total frauds, but also bald faced liars.

I don't know, I seem to remember Clemens having a lot of facial hair at one time... :tongue:

WhiteSox5187
02-03-2009, 03:38 PM
The syringes shouldn't even be considered as submittable evidence in a court of law.
Why not? If McNamee says these are the ones I used to inject Clemens, why shouldn't they be admitted?

Huisj
02-03-2009, 03:44 PM
In other news, grass is green and water is wet...

Wait, that news isn't coming out until spring I think. Right now grass is brown. . . and it's covered up by some kind of white water that is more powdery than wet.

Bucky F. Dent
02-04-2009, 07:56 AM
Why not? If McNamee says these are the ones I used to inject Clemens, why shouldn't they be admitted?


It's called chain of custody - I'm not a criminal lawyer so I'm gonna botch this a bit (perhaps quite a bit). In its simplest terms, the tighter the chain of custody, the more certain the veracity of the evidence, the more likely it is to be admitted into evidence. The more frayed the chain of custody, the less certain the veracity of the evidence, the less likely it is to be admitted.

Questions of chain of custody are important with regard to any evidence in a criminal trial, but especially so physical evidence such as these needles which are subject to not only potential tampering, but also basic spoilation/contamination over time.

itsnotrequired
02-04-2009, 08:31 AM
Why not? If McNamee says these are the ones I used to inject Clemens, why shouldn't they be admitted?

all they know is clemens dna is on the needles. they don't know what he was injected with. draw whatever conclusions you would like but in a court of law, this is hardly damning evidence that he took steroids.

Flight #24
02-04-2009, 08:49 AM
Simplest scenario is Clemens gets an actual B12 shot, flu shot, vaccination against the clap, or whatever other non-steroid injection you can come up with. McNamee keeps the syringe and dips it in 'roids later. Bingo.

Is it likely - probably not. But I would think (without being a lawyer but with the benefit of having watched a few seasons of "LA Law" back in the day) that that's enough doubt to prevent it from being used as evidence in a court of law.

SoxandtheCityTee
02-04-2009, 08:59 AM
all they know is clemens dna is on the needles. they don't know what he was injected with. draw whatever conclusions you would like but in a court of law, this is hardly damning evidence that he took steroids.

It's not conclusive, but it is one part of the evidence, and can be admitted if the proper foundation can be laid and a reasonable chain of custody established. Some other evidence -- including McNamee's testimony -- would be needed. But that alone doesn't make the needle worthless.

Unlike on some TV shows, the physical evidence does not always neatly establish and tie up everything by itself. It's part of a total picture that must rely in part on eyewitness testimony, documents and records, etc.
Look at it this way: if it gets in, the closing argument cannot contain the phrase: "They don't even have a single needle that they can prove was used on Roger!" Whether it ever gets that far, who knows.

RedHeadPaleHoser
02-04-2009, 09:14 AM
They might be found guilty, but neither will do time. They will both get off or get some probation. The court of public opinion wants them put away but that's as far as it will get.

Lefty34
02-04-2009, 09:18 AM
As far as the Bonds case goes, the urine sample that tested positive only tested positive on the second go-around, IIRC, and this brings in more questions on the veracity of the evidence. However a judge on Thursday will hear argument on the admittance on ALL of the prosecution's evidence, meaning we will really get to see what the government have up it's sleeve.

Clemens, on the other hand, is obviously going to be playing up the "they were only B12 injections" angle in the courtroom, hence why he voluntarily submitted to DNA testing. But at some point, and we will see how good the government's lawyers are at this, I think Roger Clemens' ego and temper are going to land him in some hot water if/when this gets to trial. We saw how stupid-angry he can get both in the press conference after he sued his trainer AND in front of Congress, and I hope the prosecution puts him on the stand and gets him to go all "Colonel Jessup" on the stand, 'cause I really want to see this guy perp-walked.

DumpJerry
02-04-2009, 09:44 AM
The syringes shouldn't even be considered as submittable evidence in a court of law.
....and the legal basis for your objection is?

soxinem1
02-04-2009, 10:00 AM
It's called chain of custody - I'm not a criminal lawyer so I'm gonna botch this a bit (perhaps quite a bit). In its simplest terms, the tighter the chain of custody, the more certain the veracity of the evidence, the more likely it is to be admitted into evidence. The more frayed the chain of custody, the less certain the veracity of the evidence, the less likely it is to be admitted.

Questions of chain of custody are important with regard to any evidence in a criminal trial, but especially so physical evidence such as these needles which are subject to not only potential tampering, but also basic spoilation/contamination over time.

I see what you are alluding to, this guy could have gotten Clemens' DNA from a flu shot, vaccine, or anything, theoretically.

But since DNA has been used in cases dating back several decades, and often confirm or reverse verdicts, isn't there a valid precedent in place to allow this? The chains have been broken in a negative way in several high-profile criminal cases, but have help both aquit or convict.

You do raise a good point though. Especially when Clemens can afford the best lawyers money can buy.

itsnotrequired
02-04-2009, 10:28 AM
It's not conclusive, but it is one part of the evidence, and can be admitted if the proper foundation can be laid and a reasonable chain of custody established. Some other evidence -- including McNamee's testimony -- would be needed. But that alone doesn't make the needle worthless.

Unlike on some TV shows, the physical evidence does not always neatly establish and tie up everything by itself. It's part of a total picture that must rely in part on eyewitness testimony, documents and records, etc.
Look at it this way: if it gets in, the closing argument cannot contain the phrase: "They don't even have a single needle that they can prove was used on Roger!" Whether it ever gets that far, who knows.

i wasn't suggesting they couldn't be admitted. i was suggesting that from an evidence standpoint, it doesn't add as much as one would think. however, plenty of people will put two and two together.

khan
02-04-2009, 11:07 AM
I don't know, Bonds was just cleared of a lot of steroid suspicion. The steroids he's been most linked to are "the clear," the designer supplement produced by BALCO, but it wasn't considered an illegal steroid when Bonds was taking it. It was finally outlawed in 2005, IIRC, and by then BALCO had shut its doors. Regardless of your personal feelings on it, at the time Bonds was taking it, it was legal. He was no more guilty of "juicing" than a guy just taking an over the counter protein shake or powder.

http://deadspin.com/5131861/maybe-barry-bonds-wasnt-lying-after-all

This isn't actually the case, despite what has been written or blared on espn. I don't believe that "The Clear" was FDA-approved when Bonds was taking it. Moreover, I don't believe that "The Clear" was in a class of medications that are permissible for use in the US.

Many as-yet undiscovered substances are not SPECIFICALLY mentioned as "illegal." But entire classes of drugs may be considered illegal. Anabolic steroids, for use as PEDs, are one such class. By the nature of their uses, both "The Clear" and "The Cream" are therefore illegal.

khan
02-04-2009, 11:13 AM
Simplest scenario is Clemens gets an actual B12 shot, flu shot, vaccination against the clap, or whatever other non-steroid injection you can come up with. McNamee keeps the syringe and dips it in 'roids later. Bingo.

But these substances [B12, flu shot, vaccines, etc..] would also appear inside the syringe. If they are not present, then this hypothesis holds no water.

As an aside, an undergraduate in biochemistry or nutrition or even P.E. could tell you that the whole "Vitamin B12" story is 1,000,000,000% bull****. Heck, even a 10 year old kid could search "Vitamin B12" on the internet and discover that the Vitamin B12 story is bull****.

Vitamin B12 is inactive until it is exposed to the GI tract and GI intrinsic factors. Thus, injections of Vitamin B12 are essentially useless. [You'd think that Clemens would come up with something more thoughtful than Vitamin B12...]

soxinem1
02-04-2009, 12:59 PM
But these substances would also appear inside the syringe. If they are not present, then this hypothesis holds no water.

As an aside, an undergraduate in biochemistry or nutrition or even P.E. could tell you that the whole "Vitamin B12" story is 1,000,000,000% bull****. Heck, even a 10 year old kid could search "Vitamin B12" on the internet and discover that the Vitamin B12 story is bull****.

Vitamin B12 is inactive until it is exposed to the GI tract and GI intrinsic factors. [B]Thus, injections of Vitamin B12 are essentially useless. [You'd think that Clemens would come up with something more thoughtful than Vitamin B12...]

Not to get off the subject (no pun intended), but I've read stories of two former presidents and a few ex-athletes taking B12 to control their sex drives.

RockyMtnSoxFan
02-04-2009, 04:31 PM
This isn't actually the case, despite what has been written or blared on espn. I don't believe that "The Clear" was FDA-approved when Bonds was taking it. Moreover, I don't believe that "The Clear" was in a class of medications that are permissible for use in the US.

Many as-yet undiscovered substances are not SPECIFICALLY mentioned as "illegal." But entire classes of drugs may be considered illegal. Anabolic steroids, for use as PEDs, are one such class. By the nature of their uses, both "The Clear" and "The Cream" are therefore illegal.

Exactly. The roid users and their chemists would always have the advantage if this wasn't the case, because they could say that their latest concoctions were not yet illegal, so the athletes who used them were innocent. Just because the particular flavor of steroids that Bonds was using wasn't yet illegal (because nobody else knew about it) doesn't mean Bonds wasn't using steroids.

KRS1
02-06-2009, 04:36 PM
....and the legal basis for your objection is?

As has already been stated, a very loose chain of custody.

It's like admitting a pen that your assistant had you sign papers with 10 years ago as evidence that you wrote a death threat to someone because the ink matched and they found your physical evidence on it. All that despite the fact that it has been through a completely unverifiable chain of custody over that time in the hands of someone who possibly has something to gain by keeping the pen and doing whatever he wishes with it. It proves nothing more than the fact that you once used the pen and that the assistant had suspect intentions by holding onto something like that for so long. Weird analogy, I know, but it just shows how shaky this "evidence" is.

Too much time, too many variables, too much motive and ease of access on behalf of McNamee to make sure there would be steroid traces found in the syringe. It's just not credible evidence.