PDA

View Full Version : Feds can have drug testing data of 100 MLB players


Fenway
12-27-2006, 03:18 PM
This is going to break the steriod case in San Francisco wide open

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

The court's ruling could bolster the government's perjury case against Barry Bonds if his name is among those who tested positive.

http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/articles/2006/12/27/court_feds_can_have_drug_testing_data/

Gammons Peter
12-27-2006, 04:08 PM
sweeeet, I pray that Sammy gets named

Jaffar
12-27-2006, 04:14 PM
I hope somebody "leaks" (he he he) the list.

Ol' No. 2
12-27-2006, 04:14 PM
Has anyone ever offered a satisfactory explanation why these samples were not destroyed as they were supposed to be?

Fenway
12-27-2006, 04:22 PM
Has anyone ever offered a satisfactory explanation why these samples were not destroyed as they were supposed to be?
beats me
http://www.couchmaster.ca/images/qod/Bud_Selig5.jpg

Cuck_The_Fubs
12-27-2006, 04:58 PM
Wow...That took a ridiculously long amount of time to establish some ground between the Feds and the testing of players. I cannot wait until they can take blood tests of each MLB players to weed out the bad "eggs". Thank's fenway for the article, nice find! :thumbsup:

rdwj
12-27-2006, 04:59 PM
sweeeet, I pray that Sammy gets named

Me too. I'd LOVE to see his name dregged through the mud again

Sargeant79
12-27-2006, 05:12 PM
Has anyone ever offered a satisfactory explanation why these samples were not destroyed as they were supposed to be?

I seem to remember hearing that there was a subpeona (sp?) or injunction issued concerning the tests a day or two before they were scheduled to be destroyed. Some agency has been sitting on them ever since.

jdm2662
12-27-2006, 05:12 PM
Excellent. Hopefully, the guility will be busted.

soxinem1
12-27-2006, 05:15 PM
I'm willing to bet that there will some surprises on this list, and maybe even a few players either with or recently with the White Sox.

But if Bonds, Scammy, and a few others were on this list, that would be a victory!!!

PushnThaEscalade
12-27-2006, 05:29 PM
I'm willing to bet that there will some surprises on this list, and maybe even a few players either with or recently with the White Sox.

But if Bonds, Scammy, and a few others were on this list, that would be a victory!!!

Sammy, I agree. Bonds, however, I disagree. Bonds testing positive would being a tarnish on the game.

Oblong
12-27-2006, 05:30 PM
I'm hoping it's all pitchers and AAAA type players.

Fenway
12-27-2006, 05:45 PM
Has anyone ever offered a satisfactory explanation why these samples were not destroyed as they were supposed to be?

in the AP story

Subpoenas were issued to both companies in late 2003, a day before the test results were to be destroyed, and in April 2004 Internal Revenue Service agents seized the test results and samples. It's unclear whether the data seized includes test results or specimens from Bonds.

HotelWhiteSox
12-27-2006, 07:12 PM
I don't even care anymore, time to move on and focus on those future hgh tests

areilly
12-27-2006, 07:35 PM
Sammy, I agree. Bonds, however, I disagree. Bonds testing positive would being a tarnish on the game.

:?:

You can't be serious. Bonds being the single-season and career HR champion - that is the real tarnish on the game...not that there's a whole lot of shine left to it.

Fenway
12-27-2006, 08:07 PM
:?:

You can't be serious. Bonds being the single-season and career HR champion - that is the real tarnish on the game...not that there's a whole lot of shine left to it.

Bonds will not break Aaron's record. Something will stop it from happening.

Maybe he gets hurt, maybe he gets thrown in jail but it will not happen

I hope

SABRSox
12-27-2006, 08:33 PM
You can't be serious. Bonds being the single-season and career HR champion - that is the real tarnish on the game...not that there's a whole lot of shine left to it.

That's bull****. Barry Bonds is and will never be big enough to completely tarnish the game of baseball. It is still more pure than football, basketball, hockey, etc.

itsnotrequired
12-27-2006, 09:21 PM
That's bull****. Barry Bonds is and will never be big enough to completely tarnish the game of baseball. It is still more pure than football, basketball, hockey, etc.

Right on. Baseball has survived "challenges" larger than Bonds in the past and will undoubtedly survive larger challenges in the future. One man cannot tarnish the game to the point of no return. Even Buddy Bud can't pull of that move.:cool:

DumpJerry
12-27-2006, 11:57 PM
I don't even care anymore, time to move on and focus on those future hgh tests
I feel the same way. What happened in the past is in the past. We will never know the full picture of what went on, so to impicate some, but not all, of the guilty parties will not be complete justice.

Just let it go and let's focus on the here and now.

SABRSox
12-28-2006, 12:18 AM
I feel the same way. What happened in the past is in the past. We will never know the full picture of what went on, so to impicate some, but not all, of the guilty parties will not be complete justice.

Just let it go and let's focus on the here and now.

http://grove.ufl.edu/%7Ecwarner/V4/mcgwire_congress.jpg
"I'm not here to talk about the past."

Brian26
12-28-2006, 12:15 PM
beats me
http://www.couchmaster.ca/images/qod/Bud_Selig5.jpg

Hahaha. That's great.

Brian26
12-28-2006, 12:27 PM
:?:

You can't be serious. Bonds being the single-season and career HR champion - that is the real tarnish on the game...not that there's a whole lot of shine left to it.

I'm by no means defending Bonds, as I don't really like the guy in any way, but his offensive stats have been remarkable his entire career. If you go back and look at his home run and .avg in the late 80's and early 90's, they were consistently 25-30 HRs and .300 avg all the time, coupled with speed on the basepaths and a great glove. I can live with the anomaly of 2001 based on his overall career numbers.

What tarnishes the game is a guy like Sosa who was mediocre for the first five or six years of his career and then all of a sudden magically hit 66 homers out of nowhere and then just as quickly faded back into oblivion. Brady Anderson and Ken Caminiti fall into this category as well, all players that tarnished the game.

Bonds, on the otherhand, is almost a tragedy. There's no questioning he has god-gifted, natural talent and played great baseball for many years. His numbers have always been good. What's disappointing is that he let himself get wrapped up in the chemical enhancers, and now, since you can't logically separate the non-cheating years from the cheating years, his entire career will have a black mark on it. Maybe he deserves that just like Rose deserves the lifetime ban.

Daver
12-28-2006, 12:34 PM
Whar gets me about the whole performance enhancing drugs scandal is that people will always point the finger at the hitters, yet roughly half the players that have been caught are pitchers. Do they get a free pass because they are not chasing a HR record?

Ol' No. 2
12-28-2006, 12:44 PM
Whar gets me about the whole performance enhancing drugs scandal is that people will always point the finger at the hitters, yet roughly half the players that have been caught are pitchers. Do they get a free pass because they are not chasing a HR record?I don't think anyone's getting a free pass. But like it or not, visibility matters, and it's hard to top the visibility of smashing the single-season HR record. Ten years from now, no one will remember Juan Rincon's steroid use.

Fenway
12-28-2006, 12:46 PM
Whar gets me about the whole performance enhancing drugs scandal is that people will always point the finger at the hitters, yet roughly half the players that have been caught are pitchers. Do they get a free pass because they are not chasing a HR record?

Take it one step further. Why does Shawne Merriman of the Chargers get a free pass from the media after he tested positive? He was the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year last season and started in the Pro Bowl after recording 54 tackles and 10 sacks and then tested positive this season.

I think the HR record IS the reason for the baseball outrage.

RedHeadPaleHoser
12-28-2006, 12:52 PM
While I feel that anyone named should be held accountable, in defense of the players, this testing was done under a veil of confidentiality from MLB. Now, almost 4 years later the results can be made public? While there are some legitimate results in there, any player whose name shows up on the failed list can make the argument that control of the samples is subject and the test results cannot be reliable.

I'm not defending players or MLB - but this whole thing stinks. Unfortunately, it rests at the feet of MLB and the players' association.

samram
12-28-2006, 01:51 PM
While I feel that anyone named should be held accountable, in defense of the players, this testing was done under a veil of confidentiality from MLB. Now, almost 4 years later the results can be made public? While there are some legitimate results in there, any player whose name shows up on the failed list can make the argument that control of the samples is subject and the test results cannot be reliable.

I'm not defending players or MLB - but this whole thing stinks. Unfortunately, it rests at the feet of MLB and the players' association.

Yeah, this may not be final yet. The dissent was 70 pages and the MLBPA may ask for a larger judicial panel to reconsider the case. This goes beyond baseball itself into overall privacy of medical records.

Ol' No. 2
12-28-2006, 01:58 PM
Yeah, this may not be final yet. The dissent was 70 pages and the MLBPA may ask for a larger judicial panel to reconsider the case. This goes beyond baseball itself into overall privacy of medical records.The only court that can overrule it is the Supreme Court.

CLR01
12-28-2006, 02:29 PM
Take it one step further. Why does Shawne Merriman of the Chargers get a free pass from the media after he tested positive? He was the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year last season and started in the Pro Bowl after recording 54 tackles and 10 sacks and then tested positive this season.

I think the HR record IS the reason for the baseball outrage.

Yes the home record is a huge reason for the media coverage but you also don't have the NFL, the Chargers or the NFLPA trying their best to cover up the fact the Merriman tested positive and pretend that steriods don't exist. Merriman tested positive and was susended, without pay, for 4 games (a quarter of the season). If he gets caught again he will be out for an entire season. This has been happening in the NFL for years. In MLB not so much.

samram
12-28-2006, 02:51 PM
The only court that can overrule it is the Supreme Court.

They can get a new hearing by the entire Ninth Circuit panel. This decision was handed down by a three judge panel. They could also appeal straight to the US Supreme Court, but I think they'd rather have the Ninth hear it again.

Ol' No. 2
12-28-2006, 02:59 PM
They can get a new hearing by the entire Ninth Circuit panel. This decision was handed down by a three judge panel. They could also appeal straight to the US Supreme Court, but I think they'd rather have the Ninth hear it again.According to the Trib article:
The union's only recourse now is an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.And of course, we know the Trib's record for accuracy.:wink:

What's interesting is that this ruling reversed not one but three lower court rulings. I'd say there's a reasonable possibility that this will eventually go the other way.

83 ALROY
12-28-2006, 04:30 PM
One question:

Why did IRS agents make the seizure? Shouldn't that job go to the DEA? I know I'm getting a little off topic here, but what exactly is the IRS's jurisdiction? Nobody was committing tax fraud here.

samram
12-28-2006, 04:33 PM
According to the Trib article:
And of course, we know the Trib's record for accuracy.:wink:

What's interesting is that this ruling reversed not one but three lower court rulings. I'd say there's a reasonable possibility that this will eventually go the other way.

I would say there's a good chance the Supremes would take a peek at it. Whether they reverse the ruling is another question, but I won't get into why.:smile:

Edit: I guess it should be noted that a confidentiality clause in a private contract really can't be used to stop law enforcement from collecting evidence.

areilly
12-28-2006, 07:08 PM
One question:

Why did IRS agents make the seizure? Shouldn't that job go to the DEA? I know I'm getting a little off topic here, but what exactly is the IRS's jurisdiction? Nobody was committing tax fraud here.


I believe if the company holding the samples was under investigation, and was being paid by MLB or MLBPA to hold them, the IRS could seize them under the umbrella of being "company assets."

Daver
12-28-2006, 07:22 PM
One question:

Why did IRS agents make the seizure? Shouldn't that job go to the DEA? I know I'm getting a little off topic here, but what exactly is the IRS's jurisdiction? Nobody was committing tax fraud here.


The investigation of the Houston pitcher (whose name escapes me at the moment) was an IRS investigation, so it may be related to that.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-28-2006, 08:08 PM
I haven't yet read the Ninth Circuit's decision, but remember, it IS the Ninth Circuit, which is the most frequently reversed federal circuit. I assume the player's union will be filing a cert petition with the US Supreme Court.

SoCalWhiteSoxFan
12-28-2006, 08:25 PM
They can get a new hearing by the entire Ninth Circuit panel. This decision was handed down by a three judge panel. They could also appeal straight to the US Supreme Court, but I think they'd rather have the Ninth hear it again.

I agree that there is a very good possibility that the Ninth Circuit will rehear this case en banc. I practice law on the left coast, and the Ninth Circuit tends to be very liberal as a general matter, and is very protective of privacy rights in particular. Even the top conservative on the court, Judge Alex Kozinski, has a fierce libertarian streak. I am almost certain that many of the judges not on the 3-judge panel will be interested in an en banc rehearing.

Again, I haven't reviewed the opinion, but here's a link to a sports law blog where the blogger, who's a law professor, thinks the Ninth Circuit's ruling is wrong: http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2006/12/ninth-circuit-ruling-isnt-just-about.html (I am not sure if the law prof blogger is a constitutional expert on the law of search and seizure, however).

PaleHoseGeorge
12-28-2006, 08:26 PM
Murray Chase offers no clues why the IRS was involved, but does a fine impersonation of a lawyer on behalf of NY Times Sports...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/sports/baseball/28chass.html?em&ex=1167454800&en=9502fb1e49d97874&ei=5087%0A

His two colleagues on the panel, Diarmuid O’Scannlain and Richard Tallman, did not suggest the Fourth Amendment had been repealed, but in the majority opinion Judge O’Scannlain wrote that the “district courts erred in finding callous disregard of Fourth Amendment rights.”


Furthermore, he wrote, “The district court erred in finding the issuance of subpoenas and the contemporaneous execution of search warrants to be unreasonable.”


And the district court “abused its discretion in granting the motion to quash” a subpoena.


Rogers offered no insights in his version of this story either in today's Cubune.

Do you ever get the impression that your average sportswriter has NO CLUE what he is talking about once the subject involves a topic that didn't happen on the playing field?
:?:

And they screw up the game play a significant portion of the time, too!
:mad:

ChiTownTrojan
12-28-2006, 08:31 PM
It seems to me that most people here are pleased with this ruling. Doesn't it strike any of you as a little ****ed up they could do this? I'm not condoning steroid use in baseball, we all know how it's been a major detriment to baseball and has held back good, clean players like Frank Thomas. But in 2003 there was no rule against it. MLB did a study that the players were told was anonymous, and now that study is being used against them.

It really just seems wrong to me. Even criminals are allowed to have rights of privacy.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-28-2006, 08:35 PM
Even criminals are allowed to have rights of privacy.

Have you ever heard the legal term "probable cause"? It's a goodie...

:cool:

Fenway
12-28-2006, 08:37 PM
I haven't yet read the Ninth Circuit's decision, but remember, it IS the Ninth Circuit, which is the most frequently reversed federal circuit. I assume the player's union will be filing a cert petition with the US Supreme Court.

Have fun reading my wife is a lawyer and she says this is going to Washington
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/410347FABA0293F388257251006DF1D1/$file/0510067.pdf?openelement

Wsoxmike59
01-02-2007, 07:54 AM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/75/160400657_970c58de2d.jpg?v=0

God how I hope Bonds goes down this time! The only thing in his "favor" was he was probably using some undetectable steroid or HGH that wouldn't show up positive on a drug test.

Bonds' legacy is tarnished beyond repair IMO.

wdelaney72
01-02-2007, 10:18 AM
But in 2003 there was no rule against it.
No MLB rule, but it was against the law.


MLB did a study that the players were told was anonymous, and now that study is being used against them. It really just seems wrong to me. Even criminals are allowed to have rights of privacy.
I would agree with you if this wasn't regarding criminal activity. Your dealing with the use and distribution of illegal substances.

And convicted criminals don't / shouldn't have a right to privacy.