Judge Excludes Drug Tests in Barry Bonds Case

Good news for Barry Bonds today: The UA's and doping calendars won't be allowed at trial.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said the urine samples that tested positive for steroids are inadmissible because prosecutors cannot prove conclusively that they belong to Bonds. The judge also barred prosecutors from showing jurors so-called doping calendars that Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, allegedly maintained for the slugger.

The judge said prosecutors need direct testimony from Anderson to introduce such evidence. Anderson's attorney said the trainer will refuse to testify at Bonds' trial even though he is likely to be sent to prison on contempt of court charges.

< Dow Jones Hit Worst Low Since 2002 | U.S. Army Medic Found Guilty of Murdering 4 Iraqis >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Good news for Barry Bonds (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by rdandrea on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 08:21:22 PM EST
    Bad news for baseball.

    Bonds is entitled to his day in court.

    But baseball fans are entitled to a sport free of cheaters.

    Convicting Barry (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 08:48:09 PM EST
    or any one or two or three others while doing nothing to the tens of thousands of other professional, college, and high school athletes, along with Hollywood actors, police officers, fireman, everyday gym rats, and California Governors that do or have done the same would seem pretty meaningless.

    The charge is perjury (none / 0) (#5)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:11:00 PM EST
    Which makes it (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:23:15 PM EST
    selective enforcement don't you think?

    Why aren't the thousands of others called before a grand jury? My guess is because they handpick those they don't particularly like. If they go after Barry, why not Lance Armstrong?


    Hm (none / 0) (#7)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:51:54 PM EST
    I'm not aware of any connection between Lance Armstrong and BALCO.  But they certainly called a lot more athletes to testify than just Barry Bonds.

    Nonsense.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 09:03:19 AM EST
    Baseball made its own bed, turning a blind eye to obvious steroid use for years.  Not to mention cheating is as old as the game itself, baseball fans have no such entitlement to a cheat-free sport.  If they don't like the state of the game now with roids, from the 50's on with speed, they don't have to be fans....sh*t, you could start your own league and make performance-enhancing caffeine a banned substance if you want.

    Drug War bullsh*t, waste of time, waste of money, and a total slap in the face to individual liberty this whole BALCO Bonds thing, imo.

    Personally, I'm ambivalent about steroid use as a baseball fan, I leave it up to the league and the union to sort out their own policy.  I'm savvy enough as a fan to know that the records of Bonds and McGwire were aided by juice...I have eyes.


    Players like Bonds, A-Rod and Canseco (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:22:34 AM EST
    have stained Major League Baseball forever. Screw them. They get what they deserve, whether it's being ousted from baseball altogether or simply being jeered at during every future game they play.

    I used to be a huge baseball fan. My family had season tickets for more than 40 years! I even worked at Fenway during the 1990 season, when the Sox were in the playoffs for the first time in ages.

    I know lots of kids who played high school football that never took drugs. One of them is now a college football star and an A-student. He's huge and strong and his 6'3", 240 lb frame is from working out and working his butt off everyday.

    I have no sympathy whatsoever for the sports world's billion dollar crybabies who spend their careers lying and cheating. Good riddance to them.

    i think most paying fans do not (none / 0) (#9)
    by sancho on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 12:58:00 AM EST
    care if the players use steroids or not. and it is hard to blame players who take drugs to improve their performance. that's what they are paid to do--outperform their competition. that steroids are "illegal" is a matter of social convention rather than moral judgement. "cheating" is endemic to most team sports. players in all sports at all levels are coached to learn where the rules can be bent or broken without getting caught ( ask bellichek of the patriots). and steroids isnt a magic pill--it allows athletes to train harder and longer--to get more out of their bodies. shirkers do not benefit from steroids.

    i dont like the players to use steroids b/c it is bad for their long term health. but to call them cheaters or disgraces to the game seems a bit overwrought and naive. and the idea that the government is spending millions dollars on prosecuting bonds or clemens or whoever should concern most taxpayers and all readers sympathetic to the aims of a defense site such as talkleft.


    You ain't cheatin'... (none / 0) (#15)
    by KoolJeffrey on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 11:20:20 AM EST
    ...you ain't tryin'. I guess that's your logic on this one. Personally, I would never cheat on anything. But if you justify illegal activity to gain an advantage because fans don't care, then I suppose you condone all sorts of illicit behavior:

    Hey, what's so bad about Watergate? Nobody died. Nixon would have won anyway.

    Iran Contra? All we did was rip off a terrorist state in order to fund a democratically motivated "action committee".

    The Iraq war? We removed an evil dictator from power. What's wrong with that?

    No disgrace here, right?


    Some of us question.... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 11:35:57 AM EST
    why the "illegal activity" is illegal at all.

    If Barry Bonds want to shoot steroids or drink Drain-O it is his inalienable right in my book.

    Your three examples are crimes with victims...robbery, corruption, occupation.  Where is the victim here?  The baseball fan?  They don't have to patronize the sport.  Bonds?  He's a grown man.  The league?  They profited off steroids.  The other clean players?  Perhaps, but it is on them and the league to establish the rules of their game and enforce them.


    that's one of the funniest posts (none / 0) (#18)
    by sancho on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 07:33:11 PM EST
    i've read on this site. you think the iraq war is equivalent to a baseball game?!

    I think you are flat wrong (none / 0) (#19)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 09:54:37 PM EST
    with your assumption that most paying customers don't care. But I'll be happy to look at verifiable polls attesting to that. Pony up.

    And yeah, they are still cheating. Oh, did you miss the part where MLB has long made steroid use a violation?

    Details, details.


    Will there be an asterik to the (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 06:31:00 PM EST
    asterik next to Bonds's name in the HOF?

    Maybe (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 06:57:35 AM EST
    They won't ever let him IN the Hall of Fame - even if he buys a ticket.

    Him and Pete... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 09:06:23 AM EST
    should get together and start their own Hall...the all time hits leader and the all time home run leader according to official records, it could be considered more legit than Cooperstown:)

    Aell, a couple years ago Pete's name (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 09:51:36 AM EST
    was in the HOF and he was nearby charging, what was it, $500?, for an autograph.

    I never said he was classy... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 10:16:55 AM EST
    just the all-time hit king:)



    Barry (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 07:19:07 PM EST
    hasn't taken the A-rod track whereby Alex denied, then admitted in part from 2001-2003, and now today circumstantial evidence comes out that he may have been using them right through the end of last season.

    To Barry's credit, his story hasn't really changed.

    Personally I'm waiting for a Dan Marino or a Cal Ripken or a Tiger Woods to say, "Sure I took them. Look at the money I made because of it. And yes given the same scenario I'd do it again" That will be the first truthful answer we get from anyone.

    confidential test is revealed about A-rod (none / 0) (#16)
    by fly on Sat Feb 21, 2009 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    I believe A-Rod was exposed because the government knew they had lost the Bonds case!
    It's called ..save face.