I hope they have something better than this

Further evidence that last week’s flurry of press releases from the Bonds prosecutors was more flash than substance:

Jason Giambi told a federal grand jury in 2003 that he didn’t know whether Barry Bonds was taking banned substances and that he never gained any information about the home run king’s alleged drug regimen from his contacts at BALCO.

Giambi admitted he had been taking the powerful steroid Deca-Durabolin before he met Bonds’ personal trainer, Greg Anderson, after the 2002 season and also told the grand jury that Anderson gave him testosterone and human-growth hormone in addition to the two non-detectable substances produced by the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, the Clear and the Cream. But he never testified to anything that would connect his steroid use to Bonds.

Giambi’s name was leaked as a witness because the feds knew it would get headlines. His testimony, however, is largely irrelevant, and if it is not struck as such it will, at the very least, provide little help in moving the prosecution’s ball forward. Any wonder why the government is putting the full court press on Anderson and his family in order to get him to testify?

But don’t take my word for it. Click through to Jonathan Littman’s article to read about many of the problems the prosecution has with its case.


Print This Post
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Juke Early
Guest
Juke Early

What a mess. BUT if they ever come up w/drugs guaranteed to make us younger, I’m taking them. Unless it ruins my HOF chances. . ..

Pete Toms
Guest
Pete Toms

Giambi’s testimony supports what I have thought since this whole brouhaha started.  Most of these jocks don’t know what they are/were taking.  They don’t care about the details.  They care about the results.

obsessivegiantscompulsive
Guest
obsessivegiantscompulsive
It’s amazing to me that these people call themselves journalists.  They are so clearly biased towards telling a certain story. Most reports I see blatantly says that Bonds admitted taking the drugs, when he clearly did not. Most reports says that so-and-so is testifying “against” Bonds, like they have something on him.  They are only testifying to what they know, it is the prosecutor’s job to tie that “against” Bonds, but as Craig wonders, if their evidence is so solid, I hope they have something better than this , but if so, why are they going on a witch hunt… Read more »
James C
Guest
James C

The NY Times is reporting that the feds got a positive test on a MLB sample from 2003 that showed a negative result in major league testing.
A negative suddenly becoming positive over time is pretty questionable in itself, but what will the judge do? What’s her criteria supposed to be?

obsessivegiantscompulsive
Guest
obsessivegiantscompulsive
With all the over the top stuff the government is pulling, I’m not feeling too confident about any “evidence”, like this alleged re-tested urine that now tests positive.  The SJ Mercury had an expose a couple of years ago about the courts in San Jose and when going through hundreds of court cases, found that over a third of them were mishandled in some way, with some of them prosecutors fooling with the evidence in some way to get the results(conviction) that they were pursuing.  Some deliberately withheld evidence that would have freed the defendent, if I recall right.  And… Read more »
wpDiscuz