|
|
|
|
|
Bonds first test was really disclosed 2000 test result
By Ken Gimblin and Joe Cronin February 14, 2008 |
||
|
|
|||
|
SAN FRANCISCO--At Federal Court Thursday, the Federal Prosecutors set off alarms that they had Barry Bonds cornered with the evidence that he took steroids, now after filing court papers from a 2001 report that proved Bonds had taken steroids in a proof positive medical report that came from records in the federal BALCO Labs raid. It now turns out that the document that prosecutors are referring to was a disclosed positive steroid test from 2000. This was a test that Bonds lawyers disclosed, and a document that prosecutors already questioned Bonds about in his Grand Jury testimony in December 2003. Bonds who is facing multi-charges of perjury has said that the line of questioning by prosecutors in 2003, was not clear and that the questions asked were confusing and that Bonds' lawyers have asked the judge in the case, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston to drop the charges against Bonds due to the fact that Bonds could not properly answer the questions because they were confusing and misleading. Prosecutors shot back telling the media today at the Federal Courthouse that the testimony that Bonds gave was never unwavering and that Bonds clearly never asked prosecutors to repeat questions or never asked prosecutors to rephrase questions. Bonds has stated from the very beginning that he never used steroids or HGH which was banned from baseball starting in the 2003 season. Many major media outlets reported on Thursday that Bonds tested positive in 2001 a report that never was made public and that prosecutors had the goods on the former Giants outfielder. But later it came back that the document that the feds were referring to was a 2000 positive steroids medical record kept at BALCO, and which Bonds was already asked about at Grand Jury questioning in 2003. The big question is what element of surprise will the prosecution have for Bonds when the perjury questions come up again later this month. Clemens and McNamee case politicized: When you look at the hearings on Capital Hill this past week regarding Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee it's the politicizing of this whole question and answer period that has shown through in this circus. Evidently Clemens is a Republican and maybe McNamee is a Democrat but when it come down to it when it comes to party lines all it does it just gives us the idea that our government represents are doing the same shoddy job that were getting used to in the last 30 years or so. The idea that this court case shouldn't stand on it's own merit is just unbelievable and it seems if it's wrong and not being a good sport to take drugs that help your performance that at least there should be an honest way of finding out about this. Evidently that's what the problem is their not interested in finding out who is doing what. They're interested in getting elected in the next election. So if your guy's doing something wrong you don't admit to it and if the other guys are at all questionable you get up on your high horse and you condemn them for everything you can think of non-patriotic and everything else. It's seems like both parties are playing politics at the expense of us really cleaning up baseball. You know as well as I do that baseball is used to people that were taking performance enhancing drugs and we also realized that the commissioner didn't seem to realize interest in it and now that former Texas Ranger pitcher John Rocker said that Selig know about steroid use particularly Rocker's use of it and if Selig knew about it he would have stopped it right away. Remember baseball had no rules at the time and it was okay for players to use steroids because there was no specific rule in place against such use and it's true that these drugs were illegal to possess to have in our country but baseball didn't even have a rule saying you couldn't use them. Ken Gimblin and Joe Cronin both co-host Sportstalk on 1690 KFSG Sacramento. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||