Steroid News
News bot on steroids
Knapp: MLB Bonds drug tests shouldn't be admissible
[SIZE=-1]San Francisco Chronicle[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]It's alarming that Major League Baseball drug tests on Barry Bonds from 2003 and 2006 could be used as evidence in his federal perjury and obstruction of justice trial. Results of both were released Wednesday, and Judge Susan Illston will rule Thursday on their admissibility.[/SIZE] [...]
[SIZE=-1]But when the government gets its hands on tests that were given under an agreement of confidentiality, drug screening starts to resemble an end-around the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Of the two Bonds tests, the government's seizure of the 2003 one is particularly disturbing. The 2006 test, which revealed evidence of amphetamines, was supposed to be kept confidential under a two-strikes rule related to amphetamine tests. But there's some wiggle room here, because at least, when Bonds gave the sample, he knew that it could be used against him at some point. The container was marked in a way that could be traced back to him if the test came back positive.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]But in 2003, baseball's drug testing was in an experimental stage. Samples were to be tested only to see if the sport had enough evidence of doping to implement full testing with real penalties the following season. Individual samples were not, under any circumstances, supposed to be traceable to the individual who provided them, and they were supposed to be destroyed after the experimental testing ended.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Somehow, both promises - encoded in the union contract signed in 2002 - were breached. The players' association, in particular, let down its members by not assuring the destruction of the samples.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]...[/SIZE]
More...
[SIZE=-1]San Francisco Chronicle[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]It's alarming that Major League Baseball drug tests on Barry Bonds from 2003 and 2006 could be used as evidence in his federal perjury and obstruction of justice trial. Results of both were released Wednesday, and Judge Susan Illston will rule Thursday on their admissibility.[/SIZE] [...]
[SIZE=-1]But when the government gets its hands on tests that were given under an agreement of confidentiality, drug screening starts to resemble an end-around the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Of the two Bonds tests, the government's seizure of the 2003 one is particularly disturbing. The 2006 test, which revealed evidence of amphetamines, was supposed to be kept confidential under a two-strikes rule related to amphetamine tests. But there's some wiggle room here, because at least, when Bonds gave the sample, he knew that it could be used against him at some point. The container was marked in a way that could be traced back to him if the test came back positive.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]But in 2003, baseball's drug testing was in an experimental stage. Samples were to be tested only to see if the sport had enough evidence of doping to implement full testing with real penalties the following season. Individual samples were not, under any circumstances, supposed to be traceable to the individual who provided them, and they were supposed to be destroyed after the experimental testing ended.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Somehow, both promises - encoded in the union contract signed in 2002 - were breached. The players' association, in particular, let down its members by not assuring the destruction of the samples.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]...[/SIZE]
More...
