THG was legal and technically not a steroid until the Anabolic Steroids Act of 2004

[Steroid News]

Bonds blockbuster: "The Clear" was legal
[SIZE=-1]Yahoo! Sports [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Evidence that the Clear was legal and technically not a steroid until the Anabolic Steroids Act of 2004 took effect in January 2005 could emerge as central to Bonds defense, experts say. Perjury questions must be unambiguous to win a conviction, and the testimony of Catlin and Novitzky could establish that the government knew about ambiguity concerning the Clear before Bonds took the stand.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Experts say prosecutors might have intentionally asked Bonds what they knew to be ambiguous questions never defining steroids or making a distinction between drugs that were illegal or merely banned by many major sports.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]This case has been presented as Barry Bonds lying about steroids, said Christopher Cannon, a San Francisco defense attorney with extensive experience in federal perjury cases. The governments theory is that he was taking the Clear. If the government knows the Clear wasnt a steroid then when Barry said he wasnt taking a steroid, he was telling the truth. [...][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]On Oct. 23, 2003, just a few weeks before Bonds testified, prosecutor Jeff Nedrow questioned Catlin before the grand jury.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Nedrow: There is actually a list promulgated in the federal criminal code of several steroids which are outright prohibited. Is that correct?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Catlin: Yes.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Nedrow: Is THG on that list in the federal code?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Catlin: No.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Two months later after most of the 30 some athletes had testified Novitzky addressed the grand jury. Nedrow asked him about Catlins response when asked whether the Clear, beyond being a substance banned by most sports, was actually an anabolic steroid?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Novitzky: He said it was another matter when looking at federal criminal law and the problem that you run into there is theres a certain amount of steroids that are listed under criminal law that say: Hey, these substances are definitely steroids. And then theres a catchall phrase that says if its not one of these substances, then if you can say pharmacologically or chemically related to testosterone, which in this case THG is, and you also have to show that it enhances muscle growth in human beings.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]And thats the problem that weve run into with THG and which Dr. Catlin testified to the grand jury, is that theres never been any studies to show whether or not THG does, in fact, enhance muscle growth.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]...[/SIZE]


More...

 

[novicebb]

Re: THG was legal and technically not a steroid until the Anabolic Steroids Act of 20

Man this will be interesting in the coming months. I also would like to know how the sports writers will judge many athletes assocated with the "Cream and the Clear" after this case, especially if Barry Bonds is acquitted because of this.

 

[Millard]

Man this will be interesting in the coming months. I also would like to know how the sports writers will judge many athletes assocated with the "Cream and the Clear" after this case, especially if Barry Bonds is acquitted because of this.

Actually, the news about the "clear" not being classified as an anabolic steroid when Barry Bonds used it is OLD news. Sports journalists are simply clueless.

This was a large part of the defense argument for BALCO cyclist Tammy Thomas. I am completely amazed that sports journalist were not perceptive enough to understand the significance of this.

I wrote about it in March 2008.

https://thinksteroids.com/news/analysis-of-tammy-thomas-verdict/

Cyclist Tammy Thomas Will Likely Be Acquitted - MESO-Rx

After corresponding with sources involved in the Tammy Thomas doping trial and reading reports from the trial, I am convinced that the likelihood of an

thinksteroids.com

In the case of Tammy Thomas, the jury apparently agreed that THG was NOT classified as an anabolic steroid under the law at the time. Yet, they still found her guilty in a legally and factually inconsistent verdict i.e. they didn't understand the evidence well enough to render a fair and just verdict.

Sadly, the State of California ACCEPTS legally inconsistent verdicts. This could happen again with Barry Bonds.

The prosecution has already lost anyway - even if Bonds is found guilty, there is no way the judge will sentence him to prison. She didn't give prison to anyone else who committed perjury in BALCO cases.