Victor Conte continues to defend Bonds:
…. “I have not reviewed all of the documents that were released today in the Barry Bonds case. However, from what I have seen thus far, many questions arise about the blood and urine samples allegedly collected from Bonds and processed by BALCO. These questions need answers than can be substantiated.
A laboratory test result is only as valid as the history and integrity of the sample analyzed. Regarding Bonds’ alleged positive test results, it is important to realize that the quality control measures taken by Quest Diagnostics are of no value if the specimens they tested were not authenticated and handled properly before they were received. It has been indicated that these urine samples were initially handled by Greg Anderson and thereafter by BALCO’s James Valente. Neither of them has a degree or license that would qualify them to process such laboratory samples. These tests results are identified by a number only. There is no name on these reports, and there was no legal chain of custody. In fact, BALCO received a significant reduction price for the testing by agreeing to waive all chain of custody requirements.
Finally, these samples were not handled and processed as a part of the routine BALCO Laboratories business, nor were the records that were kept for these types of samples. The dates on most of these Quest Diagnostic test results for anabolic steroids do not match the dates on the ledgers that were reportedly kept by James Valente. For these test results, the discrepancies in the dates ranges from one to as many as nine days. These alleged Bonds test results and records not only lack a chain of custody and contain inaccuracies, but they also involve people with no formal training. This causes uncertainty and creates doubt regarding the validity of this testing and record keeping evidence.”
Doesn’t anybody else wonder why Conte keeps defending Barry? For what gain? To what purpose? I mean, other than the fact that he believes that Barry actually didn’t use steroids. It’s a truly amazing case, when you think about it.
The two men who would stand to gain the most in bringing Barry down, the two men with the most first-hand knowledge and experience in the situation refuse, absolutely refuse to do so. One has gone to jail over his insistence that he won’t –and just recently seen his family put in harm’s way– and still stays silent, and the other certainly got into more trouble because he wouldn’t.
Shouldn’t that count for something?
UPDATE: I guess it does, after all. 
Barry Bonds had a great day in court today, as the presiding judge seemed prepared to throw out several key pieces of evidence:
…. U.S. district judge Susan Illston indicated Thursday that she will exclude evidence that prosecutors say links Barry Bonds to positive drug tests, including three positive tests seized in a raid on the BALCO laboratory in 2003.
According to Illston, who held an evidentiary hearing on the admissibility of evidence the government is presenting in Bonds’ upcoming trial on perjury and obstruction of justice charges, the government cannot link Bonds to the tests without the testimony of Greg Anderson, Bonds’ former trainer.
And, finally, we hear a voice of reason amongst the cacophony of hypocrisy:
…. At a time when the nation is in one of the deepest recessions in its history, when hundreds of thousands of Americans are barely surviving, the government is spending millions of dollars to prosecute Barry Bonds.
…. The new administration should step in and instruct the United States attorney’s office to end this fool’s mission against Bonds.
No problem. It is the least I can do in appreciation of all your efforts on this matter over the years. I can’t tell you how many times I read this blog and screamed at my monitor, “Why is NOBODY else covering this???” outside of maybe Littman, and a handful others.
And it is fascinating to see the dogged support Conte continues to lend Bonds. And while he does continue to comment on the case, which may cause him to have some exposure, I think he senses there is little danger the Feds will see him as useful in any way to their cause, so he will not fall into the same problems Anderson has with them. We can again only speculate as to what his motives are for doing this. My cynical side thinks it may have something to do with his book:
http://www.amazon.com/BALCO-Straight-Steroids-Marion-Sports/dp/1602392951/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234042607&sr=8-1
Which appears to be ready for impact here, and that if he keeps himself in the news he will get a chance from time to time to say, “Hey go read my book for the real story on this and what really happened”. I know I will be one who be making the purchase.
But there is likely to be a lot more to it than that, and to some extent I have to believe there would be a certain amount of Schadenfreude in it for him if the prosecution of Bonds blows up on the Feds and he is acquitted. While I can’t imagine it would make up for the turmoil it has caused in his life, there has to be part of him wanting to stick it to the Feds, especially to Novitsky for his unethical role in this investigation any way he can. It sounds like he will savage Novitsky in the new book, and I would imagine he will enjoy seeing him squirm on the stand when the defense team gets their crack at him.
I will also be interested to read what he thinks was the root cause of the investigation, because everything about this points to the man who patrolled left field and wore #25, and to see those efforts come to naught might take a bit of the sting out of things.
Strap in, as it is going to get really interesting over the next couple
I think we have to separate the motives of Conte and Anderson to some extent as Anderson’s reasons for not cooperating probably go much deeper than Conte’s due to his long term relationship with Barry, and they are likely to be far more complex. My original post while mentioning Anderson for some context was pointed mainly toward JP’s question as to what was motivating Conte to continue his support for Bonds to this day. I speculated that while there were likely a number of reasons depending on where the actual “truth” of the matter actually lays, that mainly there was some sort of respect for Bonds coming from his not taking the path so many other athletes did in regard to Conte in front of the grand jury.
But I think CJ brings up a very good point about the motive of self-preservation in this in regard to Anderson that quite likely also applies to Conte’s actions at this time, which I neglected to mention in the original post. Conte was fortunate enough to have Anderson as a buffer between himself and Bonds, so there was/is absolutely no reason to get himself dragged any deeper into this mess by claiming any knowledge of PED use by Bonds. While we may disagree about whether omerta has been a successful tactic through time when everyone is sticking with the program, I think we can agree that there has been no honor in the way the Feds have conducted themselves during this process, and that Conte like Anderson has probably developed along with a strong dislike, an even stronger distrust of the “justice” department through their actions in this case. Thus making himself unattractive for further testimony in this case for the Feds makes some sense as well. I also imagine he wouldn’t mind seeing them come up with a big goose egg when this plays out.
When it comes down to it though we really don’t know, and may never know the reason(s) and where the actually truth in this matter rests. As I said in the original post I could be wrong in my thoughts in that I am not psychologist, I just like to play one on blogs and message boards from time to time, but the motives are likely to be multi-faceted for both men, and yet could be as simple as they are just telling the truth.
I completely agree with the other statements regarding the evidence being excluded in this case, and the hysteria and hypocrisy surrounding the proceedings. One thing that continues to disappoint me in all of this is how so many have rushed to judgment in this case without having all of the facts available to them. I continue to be, and have been from the beginning quite willing to wait on passing final judgment until they are all presented, and that may still be inconclusive.
And JP to your point on media hypocrisy, while I haven’t seen the interview yet, I have read in another forum Bob Costas interviewed one of the reporters who broke the A-Rod story in SI on MLB TV this morning, and was railing about A-Rod’s rights being violated by the leak as a union member and citizen of the United States. If that post was true reflection of his comments, you have entry #2,343,457 for the list of hypocrisy in the media, and while I am glad to see this if it is true, I’d say BC is a little late to the party.
Once again, keep up the good work, as I’ve been reading since the old blog days, and while I don’t post much as it would often be redundant, I will be checking in more as this case moves forward.
BB2,
Thanks for the effort.
I still want to discuss your thoughts on Conte. You said:
“Conte was fortunate enough to have Anderson as a buffer between himself and Bonds, so there was/is absolutely no reason to get himself dragged any deeper into this mess by claiming any knowledge of PED use by Bonds.”
But he still is getting in the middle. He is calling newspapers and reporters, and emailing them, all in an effort to make it clear that Bonds didn’t do steroids, and that the tests they have that supposedly “prove” that he did are essentially worthless. He has gone on the record many times saying that he never gave Bonds any drugs, that he never saw Bonds do drugs. He has done so at his own volition, over and over again. I find it fascinating.
You nailed it with Anderson, however. The full scope of his refusal to testify hinges on both his loyalty to Bonds, and –much more importantly– his own sense of fairness and trust of the government; whom he rightly believes will fuck him up the instant they have a chance to.
JP, I may be wrong about the motive Victor Conte has in his unwavering support of Bonds, but I tend to think it is along the lines of what Jimmy Conway told Henry Hill:
“I’m not mad, I’m proud of you. You took your first pinch like a man and you learn two great things in your life. Look at me, never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut.”
If one believes the government that Bonds was knowingly ingesting steroids provided to him by BALCO through Greg Anderson, he could have very easily buried both Anderson and Conte in front of the grand jury with his testimony by just telling them the truth and then walked away without any legal issues facing him. If he didn’t take steroids, or he was unknowingly taking them, then he told the truth, but did no damage to either Conte or Anderson with his testimony in either scenario. While people can reasonably argue whether Bonds motivation for testifying the way he did was telling the truth, trying to protect his friend, trying to preserve his legacy, or some combination of those factors, the fact remains that Bonds grand jury testimony was pretty much worthless to the prosecution in achieving the eventual plea bargains brokered with Conte and Anderson.
In short, I think Conte like Anderson probably realizes that Barry could have given damaging testimony against both of them, but that he chose not to do so for whatever reason, and I think that is a large part why Conte continues to support him while throwing other former clients under the bus, like they did with him in front of the grand jury. Call it honor among thieves, friends taking care of friends, or people just telling the truth, I think there is loyalty and respect for Bonds support of him when he had the Feds coming down on him that on some level that motivates Conte to not to pile on Bonds as he fights for his freedom. I could be wrong, but that would be my best guess at your question as to why Conte defends Barry.
Keep up the good work.
I don’t know if I buy that. Honor among thieves is a horseshit myth. Anderson spent something like 18 months in jail for his refusal to nail Bonds. Because Bonds might have been able to testify against him and get him in more trouble? When it was all said and done, the BALCO boys got less than three total years combined for the steroids stuff. Anderson got in worse trouble for refusing to testify.
There more here than meets the eye. The hypocritical, hysterical mass media –manipulated by the government– has controlled this story from the start. We still don’t know what really happened, even to this day.
Bonds’ lawyers’ and Anderson’s lawyer’s (Geragos) explanation for Anderson’s refusal to testify is that he is afraid if he testifies truthfully and if it is not what the Feds want him to say, he will find himself charged with perjury. He’s in a no win situation.
See pages 2 and 3 of their rebuttal to the govt’s response to their hearsay motion (pg. 9 and 10 of the pdf). The rebuttal is very thorough and well done and worth reading.
This evidence is not being excluded on a technicality, it’s being excluded because it is extremely unreliable.
And another voice of reason, believe it or not, from our own Gwenn Knapp.
One of Greg Anderson’s attorney’s raised another possibility about the tape:
Paula Canny, one of Anderson’s attorneys, told the Daily News she thinks the tape has been altered in some fashion.
“I think the tape is doctored. I don’t think they have the original tape. This is a guy (Hoskins) who betrayed his very best friend, for nothing,” said Canny. “So it’s completely in keeping that he would alter the tape.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2009/02/05/2009-02-05_judge_might_toss_damning_evidence_agains.html
Of course the Rhoden article is correct. They should have never indicted Bonds without evidence, but by now they should just be satisfied with the damage they’ve inflicted on him and to my enjoyment of baseball – on our dimes.
This case continues to roll forward on its own momentum, not merits, since there are none. The Feds can’t quit now without having to admit they have wasted piles of money and trashed people’s lives and livelihoods. Barry is The Big Prize. Marion Jones can go to jail and Michael Phelps can make the news with bong hits, but Barry is waaaaaay bigger than both of them. Only an acquittal or dismissal can derail this Hate Train. Bonds might be free of prosecution after that, but his reputation and legacy were ruined long ago, and the War on Drugs crowd will still claim a moral victory.
even if anderson testifies that the the samples were taken from bonds, how in the world can they be admitted?
all the defense needs to do is have conte testify how these samples were handled, and the judge must throw the evidence out
as for the tape…it is hearsay…its a joke
the big thing is the 2003 test
but i still cant believe that they are prosecuting a perjury charge…its a joke
btw, this case is nothing like the oj case
there, trained professionals messed up
here, these werent professionals…this was normal testing done on every athlete who used balco….it wasnt about chain of evidence
It doesn’t seem to me the Hoskins tape is a big deal. They never mention what the substance is – for all we know the substance is THG. If that’s the case it wasn’t a steroid nor was it illegal. Anyone care to share a different interpretation?
I find every day I wake up and a new fact in support of Barry comes out. Each day this happens, in my usual browsing of ESPN.com, I see a new anti-Bonds article that generally contains no actual facts, and generally tries to paint Bonds in as negative a light as possible. Case in point: today in the article about the judge likely barring those tests, they threw in “A similar chain-of-custody argument was used by O.J. Simpson to help win an acquittal in his murder trial.” There was no need for an O.J. reference, except to create a subtle link between Bonds and O.J so people will still think he’s a criminal when he wins his case. Frankly…ESPN can go fuck itself. I’ve stopped reading any ESPN baseball articles, I prefer Yahoo these days.
I find it very strange she’s inclined to allow the Hoskins tape. I guess she felt she had to give the prosecution something.
But, the defense arguments were all very sound that each piece of evidence was hearsay and that no exemption applied. Allowing the Hoskins tape (Bonds not a party, Anderson never even specifically mentions Bonds, and there’s no reason to believe he’s telling the truth) would end up being grounds for appeal if a conviction were obtained. So I just don’t get it.
They should have never indicted without non-hearsay evidence. Really is an outrage and huge waste of money verging on misconduct. These prosecutors should be in the private sector just so we’re not the ones paying for their upkeep.
Things are looking up for Lamar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/sports/baseball/06bonds.html?ref=baseball
Today the judge indicated that she is unlikely to allow either these 3 so called failed test results from Balco or the Anderson calanders to be admitted unless Anderson testifies to colaberate them. Only bad news for the Bonds defense team is that she is likely to allow the taping of the Hoskins and Anderson conversation to be admitted.