Posted by Todd Zywicki:
Will Barry Bonds Be Indicted?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_23-2006_07_29.shtml#1154008125


   I just finished listening to [1]Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO,
   and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports. It is a
   fascinating and engrossing book. Based on what I had heard, I was
   surprised at how much of the book was about doping in elite track and
   field as much as baseball. The other thing that was amazing to me is
   how cheap this stuff is--a years supply of steroids seems to price out
   at about $5,000, a real pittance for a professional athlete.

   It is being reported that Bonds is being investigated by a grand jury
   on charges of tax evasion and perjury. The tax evasion charge stems
   from Bonds allegations that Bonds failed to report income from the
   sale of autographed memorabilia and diverted those funds to maintain
   his mistress, Kimberly Bell. This is a pretty straightforward tax case
   it seems and I'm going to leave it aside for now.

   The interesting issue is whether Bonds is going to be indicted on
   perjury charges arising from his testimony to the grand jury that he
   never knowingly took steroids (I'm going to use "steroids" as a
   shorthand for performance enhancing drugs). The first grand jury
   terminated without indicting him. I understand that the grand jury is
   supposed to permit the indictment only if there is probable cause that
   he committed a crime. But assume that the indictment will come down
   only if the prosecutors think that they can prove the charge beyond a
   reasonable doubt, which I understand to be the [2]typical practice in
   such things. Regardless, what I'm interested in here is whether the
   prosecutors will be able to prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt.
   Now, after reading the book and other coverage, and looking at Bonds
   with my own eyes, I am comfortable concluding that the preponderance
   of the evidence supports the conclusion that Bonds took steroids or
   human growth hormone.

   It is being reported that Bonds's trainer [3]Greg Anderson will again
   refuse to testify before the grand jury about Bonds's supposed steroid
   use. After reading the book, it seems to me that unless Anderson
   testifies, the feds very well may not be able to prove beyond a
   reasonable doubt that Bonds knowingly took steroids.

   Those who have also read the book may remember some details that I am
   forgetting, but from what I recall, there is very little direct
   evidence--and perhaps none--that could prove that Bonds knowingly took
   steroids. Based on my recollection, everything he did was done through
   Anderson, and Anderson alone. Without Anderson's testimony, it is not
   clear to me that the feds can get him.

   Perhaps the strongest evidence that Bonds knowingly took steroids is
   the complete absurdity of his testimony before the grand jury
   (assuming the book's report is accurate). Bonds reportedly testified
   that Anderson would periodically bring him supplements and ointments
   and he would simply ingest them or rub them on simply to humor
   Anderson. He claims he never asked what they were and simply assumed
   they were flaxseed oil and arthritis cream. The book also reports that
   Bonds told Gary Sheffield (who supposedly also took performance
   enhancing drugs while training with Bonds) not to ask any questions
   and to just take what he was given, i.e., that he didn't want to know
   too much. This whole story seems preposterous, and combined with other
   circumstantial evidence such as his seemingly bigger head, etc., it
   seems to me that it is more likely than not that Bonds knowingly took
   steroids.

   But without Anderson's testimony, the direct evidence seems thin
   (assuming that the book reports all the evidence). All of this is
   based on the best of my recollection from the book. First, Bonds has
   never admitted taking performance-enhancing drugs, even under oath
   with immunity to the grand jury (the basis of the perjury charge).
   Second, I don't recall anybody in the book specifically stating that
   they saw Bonds taking what was unquestionably steroids. If I recall
   correctly, Bell never looked in Bonds's "man bag" to see what was in
   there. Nor did she ever actually see Anderson give him a shot of
   steroids--her story was that Bonds and Anderson would go into the
   bedroom with the man bag and close the door and she simply assumed
   that Anderson was shooting him with steroids. Third, Bonds never
   referred to taking steroids, but rather to "the shit" or "the stuff"
   or "the junk" or similar comments.

   Third, nobody other than Anderson ever gave him shots. Fourth, I don't
   recall Bonds ever directly buying steroids from BALCO. Rather, the
   standard transaction was that Anderson would buy everything for Bonds
   and keep track of his protocol. Every once in awhile Bonds would give
   Anderson 10 or 20 thousand dollars for vaguely defined "personal
   training" services. So there weren't identifiable Fed Ex packages to
   athletes (as with most of the athletes). Nor were there money deposits
   directly from Bonds into Victor Conte's bank account (the head of
   BALCO) from Bonds, as there were from other athletes. Nor did Bonds
   regularly appear at BALCO to buy stuff. He rarely communicated with
   Victor Conte. All of this was handled by Anderson.

   Finally, to the best of my recollection, Conte never specifically
   listed Bonds as one of the athletes to whom he sold performance
   enhancing drugs, although he [4]named names on other occasions. And
   Conte has [5]specifically denied selling steroids to Bonds. Again,
   here's the trick--he has admitted selling steroids to Anderson, so
   this may be semantic. But he may not have any actual proof that
   Anderson was buying it for Bonds. The only time that Conte seems to
   have specifically mentioned Bonds was during a long interview with IRS
   agents on the day of the BALCO raid, which Conte later called a
   fabrication. Amazingly, the federal agents didn't record the
   conversation with Conte, and Conte almost immediately denied the
   government's description of it. On a related note, this seemed just
   one of several things that the feds did during the investigation that
   just seemed completely incompetent to me (such as the way that Conte
   learned that the feds were searching BALCO's trash).

   He did get his urine tested on at least one occasion (Anderson later
   said the vial should have had his name on it). And Anderson reportedly
   had some doping calendars at his house. But those alone seem like a
   stretch.

   In short, Bonds let Anderson handle everything, from protocol, to
   purchase, to shots, and to workouts. Clearly Bonds asked no questions
   about what Anderson was doing and simply trusted him to handle
   everything. Equally clearly Bonds knew what Anderson was giving him,
   especially in light of the physical side effects of the drugs. So
   common sense seems to suggest that he perjured himself, but a close
   sifting of the evidence that we know about the evidence seems much
   less clear. But he seems to have created an almost perfect
   intermediary in Anderson who could protect him. Every chain of
   evidence in the case seems to end at Anderson. Although common sense
   then connects Anderson to Bonds, I can't recall any specific, provable
   fact that provides that final link.

   So if Anderson does not roll over on Bonds, can the prosecutors prove
   beyond a reasonable doubt that Bonds perjured himself before the grand
   jury when he denied knowingly taking steroids? For those who have
   followed the case and/or read the book, remind me of any specific,
   provable facts that I have forgotten, especially about any specific
   eyewitness accounts of Bonds getting shots or any paper trail that
   specifically connects Bonds to performance enhancing drugs, rather
   than just Anderson. This may explain why the government has so far
   been unable to indict Bonds without Anderson's testimony, as well as
   why they are pushing on Anderson so hard to get him to testify.
   Wihtout Anderson's testimony, I have serious doubts about whether the
   feds will be able to get Bonds on perjury (although tax evasion should
   be easier).

References

   1. 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1592401996/sr=1-1/qid=1154003781/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9248164-8433439?ie=UTF8&s=books
   2. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/434215p-365815c.html
   3. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/26/AR2006072601988.html
   4. http://www.ktvu.com/balco/3967747/detail.html
   5. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2389940

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to