Skip to content

List of 104 positive PED tests barred from courts

Dec 11, 2010, 9:08 AM EDT

lawsuit gavel

Remember the infamous list of 104 players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003? Yeah, I’m trying to forget, too.

Well, according to the Associated Press, the government will not contest an appeals court ruling from September that determined that investigators illegally seized the list. In other words, those tests are barred from being used in court.

In April of 2004, agents took urine samples and records from Comprehensive Drug Testing Inc. and Quest Diagnostics Inc. While they were armed with a search warrant to seize the results of 10 players — as part of the BALCO investigation involving Barry Bonds — they ended up with an entire database and a spreadsheet that included the names of 104 players.

Since then, Alex Rodriguez and David Ortiz have acknowledged being on the list, while the New York Times has reported that Sammy Sosa and Manny Ramirez also tested positive.

  1. proudlycanadian - Dec 11, 2010 at 9:23 AM

    Where is Wikileaks now that baseball fans really need them?

    • Kevin S. - Dec 11, 2010 at 9:46 AM

      Baseball fans don’t really need them. What they really need is for the government to respect the Fourth Amendment and destroy that list.

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 11, 2010 at 10:43 AM

        There are probably several copies of that list in existence. It would clear the air if it was leaked.

      • Old Gator - Dec 11, 2010 at 11:27 AM

        Perhaps it would clear the air up in beaver country, where the air is already fresh and clean all the time. Unfortunately, ye who have already observed so plangently how cockamamie issues can obsess us lower 48ers must realize that down here it would merely pollute our viscous atmosphere with so much mentally carcinogenic particulata that we’d still be dealing with a journalistic nuclear winter by the time pitchers and catchers report.

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 11, 2010 at 11:35 AM

        As you are aware, I can’t comment on the 4th amendment. However, in beaver country, on a clear day you can see forever. I would certainly like to see some more clarity on the topic of “who dun it”.

      • JBerardi - Dec 11, 2010 at 2:33 PM

        “There are probably several copies of that list in existence. It would clear the air if it was leaked.”

        Yeah, I thinking the air-clearing effects of such a leak don’t really outweigh the fact that it would be highly illegal and unethical.

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 11, 2010 at 2:57 PM

        Using steroids was illegal.

      • Kevin S. - Dec 11, 2010 at 5:42 PM

        Actually, not every substance on the banned list is illegal. And there’s the tiny little fact that when Congress banned steroids in the late 80s, every major medical institution in the country opposed the effort. So much misinformation out there.

  2. lardin - Dec 11, 2010 at 4:44 PM

    As paying consumers of baseball, we have the right to know who’s on that list. Just like we have the right no whats in any food product before we buy it in a grocery store or just like any side effects prescription drugs have.

    Yes athletes have the some right to privacy, but not if they are cheating the sport. I have the right to know if Arod or Manny is on that list so I can determine, if I want to buy there jerseys or support their teams.

    • Old Gator - Dec 11, 2010 at 5:09 PM

      And of course your right to know who’s cheating in baseball trumps our constitutional guarantees against self-incrimination, right? Let’s have a sense of proportion here. Molsonman knew he couldn’t trifle with our Fourth Amendment; if you’re a US citizen, maybe you ought to take a lesson from an interested disinterested observer.

  3. lardin - Dec 11, 2010 at 5:27 PM

    The fourth ammendment deals with the governement illegally siezing evidence and there ablility to use said evidnece in a court of law. It makes no mention about spoiled athletes ability to lie to the general public or about whether or not they were cheating. I dont care if the government gets to use the names in court. In fact under our Constitution they should not be able to. But if someone wants to leak the names to a reporter, I have no problem with that. Also, said reporter cant be prosecuted because of the first ammendments right to free press. the guy who leaked the names can be arrested, but the only way you can do that is if the reporter gives him up. And since this is not a national security matter, the courts can not compel him to give up the name of the leaker.

    • proudlycanadian - Dec 11, 2010 at 6:18 PM

      Just send the list in a brown unmarked envelope to Bob Elliott of the Toronto Sun. I do not respect him as a reporter; however, he would jump at the chance to have a real scoop for a change. The fourth amendment does not apply to him. He will not know who sent it.

    • Old Gator - Dec 12, 2010 at 12:17 AM

      I guess that depends on whether you consider your own sorry ass worthy of security, in this particular case the sort that devolves from our national founding documents. The idea that we’re protected by a law that prevents both illegal seizure of documents and the use of those documents in a prosecution is kinda undermined by letting law enforcement personnel then leak those documents to the media in order to do some other kind of damage to the incriminated party, don’t you think? Or do you think the Constitution was just put there so our judicial wing can play fast and loose with the protections those documents were clearly intended to provide, just so that you can be satisfied you got your money’s worth out of your season seats?

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 12, 2010 at 7:34 AM

        As a Canadian, I am not hung up in the intricacies of and the interpretation of the US constitution as you are. I am on the other hand interested in truth.

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 12, 2010 at 8:15 AM

        I went looking for a higher authority than the US Constitution and I came up with the 9th Commandment which is central to jurisprudence. The 8th and 10th Commandments also have relevance in the use of PEDs.

      • Kevin S. - Dec 12, 2010 at 9:51 AM

        Weird. Why would the legal codes of a three thousand year old theocracy have any relevance to US law?

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 12, 2010 at 11:26 AM

        There is a difference between moral behaviour and the law.

      • Kevin S. - Dec 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM

        Then you shouldn’t have been talking about jurisprudence now, should you have? And while there might be a difference, legality trumps morality. List needs to stay sealed.

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 12, 2010 at 1:47 PM

        Most PED users who face trial are charged with for perjury or telling a lie (“thou shalt not bear false witness”) rather than illegal PED use. In this instance, the government knows who broke the law by illegally using PEDs, but the government cannot use the information in court because it was obtained illegally. I see no reason why the PED users should not be tried in the court of public opinion. I want to know “who dun it”. I also believe that with regard to the integrity of the game it is important that the information comes out.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. S. Kazmir (5057)
  2. K. Uehara (4412)
  3. T. Wood (3735)
  4. G. Springer (3626)
  5. M. Machado (3461)
  1. J. Kubel (3384)
  2. H. Rondon (3114)
  3. T. Walker (3114)
  4. J. Reyes (3022)
  5. D. Pedroia (3022)