Mar 23, 2011, 6:49 AM EDT
The government’s first witness against Barry Bonds was called yesterday: agent Jeff Novitzky, the man who made the BALCO case. And the Brian McNamee case. And the Kirk Radomski case. And who has spearheaded just about every other investigation into athletes and performance enhancing drugs, from Bonds to Lance Armstrong (case still building).
It was Novitzky who spent a year literally sifting through the trash outside the BALCO labs, looking for evidence of steroid distribution after he received a tip that bad stuff was going down there. He’s a highly controversial figure who has been accused by some of having a vendetta against Barry Bonds, though that has always seemed like a stretch to me. More likely, it seems, is that he is a careerist who at times has gone too far in order to bring home cases that are less valuable to the protection of the public welfare than they are salacious and attention-grabbing. His greatest trespass in my mind was his illegal-seizure of baseball’s 2004 drug testing results and subsequent creation of that list of 104 names, some of which have been leaked. He was smacked down by the courts for that.
His testimony yesterday is similar to the testimony he has given in multiple other BALCO cases, all of which have resulted in convictions. He explained how he got on BALCO’s trail, how he came to learn of its clients, including Bonds, and how when the government subpoenaed Bonds and other athletes, there was never an intention to go after them, just BALCO.
Novitzky was cross-examined sharply by Bonds’ lawyers — with many of the questions seemingly designed to discredit other witnesses against Bonds as opposed to attacking Novitzky head-on — but reports from the courtroom suggest that he maintained his cool and made a point to look at the jury when he spoke, not at the lawyer questioning him, which is a small but quite effective touch when a witness is trying to explain technical or scientific evidence. Law enforcement officers tend to do this well.
How effective his testimony was is open for debate. Gwen Knapp, who is in the courtroom live-tweeting the trial for the San Francisco Chronicle suggested that the facts weren’t being strung together very well and that the government, via Novitzky’s testimony, wasn’t explaining its case particularly effectively. The New York Times, in contrast, painted a picture of an engaged jury, following the exchanges between Novitzky and his inquisitors raptly.
Novitzky will continue to be cross-examined today. Then he will return to his work of bringing down cheating athletes. The value of his testimony and that work will both be open questions for some time.
- Giants inhaling the air of superiority after Game 1 4
- What’s in a name? “Big Game” James did not come up big for Kansas City 19
- World Series Reset: The Royals look to pick themselves up off the mat 5
- Royals’ World Series hopes in Yordano Ventura’s hands 4
- Giants stomp Royals 7-1 in World Series Game 1 rout 33
- World Series, Game 1: Giants vs. Royals lineups 0
- HBT Daily: In which I waffle on my World Series pick 13
- Must-click link: surviving spring training on $0 a day 80
- So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got? (120)
- Erroneous Narrative Alert: no, the Giants are not a “gritty,” anti-stats organization (116)
- Pedro Martinez has some opinions about who the new “face of baseball” is (111)
- “The Kansas City Royals Are the Future of Baseball” — someone actually said that. (93)
- Must-click link: surviving spring training on $0 a day (80)