Comments on: The Feds won’t give info to Major League Baseball in the Biogenesis investigation. Good.

By: badintent

badintent — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 05:58:54 +0000

Bud, It’s WADA on the line. Do you want to take the call.?
Nah, they’ll tell me they have the latest testing for HGH and EPO, stuff that caught Lance.Too much $$ for MLB to spend . We’re in the baseball biz, not in law enfrocement

By: dcarroll73

dcarroll73 — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 02:16:49 +0000

This “wonderful” web site did not seem to allow me to reply in the thread I started on the HIPAA implications of this A-Rod case so I will post a separate comment here. People not trained in HIPAA are posting very off-base info on how it works. I have worked for several medical entities over the last 15 years, and I have been forced to take a number of HIPAA training sessions. I was NOT a licensed medical person; I am an IT guy. Nevertheless since I worked in those organizations, EVERYONE was required to abide by these rules. Disclosures were punishable under the federal code. My question comes down to the legal rules on evidence (Craig??) If the only grounds for a subpoena (federal or other) is information ILLEGALLY disclosed, is this a valid grounds? To me it seems outrageous. I care FAR more about medical privacy than I do about all this nonsense about PEDs. Please take your witchhunts elsewhere.

By: deathmonkey41

deathmonkey41 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:56:30 +0000

Heh heh, the Onion.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:56:14 +0000

I think it likely that A-Rod’s attorney would argue — if necessary — that A-Rod believed that the man had a medical license and that his privacy protections should apply even if he was duped. These are all things the courts would have to sort out.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:51:42 +0000

Refusing to testify is different than not being able to compel him to divulge info…which is why he went to jail. Legally, there is a mechanism to compel testimony. Most often, people try to avoid going to jail for contempt. The question is, then: does the “doctor” in this case have the same nerve? My guess based on the article is no, but that remains to be seen.

By: gsrider911

gsrider911 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:31:36 +0000

The Biogenesis guy Tony Bosch is not a doctor, so unless the whole clinic and services performed therein are considered convered by HIPAA, leaking their interactions are probably not a HIPAA violation.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:20:55 +0000

Even if the Feds subpoena the doctor, they can’t force him to testify. It’s why I brought up Greg Anderson. The big issue in the Bonds case was, while the feds had all the schedules and workout regiments for Bonds, they couldn’t prove Bonds knew what he was taking. The only guy who could, Greg Anderson and Bonds’s personal trainer, refused to testify against him. In fact, Anderson spent over a year in jail in contempt of court for refusing to testify.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:57:04 +0000

You appear to be a moron regardless of the ARod situation. Good luck with that.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:19:18 +0000

If they have a workable case, the feds might get a subpoena to make the doctor testify. It might be possible to get that info after the fact then. Or, MLB/Yanks could sweat A-Rod to get him to sign a waiver for his records from the doctor. If he has a good lawyer, they would resist, but that won’t mean MLB won’t try it (and/or leak that A-Rod refused to sign the waiver).

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:01:32 +0000

Sorry, I should have made it clear in my original post. Although as we know that the doctor or whomever leaked the info would most likely guy a flier on the HIPAA violation to testify against others.

What’ll be really interesting is most likely MLB can’t do anything against Arod because they have zero subpoena power. So they’ll likely wait out the federal investigation. However, what happens if the Doctor pulls a Greg Anderson and refuses to testify? Now we have no corroboration against Arod, and he should skate free.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:59:36 +0000

You are quoting the NYDN as evidence is as useful as posting a link to The Onion.

By: natstowngreg

natstowngreg — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:55:02 +0000

Prosecutors using their discretion to get headlines by making themselves look tough on the bad guys? Holy Thomas E. Dewey! [Kids, ask your grandparents about Thomas E. Dewey.]

Seriously, you make excellent points. MLB is investigating possible violations of its collectively-bargained drug policy. The Feds are investigating violations of Federal criminal law. The latter trump the former.

By: natstowngreg

natstowngreg — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:44:59 +0000

They are not mutually exclusive desires. But often, they are mutually exclusive realities.

As a Nats fan (and part of a season ticket group) since the beginning, it’s nice that the team hasn’t been implicated, while becoming a championship contender. But I’m enough of a realist to understand that we Nats fans can’t say, those things only happen to guys on other teams.

If there actually is evidence that Gio Gonzalez cheated (haven’t seen any), then he should be punished according to the rules. I’ll be very disappointed, both in Gio as a person and in the effect on the team’s chances. I will still be a Nats fan. [BTW, the Giants lost one of their best players last season to a drug suspension, and somwehow managed to win the World Series.]

By: nategearhart

nategearhart — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:28:28 +0000

That just covers the accused being able to “witness” the witness bear witness, right? This commentor is saying “…the public at large will be made aware of that testimony”. I’m asking why the public, not the accused drug dealer, should be privy to the witness testimony.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:23:00 +0000

Well, I’m glad you understood it then b/c I was confused whether he was talking about someone unnamed (he didn’t say doctor or whatever) or the feds. I was offering my 2 cents on the fed part. The other part I didn’t weigh in on b/c I didn’t know who he was talking about.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:58:34 +0000

employers, government agencies, etc.

Understandable, but the question wasn’t regarding the fed’s and information, it was about the doctor who released it. The doctor is breaking HIPAA laws, not the feds.

By: mtr75

mtr75 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:53:18 +0000

Hey paperlions, want to call me a moron again for saying Pay-Roid is done?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/a-done-alex-return-yankees-sources-article-1.1251858

Eat it, buddy.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:37:59 +0000

Because that is related to your medical treatment and comes from the health care provider. Go read the FAQ’s on the HHS website. HIPAA does not apply to employers, government agencies, etc. There are other privacy laws that may apply — but even HIPAA has an exception for investigatory agencies.

By: freddieoh

freddieoh — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:29:17 +0000

You think you know Jack Schmidt?

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:28:53 +0000

I don’t fully understand your question but HIPAA applies to your doctor — not the feds

HIPAA generally applies to all individuals involved with patient information, not just your doctor. Even if you work in claims for a healthcare company, you are bound by HIPAA to not release any of the information you’ve learned through your job.

By: freddieoh

freddieoh — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:26:06 +0000

Ever heard of the Confrontation Clause, amigo?

By: Francisco (FC)

Francisco (FC) — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:25:20 +0000

This guy is a doppleganger for one of the Observers on Fringe!

So that makes him January right?

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:12:35 +0000

ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss…

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:05:22 +0000

Clean players from yesteryear (segregation, pills, coke, alcohol notwithstanding) had clean stats and we don’t want those tarnished by dirty players.

What era was clean again?

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:04:13 +0000

Not only did the gov’t get tipped off, they knew exactly when he was getting a shipment. So he didn’t even fail a drug test, the feds just showed up with the mail delivery and busted him.

By: thegreatstoneface

thegreatstoneface — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:55:03 +0000

…yes. move on already!!

well, wait. there’s news breaking about drugs and athletes…er. no, let’s not move on quite yet, let’s stick with it and see what the hell’s going on *this* time…

By: raysfan1

raysfan1 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:54:31 +0000

@jrobitaille–
The NFLPA is pushing back on the HGH testing because it requires blood draws whereas the steroid and amphetamine tests are urine tests. Regardless, catching anyone will be luck because HGH metabolizes extremely quickly. The one British rugby player who got caught a year or two ago got nailed because someone ratted him out. HGH has also never been shown to benefit any healthy person’s performance anyway.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:45:12 +0000

I don’t fully understand your question but HIPAA applies to your doctor — not the feds. Even with HIPAA, medical info can be obtained for investigation (although that often requires a subpoena) — it depends on the situation. It is a policy of every investigatory agency I am familiar with not to share information while an investigation is ongoing, unless it’s with another agency with which a worksharing agreement has been made. That is usually an agency rule and is designed to protect the integrity of the investigation…although there are some privacy protections generally that apply in investigations (but you’d be surprised how often lawyers violate these themselves).

By: jrobitaille23

jrobitaille23 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:40:48 +0000

It’s kinda strange how PED use in baseball is getting so much attention yet virtually every NFL player is saucing or on HGH or both. The players union is stalling so much when it comes to HGH testing because they are all on it. Yet, the fans or public doesn’t seem to bat an eye at this. Maybe it’s because it’s such a violent sport or just accepted for so long we don’t mind. Baseball has this rich history with great players and all these stats/records that mean so much. Clean players from yesteryear (segregation, pills, coke, alcohol notwithstanding) had clean stats and we don’t want those tarnished by dirty players.

By: DelawarePhilliesFan

DelawarePhilliesFan — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:36:09 +0000

“Michael S. Schmidt of the New York Times….”

S? His middle name is Jack