Skip to content

Gio Gonzalez passed the drug test he took right after the Biogenesis story broke

Feb 22, 2013, 1:30 PM EDT

Sources familiar with the Biogenesis documents say that Gio Gonzalez was not given any banned PEDs at the clinic. Here’s some more for the Gio-is-Clean file:

 

As my anti-PED friends like to note, passed tests don’t necessarily mean a player is clean. But it seems like as of now there is nothing anyone has to pin on Gonzalez.

  1. DelawarePhilliesFan - Feb 22, 2013 at 1:42 PM

    Sane dicourse to follow

    • natstowngreg - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:30 PM

      And today’s Best Use of Sarcasm Award goes to…

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:39 PM

        And I didn’t even need the sarcasm font….of course, spell check would have helped :)

    • Old Gator - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:20 PM

      You mean diss-course, don’t you?

      • umrguy42 - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:24 PM

        Dis-course, dat-course, whichever course!

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:31 PM

        Yup ;)

  2. natslady - Feb 22, 2013 at 1:44 PM

    Thanks for noticing, Craig!!! Big “whew” from Nats fans everywhere. It’s hard to “prove” a negative but negative test results do help.

  3. illcomm - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:00 PM

    urine test does not detech hgh. so who cares if he past it.

    • no14mike - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:07 PM

      what about the blood part of the test that you seem to have passed over?

      • Kevin S. - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:45 PM

        I hate to be the one to say this, but testing Gio for HGH two days after the story broke is basically worthless. He could have been using the day the story came out, stopped, and it would have cleared from his system two days later. I don’t think there’s any real evidence that Gio was using HGH or any other banned substances (or that HGH works at all, for that matter), but all passing the test clears him of is tremendous stupidity.

      • natslady - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM

        @KevinS, yes, nothing is “proven” or disproven. The $1,000 for the items was in March 2012, if I understand correctly. Still, it’s better the test was negative than positive… Right now, that’s all we have to go by.

      • zacksdad - Feb 22, 2013 at 5:11 PM

        @NatsLady

        No, we also have his name showing he purchased items from a known PED supplier.

        BTW, this just in. Lance Armstrong also passed his tests and for years denied using.

    • phillyphreak - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:15 PM

      past.

      • Old Gator - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:21 PM

        Gowachin guilty!!

    • bh192012 - Feb 22, 2013 at 7:04 PM

      The other thought I had is that don’t all players get tested yearly for HGH and other steroids at the beginning of spring training anyways? The story broke around the beginning of Feb? While HGH might leave your system quickly, I would imagine smart PED users would full stop all PED use a couple of months before, no later than sometime in January.

      • bh192012 - Feb 22, 2013 at 7:06 PM

        Pitchers and catchers report around the 2nd week of Feb…

  4. historiophiliac - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:00 PM

    I did not think those “records” were recent.

  5. chacochicken - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:10 PM

    I suppose the irony is the records only suggest he (or his father) purchased non-peds/weight loss supplements. But as a surprising aside, he’s four months pregnant.

    • paperlions - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:22 PM

      Good point, they should have tested him for non-PEDs….I bet he tests positive for those.

      • natstowngreg - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:29 PM

        So, is that a non-enhancer of performance, or an enhancer of non-performance? Inquiring (and bored) minds want to know.

      • paperlions - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:39 PM

        I don’t know and I don’t care….if he tests positive for something, he’s a cheater….and if he doesn’t he just beat the system….I mean, his name (or his dad’s name) was scribbled on a piece of paper by a guy that used to deal HGH. Gowachin (or whatever it is that OG always refers to), guilty.

      • shawndc04 - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:57 PM

        >>I don’t know and I don’t care….if he tests positive for something, he’s a cheater….and if he doesn’t he just beat the system<<
        _____
        Well, with that kind of standard I guess that every ballplayer is a cheat. Please also note that even if you assume that Gio was dealing directly with the guy (a far flung assumption), or indirectly (through his dad), none of the substances supposedly linked to him were illegal.

      • paperlions - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:11 PM

        Was the sarcasm not obvious?

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:03 PM

        He better test positive for non-PED’s. Testing negative for a non-PED – that’s a double negative, ergo it is postive for PED.

        I think. What was the question again?

      • shawndc04 - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:17 PM

        >>Was the sarcasm not obvious?<<
        _____

        Missed it; my mistake.

      • paperlions - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:18 PM

        No problem….just wanted to clarify.

      • natstowngreg - Feb 22, 2013 at 5:04 PM

        PL, your sarcasm was obvious indeed, but you totally missed mine. No biggie.

      • paperlions - Feb 22, 2013 at 5:06 PM

        Oh, I knew it was sarcasm….and funny….no way to top that by building on it….so I had to go a different direction.

  6. 2077james - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:36 PM

    Simple solution: tie him to a dunking stool and throw him in a river. If he drowns he’s clean, if he floats he’s a PED user.

  7. illcomm - Feb 22, 2013 at 2:50 PM

    Craig is notorious for updating errors in his article without noting the update.

    • illegalblues - Feb 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM

      who gives a crap? i mean of all things to complain about….

  8. beefytrout - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:20 PM

    Not a shock, since it’s been known from virtually the beginning of this story that Gonzalez did not purchase PEDs from Biogenesis.

  9. Old Gator - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:22 PM

    This is the age of knowing.

    • natstowngreg - Feb 22, 2013 at 5:09 PM

      As I told my doctor recently, I think I have every condition deemed common for men of, shall we say, a certain age [and we’re talking far beyond Gio Gonzalez’ age). At least conditions which, according to many advertisements, can be alleviated chemically.

      • Old Gator - Feb 22, 2013 at 7:26 PM

        I had conditions like that in college. Lots of ‘em.

  10. El Bravo - Feb 22, 2013 at 4:36 PM

    Lance Armstrong. ;)

    • cur68 - Feb 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM

      Wait…are we thanking Lance Armstrong again? I just want to know, because the last time I made mention that Gonzalez was on a list written by Anthony Bosch I was “Thanking Lance Armstrong” or some other rubbish. Are we doing that again? I just want to know what the hell we’re talking about and how Mr. Armstrong fits into the whole discussion involving a guy being potentially smeared because a self aggrandizing jackass can spell his name.

      • El Bravo - Feb 22, 2013 at 5:06 PM

        I know not what you refer to….my comment is b/c Lance proved one thing: positive tests are meaningless. Just throwing gas on the fire as I love to do…

      • cur68 - Feb 22, 2013 at 5:07 PM

        Yeah, its an obscure one. I’m just being a shit-disturber. Pay no attention to me. I’m experiencing residual anger at MLB.TV for not airing spring training games.

      • El Bravo - Feb 22, 2013 at 5:11 PM

        I canceled MLB.tv this year, but somehow they still charged me the other day…bastards. I have directv and mlb network, I no longer need their offerings, although I certainly loved it.

      • cur68 - Feb 22, 2013 at 5:15 PM

        If they don’t shape up with the ST Games I may take my custom elsewhere next seasons.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Who's outside looking in on playoffs?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (2968)
  2. M. Trout (2070)
  3. D. Ortiz (2065)
  4. A. Pagan (2054)
  5. A. Pujols (2012)
  1. J. Hamilton (1935)
  2. N. Arenado (1873)
  3. G. Stanton (1840)
  4. H. Ramirez (1827)
  5. S. Pearce (1816)