Qui c'è un'ottimo riassunto di come i nomi dei 104 (test di prova stagione 2003) avrebbero dovuto restare segreti.
Di come il governo, nelle vesti di un pubblico ministero, ha deciso di "assaltare" i laboratori e sequestrare nomi, provette, etc per il caso BALCO. Nella "foga" oltre ai 10 campioni che servivano sono stati presi anche gli altri 94. O sembra che comunque l'ordine dato agli agenti fosse - sequestrate tutto.
I giudici intanto hanno incominciato ad emettere sentenze
1. l'assalto era illegale
2. chiunque avrebbe rivelato nomi, oltre a quelli di Barry Bonds, etc... ormai noti, avrebbe violato la legge, che in USA vuol dire carcere
3. fino a che punto si può leggere una lista di nomi, ma saltando coloro che non c'entrano? leggi una riga sì e tre no?
4. si può sequestrare solo una parte di una lista?
Alcune corti di giustizia hanno sentenziato cose opposte tra loro.
Potrebbe finire tutto davanti alla Corte Suprema.
Ovvio che se la MLB avesse avuto una politica seria contro il doping fin dall'inizio, 1991, molte di queste cose sarebbero state evitate, forse.
Altrettanto ovvio, come scrissi nell'editoriale sul Mitchell Report...
http://www.playitusa.com/b2/blogs/edito ... p/2007/12/... che non c'entrano le singole squadre, Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, etc... domani potrebbe uscire il nome di Big Papi, quello di Manny, quello di Pujols...
Le colpe sono di Selig e dell'associazione giocatori, dei medici, dei dirigenti.
Ultima cosa: dopo i test del 2003, scoperto che almeno 104 giocatori si dopavano ed accertato, per l'ennesima volta, ma finalmente in modo ufficiale e scientifico, che c'era bisogno di un politica antidoping, avrebero potuto distruggere provette e nomi.
Hanno tenuto tutto, sigillato, ma "a disposizione". Il rischio che la cosa - prima o poi - uscisse c'era.
The judge in the Barry Bonds perjury case could find BALCO
prosecutors, investigators or officials in contempt if evidence connects them to
the leak of formerly anonymous 2003 Major League baseball drug tests that
resulted in allegations that Alex Rodriguez took steroids.
A source familiar with the proceedings between the government and MLB players
union said, “It is not possible this was leaked without there being a violation
of the law.”
Two former prosecutors said it was likely that Judge Susan Illston, who is
presiding over the Bonds case, would order contempt hearings. The Rodriguez
disclosure is especially serious because Illston and other federal judges had
ruled that this was “information [the government] wasn’t entitled to,” said
Charles La Bella, a former U.S. Attorney who practices criminal defense in San
Diego. “It’s unfair to tarnish an individual based on that illegally seized
information.”
On Saturday, Sports Illustrated cited “two sources familiar with the evidence
that the government has gathered” in the BALCO investigation and “two other
sources with knowledge of the testing results” in reporting that Rodriguez
tested positive for the steroid Primobolan and testosterone.
The records pertaining to Rodriguez and others are part of a case involving
Comprehensive Drug Testing (CDT), the Long Beach, Calif., lab that performed
much of MLB’s testing in 2003 and was subject to a government raid in April
2004. The case has several links to the Bonds case and to the seven-year probe
into the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO).
Among the evidence against Bonds is a positive drug re-test that originated from
urine samples taken during MLB’s survey testing in 2003, the same tests that
allegedly produced Rodriguez’s positive result.
Jeff Novitzky, the same lead investigator throughout the BALCO and Bonds probes,
led the raid of CDT and seized the urine samples and test results of all 104
players who tested positive during the 2003 season, when baseball conducted
survey testing to see if enough players tested positive to justify implementing
a permanent program.
BALCO prosecutor Jeff Nedrow directed Novitzky to seize the records of the 104
players over the objections of CDT lawyers, according to court documents.
Not only are the records from the 2003 raid under seal, but also Illston and two
other federal judges have ordered that anyone who publicly disclosed those
records would be found in contempt. In a statement Saturday, Major League
Baseball’s Player Association reiterated that point: “Anyone with knowledge of
such documents who discloses their contents may be in violation of those court
orders.”
Though determining who was responsible for the leak could prove difficult,
Illston has several options. “Federal judges have extraordinary power,” said
John Bartko, a former assistant U.S. attorney.
Lawyers for the Players Association could inform San Francisco’s U.S. attorney’s
office that someone violated the court order. Or Illston could beat them to the
punch and take the course she followed in December 2004, when after repeated
grand jury transcript leaks in the BALCO case, she referred the case to the
Justice Department.
Rodriguez’s test results were seized during the April 2004 raid, when BALCO
prosecutors and Novitzky expanded a legal warrant for the records of 10 MLB
players into a grab for the records of 104 players – everyone who flunked the
league’s first test for steroids. Illston called the search a violation of the
Fourth Amendment. She also suggested that if the records became public, MLB’s
interests would be harmed, saying, “I can’t imagine that there’s going to be any
voluntary agreement [by the Players Association] to do this kind of testing.”
Four district court judges ruled that the records of the additional 94 players,
including those of Rodriguez – were illegally seized. The Players Association
sought the return of the specimens and records seized. Illston was the first
judge to order the material be returned.
On Aug. 19, 2004, a Nevada district judge granted the union’s motion, ruling
that “the government callously disregarded the affected players’ constitutional
rights” and ordered the return of all specimens, notes and memos “other than
those pertaining to the 10 BALCO players named in the original search warrant.”
That ruling meant everything had to be returned – including Novitzky’s notes
regarding the 94 players not being investigated as part of BALCO.
Two three-judge panels of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower
court judges. But that wasn’t the end of it. The entire 9th Circuit set the
reversal aside and had 11 judges hear the case this past December. In Pasadena,
Calif., assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Wilson argued that BALCO investigators
could probe all 104 players who tested positive in 2003 because the lab’s
computer spreadsheet containing the results of the 10 players also contained
those of the other 94.
The Associated Press reported that more than half the judges at that hearing
were openly skeptical of the government’s argument. Judge Mylan Smith said that
permitting a narrow warrant to be expanded to large computer databases “would
probably be frightening to the public because there’s no end to it.” The 9th
Circuit’s decision is expected in several months. The only avenue for the losing
side would be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Government and defense leaks have defined the BALCO case. The longest prison
sentence in the seven-year steroids investigation has not been for athletes
lying to Novitzky or to a grand jury about banned substances but for violating
an Illston order.
Illston referred the December 2004 leaks of BALCO grand jury transcripts for
prosecution. A grand jury was convened in Los Angeles. FBI agents investigated
prosecutors and investigators, as well as reporters from the San Francisco
Chronicle, defense attorneys and BALCO mastermind Victor Conte. On Feb. 14,
2007, Conte’s former attorney Troy Ellerman pleaded guilty to disclosing the
transcripts and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison.
Because 93 other MLB players remain at risk of having their test results
illegally leaked, experts said Illston or other judges involved in the case
would probably act swiftly.
Incarceration is not out of the question.
“She can order that the matter be referred for prosecution,” said La Bella. “And
when a judge refers something, the government better take a look.”
Since the San Francisco’s U.S. attorney’s office prosecutors, staff and
investigators could be potential targets of an investigation, another agency
would be enlisted to conduct a probe. As in the BALCO leak investigation, a
grand jury would be convened.
