Court rules drug tests improperly seized

[cjclong]

A NY Times article says a California Court of Appeals has ruled that that prosecutors lacked probable cause to seize the drug test results, some of which have been leaked, of major league baseball players. If the government does not appeal this ruling the article says the results will be destroyed.

[frikativ54]

The government should definitely appeal. What do they mean, no probable cause? They've got an MLB drug ring on their hands. Of course they have reason to believe that illegal behavior is going on; the MLB is not above the law.

[rj_lucas]

The government should definitely appeal. What do they mean, no probable cause? They've got an MLB drug ring on their hands. Of course they have reason to believe that illegal behavior is going on; the MLB is not above the law.

Could you clarify for us what illegal behavior you're referring to? The use of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone was legal when these tests were conducted in 2003, and they're legal now.

Further, the use of these substances was not prohibited by MLB policy in 2003. Their use is prohibited now. Players testing positive for these substances today are in violation of MLB policy. They have not committed a criminal act.

Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are under legal scrutiny today not because they are accused of using performance enhancing drugs, but because they are alleged to have committed perjury before a Grand Jury and members of Congress, respectively.

This issue would be better served if we stick to the facts and leave the smear campaigns to the New York Times.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

[cjclong]

As I understand it the search warrant only listed 10 tests to be seized and the Feds seized them all. A search warrant has to be specific in what is to be seized and the probable cause to seize what is requested in the warrant must be granted by a judge. You can't just get a warrant saying bad things are happening but must show probable cause that a particular person or or persons named in the warrant has been involved in a particular crime and that there is reason to believe that the items to be seized are proof of that crime. The officers with the warrant may normally only seize what they have requested in the warrant issued and nothing else. Without reading the opinion by the appeals court it appears that the search warrant only asked for 10 tests and so they had no legal authority to seize the entire list. Additionally, the person or person who is releasing names to the media may be guilty of a crime themselves.

[David]

Steroids was and is legal only with valid prescription. Most baseball players who used steroids were using it illegally. There are valid medical uses of steroids, but, by US law, steroids can't be used or prescribed for strictly athletic performance reasons.

[rj_lucas]

Steroids was and is legal only with valid prescription. Most baseball players who used steroids were using it illegally. There are valid medical uses of steroids, but, by US law, steroids can't be used or prescribed for strictly athletic performance reasons.

Again, for the sake of remaining factual, a wide range of anabolic steroids are available over-the-counter without a script. Others, as you've noted, are RX only. HGH is RX only.

And I realize it seems like a legal nit-pick, but while obtaining these meds without a prescription is illegal, the USE of them is not. That's critical in the case of those players who maintain they used these substances under the direction of a trainer with the assumption they were OTC supplements.

Believe it or don't believe it, that's not the point. There is a constitutional presumption of innocence in this country that must be maintained.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

[David]

Use of a prescription medication without a valid prescription is illegal.

[boardburn]

Anabolic steroids, as a class of drugs, were registered as Schedule III controlled substances by the US government, register #70 FR 74653, as of 1/17/06.

It is a violation of law to have or use these substances without a valid prescription, and it is illegal to prescribe them for purposes other than their intended medical necessity.

Here is a link to the DOJ's website... This is a list (not complete by any means) of the substances covered in Schedule III. If you are having trouble sleeping, reading the links on this website should fix you right up...

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/sc...hed/sched3.htm

Tom

[frikativ54]

If you are having trouble sleeping, reading the links on this website should fix you right up...

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/sc...hed/sched3.htm

Tom

Thanks. I'll try that tonight.

[rj_lucas]

Use of a prescription medication without a valid prescription is illegal.

Apologies, I'm not making my point clearly. I'll use an illustration. Trainer applies 'salve' to athelete's bicep. Salve is, in reality, a topical steroid. Assume, for the sake of argument, the athelete believes the salve to be an OTC ointment.

The athelete has used a steroid that was not perscribed to them. That is a fact. Have they committed an illegal act? If someone slips GHB into your drink at party and you consume it, have you committed an illegal act?

Again, I'm going to come back to a presumption of innocence, vis-a-vis the list of names.

The media has annointed itself as the judge, jury, and executioner on this issue, as they so often do. Do we really want to follow that lead?

I understand we all have our personal opinions, and it's not realistic to expect personal neutrality in all things. But hopefully we can all agree that it is the duty of prosecutors and the courts to meet the burden of proof on this or any other legal matter.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com