April 03, 2004

Do you save your urine?: Apparently, someone at the testing lab does, because the test samples of Barry Bonds and six other athletes implicated in the BALCO case are still around. Is it right to go back and look for THG when it wasn't even banned at the time the samples were taken?

posted by wfrazerjr to baseball at 08:24 PM - 7 comments

Something about ex post facto laws wants to kick in about now, I keep thinking.

posted by billsaysthis at 10:42 PM on April 03, 2004

I think this whole balco deal was a ploy for john henry williams to covertly genetically engineer the baseball version of the harlem globetrotters. i got nothing.

posted by lilnemo at 12:22 AM on April 04, 2004

Yes. Next question.

posted by BitterOldPunk at 12:57 AM on April 04, 2004

Sincerely, Howard Hughes.

posted by yerfatma at 10:41 AM on April 04, 2004

I don't know the legal arguments pro or con, but my gut instinct says that the urine should be available for new tests. I seem to remember that several Olympic athletes were banned based on testing of older samples for THG. Allowing new tests on old samples is a powerful disincentive for players thinking about juicing. They'd have to beat not only current tests, but all future tests. Of course, the player's union will oppose it, and Bud Selig will throw up his hands and call a draw.

posted by dusted at 04:45 PM on April 05, 2004

How are they storing this stuff and is there a test to prove it's really his? Anyone can stick a label on a beaker that says "Barry Bonds."

posted by usfbull at 05:06 PM on April 05, 2004

It turns out the story is not true; only 20% of the samples have not been thown out.

posted by spira at 06:03 PM on April 06, 2004

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.