FanDuel - WFBC

June 09, 2006

Lawyer said Grimsley was asked to wear wire in Bonds' probe: According to his attorney, Jason Grimsley refused to wear a wire in a direct attempt by the Feds to target Barry Bonds. It's just the latest in this ever-expanding story.

posted by donnnnychris to baseball at 05:10 AM - 52 comments

If drug investigators wanted him to work for them in order to get a lighter sentence thats par for the course among druggies. I think the lawyer is trying to create some noble ground for Grimsley, to make it sound like he was some kind of brave hero AND it will work for many idiots. Truth is, wire or no wire, he is just another doped up ballplayer using drugs to cheat the players and the fans. Just a doper in doper world and the cops have him by the ass. good bye you jerk

posted by Triton at 07:23 AM on June 09

How could the Commissioner let baseball get so out of control? The bigger question is, Can he get it back under control or should he resign and let someone else clean up his mess?

posted by dbt302 at 08:44 AM on June 09

I hope we don't get a new FPP every time there is a new development on this story. This link would work fine in this FPP.

posted by bperk at 08:58 AM on June 09

Deadspin is reporting that Albert Pujols' long-time personal trainer may be one of the names on the affidavit thus dragging the poster boy for the NEW ERA into all this... UH OH!

posted by hb74147 at 09:20 AM on June 09

They were talking about deadspin on the radio today in Boston in regards to the Pujols thing. I really don't want to find out that's true.

posted by jerseygirl at 09:32 AM on June 09

I appreciate how carefully Deadspin reported that story, and believe me, I'm in the same boat about hoping to hell Pujols doesn't get dragged down into this. That said, this is totally freakin' terrible. Dan Patrick said on his radio show (I think it was Tuesday?) that the names being mentioned were huge. Even then, Pujols just didn't cross my mind (I was thinking Clemens, possibly against my better judgement). Man. What a bummer.

posted by rocketman at 09:36 AM on June 09

The longer this goes on makes me afraid the list of players not doped up is going to be a very short one.

posted by jaygolf at 09:45 AM on June 09

The best thought I saw on this was that they will save all samples from drug tests and, as more complex testing becomes available, those samples will be retested and there is no statute of limitations in baseball (among other things). Grimsley, what a appropriate name if he's going to be dragging alot of names through the mud on his way to infamy. They did a rundown of all the stars Grimsley's played with, it is extensive and depressing. I hope Pujols is clean too. And I think its pathetic that they are still trying to pin this whole steroid thing on Bonds. dbt302, Selig was making alot of money off the "Long Ball Era", he looked the other way because he was part of the problem and now he's trying to keep the "taint" from getting to him by singling out Bonds.

posted by fenriq at 09:47 AM on June 09

So I started reading the affidavit again, trying to play Hangman with the blacked out words and seeing if Pujols fit anywhere. One thing sort of struck me though, you remember the initial drug testing, how it was anonymous, supposedly? How did Grimsley know he tested positive?

posted by jerseygirl at 10:02 AM on June 09

What bperk said. dc, you don't have to create a post to continue the discussion; I think it leads to a clearer conversation if everything is in one thread (unless it's a week apart or something).

posted by yerfatma at 10:55 AM on June 09

Lets face it guys chances are most major league players that have been or are a house hold name, have probably dabbled in some type of enhancement. I am to the point were it just doesn't matter to me any more. Let them all do it and see who wins. There adults the know the risks.

posted by PGHTOS at 11:02 AM on June 09

Let them all cheat and see who wins? Huh?

posted by jerseygirl at 11:16 AM on June 09

Seems to me that Selig is going to swimming in the "taint" with this latest round of stuff coming out. I think he is going under faster than the city of New Orleans did. At least New Orleans will make a come back. Bud won't.

posted by dbt302 at 11:19 AM on June 09

"Let them all do it and see who wins." That kind of sucks if you're a clean player. It really is the league & PA's fault for not whole-heartedly embracing all necessary testing -- how many players are plain old cheaters and how many would rather not, but cave b/c they feel they can't compete with the other cheaters otherwise? Don't know myself, but I'd like to think there's more of the latter.

posted by hb74147 at 12:01 PM on June 09

hb74147, that's a good point, its a kind of peer pressure. Because so many others were benefitting, more HAD to use PED's to try and stay competitive. It was a self-fueling system really, maybe it still is. And the owners made bank.

posted by fenriq at 12:53 PM on June 09

Selig must go!! Has anyone seen him lately?

posted by INOALOSER at 01:11 PM on June 09

I hope Pujols is named. I'm curious to see if all the media and fans will rail him the way they have bonds. And Rocket being named? Well nothing would make me happier. I'd love to see if the asterisks talks were as loud and strong then.

posted by bdaddy at 01:19 PM on June 09

I hope Pujols is named. I'm curious to see if all the media and fans will rail him the way they have bonds. You already know they won't. Pujols is (basically) universally liked, a good guy, and media friendly. Bonds would be pretty much the polar opposite to all of that. Nobody I know wants the Pujols connection to amount to anything (though deep down we know it probably will). Bonds elicits anger, with Pujols it will largely be disappointment.

posted by pivo at 01:50 PM on June 09

I hope Pujols is named. I'm curious to see if all the media and fans will rail him the way they have bonds. I don't get this line of thinking. why wouldn't they? maybe i only catch the bonds apologists saying things like this, but any player who gets caught earns the big * in my mind forever. the reason bonds gets the most scrutiny is because of his position as one of the top hitters ever. you really think matt lawton deserves as much ink for doping as barry bonds does?

posted by ninjavshippo at 01:52 PM on June 09

Two things. A) I have yet to see a breakdown of exactly how many names Grimsley gives in the affidavit. There are, by my count, 29 black redactions in the document (including some that are quite long and/or split lines, some of which may have more than one name underneath). Here is my breakdown, including best guesses: 1. The person(s) who told G. about his positive test. This blank could easily be up to three names. Deadspin has reported from a source that it is one name -- Allard Baird. There is one long blank. 2. G. named two former players as users of PED's. One of them told G. about a doc in Florida who distributes HGH. There are six blanks total, but likely only two names, one of which Deadspin reports may have been Sammy Sosa. 3. In the paragraph related to the question (essentially), "Who else?" there are seven blanks. Basically, the answer goes: blank, blank (who was blank), blank (who had bad back acne), and blank. One of these guys was tied to a doctor in Colorado who distributed amphetamines. There are seven blanks here. The parenthetical blank could be a revealing occupation or another name related to the preceding blank, so we are looking at four to five names here. 4. Blank was a former teammate who always had amphetamines. 1 blank, one name. 5. There is the conversation among four people, including G., discussing how they were ever going to live without amphetamines. There is a strong indication by the wording that they were teammates of his on the Orioles last year. 3 blanks, 3 names. 6. Another teammate from last year "talked openly" about amphetamine use. Four blanks, likely only one name. 7. A former employee of blank and now a personal fitness trainer to many players referred G. to a source of amphetamines. G. got all sorts of stuff from this source. There are 4 blanks, but likely only one name, reported by Deadspin to be Chris Mihlfeld. 8. One of G's better friends, a former ballplayer, used HGH. 3 blanks, one name. So what do we got? I've got 14-17 names. If Deadspin has Baird right, and he's the only one listed in issue #1, then it's 14-15 names. 1. Baird (#1) 2. Sosa (if Deadspin is right)(#2) 3. Chris Mihlfeld (again, Deadspin) (#7) 4 & 5. Unnamed former ballplayers. (#2, #8) 6-9. Teammates on the Orioles last year. (#5, #6) 10. A player with a connection to a Colorado doctor, whom one site is willing to guess is Nate Field. (#3) 11. One unknown name labeled as a former teammate. (#4) 12 on. A group of 3, maybe 4 guys who may or may not have been teammates. (#3) My own personal guess here is that this list includes a mix of the usual suspects (Palmeiro, Canseco, etc.) and a bunch of Nate Fields. I really don't believe that this list is going to blow the doors quite as wide as a lot of people would like to think. B) That the feds are going after Bonds so hard is weird. I could see a concerted effort to nail Palmeiro since it is so easy to make a perjury connection, but what is the strong federal interest in Bonds? Sosa and McGwire are out there as well. Is this really so pointed an investigation, or is it just that the questions being asked are about Bonds, so the answers are as well?

posted by BullpenPro at 02:09 PM on June 09

I hope Pujols is named. I'm curious to see if all the media and fans will rail him the way they have bonds. I can't believe I'm going to honor this with a response, but ... A) Pujols would absolutely be railed, although in probably a slightly different way than your poor, mistreated Mr. Bonds. As pivo points out, Pujols is much more generally liked. But, I would bet large sums that 1) the public would generally respond with a collective "Ah, crap, but he's a cheater too, so his stats are tainted" and 2) there would be many people that might even be MORE upset with Pujols because so many fans have put their full faith and support behind him because he is so apparently opposite a character to Bonds. B) If you really wish this, then you're no fan of the game. Do I like Bonds? - No ... Do I wish this kind of scrutiny on him or anyone else, to the detriment of a sport I love - Extreme NO. Like I said, you obviously don't give a crap about the game or its people, so please keep this kind of sewage out of the discussion.

posted by littleLebowski at 02:10 PM on June 09

Nice comment, BPP. what is the strong federal interest in Bonds Perjury, tax evasion, etc.

posted by jerseygirl at 02:22 PM on June 09

Those are the issues, but they seem to be spending a lot of investigative effort on Bonds. It seems disproportionate to anything he is alleged to have done, and more effort than is usually expended on a perjury charge.

posted by bperk at 02:34 PM on June 09

That the feds are going after Bonds so hard is weird. I could see a concerted effort to nail Palmeiro since it is so easy to make a perjury connection, but what is the strong federal interest in Bonds? It's not weird at all. Palmeiro had a positive test. Bonds has a paper trail a mile long, connections to everyone in this mess, a lot of people who would testify against him, and his own admittance that he did the cream and clear but didn't know it was steroids. And this is just what we know. The feds could have much more.

posted by justgary at 02:38 PM on June 09

If they had all of that, then what would be the point in getting Grimsley to wear a wire? If they had anything resembling probable cause, they could have searched his house or have subpoenaed his financial papers by now.

posted by bperk at 02:58 PM on June 09

If they had all of that, then what would be the point in getting Grimsley to wear a wire? Because they want to know it all. They want no stone left unturned. Remember, for some reason that totally escapes me, the political establishment has made this an issue. I'm guessing this has something to do with it.

posted by rocketman at 03:04 PM on June 09

Hamden, CT: Why are the FED investigating Bonds and not Raffy. Isn't Raffy the one who pointed his finger and also TESTED POSITIVE? Roger Cossack: We don't know who the Feds are investigating other than Bonds. Why is this? Bonds has a paper trail a mile long, connections to everyone in this mess, a lot of people who would testify against him, and his own admittance that he did the cream and clear but didn't know it was steroids. Bonds admitted to using without his knowledge. Palmeiro flat out denied using. We don't know Palmeiro's paper trail, connections, or the willingness of people to testify against him because nobody has been hounding him and writing books about it. Are the feds really letting the media drive this investigation? Something is smelly.

posted by BullpenPro at 03:31 PM on June 09

They might be trying to get Bonds and then Palmeiro. Two birds, one stone? The speculatory aspect of this is endless.

posted by jerseygirl at 03:36 PM on June 09

I've solved all of the problems with steroids/drugs/hgh in MLB for myself. I'm just not watching it any longer. I quit believing in it.

posted by commander cody at 03:43 PM on June 09

I believe in quitting, trying is the first step towards failure.

posted by HATER 187 at 03:52 PM on June 09

Bonds admitted to using without his knowledge. Sorry, this is misleading. Bonds has never admitted using steroids. He has admitted using stuff that looks just like the steroids that were being distributed, given to him by the guy who was distributing steroids that looked just like the stuff he was using. At best (or worst, you pick) the sentence should have been, "Bonds admitted to using something, but he didn't think it was what it might have been."

posted by BullpenPro at 04:04 PM on June 09

Jim Leyritz. Why would Leyritz come clean? Well, he was a teammate of Jason Grimsley's in 1999 and 2000. He could be in the group in my #3, or he could be #8.

posted by BullpenPro at 04:24 PM on June 09

Two birds, one stone? Only Raffy played for the Orioles. As for The King, Jim Leyritz, he may have come out about speed to explain that ugly jacket. THE PLAIN PEOPLE OF IRELAND: You're with us, patches.

posted by yerfatma at 04:38 PM on June 09

"Bonds admitted to using something, but he didn't think it was what it might have been." Correction. It should read "Bonds admitted to using something, but HE SAID he didn't think it was what it might have been." A minor quibble, I know, but a material distinction nonetheless.

posted by garfield at 04:39 PM on June 09

I cant wait to see this story on the History channels Declassified series. Will be nice to see all the names, places, and events that have been blacked out on all these FBI and government files.

posted by Folkways at 05:04 PM on June 09

Sorry, this is misleading. Bonds has never admitted using steroids. He has admitted using stuff that looks just like the steroids that were being distributed, given to him by the guy who was distributing steroids that looked just like the stuff he was using. Jesus, whatever. His trainer got the 'cream and clear' from the same guy that sold a 'cream and clear' steroid. What do you think the chances are that it wasn't a steroid? Bonds, trying to stay out of trouble, like a child, said he had no idea what it was. Of course, with the paper trail and witnesses, there's little doubt. This is so old, and I'll be glad when it blows over, and I keep telling myself to just let it go, but the way people play with words to allow bonds an 'out' is almost as funny as those that credit his entire career to steroids. Bonds did steroids. How much? Who knows. But we know there's a ton of evidence. There is no doubt. Or, for there to be doubt, you have to believe someone was framing bonds. We don't know Palmeiro's paper trail, connections, or the willingness of people to testify against him because nobody has been hounding him and writing books about it. You're right. We don't know. Which means there could be nothing, while we know at least some of what they have on bonds, which is a lot. Those are facts. I'll let others deal with the conspiracy theories.

posted by justgary at 07:08 PM on June 09

You're right. We don't know. Which means there could be nothing, while we know at least some of what they have on bonds, which is a lot. Those are facts. I'll let others deal with the conspiracy theories. We don't know? We don't know what about Palmeiro? That he FAILED a drug test? I thought that was perfectly clear. That is a FACT. Sheesh, everybody gets a free pass except for Bonds. THAT is what I'M tired of.

posted by donnnnychris at 07:13 PM on June 09

We don't know? We don't know what about Palmeiro? That he FAILED a drug test? I thought that was perfectly clear. That is a FACT. Sheesh, everybody gets a free pass except for Bonds. THAT is what I'M tired of. DC, you need to take a deap breath and read the thread again. Your comment has nothing to do with the conversation, nor anything I said (no matter how much bold you use), so I can't really respond. You're arguing with yourself.

posted by justgary at 07:34 PM on June 09

The whole game is just bogus anymore. The commish and the owners say one thing but mean another. If this thing ever comes to the clear and the feds start giving names there will be so many * the books will look like a constellation.

posted by PGHTOS at 10:27 PM on June 09

Sorry you can't respond justgary. Guess that shows what I'm saying is true. Thanks. And by the way, I read the thread. So don't try to deflect what you said.

posted by donnnnychris at 02:26 PM on June 10

Huh, dude, you-vs-me agression is so not welcome around here.

posted by qbert72 at 02:56 PM on June 10

Huh, dude, you-vs-me agression is so not welcome around here. I'll 2nd that.

posted by commander cody at 04:55 PM on June 10

Third that. Play nice, it's frigging Saturday.

posted by jerseygirl at 05:45 PM on June 10

Sorry you can't respond justgary. Guess that shows what I'm saying is true. Thanks. Geez that was the worse attempt at a comeback I've ever seen. Anyway, failing a drug test does not mean that it was steroids. There are many banned substances in the MLB, but not every single one of them is a steroid. What justgary was saying that there is a lot less to work with in Palmeiro's case then there is in Bonds' case. And the reason for that is probably because the media and everyone else hasn't been hounding him. In addition, Palmeiro did not get a free pass. His reputation has been tarnished and in case you haven't noticed, he isn't playing major league baseball anymore.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:27 PM on June 10

So don't try to deflect what you said. Oh, I stand by every word. I could be wrong, but not in any way you're arguing. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just can't argue against something I never said. This is the comment from bullpenpro I was responding to: That the feds are going after Bonds so hard is weird. I could see a concerted effort to nail Palmeiro since it is so easy to make a perjury connection, but what is the strong federal interest in Bonds? I disagree with that statement. Even though a perjury conviction is difficult to get, I can easily see why they believe they have as good a chance with bonds, maybe even better, than Palmeiro. Palmeiro failed a drug test. He's guilty. I never said he wasn't. I never have. Bonds did not fail a drug test, but the feds have a ton of evidence that he knowingly knew he was taking steroids. A little off topic. An assault victim identifies her attacker. That's strong evidence, and despite not much else, she can't put him away. And yet we know sometimes we end up with the wrong person going to jail. We also have cases where an assault victim has no idea who attacked them, but due to overwhelming evidence, someone is convicted. Palmeiro is guilty. We take that as fact. Even though the test could be wrong, we know the chances are small, so we don't question it. Bonds never failed a test (which could mean he was simply better at hiding it, or luckier). But there's a ton of evidence that he knowingly took steroids. I don't think the feds see any difference. I think they believe both are guilty, and both lied. They may only have the drug test on Palmeiro, and nothing else. They don't have the drug test on bonds, but, just from what we know to be true, have a lot of other evidence on bonds. If all they have against Palmeiro is the drug test, his defense might be simple. The test was wrong, I was framed, they mixed up the blood...etc. etc. While if there's as much evidence against bonds as it seems the feds have, it would be much more difficult to explain away. He might be stuck going back to "I never failing a test, no matter how much evidence there is against me". The problem with a perjury charge is that it has to be proven the defendent knowingly lied. Palmeiro can say, just as easily as bonds, the he had no idea he was taking steroids. In fact, that's what Palmeiro said after the positive test. He has no idea how steroids got in his system (if he's since changed his story, I have no idea). If all they have against Palmeiro is the positive drug test, but they have a strong case against bonds, and both deny knowing they too steroids, the case against bonds could be stronger than against Palmeiro. And all this lawyer talk whether bonds said he didn't know he was using steroids or said he didn't know if what the feds claim is steroids is what he was using is just semantics. If all the feds had was bonds' statement, it might mean something. In the big picture, if what we know is true, it doesn't. In announcing the panel's decision, Rep. Thomas A Davis III (R-Va.), the committee chairman, did not fully absolve Palmeiro. "We couldn't find any evidence of steroid use prior to his testimony," Davis said. "That's not a finding of innocence, but it's a finding that we could not substantiate perjury." A report released by the committee raises questions about Palmeiro's testimony that a tainted B-12 shot given to him by teammate Miguel Tejada had caused a positive steroid result. link Shows almost no evidence except failed test which Palmeiro claims came from a tainted B-12 shot. Erwin Cherminsky, a Duke University criminal law professor, said the excerpt he has read of the recently published book "Game of Shadows," which details extensive and knowing steroid use by Bonds, "certainly suggests he lied under oath." No failed test, but details exensive and knowing steroid use suggesting he lied under oath. Let's go back to bullpenpro's statement: That the feds are going after Bonds so hard is weird. I could see a concerted effort to nail Palmeiro since it is so easy to make a perjury connection, but what is the strong federal interest in Bonds? 2000 words later, I still disagree with this statement. Maybe you understand now, maybe not. Hey, I tried.

posted by justgary at 02:42 AM on June 11

Disagree with me, will you, justgary? I will just have to administer a little justice and pop some bold all over you. Okay, maybe no bold. There has been a lot of parsing here, though, and as careful as I have tried to be with my semantics, I'm clearly not doing that well with accuracy or getting my point (which is less a point than a question) across. I could see a concerted effort to nail Palmeiro since it is so easy to make a perjury connection My words, and I stand by them. It is easy to make a perjury "connection," not a perjury "conviction." Palmeiro said he never used steroids, and has a positive test for steroids. (Ying Yang: Anyway, failing a drug test does not mean that it was steroids. "Rafael Palmeiro's positive steroid test was for stanozolol, a powerful anabolic steroid that is not available in dietary supplements, according to a newspaper report."[Story]) No line straighter than that. Bonds said he may or may not have done something, but if he did he didn't know it, and since then there has been no connection so direct that he may not have been telling the truth. And it seems to me it's a lot easier to get a perjury conviction from a black-and-white statement like Raffy's than from a very gray one like Bonds'. They may only have the drug test on Palmeiro, and nothing else. Justgary's words, and I don't disagree. But why? Is it because none exist, or does Raffy have just as much of a paper trail as Bonds that has been totally overlooked in the Bonds-focused witch hunt? My question, and my issue, is this: Is the media driving this investigation by doing the feds' work for them? If so, I have an issue with that. Maybe it's just Bonds first because of what they have, and Raffy later -- I have less of a problem with that, so it remains to be seen how this plays out. But, if the purpose here is just to get Bonds out before he breaks anymore records, then this isn't a federal issue, it's a baseball issue, and it makes me wonder who is sleeping with who here. That's all.

posted by BullpenPro at 12:22 PM on June 11

Thanks BullpenPro I wasn't sure if it had been a steroid or not. However, in general just because there is a failed drug test does not mean it was for steroids. There are many substances banned by the MLB that aren't steroids but their use would result in a failed drug test.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 01:46 PM on June 11

You already know they won't. Pujols is (basically) universally liked, a good guy, and media friendly. Let me quote the comment about Dwight Gooden (#76 pitcher of all time) from "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract" (2001): "When a young player comes to the major leagues and has success right away, writers will almost always write about what a fine young man he is as well as a supreme talent. Never pay any attention to those articles or those descriptions. Albert Pujols is going through this now...people who didn't know Albert Pujols from Jack the Ripper six months ago and have never talked to him more than six feet from his locker are writing very sincerely about what an exceptional young man he is. Doc Gooden, his first three years in baseball, was supposed to be mature beyond his years, polite to everybody, and kind to stray kittens. Rickey Henderson was routinely described, from 1980 through 1982, as "a Jack Armstrong type kid"." "Sportswriters, despite their cynicism or because of it, desperately want to believe in athletes as heroes, an will project their hopes onto anyone who offers a blank slate. The problem with this is that, when the palyer turns out to be human and fallible, people fee betrayed. It is a disservice to athletes to try to make them more than they really are."

posted by grum@work at 08:25 PM on June 11

What a bunch of immature brats on here...I disagree with something and everybody has a fit. Pathetic. And do you really want me to go back and find every instance of you-vs.-me aggression on this site? It would take a while and be a pretty long post. So cool the schoolyard crap already.

posted by donnnnychris at 08:39 AM on June 12

donnnnnnnny, as the board is expanding and membership increasing by the day, we're trying to build a sense of decorum and order, regardless of happenings in the past either here or elsewhere. I am sure as you were posting that comment you gave some thought to perhaps your position was incorrect, seeing how everyone disagreed with you. I'm sorry this was a cause of frustration for you. I am certainly disappointed that you disapprove of our high road attempts, and think we're immature brats. I'd actually classify the actions in here as anything but immature and bratty. As members and moderators, we're all taking a personal stake in SpoFi and we're trying to make this a great little flourishing community. It won't be easy, and there are bound to be hiccups here and there. I certainly hope you'll want to stick around to contribute to the ongoing process of improvement. So yeah, please cut the schoolyard crap.

posted by jerseygirl at 09:36 AM on June 12

I agree with jerseygirl about proper decorum. I, for one, never post until properly attired in jacket and tie. As for what else I'm wearing......weeeeeelllll....... Just Kidding!!!!

posted by commander cody at 12:40 PM on June 12

It is easy to make a perjury "connection," not a perjury "conviction." Palmeiro said he never used steroids, and has a positive test for steroids. O.K. Thanks for explaining further. I think I understand what you're getting at now. And I too am curious. Is there nothing except the failed test for Palmeiro because he hid it so well, or they just didn't look very hard? I doubt we'll ever know.

posted by justgary at 12:32 AM on June 14

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