Feds to get MLB steroid test results

[21]

More than 100 players who tested positive in 2003 are about to become part of the government's case....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/12/27/steroids.tests.ap/index.html

Bonds has always maintained he never tested positive for illegal drug use, but federal investigators demanded to see the 2003 test results for Bonds and nine other players. When they raided the testing labs for those 10 results, investigators also seized computer files containing the test results of nearly 100 other players not named in the governments subpoena and warrants.

The Major League Baseball Players Union protested the seizure as a violation of the players' constitutional rights.

Michael Weiner, general counsel for the Major League Baseball Players Union, declined to immediately comment, wanting first to review the decision.

 

[spnited]

Don't you think the MLBPA is going to appeal this one all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary?

 

[21]

Don't you think the MLBPA is going to appeal this one all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary?

Sure they will....but even if the ruling is overturned, wouldn't you bet the names will get out anyway?

 

[The Big Ragu]

Don't you think the MLBPA is going to appeal this one all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary?

Sure they will....but even if the ruling is overturned, wouldn't you bet the names will get out anyway?

I'm actually surprised that nothing nothing very definitive ever leaked from those tests. Between the different layers and the fact that all of the players who came up positive were informed, the info passed through enough hands to where there might have been some leaks.

I'm not sure how I feel about the Feds being able to use this info. If Bonds flat out lied in front of a grand jury, it's OK by me if they slap him around for it. But something doesn't seem right about the Feds being able to raid the lab, take the results and then use them against the players, who took part in that test voluntarily and with the understanding that the results would be confidential.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Of course none of that would be a problem if those players hadn't, ahem, violated the law by buying and using steroids that are otherwise illegal for those of us not fortunate enough to have a professional baseball contract.

 

[slappy4428]

Of course none of that would be a problem if those players hadn't, ahem, violated the law by buying and using steroids that are otherwise illegal for those of us not fortunate enough to have a professional baseball contract.

Thank you...

The deal the union made was with MLB not the federal government...

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

Don't you think the MLBPA is going to appeal this one all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary?

Sure they will....but even if the ruling is overturned, wouldn't you bet the names will get out anyway?

I'm actually surprised that nothing nothing very definitive ever leaked from those tests. Between the different layers and the fact that all of the players who came up positive were informed, the info passed through enough hands to where there might have been some leaks.

I'm not sure how I feel about the Feds being able to use this info. If Bonds flat out lied in front of a grand jury, it's OK by me if they slap him around for it. But something doesn't seem right about the Feds being able to raid the lab, take the results and then use them against the players, who took part in that test voluntarily and with the understanding that the results would be confidential.

I don't know that it would stand up to SCOTUS review --- it seems like it exceeds the terms of the search warrant, so the information should have been thrown out. Really surprised that the 9th CCA ruled this way --- it's usually the most liberal of the federal circuits and thus the most likely to exclude evidence like this.

 

[cranberry]

... something doesn't seem right about the Feds being able to raid the lab, take the results and then use them against the players, who took part in that test voluntarily and with the understanding that the results would be confidential.

Agree. The seizure was far, far too broad if merited at all. The government is assaulting the 4th Amendment and much of the public (as well an ignorant minority in the press I'm afraid) is OK with it on because the victims in this case are just a bunch of steroid-taking baseball players.

This is from the AP story:

However, federal investigators demanded to see the 2003 test results for Bonds, Gary Sheffield, who was recently traded by the New York Yankees, the Yankees' Jason Giambi, and seven other players.

When they raided the testing labs for those 10 results, investigators also seized computer files containing the test results of nearly 100 other players not named in the government's subpoena and warrants.

Here's what Fehr said:

"Under a search warrant seeking information about only 11 baseball players, confidential records for every player were seized, along with confidential records of thousands of other people with no connection to baseball, including many with no connection to sports. The government seeks to retain all of this private information about thousands of people who were not the subject of any criminal inquiry.

"In his dissent, Judge Thomas said that under this ruling 'no laboratory, hospital or health care facility could guarantee the confidentiality of records.' That is something which should be of serious concern to all Americans.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

The players union is trying to keep information about illegal activity covered up. If players didn't want to get caught they shouldn't have voluntarily tested. Dumb ****s.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Bull****. If the Feds raided a lab for files on 11 guys at Home Depot and carted off records for 300 other people all hell would break loose. The first judge who heard the case would order the return of the records not covered in the search warrant.

Funny how people want athletes treated like everybody else right up until there's a chance to smear somebody.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Yeah, because athletes get treated like everyone else all the time. Allllllllll the time.

And is it know that the 300 other people at Home Depot have evidence of criminal activity in those files? If so, it's fair game.

 

[cranberry]

Yeah, because athletes get treated like everyone else all the time. Allllllllll the time.

And is it know that the 300 other people at Home Depot have evidence of criminal activity in those files? If so, it's fair game.

So you're OK with the government seizing files on mass groups of people without any reason? Just wondering, because that's what it sounds like you're saying here.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

If it's known that those files contain information of criminal activity, yes. But then, that would seem to be reason enough.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Of course none of that would be a problem if those players hadn't, ahem, violated the law by buying and using steroids that are otherwise illegal for those of us not fortunate enough to have a professional baseball contract.

Thank you...

The deal the union made was with MLB not the federal government...

No, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are deals we make between ourselves and the federal government, and if any of these guys, who took the tests anonymously at least in part because both sides realized that the tests had to pass constitutional muster, get nailed because of the 9th circuit ruling, then their lawyers have a glorious grounds for appeal.
This one's going across the street from the Capitol, where Fredo's bowling team will uphold this stupidity.

 

[Armchair_QB]

If it's known that those files contain information of criminal activity, yes. But then, that would seem to be reason enough.

If it's not covered in the warrant, they can't take it. Pretty ****ing simple.

 

[cranberry]

If it's known that those files contain information of criminal activity, yes. But then, that would seem to be reason enough.

So, if your newspaper has a drug-testing program and the feds decide to seize results of those who failed (for pot, heroin, cocaine, whatever), would you consider that appropriate?

 

[Ralph Waldo Henderson]

If it's known that those files contain information of criminal activity, yes. But then, that would seem to be reason enough.

If it's not covered in the warrant, they can't take it. Pretty ****ing simple.

Not quite. If a policeman shows up at a business with a warrant to seize something they know is there, but "stumble" upon something else they can seize that too. The question for the courts is whether they truly stumbled upon it or were using the original warrant as a way to get more evidence they couldn't get on the warrant.

 

[Ralph Waldo Henderson]

If it's known that those files contain information of criminal activity, yes. But then, that would seem to be reason enough.

So, if your newspaper has a drug-testing program and the feds decide to seize results of those who failed (for pot, heroin, cocaine, whatever), would you consider that appropriate?

My former newspaper did have a drug testing program. If there were some court case that caused the feds to seize the results, there's a simple way to avoid any problems: Don't use illegal drugs.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

If it's known that those files contain information of criminal activity, yes. But then, that would seem to be reason enough.

So, if your newspaper has a drug-testing program and the feds decide to seize results of those who failed (for pot, heroin, cocaine, whatever), would you consider that appropriate?

Is it public knowledge that there's a lot of criminal activity that could help an investigation in those files? Also, there's not much distinction made between the size of the scandals and investigations. If my company is as big as MLB, with a reputation for employing drug users, then yes. But since most companies (including mine) aren't, and typically don't, I don't see how the feds would care to begin wth.

 

[cranberry]

If it's known that those files contain information of criminal activity, yes. But then, that would seem to be reason enough.

So, if your newspaper has a drug-testing program and the feds decide to seize results of those who failed (for pot, heroin, cocaine, whatever), would you consider that appropriate?

My former newspaper did have a drug testing program. If there were some court case that caused the feds to seize the results, there's a simple way to avoid any problems: Don't use illegal drugs.

Thanks Nancy Reagan, but that doesn't answer the question. Why do you think that the government doesn't need a reason to search an individual's employment records?