Bonds exposed: Shadows details superstar slugger's steroid use

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

It's not true one requires a positive steroids test to prove guilt. In a court of a law, a variety of circumstantial evidence can be significantly more compelling to a judge or jury than a lab test.

If, as a defendant in a court case, Mark McGwire chose to take the stand and testify as he did before Congress, most juries and judges would use his evasive answers as evidence of guilt. If, according to past record, McGwire repeatedly stated he never used steroids but, when put under oath in case, he refused to repeat the stance and repeatedly tried to change the subject and gave evasive answers, odds are the jury would find him guilty (Note: if in a court case he testified as defendant, there would likely be much evidence already presented against him. Defendants are usually advised no to testify).

Sammy Sosa's 'No entender' act would likely hold up simularly well in court of law. (Golly gee, do think the prosecution might submit video tapes of Sosa conversing in English?)

In the Olympics, athletes have been suspended for illegal drug use without a positve drug test. It happened this last Winter Olympics ... In an other Olympics case (Austrian skiiing team), there were no positive steroids test that I'm aware of, but the team may be penalized becaused they hired time with a banned coach and because some skiiers impeded investigation (including literally throwing out the window labratory material). The likely will be punished, perhaps severely, even if there are no positive drug tests, as the circumstantial offenses are considered significant enough and evidence enough of bad behavior. According to some Olympic officials, the hiring of the banned coach is reason enough for punishment.