Maybe Conte is telling the truth - he never gave Bonds steroids. He gave them to Greg Anderson, who then gave them to Bonds. So technically, Conte didn't give them to Barry.
i'm ready for the open investigation on the following topics: 1. middle infielders not actually tagging 2B on a force play; 2. spitters; 3. scuffing; 4. pitching with petroleum jelly; 5. the effect of "greenies" in the 70's and 80's; 6. WHAT THE GM'S KNEW ABOUT STEROID USE IN THE 90'S AND TURNED A BLIND EYE TO; 7. addictive chemicals put in the nachos at MMP
Not according to this USA Today article from January 2005: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-01-12-steroid-policy_x.htm "Evolution of the steroid policy 2002 • Before 2002, Major League Baseball had no official policy on steroid use among players. As part of a collective bargaining agreement, players and owners agree to hold survey testing in 2003. If more than 5% of results from the anonymous tests are positive, formal testing and penalties will be put into place the next year." EDIT - Actually, I guess they could have been banned, but the banning not enforced.
they were against the law...so i don't think the "you didn't have a policy" argument holds. OH, and by the way....the key guy they appoint to investigate this deal is the CEO of Disney...who owns ESPN...who has MLB programming on constantly in the summer! AWESOME!!!
I'm saying it now, pete rose knew the consequences for gambling which is banishment from baseball. its apples and oranges.
Then USA Today is an even sh!ttier paper than I thought. In a memo titled: Baseball's Drug Policy & Prevention Program, Fay Vincent said the following in 1991: “the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited … This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids.” Here's the full text: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/format/memos20051109?memo=1991&num=1
okay, I actually heard mitch albom on sports reporters reference that memo two weeks ago. Is it an actual rule?