Author Topic: PEDs & "Which office do I go to get my reputation back?"  (Read 515 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17106
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
I hate to write something that could be confused with excusing PED use, but I've been appalled at the leaking of names off the anonymous testing list from the 2003 season.  The federal warrant served on Quest diagnostics and another testing company authorized the seizing of information, including samples, of 10 players connected to the BALCO investigation.  The feds seized a list of 104 players who had tested positive in the anonymous testing program that the union and MLB had agreed to as a trigger for an enhanced PED testing program.  Individuals connected either to the grand jury, the court, or DOJ then selectively leaked the names of a few of the ballplayers on the list in order to . . . what, titillate, embarrass, defame . . . whatever, it was likely in violation of the law and certainly unprofessional.  Names were leaked despite several courts having ruled that the seizure was illegal and inadmissible in court.

Of course, someone will point out one of the names was David Ortiz, whose name was leaked to NYT just before he was to play in NYC.  I also believe Sosa and A-Rod were leaked. All big fish.  Just smeared by government because some overzealous person thought the names that were never supposed to be disclosed were never going to be disclosed.  

The government has finally decided not to appeal its case and will return the list.  Some of you might remember a famous quote by Ronald Reagan's secretary of labor, Ray Donovan. After he left office, he was indicted for larceny and fraud in a conspiracy with the NYC mob over a construction contract.  He was acquitted of wrong doing, and, upon exiting the court, said, "Which office do I go to get my reputation back?"  So, which paper will salvage the names of the players whose anonymity was lost due to officers of the court unethically leaking illegally seized information?

By the way, I know my doctor uses Quest for my blood work, which has in the past given indications on a test of a condition that further testing established I did not have.  I would certainly not have liked the government to go a little broader in its sweep of Quest and then, for some reason, use or disclose this information that gave a false indication of my health.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27487
  • Hell yes!
I hate to write something that could be confused with excusing PED use, but I've been appalled at the leaking of names off the anonymous testing list from the 2003 season.  The federal warrant served on Quest diagnostics and another testing company authorized the seizing of information, including samples, of 10 players connected to the BALCO investigation.  The feds seized a list of 104 players who had tested positive in the anonymous testing program that the union and MLB had agreed to as a trigger for an enhanced PED testing program.  Individuals connected either to the grand jury, the court, or DOJ then selectively leaked the names of a few of the ballplayers on the list in order to . . . what, titillate, embarrass, defame . . . whatever, it was likely in violation of the law and certainly unprofessional.  Names were leaked despite several courts having ruled that the seizure was illegal and inadmissible in court.

Of course, someone will point out one of the names was David Ortiz, whose name was leaked to NYT just before he was to play in NYC.  I also believe Sosa and A-Rod were leaked. All big fish.  Just smeared by government because some overzealous person thought the names that were never supposed to be disclosed were never going to be disclosed.  

The government has finally decided not to appeal its case and will return the list.  Some of you might remember a famous quote by Ronald Reagan's secretary of labor, Ray Donovan. After he left office, he was indicted for larceny and fraud in a conspiracy with the NYC mob over a construction contract.  He was acquitted of wrong doing, and, upon exiting the court, said, "Which office do I go to get my reputation back?"  So, which paper will salvage the names of the players whose anonymity was lost due to officers of the court unethically leaking illegally seized information?

By the way, I know my doctor uses Quest for my blood work, which has in the past given indications on a test of a condition that further testing established I did not have.  I would certainly not have liked the government to go a little broader in its sweep of Quest and then, for some reason, use or disclose this information that gave a false indication of my health.


I used to work for QD, the company has a strong culture of doing what it can and should to protect patient confidentiality, but court orders must be complied with.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 17106
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
I used to work for QD, the company has a strong culture of doing what it can and should to protect patient confidentiality, but court orders must be complied with.
Yes, I'm not hostile to Quest on this at all.  I'm hostile to the Federal investigators who seized the list illegally and then illegally leaked names off of it.  I hold DOJ to a higher ethical standard, even if they thought it was colorably legal to hold the list (they did win one appeal of the seizure before one 3 judge panel that was reversed by the entire court). 

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8384
I mean, on one hand, I'm glad that I know who some of the main roiders are, but on the other hand, it was completely illegal for them to do. So yeah, it really does suck for them - but then again, they broke the rules, so I don't feel too bad (it's not like they were innocent). It'd be like if cops entered your house without a search warrant and found you doing something illegal and then arrested you - you were doing something illegal, but they shouldn't have been able to catch you based on that.