What does say something is a report that appeared in the New York Times early Thursday morning. In what could be an incredibly big blow to his defense in his upcoming perjury trial, the paper is saying that authorities have some urine samples from Bonds that tested positive for steroids.
A person who has reviewed the evidence said that the authorities detected anabolic steroids in urine samples linked to Bonds that they gathered in connection with their investigation. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity.So while Bonds may have dodged a bullet with the clear not being considered a steroid at the time he was allegedly using it, this will be a little harder to explain. After all, Bonds is going to trial on charges of perjury because he told a grand jury in 2003 that not only had he never taken the cream or the clear, but that he had never taken any other steroid of any kind.
The evidence could be significant because questions have been raised about whether the "clear," which like the "cream" was created to avoid detection in drug tests, was technically a steroid under federal law when Bonds testified before a federal grand jury in November 2003.
A positive urine test would say otherwise, which would mean that Bonds lied to the grand jury. Now, I'm not some fancy pants lawyer, but I'm pretty sure getting caught lying is never a good thing when you're facing perjury charges.
Also, to make matters worse for Bonds, the FBI stormed into the home of his former trainer Greg Anderson's mother-in-law. While there's no way of knowing whether they found any incriminating evidence in the raid, it's just as likely that they weren't even looking for any in the first place.
Odds are they're just trying to make Anderson's life a living hell so they can get him to testify against Bonds in their case against him.