ILNews

Keeping baseball legal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis sports law attorney who was on the prosecution’s legal team at the start of the baseball steroid case against Barry Bonds recently witnessed the final “at bat” for the prosecution and defense in a California courtroom.

Attorney William Bock III of Kroger Gardis & Regas traveled to the Northern District of California in San Francisco in March for the trial of the 46-year-old baseball player accused of lying to a grand jury about whether he used steroids or growth hormone during his career.

bock-william-bondsstory-15col.jpg Attorney William Bock III in Indianapolis serves as general counsel for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. He traveled to California for part of the recent steroid-use trial against baseball player Barry Bonds. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

A seven-time most valuable player in Major League Baseball’s National League, Bonds last played for the San Francisco Giants in 2007 and broke Hank Aaron’s career home run record with 762. But this federal case has tarnished his career and helped dub the last decade as the steroid era in sports.

“This all brought a lot of attention to the problem of drugs in sports and has led to more resolve in the profession and sports generally,” said Bock.

The three-week trial in March concluded a long process by federal prosecutors working to prove that Bonds used steroids during his baseball career and then lied about it under oath.

Prosecutors obtained one conviction on obstruction of justice, the result of Bonds giving intentionally evasive, false, or misleading statements while testifying before a grand jury investigating the performance-enhancing drug use in 2003. Jurors determined that Bonds went out of his way to avoid answering the question of whether his personal trainer at the time had ever injected him.

U.S. Judge Susan Illston declared a mistrial on the other three counts Bonds faced that alleged he lied to a grand jury when he said he never used drugs. Bonds faces a possible sentence of 10 years in federal prison, but he is expected to receive a lighter penalty. A sentencing hearing will be held later this year.

No decision has been made on retrying Bonds on those other counts.

“This case is about upholding one of the most fundamental principles in our system of justice — the obligation of every witness to provide truthful and direct testimony in judicial proceedings,” U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag in San Francisco said in a statement about the case. “In the United States, taking an oath and promising to testify truthfully is a serious matter. We cannot ignore those who choose instead to obstruct justice.”

Bock’s involvement stemmed from his role as general counsel for the Colorado-based U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, where he has served as general counsel since September 2007. The USADA is an independent entity that investigates and prosecutes drug use cases in Olympic and Paralympic sports. Bock has represented the agency when athletes have been accused of violating sport drug testing rules.

Bock’s work put him in the pages of a best-selling non-fiction book published in March 2006 – “Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports.” The authors, two San Francisco Chronicle sport reporters, interviewed Bock for the book.

“Bill is well-schooled on what this is all about and was critical in getting this to where we are today,” said Mark Fainaru-Wada, one of the book’s two authors who covered the Bonds trial and met with Bock while he was in California. “He has the vantage point that others don’t and knows all the players and strategy at the heart of these cases.”

Specifically, Bock represented Dr. Larry Bowers, one of the prosecution’s early key witnesses who testified about the drugs at issue in the case. Bowers was asked as a private citizen to go on the raid that was a precursor to the trial, and the government has relied on his expertise through the years.

“My role was to prepare him and anticipate the questions he might get while on the stand, and I basically got a sense of where the case was headed based on the sorts of questions being asked,” Bock said.

The case started strong, with his client’s testimony being one of the key points closing out that first week, Bock said. But some conflicting testimony later in the proceedings from the defense proved to be a difficult hurdle to overcome, leading to the judge’s mistrial ruling on three of the counts.

Bock said he found one of the most interesting parts of the trial to be the discussion about a side effect of steroid use on a person’s temperament, known as “Roid” Rage – a condition that had been associated with Bonds. The lead defense attorney wanted Bowers to testify that it is difficult to be clear about correlation the data shows between when episodes of anger occurred and when Bonds took the drugs. That, however, proved counterproductive. Instead, Bock’s client testified that there is a correlation between those periods.

“That was a situation where the cross examiner just wished he hadn’t asked the question, because he got an answer he didn’t expect,” Bock said. “That was one of the moments where you just have to smile.”

Bock said that some reporters attending the trial told him it seemed more like biology class than a courtroom baseball legal drama, but they agreed that his client held his own while on the stand.

“He laid the framework for the government to prove its case later on,” he said.

The Bonds trial was the last case in a long line of litigation related to the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative that Bock has been involved with through the USADA. Overall, the USADA was involved in litigation involving 24 athletes. The last of the USADA BALCO cases ended in mid-March, when track and field coach and agent Mark Block received a 10-year USADA suspension from all coaching and representation of athletes for violating anti-doping rules by administering and supplying what’s known as “the clear” and “the cream.”

Bock has been involved in cases that haven’t included lab-result evidence, and the USADA had to use photo or non-scientific information to prove its cases – setting new legal ground. But the Bonds case, he said, was the most high profile and interesting, in part, because of its unique approach.

“This differed from our cases on the standpoint that many of the athletes we’ve dealt with were involved firsthand, not like Bonds who was insulated through someone else. That made his case more difficult to prosecute,” Bock said. “From our perspective, this is a great victory for clean sports. Hopefully, it’s another example that if a federal agent asks you questions, you’d better be truthful. This all brought a lot of attention to the problem of drugs in sports, and has led to more resolve in the profession and sports generally.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT