The fact that Thomas was acquitted on two perjury charges is very significant. It may not be significant for Thomas, but it is significant in showing that the jury did not understand the law.

Basically, the jury determined that Tammy Thomas did NOT receive “banned or illegal performance-enhancing drugs” (i.e. legally-defined anabolic steroids) from Patrick Arnold. (Count 2)

They also determined that Tammy Thomas did NOT “ever get an anabolic steroid from anybody” (at least “up to the time of March 2002″). (Count 5)

But then they believed she was GUILTY of TAKING STEROIDS. (Count 4)

How did Tammy Thomas take steroids if she didn’t EVER get them from ANYBODY?!

The only other evidence of steorid use provided by the government was the medical testimony of virilization experienced by Thomas and the positive steroid test on March 14, 2002.

Concluding Thomas used anabolic steroids based on a positive steroid test for norbolethone is inconsistent with their verdict on other counts. The jury agreed that Thomas was GUILTY of receiving products from Patrick Arnold (which must refer THG and norobolethone since Arnold was the only person to have synthesized these substances at the time) but agreed with the defense that these were not “illegal or performance-enhancing” (i.e. NOT legally classified as anabolic steroids at the time). So how could the jury (theoretically and/or legally) use this as proof of steroid use if they determined that substances received from Patrick Arnold were not “illegal or performance-enhancing”?

Using evidence of virilization as proof of steroid use is also problematic due to the fact that there is and has been a legal definition of anabolic steroids and a pharmacological definition of anabolic steroids. (Much to the chagrin of prosecutors, their star witness Patrick Arnold offered testimony to this distinction in court.) There were dozens of “dietary supplements” that could legally be purchased at many sports nutrition stores prior to 2005 that could have caused significant virilization in women using significant dosages of these supplements. Certainly they were pharmacological androgens but they were not classified as anabolic steroids until the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 was enacted.

So, for the jury to accept the virilization as proof of steroid use (while at the same time accepting defense’s distinction between legal and pharmaceutical definition of anabolic steroids) is inconsistent.

The bottom line is that the jury was confused; they did not know or understand the law and rendered a factually and legally inconsistent verdict.

Is this good news for Tammy Thomas? No necessarily. Defense attorney Philip Sweitzer tells me California permits legally and factually inconsistent verdicts unlike many other states.

“Nor need a verdict be legally consistent. The jury’s prerogative to render a legally inconsistent verdict is unquestioned by any authority. Jury unanimity, not consistency of theory, is the touchstone of a valid verdict. [Citations.] . . . Once it is clear that the jury’s intent is to acquit, the form of the verdict is not important; it is the intention to acquit that triggers the mandatory duty to receive and record the verdict and acquit the prisoner.” (Bigelow, supra, 208 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 1134-1135.)

Now that perjury trial of Tammy Thomas has concluded, it will be interesting to see how the government’s “new anti-doping weapon” is used against Barry Bonds and other athletes.

I want to thank attorney Philip Sweitzer for sharing his legal knowledge on this case as well as many others.

Under federal sentencing guidelines, Thomas faces a sentence that likely would range from probation to about two or three years in federal prison for the perjury convictions.

Thomas was specifically accused of lying to the grand jury about using steroids and obtaining performance enhancing drugs from Illinois chemist Patrick Arnold, a key Balco figure who pleaded guilty to manufacturing designer steroids and providing them to elite athletes through the now-defunct Peninsula laboratory.

Tammy Thomas already received a lifetime ban from competitive cycling for doping violations several years. This effectively ended her career as a cyclist. The conviction for perjury in the government’s case against Thomas may have effectively ended the pursuit of a second career as an attorney (“Tammy Thomas found guilty of perjury,” April 4).

“I already had one career taken away from me,” she yelled. “Look me in the eye. You can’t do it.”

Thomas then turned to a prosecutor and shouted, “Look me in the eye …. You like to destroy people’s lives.”

 The government has succeeded in its unstated goal of making an example of an athlete using steroids. Is this justice served?

Thomas, whose case is the first to go to trial in the five-and-a-half-year Balco investigation, was charged with making false statements to a grand jury in 2003 about substances she is suspected of receiving from Arnold. For the jury to convict Thomas, it must conclude that her statements were false and that they were material to the government’s investigation.

I am certain that Tammy Thomas is anxiously awaiting the verdict. Not only is her freedom in jeopardy but also a future career as an attorney. She has been silent about the case and has not spoken to the media; however, she has been very outspoken in her fashion statements outside the courtroom where she was photographed wearing a San Francisco Giants baseball cap, no doubt in support of other athletes who have been targeted for perjury by this federal investigation.

The Steroid Report feels that Thomas’ defense attorney Ethan Balogh has successfully created reasonable doubt with his arguments.

The government’s case against cyclist Tammy Thomas for perjury is surprisingly weak. The government’s case is largely based on the assertion that Tammy Thomas ingested “anabolic steroids” and/or “controlled substances” and/or “banned substances” obtained from chemist Patrick Arnold and she lied about it.

The inconvenient fact is that tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) and norbolethone were NOT legally classified as “anabolic steroids” until the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 was passed; Norbolethone and THG were two of the 26 compounds added to the Controlled Substances Act with this legislation. Consequently, THG and norbolethone were NOT controlled substances until the passage of the legislation. Furthermore, THG and norbolethone were not on the WADA/IOC banned substances list at the time.

Of course, not everyone agrees. Steroid Nation feels Balogh’s statements in court in defense of Tammy Thomas were simply “ludicrous.”

It irritates this writer that a lawyer would argue that point in court without his tongue turning black and his eyes bleeding out.  As ludicrous as a woman shaving every morning, not thinking she is taking an anabolic androgenic steroid.

However, juries do not hinge deliberations on the issue of ludicrous statements.

The statements upset Dr. Gaffney because they are medically (pharmacologically) inaccurate; this is true. As I commented, his statements about THG and norbolethone may be scientifically correct, but not necessarily legally correct.

But this is a legal case and the arguments are legal arguments. THG and Norbolethone were NOT LEGALLY classified as anabolic steroids. Read the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 – THG and norbolethone are not included. Then read the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 and notice that this amendment LEGALLY CHANGED the status of THG and Norbolethone to “Anabolic Steroids.”

 Admittedly, a steroid is a steroid is a steroid. No amount of semantic bickering or legal lobbying will change that. But for better or worse, criminal justice is deliberated by rule of law (not pharmaceutical rules) and juries are instructed to base their verdicts on the law no matter how ludicrous the arbitrary legal definitions may appear to them.

As I further commented, legal definitions don’t change pharmacological definitions. But they matter in the criminal justice system.

The arbirariness of legal definitions regarding steroids is really quite silly. Over the past decade, we have learned that a pharmacologically defined (anabolic-androgenic) steroid can be legally defined as (1) a “dietary supplement”, (2) an “anabolic steroid”, and (3) an “unapproved new drug.”

The legal status obviously does nothing to change the pharmacological definition. But the legal defintion (no matter how arbitrary) has very important implications in our criminal justice system.

It will be very interesting to see if the jury accepts defense attorney Ethan Balogh’s argument, in whole or in part.

Slated for publication in September under the Skyhorse imprint, the book’s working title is “BALCO: The Straight Dope on Barry Bonds, Marion Jones and What We Can Do To Save Sports.” Conte, in conjunction with co-author Nathan Jendrick, promises to share “the dirt, the drugs, the doses, the names, dates and places, and a ‘prescription’ for a brighter future.”

He promises the “complete truth in its honest, unadulterated and raw form” and says he is “ready to tell the world everything.”

Most people will be interested in hearing “the dirt” on the various athletes allegedly involved in recent years’ doping scandals. But my attention will be on  what Conte has to say about IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitsky. As Jeff Novitsky testifies on the stand against cyclist Tammy Thomas in her perjury (doping) trial, Victor Conte is working with co-author Nathan Jendrick to pen a book that is highly critical of Novitsky. Forget about the athletes like Barry Bonds or Marion Jones that have doped; Conte has told me that Novitsky is the biggest cheater in the entire BALCO steroid scandal is Jeff Novitsky. The NY Daily News confirms that Novitsky is a target.

One of Conte’s biggest targets is likely to be Jeff Novitzky, the federal agent who sniffed out the BALCO conspiracy in 2003 and has tenaciously chased down every twist in it ever since.

Conte claims Novitzky, who is on the witness stand Monday in the government’s prosecution of cyclist Tammy Thomas (the first BALCO athlete to refuse a plea bargain and take her case to trial), fabricated a confession he says Conte gave on the day of the BALCO raid, and lied in court documents.

The more we learn about doping related events like the BALCO scandal and the Floyd Landis doping scandal, the more we realize that we live in a society where “winning at all costs” is the only standard.  This not only applies to the “dopers” but particularly to the “anti-dopers.” It’s all about winning – not about following the rules, pursuing justice, leveling the playing field, right or wrong or integrity in sports. Jeff Novitsky, WADA, USADA, etc. simply want to win and will seemingly use any unfair advantage and break the rules to do so.

The inconvenient fact is that tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) and norbolethone were NOT legally classified as “anabolic steroids” until the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 was passed; Norbolethone and THG were two of the 26 compounds added to the Controlled Substances Act with this legislation. Consequently, THG and norbolethone were NOT controlled substances until the passage of the legislation. Furthermore, THG and norbolethone were not on the WADA/IOC banned substances list at the time.

So, it appears that Tammy Thomas was, literally and legally, telling the truth in her statements.

THG and norbolethone were not anabolic steroids at the time.

THG and norbolethone were not controlled substances at the time.

THG and norbolethone were not of the banned substances list at the time.

In addition, Thomas purchased THG and norbolethone from a prominent “supplement manufacturer” (Pat Arnold develops supplements for the popular sports supplement company Ergopharm). Most people generally believe they are buying supplements when they buy products from a dietary supplement manufacturer.

There is no shortage of reasonable doubt. I am surprised the government would ever bring such a weak perjury case to federal court; it shows their obsession with targeting high profile elite athletes who have allegedly used anabolic steroids. At the very least the government could have found a case where anabolic steroids (by legal definition) were involved and not just “unapproved new drug(s)!”

I’m wondering if the government will file perjury charges against IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitsky since he is apparently falsely asserting that THG and norbolethone were anabolic steroids, controlled substances and banned substances!

He also said he wanted to call athletes because only if they’d known they were receiving steroids (i.e. controlled substances) would there be a money laundering charge, giving the IRS a reason to be involved.

If Tammy Thomas is acquitted, how will this affect the Barry Bonds case? Regardless of the outcome, many observers feel the case will help Barry Bonds’ attorneys.

Jeff Novitzky, an Internal Revenue Service special agent and a lead steroids investigator, is expected to play a starring government role in both trials. His appearance at Thomas’ trial could give Bonds’ legal team an idea of how to question him.

“The outcome of the Thomas case will inform their decision on whether they should go to trial or not,” University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said. “It’s a good road map.”

Maybe an acquittal will finally result in the general public’s disgust with the government’s steroid witch hunt?

Novitzky began searching through the trash behind the BALCO offices, learning when the company set garbage out and when it was collected. Each Monday night for a year, he hauled BALCO’s rubbish to a well-lit area nearby and sifted through it, he testified.

He found copies of e-mail messages and copious quantities of empty needle wrappers, he said. The latter led him to a medical-waste company where he found evidence of syringes, vials and performance-enhancing drugs that apparently originated at BALCO.

One of the “trash runs,” as he put it, yielded evidence that BALCO was buying epitestosterone from a company in the Midwest, he said.

Individuals closely involved in other federal steroid investigations have told me that evidence collected from the defendant’s trash was crucial to the prosecution’s case against the steroid dealer. The same was true with BALCO (“IRS agent: BALCO waste littered with drug evidence,” March 28).

The search of an individual (or business’) curbside trash does not require a warrant. The U.S. Supreme court has determined in California v. Greenwood that curbside trash is not subject to Fourth Amendment protections.

Court held that under the Fourth Amendment, no warrant was necessary to search the trash because Greenwood had no reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Although Greenwood had hidden the trash from view by putting in opaque plastic bags and expected it to be on the street only a short time before it would be taken to the dump, the Court believed it to be “common knowledge” that garbage at the side of the street is “readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public.” Moreover, Greenwood had left the trash there expressly so that the trash collector, a stranger, could take it. Quoting Katz v. United States, the court concluded that “what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.”

The BALCO dumpster was one small thing that contributed to the downfall of the steroid distribution ring at BALCO. (That, and of course an IRS Special Agent’s obsession with BALCO that developed over the course of 20 years.)

Here’s the problem: The proposed legislation would re-classify HGH as a Schedule III drug, increasing penalties for its illegal use and limiting access in several ways. The penalties are fine, the parents agree. Limiting access for growth-challenged kids is the deal breaker.

The Champs, for example, would need to go to Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan once every month for a new prescription, which would last 30 days. Currently with each visit, they are able to obtain a three-month supply of HGH, with two refills. They only need to go once every nine months. Meanwhile, their insurance co-pays would triple for the extra doses.

Bondy blames the athletes for this problem. However, the immediate culprit is obviously Congress’ ill-informed attempts to eliminate steroids in sport by expanding the Controlled Substances Act to include non-addictive human growth hormone.

I do not understand why Congress thinks scheduling performance enhancing drugs is an effective tool for eliminating steroids in sports. I am not aware of many any professional athletes who have been prosecuted under the Anabolic Steroids Control Act. I can not name a single athlete who has failed a doping test in the United States and was criminally sanctioned as a result. History tells us that the Controlled Substances Act is ineffective at punishing professional athletes who use steroids. Including human growth hormone on the Controlled Substances list will only be another failure in more ways than one.

Now, perjury is another story. This seems to be a highly effective tool for punishing athletes who use steroids based on perjury investigations involving Barry Bonds, Marion Jones, Tammy Thomas, and Roger Clemens.