Patrick Arnold of Ergopharm tells me that he is angered by the conviction of cyclist Tammy Thomas today. She was convicted of three counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. In his email, Pat tells MESO-Rx:
I feel saddened and disgusted by Tammy’s conviction. Its been almost FIVE YEARS since Balco. Why are we still going after athletes? How can a wound ever heal if we keep sticking our fingers in it? They say its for the kids. Well how does keeping steroids in the news over and over again do anything except arouse their curiousity? This is not about the kids. Its about the careers and egos of federal politicians, prosecutors, and law enforcement agents.
When the jury read the conviction in court today, Tammy Thomas addressed the prosecution and jury that convicted her (“Cyclist Tammy Thomas convicted in steroids case,” April 4). Read more
Everytime a steroid source is busted, there is considerable internet buzz about whether the source will “rat out” anyone. And everyone involved in the underground steroid black market wants to know whether their colleagues, their customers, or their sources will turn their name(s) over to federal/state investigators. Internet entrepreneurs have realized the demand for this type of information, much to the chagrin of law enforcement, with websites like Who’s A Rat? (“Web site that rats out informants worries Dallas officials,” March 29).
The site seeks to expose people who “rat on a business associates, friends, or family members just to save themselves,” said Chris Brown, whosarat.com spokesman…
The site has survived because of free speech protections, he said. “The bottom line is we provide the forum. The members post…”
Currently, anyone can go to Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) and download information about their favorite busted steroid source, past and present, including the criminal complaint, the indictment, and the plea agreement. I think this sort of transparency in our criminal justice system is great.
Unfortunately, websites like WhosaRat.com and RateMyCop.com have raised concerns among law enforcement that may ultimately restrict the public’s access to court records. This is a worthy debate in and of itself. But I want to focus on another aspect the process – plea agreements – and why these do not necessarily make the defendant a “rat.”
Practically all individuals indicted in steroid conspiracy, steroid possession, and steroid distributions charges will ultimately reach plea agreements with federal prosecutors. But a plea agreement by a defendent does not always mean they have ratted out either distributors higher on the steroid supply chain or customers lower on the steroid supply chain.
Plea agreements, especially in victimless crimes like steroid possession, are often reached to ease an overburdened criminal justice system (“Plea deals help make courts efficient,” November 18, 2007).
Plea agreements can save time and money while bringing a faster resolution for the accused and accuser. Without them, experts say, the courts would become clogged, bogged down and overworked.
“Obviously, from the standpoint of the court being able to function efficiently, without plea agreements, the system would slow down dramatically,†said La Crosse County Circuit Judge Scott Horne, elected to the bench last spring after 22 years as county district attorney.
Prosecutors like plea agreements because they guarantee a conviction. There are several types of plea agreements. Defendants can plead guilty to a lesser charge or some of the charges for a speedy conviction. They can also agree to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence. Obviously, these type of plea agreements do not make them a snitch or a rat.
Clearly, some plea agreements involve the cooperation with ongoing investigations and/or testifying against a co-defendant, etc. Even these cases don’t always involve snitching on others. For example, the “cooperaton” could involve teaching federal prosecutors how a major steroid smuggling operation works in exchange for a more lenient sentence.
Other plea agreements could involve testifying against a co-defendant or a party in a related investigation. Often times, prosecutors ask defendants to simply confirm the evidence already collected by prosecutors. But even then, sometimes the cooperation is really too innocuous to qualify the defendant as a “rat.” A good example is the recent testimony of Patrick Arnold (Ergopharm) at Tammy Thomas’ doping trial. Pat explains his testimony here to readers of the MESO-Rx Blog:
I was basically forced into a very crappy situation. Last year right before i went to prison they subpoenaed me to a grand jury hearing. in that hearing they showed me evidence they had against tammy and it was clear to me they had all they needed to show i sold her stuff. So i told them yes i did.
if i did not, then i would have gone to prison. and it would not have done anything to help tammy anyway.
the good thing about this is that tammy’s attorneys are not even trying to deny she got stuff and took it, so my testimony this week was pretty moot. they are using another angle and surprisingly it turned out that my 3 hours on the stand helped tammy’s side much more then it helped the feds.Â
Other plea agreements (usually the sealed variety) involve confidential informants or cooperating defendants involved in sting operatons; these are typically what are called “rats” or “snitches.”
But the problem with websites like WhosaRat.com is that when plea agreements are uploaded, members often do not discriminate and assume the agreements to be proof that the defendant is a rat.
Authorities point out that a plea deal is not necessarily proof that someone is an informant or plans to testify against another defendant.
While it is always wise to assume the worst to protect yourself, assumptions based on incomplete information may not always be accurate.
Patrick Arnold’s ex-girlfriend, Kelcey Dalton, testified as a witness in cyclist Tammy Thomas steroid case. She told the court that Patrick Arnold (of Ergopharm) made very little profit from the sell of performance enhancing drugs (which were classified as “unapproved new drugs” prior to the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004) ["Witness: Little Profit for Steroid Maker," March 27].
The sums of money Arnold was making were “very low,” she said. “I think we should have charged more.”
Pat confirmed via email that he only made $15-20 thousand over the course of the THREE YEARS he provided tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) and norbolethone to elite athletes while working with Victor Conte. The government calls a $5,000 a year operation a major steroid bust?!
Steroid chemist Patrick Arnold of Ergopharm testified in San Francisco federal court today in the perjury case against cyclist Tammy Thomas. Pat Arnold said under oath that THG was explicitly created to avoid detection by athletes subject to doping controls. He admitted to selling tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) to Victor Conte of BALCO and directly by mail to Tammy Thomas. (“Chemist testifies he created steroid at the heart of BALCO scandal,” March 25)
THG was also known as “the clear” because it was not detectable at the time Arnold developed it in about 2001.
Under questioning by prosecutor Jeff Nedrow, Arnold said, “That’s the primary reason why THG was developed.”
Arnold also said, “I believe that Miss Thomas understood full well it was undetectable and that that was its purpose.”
He said he believed the cyclist understood the drug had “steroid-like qualities.”
Tammy Thomas denied ever receiving any products from Pat Arnold other than Ergopharm 1-AD; she denied receiving anabolic steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs from Pat Arnold or anyone else; she denied using anabolic steroids.
The government rarely pursues perjury cases in federal court. But when it comes to professional athletes who lie about steroid use, they go all out in their efforts to prosecute them for perjury e.g. Marion Jones, Tammy Thomas, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens.
The government is purportedly going to prove that Barry Bonds and other athletes used steroids due, in part, to an increase in the size of the head and feet.
In Thursday’s court filings, prosecutors said they will rely in part on Thomas’ body features to prove she used steroids. Similarly, they are expected to show a jury significant growth to Bonds’ head, feet and other body changes during the time he was alleged to have used steroids.
Sports journalists and laypersons have so frequently asserted that increased head circumference and foot size is a side effect of anabolic steroids, that the government thinks it is a documented fact.
Certainly, anabolic steroids can affect the size of body parts other than muscle tissue. Steroid use can result in reduced testicular size in male steroid users and clitoral enlargement in female steroid users. Do you suppose that the government will subpoena measurements of Barry Bonds’ testicles or Tammy Thomas’ clitoris to prove steroid use?
Nothing would surprise me given the scope of the federal steroid witch hunt. The federal government is desperately seeking to use perjury as the tool to make examples of steroid-using athletes given the monumental failure of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act to reduce or eliminate steroid use in professional sports.
Congress should simply subpoena all professional athletes from every sport to answer questions about steroid use under oath. “Springing the perjury trap” on steroid using athletes would be considerably more effective strategy than the flawed Anabolic Steroids Control Act.
