Drug Tests Must Be Specific

A chemical test must be specific. A simple example from seventh grade science illustrates that fact. Benedict's solution is used to test for the presence of glucose, which is a simple sugar. When the material to be tested is added to Benedict's solution and the mixture is heated, the Benedict's solution changes from blue to green, yellow, orange, or red, depending upon the glucose concentration. If no color change occurs, no glucose is present. The problem is that substances OTHER than glucose can produce the same color changes. Vitamin C is such a substance.

Is it Glucose or Vitamin C?

Ron Paul's urine was tested for the presence of glucose. The potential presidential candidate had recently finished off a large glass of orange juice, which contains sugar and vitamin C. Dr. Paul's urine tested positive -- but was it for glucose or for vitamin C? You get the picture.

Is it a Steroid, a Contaminated Supplement, or a Prohormone?

The indictment of Barry Bonds claims that he had tested positive for steroids. The greatest home run hitter in baseball history, with the exception of Babe Ruth, may have used steroids, which the test revealed, or maybe he didn't. A contaminated dietary supplement (see Rafael Palmeiro) or a prohormone that was legal at the time of the test might have produced the positive test result.

Ornithine and Arginine Stimulate Growth Hormone Production

Prohormones are NOT anabolic steroids. They are dietary supplements that are the precursors of an anabolic steroid, such as testosterone, or growth hormone. Two amino acids, ornithine and arginine, convert fat to muscle by stimulating the pituitary gland to increase the production of growth hormone. Body builders ingest arginine and ornithine to increase muscle mass.

The Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is on the government to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond mere conjecture, that Barry Bonds used an illegal substance and lied when he claimed he didn't know that he used it. The fact that a positive test for the presence of steroids was obtained must identify the source of the positive test. In the case of Ron Paul, it could have been either vitamin C or glucose that produced a positive test for the presence of glucose. In the case of Barry Bonds, it could have been that the positive test was produced by a prohormone or by a contaminated substance -- or by a steroid that Barry took and about which he lied.

There Is Much Circumstantial Evidence

An individual cannot be considered guilty merely because he acts in an arrogant, conceited, hubristic manner. There has been a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence pointing in the direction of steroid use, including an increase in body and head size, but that must never be sufficient to produce a guilty verdict. Most individuals do not like Barry Bonds That is their right, but it is not their right to prejudge him. The government has quite a job on its hands.

Reference:

Bonds Indicted