The Trial of Gio Gonzalez

I didn’t want this to be the first post of the 2013 season, but I guess I don’t have much of a choice in the matter.

I’m going to come right out and say it: given the evidence available right now, I don’t think there is enough evidence to find that Gio Gonzalez possessed or used any banned performance-enhancing substances.

By now, you all know the story. A report in the Miami New Times seems to have uncovered a doping ring operating out of Miami. One of the players mentioned in connection with the doping ring is Nats left-hander and all-around nice guy Gio Gonzalez:

There’s also the curious case of Gio Gonzalez, the 27-year-old, Hialeah-native, left-handed hurler who won 21 games last year for the Washington Nationals. Gonzalez’s name appears five times in Bosch’s notebooks, including a specific note in the 2012 book reading, “Order 1.c.1 with Zinc/MIC/… and Aminorip. For Gio and charge $1,000.” (Aminorip is a muscle-building protein.)

Gio has denied any connection with the lab in question.

Today, the New Times released images of every time Gio’s name appears in connection with the lab in question. Also, we found out today that Anthony Bosch, who operated the lab, has also vehemently denied liability.

Those are, as I see them, all the relevant facts. Before we dive deeper, let’s pause here and consider what, precisely, we’re talking about.

The MLB drug testing and compliance regime grows out of a document called the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program [PDF]. The Joint Drug Program defines everything we need to know about what sorts of substances players are not allowed to use or possess (Section 2); and the means by which the League will impose discipline on them (Section 7).

By now, we’re all familiar with the punishment provision of the Plan: a first violation of the Plan’s “performance enhancing substance” provisions leads to an automatic 50-game suspension. (Section 7(A)(1)).

But go back and re-read the first paragraph of Section 7(A): the punishments apply to a player who “tests positive for a Performance Enhancing Substance, or otherwise violates the Program through use or possession of a Performance Enhancing Substance.” (emphasis added). The or is important: it means that punishments will apply even without a positive test–in what the jargon-lovers call “non-analytic positives.” So, the League need not show that analytical chemistry revealed the presence of a banned substance in Gio’s body: they only need to show that Gio either used or possessed a banned substance.

OK, still with me? Based on the New Timespublished images of the Bosch notebooks, this is what we think we know:

  • Gio’s name (and what some figure to be his stat line 3 games into last season) appear on the same page as a recipe for something called “Pink Cream,” that, in turns, seems to contain “Test.[osterone?], 3%” among its ingredients.
  • Another entry, the fifth in the series, contains the cocktail described in the original report: “1.c.1 with Zinc/MIC/… and Aminorip.” MIC seems to refer to a supplement injection thought (without much support) to promote weight loss. [I am aware of the irony here: I am linking to LiveStrong in a story about doping.] “Aminorip” is a proprietary amino-acid supplement. Neither contain any ingredients that are on the list of prohibited performance enhancers–nor, to my knowledge, are any of them “anabolic androgenic steroids and agents (including hormones) with antiestrogenic activity that may not be lawfully obtained or used in the United States,” that would violate Section 2(B) of the Joint Drug Agreement.
  • The most troubling entry, to my mind, is actually the fourth entry, which seems to read thus: “MAX/GIO GNZLZ/CREAMS [illegible] AMINORIP & [illegible]”. That doesn’t look good. It links either Gio or his father, Max, with “creams,” and we already suspect that the lab has been dealing in testosterone cream (which, it bears repeating is a banned substance).

But that’s all we know. Remember, to violate the Joint Drug Agreement (and thus be subject to the fifty-game suspension), the league must prove that Gio Gonzalez possessed or used a performance-enhancing substance. What we have here, so far, is evidence that the lab here prepared a “cream” (contents unknown!) for either Gio or his father, Max. There is no evidence–yet– that Gio had it on his person, in his house, in his car, in his bag, in a box with a fox, anywhere. In short, although this is worrying news, we don’t have any evidence yet that Gio has violated the Joint Drug Agreement at all.

The evidence itself is subject to question. We only “know” what we know because we assume that the materials in the New Times report are genuine: that is, that they really are what the New Times’ sources say they are. Although for now these seem to be what they say they are, Bosch, who is alleged to be their author, has himself denied them. That’s going to be subject to proof.

I’ll close with this: I can’t really pretend to be impartial. I’m a huge Nats fan, and a huge Gio Gonzalez fan. I love Gio. But this news has saddened me a bit, because it has brought him under suspicion. And, even though I don’t think there’s enough evidence for the League to punish Gio for doping, there will be a cloud over Gio’s name for as long as anyone can see his name next to an order for “CREAMS.” The slimy feeling from that association will take a very long time to disappear–if it ever does.

10 thoughts on “The Trial of Gio Gonzalez

  1. Under “what we think we know” you forgot to include that Gio posted a picture three weeks ago of himself and Jimmy Goins, naming him as his “strength and conditioning coach.” Goins’ name is everywhere in this story. The chance that Goins is not dirty is close to zero. Even his denial is a non-denial.

  2. Jonah Keri’s piece today about judging first time suspects the same as repeat offenders drives home your last point. this sick, unfair feeling that taints everything.

    if everything stands as it is, he wont be suspended-your post seems to make that clear. unfortunately the whole icky feeling won’t, maybe ever. ugh.

    FYI if I crib a paragraph or two in a more general discussiomn on PEDs and the MLB, I will be sure to link back to you. very good work.

  3. Look at the billing record, the thousands spent by Max Gonzalez last spring /summer, was all that money for legal weight loss products?

  4. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. He’s probably guilty. MLB does not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, more like a preponderance of evidence. There’s no way Gio should even be involved with Goins and Bosch if he was clean. As far as his denial, many of us believed A-Rod, McGwire, Armstrong, Palmiero, etc., etc. I’m a huge Nats / Gio fan, but I’ve learned through the years that, from what I’m seeing here, Gio used and is going to serve a 50 game suspension, which really ticks me off.

    • If the standard of proof were preponderance of the evidence, I think Ryan Braun’s appeal of his suspension would have failed. Even with the chain of custody doubts, I thought there was enough evidence adduced to clear “preponderance of the evidence” in that case.

      Lots of commentators are throwing around “for just cause,” as a standard of proof. The term appears nowhere in the Joint Drug Program. If that is not a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, then I imagine it’s in the intermediate “clear and convincing evidence” standard: more than a preponderance, but less than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt threshold for criminal matters.

      As it stands, however, no one has, as yet, adduced enough evidence to show use or possession under any standard. The notebook entries in themselves do not show possession or use by Gio to a preponderance of the evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt.

      As to the “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” adage: I don’t think it fits this situation precisely. The problem is that we have smoke from what might be one or more fires–and we are not sure whether one the various plumes of smoke, that have formed one uniform pall, originates from Gio.

      I expect the investigation to continue. If new facts are uncovered, of course, my assessment must change. But absent new facts, I do not think the evidence produced so far would warrant a fifty-game suspension.

      The reputational damage from this mess, on the other hand, is done, and may never be undone.

  5. Pingback: The Basecs: Tell Me About PEDs | Nationals 101

  6. Pingback: Projecting the 2013 Nationals, Part 1: Ground Rules & Starting Line-ups | Natstradamus

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s