[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of the evidence is credible; Redbean thinks none of it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just me that thinks the evidence isn't credible.

Remember what the Pulitzer panel said of the GoS book when the authors submitted it for consideration?

As reported by Buster Olney of ESPN:

"...never made it beyond the initial jury stage to the Pulitzer committee. Their work was deemed by the jury too based upon unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence and was therefore not able to be viewed as factual."



[ QUOTE ]

But the fact that the evidence does not equal absolute proof (yet) does not mean that all the evidence must be dismissed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, when 'evidence' is largely seen as unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and not viewed as factual, it is dismissed by objective people.

It serves only as fuel for those who need a reason otherwise to support their preordained hate for Bonds.

[ QUOTE ]

And with regards to standards of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard that must be reached BEFORE SOMEONE IS SENT TO PRISON. A stiff penalty and therefore an onerous burden of proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

The standard of proof to be in violation of the MLB steroid policy is a failed steroid test.

Oops!

[ QUOTE ]

if there's significant evidence that a guy cheated, I don't think he gets in.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you define "significant" as a large amount of unsubstantiated evidence, and the abscence of credible evidence....then maybe so.

[ QUOTE ]

In other words, while there's not (yet) enough evidence/proof to send Bonds to jail, there's enough to keep him out of the Hall.


[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't even enough evidence in the book for it to be deemed "factual" by the people who oversee journalistic excellence.

[ QUOTE ]

Will any of the Bonds supporters at least acknowledge the point I'm making about different burdens of proof?


[/ QUOTE ]

Will you acknowledge that the standard of proof for "cheating in baseball", as defined by MLB itself, is actually much higher than that of a court of law, in that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not enough, and it requires a failed steroid test to be in violation of the MLB steroid policy?

Open and shut case here. Barry Bonds has not violated the MLB policy. The burden of proof that Bonds "cheated" has not been met, as written in black and white in the rules that govern MLB.

Everything else is speculation, conjecture, and the projection by the media and others of what they want the rules to be so they can say he broke them, when it just isn't a reality. He hasn't broken any rules, he hasn't cheated the game.

The HOF, on the other hand, doesn't have a burden of proof. It is a subjective popularity contest voted on by baseball writers. They can deny someone membership just because they don't like their eye color.

If they choose to deny Barry membership based on their belief he broke an unwritten rule that they made up, despite the fact that he never violated a MLB steroid rule, that is their right.