Official Barry Bonds Countdown Thread

[esad]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow Drew you are just LOL. (~)Everyone thinks he took steroids. When was it ever proven to be a fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

Redbean et al are just arguing some along current MLB rules to contend that Bonds has done nothing officially against leagues rules.

It's not a matter of opinion if Bonds steroids. He admitted in the grand jury testimony to taking it. He just claimed he didn't know what it was. Any idiot can draw the truth from that. Well, except for a number of people on this mb.

Here's the story in case you missed it.

Like anything though people can convince themselves that their favorite ballplayer didn't really do anything wrong. The fact is he took PED knowingly, so did McGwirre, Sosa, et al. Any other conclusion makes you look like an idiot or a delusional apologist.

PS: I'm sure this will get a Redbean response trying to muster some legalize bs, to contend that they really didn't prove anything. Whatever. Go somewhere and sell snake oil instead, it's what you're good at.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow Drew you are just LOL. (~)Everyone thinks he took steroids. When was it ever proven to be a fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

Redbean et al are just arguing some along current MLB rules to contend that Bonds has done nothing officially against leagues rules.

It's not a matter of opinion if Bonds steroids. He admitted in the grand jury testimony to taking it. He just claimed he didn't know what it was. Any idiot can draw the truth from that. Well, except for a number of people on this mb.

Here's the story in case you missed it.

Like anything though people can convince themselves that their favorite ballplayer didn't really do anything wrong. The fact is he took PED knowingly, so did McGwirre, Sosa, et al. Any other conclusion makes you look like an idiot or a delusional apologist.

PS: I'm sure this will get a Redbean response trying to muster some legalize bs, to contend that they really didn't prove anything. Whatever. Go somewhere and sell snake oil instead, it's what you're good at.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should look up what "poisoning the well" is. Or maybe not, you've already mastered it, apparently.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
He admitted in the grand jury testimony to taking it.


[/ QUOTE ]

An inference drawn on your part does not constitute an admission on his.


[ QUOTE ]

Any idiot can draw the truth from that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Any idiot drawing a conclusion != a Bonds admission.


All in all, you're basing an opinion on a snippet of partially leaked grand jury testimony that was presented in a paraphrased format by biased authors motivated to sell a book.

You've already made up your mind based on what the media tells you to believe, without having even seen a tenth of the evidence or hearing the mitigating and/or exulpatory evidence.

Which is fine...people jump to conclusions all the time and form their opinions based on even less...but to represent that as a "fact" that Bonds admitted steroid use is naive at best, and disingenious at worst.

Do you even realize that the actual transcripts have never been released, no one outside of those legally involved have seen them in their entirety, and the only sections that have been leaked were hand-picked and chosen at the discretion of Lance Williams and Mark Fahrin-Wadu-Bada-Bing-Bang.

You ever wonder why they didn't print the entire transcript as recieved? You think maybe it wasn't as interesting as their paraphrased interpretation of it?

Do you ever wonder why they had to spice it up with their own interprative commentary and omit entire sections they had in their possession, instead of just printing the whole thing as-is?

Is it possible they felt the entire transcript as it actually happened wouldn't achieve the result they desired, or properly spin the story they wanted told?

They had it, if their interests were in reporting the facts, why couldn't they present it as-is and let the reader infer on his own based on the transcripts....rather than feel like they had to omit parts and instead tell you what to think?

It seems the growing frustrations by the angry mob at the inability to produce an indictment or pin anything on Bonds has encouraged many to resort to out and out fabrication instead, and sadly, some sheep will digest anything the sports media feeds them as long as it fits in nice neat little boxes and is clearly marked black and white, good vs evil.

To hell with facts or evidence, SI said he did it, then let it be so!

But have you ever wondered why three different sets of folks have sat through three seperate grand jury sessions where they were privy to all the evidence in the government's case (not just the interpretation of illegal leaks as presented by biased journalists in the media) and yet all three times they have refused to produce even a single indictment of Bonds?

You don't even want to entertain the possibility that mitigating or exulpatory evidence exists and has been offered to the grand jury that wasn't leaked by the media for obvious reasons, since it wouldn't paint the big bad wolf in the light they desired?

Did you know that in July of 2006 the government won a motion to obtain Bond's medical records and access to prior blood tests surrounding his elbow surgery in 1999 and a scope for chips in the 2001 offseason?

This was once again supposedly the "smoking gun" as it fell right within the sweetspot of the timeline he was alleged to have been using steroids.

After the presser that afternoon it was leaked from government sources that they anticipated an indictment by the end of the month. (That was over a year ago...fwiw)

Then they recieved the records and had time to review them....oops!

The end of the month came and passed, the government sent the grand jury home without an indictment citing the "introduction of new evidence".

Oddly enough, what those medical reports contained wasn't leaked.

A few months later, they convened a new grand jury and gave it yet another go with a new set of folks. The focus this go around shifted from the medical records (oddly enough??) to instead trying to break Greg into flipping on Bonds.

Ever wonder why the new evidence wasn't leaked? Because it is illegal to do so? That certainly hasn't stopped them before!

Is it because it is exulpatory? They certainly don't want that getting out, otherwise it may change your perception of the big bad wolf they've worked so hard to create.

[ QUOTE ]

Here's the story in case you missed it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you be a peach and highlight the section of the transcript where Bonds admitted to taking steroids? All I can find is a paraphrased section where it says he took a substance he believed to be flaxseed oil.

And I'm not talking about the prosecution's allegation or Mark Fairen-Wahu-Jingle-Heimer-Schmidt's interpretive commentary that the flaxseed oil was actually THG, as that would be more circumstantial evidence and not an actual admission from Bonds.

[ QUOTE ]

Any other conclusion makes you look like an idiot or a delusional apologist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Does it make me an idiot for reserving judgement until having access to all of the evidence from a credible source instead of rushing to judgement based on the third-hand paraphrased interpretations of a few guys looking to score book sales?

What happens when the testimony is finally unsealed and Bonds' camp is finally allowed to legally discuss and refute it without the penalty of violating the grand jury seal?

What happens if those 1999/2001 medical records show no evidence of any substances despite the allegations made otherwise in the public smear campaign?

Does public opinion just say "oops..."?? Does Mark Farin-WaMu-Free-Checking give back his book profits?

Or does public opinion agree that since they've heard it for so long, whether it is actually true or not is irrelevant, it fits in a nice neat box with a nice neat bow, and it is easier to accept it as previously painted.

Or does the public do like it did with Hank and collectively look back on him fondly thirty years removed and pretend it was a love-fest all-around when in reality the seething hatred and vitriol he endured from some of the very same folks during that time was nearly unbearable?

I'm not by any means saying this scenario is likely, but it is possible given that all we know so far is based heavily on the third-hand relation of sealed testimony that some guy with a long name paraphrased for us in a for-profit book while deciding not to show us the transcript as-is and let us form our own opinions based on it.

Does it make me delusional for wondering why these hacks didn't print the entire transcript instead of witholding it and trying to tell me what to think instead, charging $30 along the way?

Wouldn't you like to see the actual transcript, unedited? Wouldn't you be interested in the information in those medical records?

If that makes me and idiot or delusional, then I just don't know what to say. I'm sorry for not jumping on board and foaming at the mouth against Bonds because some guy who wanted to sell some books told me too, but didn't bother letting me see the entire transcripts.

You do what you do, I'll do what I do, and Barry will keep doing what he does.

Either way, you ain't budging, I ain't giving, and Greg ain't talking.

But just out of curiosity, if Sports Illustrated told you to jump off a bridge, would you? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I would get so goddamn dirty with Erin Andrews it isn't funny.


[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding.

By chance, did you catch her on ESPN Radio this afternoon?

She had some interesting anecdotes on her time the past week with the Giants.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He either did, or he didn't. It's not a matter of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a matter of opinion as to whether you believe he did or didn't.

It is, however, a matter of indisputable fact that Bonds has not violated the MLB steroid policy as outlined in the collective bargaining agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean, been caught violating the policy, right?

All right, all right, I'm done.

[/ QUOTE ]

innocent till proven guilty

[SL__72]

What was the policy back then even?

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would get so goddamn dirty with Erin Andrews it isn't funny.


[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding.

By chance, did you catch her on ESPN Radio this afternoon?

She had some interesting anecdotes on her time the past week with the Giants.

[/ QUOTE ]
I missed that.

No doubt I'm giving her a couple of extra points on the hotness scale because she's talking about sports, much like guys overrate chicks in poker because they play. But whatever, if I was an athlete I'd take a stab at her, and not the lame Joe Theismann drunken variety.

Boobie grab pic:

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
What was the policy back then even?

[/ QUOTE ]

don't tell the press

[SL__72]

In response to the article yesterday stating that Bonds' brace gave him an unfair advantage, Will Carroll from bp.com did an interview with the guy who has been making the brace for the last 12 years. For those with a subscription, you can read Will's article and listen to the interview here.

The parts relating to that are rather uninteresting but what was really interesting, was how the brace is made.

The important information is this:

He requires a precise model of Barry's arm to use in making the brace.

He hasn't made a new model of Barry's arm for 12 years because it's been the same size at the beginning of every season.

He says "there's been no significant change in the size of his arms," I believe meaning since '92, the first season he made a brace for him.

[THAY3R]

Obviously the brace has been juicing too.