The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't Bonds flat out admit he took steroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]

But if you honestly believe that Bonds didn't take steroids, or for that matter that there's even a chance he didn't take steroids, there's no reason to even argue with you, because if you aren't convinced already, there's nothing that could convince you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your saying you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, despite him not being able to present a defense, and based solely on what is reported in the media, based largely on an uncorroborate and unsubstantiated book that can't be considered factual.

Gotcha.

And FWIW, I could easily be convinced that Bonds violated the MLB steroid policy if he were to fail a MLB administered steroid test.

But, he hasn't.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't have evidence to meet a 98% standard? Must have 0% evidence then.


[/ QUOTE ]

I take you have very little knowledge of the GJ system if you think it takes evidence to meet a 98% standard to get an indictment.

Remember, the GJ is only charged with determining if there exists enough evidence to proceed to trial.

Their standard of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", instead it is "reasonable suspicion".

By lacking an indictment, the GJ has not even found a "reasonable suspicion" that Barry Bonds lied when he said he never knowingly took steroids.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't Bonds flat out admit he took steroids? Oh wait, he thought it was flaxseed oil and arthritis balm. Sure.
If someone wants to make the argument that he should get in to the HOF anyway because everybody else was doing it and it wasn't even illegal, that's fine with me. If someone wants to say that steroids didn't really help him that much and he would have broke the record anyway, I would disagree but I think that at least a semi-reasonable argument can be made for that. But if you honestly believe that Bonds didn't take steroids, or for that matter that there's even a chance he didn't take steroids, there's no reason to even argue with you, because if you aren't convinced already, there's nothing that could convince you.

[/ QUOTE ]

ty
you and lebowski have restored my faith

[sightless]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you had to give a percentage on the likelihood that he juiced, what would it be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give a 100% chance that he hasn't violated the MLB steroid policy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont get it, how can you be 100% sure about anything

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you had to give a percentage on the likelihood that he juiced, what would it be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give a 100% chance that he hasn't violated the MLB steroid policy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
What is likelihood (%) in your opinion that he knowingly took steroids during the 2001 year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lebowski, there is a 0% chance Redbean will answer this question, so it's pointless to ask. He knows Bonds used steroids but prefers arguing semantics. Perfect example here.

[Needle77]

I think instead of worrying about Bonds taking steroids society should look towards the NCAA's steroid testing policy and worry about 18-22 year olds and steroids. Just a suggestion though.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you had to give a percentage on the likelihood that he juiced, what would it be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give a 100% chance that he hasn't violated the MLB steroid policy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
What is likelihood (%) in your opinion that he knowingly took steroids during the 2001 year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lebowski, there is a 0% chance Redbean will answer this question, so it's pointless to ask. He knows Bonds used steroids but prefers arguing semantics. Perfect example here.

[/ QUOTE ]
He knows Bonds took steroids because its a FACT.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you had to give a percentage on the likelihood that he juiced, what would it be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give a 100% chance that he hasn't violated the MLB steroid policy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont get it, how can you be 100% sure about anything

[/ QUOTE ]
Using steroids isn't violating the policy, only testing positive for them are. Since Bonds hasn't tested positive RedBean can be 100% sure he hasn't violated it as of this date and time.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
He knows Bonds used steroids but prefers arguing semantics. Perfect example here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that Bonds used steroids, and neither do you. There have been allegations, supported by uncorroborated and unsubstantiated evidence, but nothing has been proven.

But what we both know is that he didn't violate the MLB steroid policy, that's an indisputable fact.

Anytime I point out that Bonds hasn't violated the rule, you counter with "bah, semantics! semantics! BAh!" and carry on asserting he cheated, despite not breaking any rule.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you had to give a percentage on the likelihood that he juiced, what would it be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give a 100% chance that he hasn't violated the MLB steroid policy. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
What is likelihood (%) in your opinion that he knowingly took steroids during the 2001 year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lebowski, there is a 0% chance Redbean will answer this question, so it's pointless to ask. He knows Bonds used steroids but prefers arguing semantics. Perfect example here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have absolutely no idea what "semantics" means. Not at all. RedBean is arguing that Bonds should not be denied HOF entry because he has never failed a drug test and has done everything within the guidelines of the CBA and MLB rules from a logic-based standpoint. Whatever the hell you are arguing is not "semantics." You are just wrong.