Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's true. He avoids answering the question of whether the thinks BB took steroids. It's all a media/government conspiracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I avoid answering the question because I have refrained from speculation until all the facts have been revealed, and both sides have been given a chance to present their side.

Call me crazy, but I kinda believe in the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

For example, assuming their is an eventual acquittal, based upon the evidence presented, I will form an opinion based on that....while someone like you who made his mind up 3 years ago when an SI writer told you what to think, your not going to accept the verdict based on the actual evidence, since you've already formed your decision based on preconceptions.

Simply put, what you are saying about me actually applies more to you. I haven't formed my opinion yet and await seeing the evidence.....while your opinion was made up long ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? After all of these years you haven't formed an "opinion" of whether Barry ever took steroids? Bull-crap.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ever consider that Bonds did tell the truth, and it certainly didn't end there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did. And I dismissed it as nearly impossible. The evidence is overwhelming and his testimony evasive.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, the evidence may look "overwhelming" considering right now it is unproven allegation, and the defense hasn't had a chance to address it.

But, seeing as you ae already convinced even before the other side has gotten a chance to speak....then it should be extremely easy for the prosecution to secure a conviction.

Let's see how that plays out. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]

He tried to avoid saying no many times. Eventually he does say no, but he does what he can to avoid answers. That is what I get from reading the testimony.


[/ QUOTE ]

He said "no" 15+ times in the limited amount of testimony that is excerpted in the indictment.

[ QUOTE ]

That, along with all the other written evidence and circumstantial evidence and witnesses -- by the way, circumstantial evidence is not a bad thing -- many criminals are convicted solely on circumstantial evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence that has not even been presented at trial, nor had an opportunity to be challenged by the defense.

Yet, you take it as gospel.

Yikes...

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
Game of Shadows by itself is overwhelming unless you read it with an overskeptical pro-Bonds bias (like those who believe OJ didn't commit the murders).


[/ QUOTE ]

The Pulitzer prize committee that reviewed it objectively after it was nominated for an award dismissed it as "not able to be viewed as factual or credible", and deemed the majority of evidence to be "uncorrobrated and based on hearsay".

So, are you saying that the objective Pulitzer committee, charged with upholding journalistic standard and excellence, is somehow biased in favor of Bonds?

And why on earth do you consistently attempt to draw parallels between Bonds and OJ?

[ QUOTE ]

The courtroom is not always the best forum to get all the facts...


[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally I would assume someone like you would think this....considering the courtroom is bound to the presumption of innocence, a burden of proof, and allows the accused to confront their accusers.


[ QUOTE ]
I also have some personal knowledge on how a U.S. Attorney's office works and what it takes to get the approval to bring a high profile indictment -- so that gives me some added comfort that this case would not have been brought without some pretty strong evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think it has anything to do with them fearing egg on their face without even an indictment after 4+ years of investigations?

Hey...if you are convinced the evidence is that strong, a conviction should be a piece of cake.....

Let's see how it plays out. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

RedBean,
I think it is very likely Bonds said no more than any other word in the indictment.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
RedBean,
I think it is very likely Bonds said no more than any other word in the indictment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is ironic considering the prominent myth 2 years ago courtesy of the sports media was that he admitted using steroids in the GJ, although unknowingly.

Where are those guys at with their retractions?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

This just in:

Mark McDougal, the curator at the Pirates Hall of Fame, said during an interview with a local station that at the request of the Bond's defense team, he has sent a 1991 game-worn Barry Bonds' Pirates hat on display to the office of Mike Rains in California.

"If the Pirates hat fits, you must acquit."

Video of McDougal interview.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think it has anything to do with them fearing egg on their face without even an indictment after 4+ years of investigations?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is one of the worst theories I have heard -- and it has been repeated here often. How long have you spent in a U.S. Attorney's Office? These are not your local D.A.'s.

It is difficult for a U.S. Attorney's office to seek an indictment to avoid egg on the face -- and in high profile cases, they don't have the last word. It has to go up the line through the justice department. Because the process goes on behind closed doors, it is very easy to walk away without indicting and it is very common for them to do so... you just don't know it because they don't necessarily announce it. Indictments are public. Failures to indict are not.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

TMTTR, that is true perhaps of a more typical investigation. But how many high-profile, 4-year investigations, that start as and continue to be a media circus throughout, are simply thrown out? This is not a typical case.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
This just in:

Mark McDougal, the curator at the Pirates Hall of Fame, said during an interview with a local station that at the request of the Bond's defense team, he has sent a 1991 game-worn Barry Bonds' Pirates hat on display to the office of Mike Rains in California.

"If the Pirates hat fits, you must acquit."

Video of McDougal interview.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol redbean always gets me

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

"If the hat fits, you must acquit." = gold

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't think it has anything to do with them fearing egg on their face without even an indictment after 4+ years of investigations?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is one of the worst theories I have heard -- and it has been repeated here often. How long have you spent in a U.S. Attorney's Office? These are not your local D.A.'s.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, it isn't my theory, just a possibility.

And considering that this is one of the longest GJ investigation in Northern California history, and it spanned 3 seperate Grand Juries, 3 AG's, 2 US attorneys, 4 years, and untold amount of tax dollars....I would hardly call this case "normal".

[ QUOTE ]
Because the process goes on behind closed doors, it is very easy to walk away without indicting and it is very common for them to do so... you just don't know it because they don't necessarily announce it. Indictments are public. Failures to indict are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally, sure. In this case, when former US attorney Ryan announced publically that they were conducted the GJ investigation, and courtesy of the illegal leaks....it was very much public....and a failure to indict would have been very public as well.

Considering also, that the GJ term was set to expire on Friday, it would have been unlikely to empanel a new 4th jury under the new AG, and they indicted with what they had on the next to last day, without any new evidence in over three years....

All in all, I think they felt they didn't have enough to indict without Greg's testimony, which is what they've said in open court, and despite his continued refusal to cooperate, they went with what they had and are hoping it's enough to influence public opinion (potential jurors), as they're only otehr option was to dismiss without indictment.

At least, I hope that is the case....otherwise the DA's office lied to the court, and they wrongfully and punitively imprisoned Greg for his refusal to testify, despite their previous agreements with him that he would never have to testify again.

Plain and simple, the US attorney's office was extremely shady and dishonest in their dealings with witnesses, attempting to coerce them and going back on previous deals, and it didn't work.

Like Mike Rains said, everything you need to know about their case was that it was sent to every major media outlet in advance of the conference, and prior to informing the defense or the accused.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also have some personal knowledge on how a U.S. Attorney's office works and what it takes to get the approval to bring a high profile indictment -- so that gives me some added comfort that this case would not have been brought without some pretty strong evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick question for you:

If the evidence is so strong, and considering each of the counts involves Anderson, and he has previously testified contrary to these allegations....and he refused to cooperate as a witness against Bonds.

Why are they NOT similarly indicting Greg for perjury?

I mean, he testified contrary to the allegations, and if the evidence is so strong....why aren't they indicting him?

I mean, doesn't the gubment like to go after the suppliers instead, and isn't this not just some sort of witchunt on Bonds?

And do you think the apprached the angle of having Bonds flip on Greg instead, since approaching Greg didn't work?

Or do you just think they are focusing on Bonds?


[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Oh, almost forgot, why aren't they indicting Sheff for his testimony?

Or Palmeiro?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

LOL I totally forgot about Palmeiro.

No reason to indict him though right?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
How long have you spent in a U.S. Attorney's Office?

[/ QUOTE ]

How much time have you spent in an MLB dugout?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
LOL I totally forgot about Palmeiro.

No reason to indict him though right?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the same AG that found reason to spend 4+ years investigating Bonds....there was not even enough reason to investigate the possibility of indicting Palmeiro, who testified under oath that he never used steroids.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL I totally forgot about Palmeiro.

No reason to indict him though right?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the same AG that found reason to spend 4+ years investigating Bonds....there was not even enough reason to investigate the possibility of indicting Palmeiro, who testified under oath that he never used steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

he started using after testifing obviously

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't think it has anything to do with them fearing egg on their face without even an indictment after 4+ years of investigations?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is one of the worst theories I have heard -- and it has been repeated here often. How long have you spent in a U.S. Attorney's Office? These are not your local D.A.'s.

It is difficult for a U.S. Attorney's office to seek an indictment to avoid egg on the face -- and in high profile cases, they don't have the last word. It has to go up the line through the justice department. Because the process goes on behind closed doors, it is very easy to walk away without indicting and it is very common for them to do so... you just don't know it because they don't necessarily announce it. Indictments are public. Failures to indict are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of that has anything to do with what is going on here. Most of the time, the public isnt aware that three seperate grand juries have been convened. A failure to indict here would have been EXTREMELY public and loud. Deafening, even.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
A failure to indict here would have been EXTREMELY public and loud. Deafening, even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think an acquittal has the same effect, or does the angry mob just ignore it in favor of their own preconceptions?

Personally, I'm just glad they are making progress towards a resolution......4+ years of speculation is just that...speculation....now it's time to side up and see who wins.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A failure to indict here would have been EXTREMELY public and loud. Deafening, even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think an acquittal has the same effect, or does the angry mob just ignore it in favor of their own preconceptions?

Personally, I'm just glad they are making progress towards a resolution......4+ years of speculation is just that...speculation....now it's time to side up and see who wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of the anti-Bonds crowd, I would imagine it goes like this:

admission>>conviction>acquittal>>&g t;no indictment. I think there is honestly very little difference in most peoples minds between a conviction and an acquittal. I think there is pretty much a 0% chance that we will be inundated with retractions or apologies or anything like that if he is acquitted. THEN we will hear all about how this wasnt Bonds steroid use on trial. Of course, UNTIL then, thats how it will be painted.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why are they NOT similarly indicting Greg for perjury?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is likely that Greg Anderson can't be prosecuted because his testimony under oath was prior to his guilty plea. The guilty plea likely incorporated all charges and possible charges arising out of this investigation... and after the guilty plea he refused to testify and was held in contempt. Refusing to testify is not perjury.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, doesn't the gubment like to go after the suppliers instead, and isn't this not just some sort of witchunt on Bonds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, Bean. You know this. They went after the suppliers and they entered plea agreements. I don't know why they agreed to such light pleas, but it may have been political at the Justice Department level.

[ QUOTE ]
And do you think the apprached the angle of having Bonds flip on Greg instead, since approaching Greg didn't work?

[/ QUOTE ]

For the reasons stated above, there is nothing to charge Anderson with.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, almost forgot, why aren't they indicting Sheff for his testimony?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I haven't read much of his testimony, but he had a far briefer relationship with Anderson and Balco... it may be far harder to prove that he knew what he was taking.

[ QUOTE ]
Or Palmeiro?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did he testify in the Balco case? (He probably perjured himself before Congress -- I am not sure what the process for pursuing those charges is and whether there is sufficient proof of his use prior to his testimony. There is plenty of proof of Bonds use.)


EDIT: As far all of those who said that this GJ proceeding was far more public, that is true. But the main prosecutor has left already and he is the one most likely to be covered with egg. The delay was probably due, at least in part, to the turmoil in the Justice Department in D.C. Admittedly I don't know enough about the other attorneys in the SF U.S.A.'s office, but walking away saying that he has immunity on the substantive charges and there is insufficient proof of perjury just doesn't seem so bad... perjury charges are typically sought when the testimony is way beyond belief and there is a bundle of proof that causes the prosecutors to know that the testimony was untruthful. This is a chicken/egg argument. Which came first, the desire to get Bonds or his breaking the law. I think it is the latter -- and his flaunting of it.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is honestly very little difference in most peoples minds between a conviction and an acquittal. I think there is pretty much a 0% chance that we will be inundated with retractions or apologies or anything like that if he is acquitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that's how it is for most folks....unfortunately.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

I hope when this is done, he [censored] some people up like what happened with mike nifong.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]

It is likely that Greg Anderson can't be prosecuted because his testimony under oath was prior to his guilty plea. The guilty plea likely incorporated all charges and possible charges arising out of this investigation...

[/ QUOTE ]

If I told you that wasn't the case....then what?


[ QUOTE ]
Come on, Bean. You know this. They went after the suppliers and they entered plea agreements. I don't know why they agreed to such light pleas, but it may have been political at the Justice Department level.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was a token case to facilitate a perjury trap on Bonds, where in the DA's mind he either would admit steroid use that could be leaked, or run the risk of perjury.

I mean, they didn't really "go after" the suppliers when they drop 95% of the charges and agreed to 2 month sentences.

I've spent longer time at summer camp.

[ QUOTE ]
For the reasons stated above, there is nothing to charge Anderson with.


[/ QUOTE ]

Greg testified that he never gave Bonds steroids. You're telling me that the government can't charge him with perjury if they believe it not to be true?


[ QUOTE ]
There is plenty of proof of Bonds use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty of allegations...but it hasn't been proven.

Once again, we'll see what happens at trial, and if the "proof" holds up to the burden.


[ QUOTE ]
This is a chicken/egg argument. Which came first, the desire to get Bonds or his breaking the law. I think it is the latter -- and his flaunting of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It was to get Bonds from the start.

Agent Jeff Novitsky told Agent Ira White in 2001 that he didn't like Bonds, and "sure would like to get him for something", as he had worked out at the same gym, and was jealous of Bonds wealth and success.

After the investigation into his taxes turned up nothing, Novitsky went dumpster diving at Balco without supervisory authorization.

Remember, this is an IRS investigation, spearheaded by Novitsky, as the DEA showed no interest, at at later intervals was critical of the IRS involvement in a steroid case.

His fruits from that search lead to the formal BALCO investigation, as well as his involvement with Grimsley and trying to coerce him to wear a wire and approach Bonds, and when Grimsley refused, charged him even though he had cooperated in naming over 20 athletes who Novitsky has to this day kept sealed...unlike in the case of Bonds.

If you sincerely think this isn't about getting Bonds, then I just don't know what to tell you.....we're never going to agree on that much.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hope when this is done, he [censored] some people up like what happened with mike nifong.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the winner of the worst analogy award...

This case is so far away from the Duke case. Bonds took steroids -- or was given steroids -- that is either true or there was a conspiracy bigger than the one that framed OJ. The only real issue is whether he lied when he said that he did not know he took steroids. If that cannot be proven, there will be no repercussions.

Everyone is correct. An acquittal will not change my mind about Bonds being on the juice. It will only show that there is not enough proof that he lied about not knowing he was on the juice. There is just too much evidence. Please don't ask me for it again. Buy the book -- or browse it in the store.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope when this is done, he [censored] some people up like what happened with mike nifong.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the winner of the worst analogy award...

This case is so far away from the Duke case. Bonds took steroids -- or was given steroids -- that is either true or there was a conspiracy bigger than the one that framed OJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're giving out "worst analogy" awards, and then in the same post comparing the Bonds case to OJ's.

Good gravy.

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone is correct. An acquittal will not change my mind about Bonds being on the juice. It will only show that there is not enough proof that he lied about not knowing he was on the juice. There is just too much evidence. Please don't ask me for it again. Buy the book -- or browse it in the store.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't seem to understand the difference between allegation and fact.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bonds took steroids -- or was given steroids -- that is either true or ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Or false. It's either true or false.

And we'll see if the gubment can prove their allegations that it is true.


[ QUOTE ]

An acquittal will not change my mind about Bonds being on the juice.


[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, if he is convicted, you and others will certainly hold that up as the centerpiece in your reasoning.

Must be nice to have it both ways.

Conviction = Guilty
Acquittal = Still Guilty

Yikes.

In other words, Bonds hasn't even presented his defense to any of the allegations, and you are saying you are completely incapable of considering him anything but guilty.

Wow. Simply wow...

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

BTW, I'm off for good this time, for about a week or so, so don't anyone get to excited if I'm not around to answer your questions of me. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Happy and safe Turkey Day to all.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there is honestly very little difference in most peoples minds between a conviction and an acquittal. I think there is pretty much a 0% chance that we will be inundated with retractions or apologies or anything like that if he is acquitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that's how it is for most folks....unfortunately.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I think that there is no chance that Barry Bonds will apologize if he is found quilty. We won't ever hear, "I'm sorry for using steroids and providing a poor example for the youth of today."

That's how it is with most folks....unfortunately.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

Bean,
How can you honestly believe that Barry Bonds never took steroids? I mean if you want to say it's a witchhunt, that's fine. If you want to say it's unfair how he's being singled out w/ what McGwire and Sosa and Canseco and Palmeiro have done, that's fine. But how the hell can you honestly think he has never juiced? I'm not trying to goad you or flame you, I'm just curious.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

I do love how you drop certain answers I give since they defeat you and then bring up brand new stuff -- often based on nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is likely that Greg Anderson can't be prosecuted because his testimony under oath was prior to his guilty plea. The guilty plea likely incorporated all charges and possible charges arising out of this investigation...

[/ QUOTE ]

If I told you that wasn't the case....then what?



[/ QUOTE ]

If Anderson testified before the plea agreement and the agreement is anything like the standard agreement used in federal courts in New York, he could not be charged with perjury for that pre-agreement testimony. My understanding is that he refused to testify since then and that is why he was locked up. They can't lock him up if he testified and lying unless they did charge him with perjury.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on, Bean. You know this. They went after the suppliers and they entered plea agreements. I don't know why they agreed to such light pleas, but it may have been political at the Justice Department level.


[/ QUOTE ]

It was a token case to facilitate a perjury trap on Bonds, where in the DA's mind he either would admit steroid use that could be leaked, or run the risk of perjury.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are rarely grand jury leaks. The leak in this case was from a defense attorney and not a prosecutor -- did the prosecutor expect a defense attorney to be the leak? And there are no D.A. here. D.A.s are local prosecutors not federal prosecutors. More importantly, your belief that this was a trap does not fit with the chronology of events. The investigation of BALCO started more than a year before Bonds testified.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
There is plenty of proof of Bonds use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty of allegations...but it hasn't been proven.



[/ QUOTE ]

No. Plenty of PROOF of use. Paper documents and testimony. He tested positive! ALLEGATIONS of perjury. Maybe he didn't know... but that seems unlikely.

[ QUOTE ]

Agent Jeff Novitsky told Agent Ira White in 2001 that he didn't like Bonds, and "sure would like to get him for something", as he had worked out at the same gym, and was jealous of Bonds wealth and success.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that is what Iran White (first name Iran, not Ira) told Playboy and what the government has disputed in court hearings.

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, this is an IRS investigation, spearheaded by Novitsky, as the DEA showed no interest, at at later intervals was critical of the IRS involvement in a steroid case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The IRS does drug investigations. I know it is shocking, but it is true. They have jurisdiction here just like the DEA. There are many areas of the law where more than one agency has enforcement rights. As I recall from something I read, Novitsky was involved in drug-related investigations during his whole career at the IRS. What were his motivations and was this investigation completely his way of getting Bonds? I really don't know. White says one thing and the government says the opposite.

For those fans of Steven Smith, Charles Barkley, OJ and conspiracy theories, much has also been made of the fact that Iran White is black and Novitsky is white -- but I won't go any further down that path as it could only lead to bad things.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

And my last response to Bean assuming he is really gone...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope when this is done, he [censored] some people up like what happened with mike nifong.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the winner of the worst analogy award...

This case is so far away from the Duke case. Bonds took steroids -- or was given steroids -- that is either true or there was a conspiracy bigger than the one that framed OJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're giving out "worst analogy" awards, and then in the same post comparing the Bonds case to OJ's.

Good gravy.



[/ QUOTE ]

No. People who believe there is no proof of steroid use MUST believe there is a conspiracy here to get Bonds by several investigators and prosecutors to falsifying documents and planting evidence. This is not the Duke rape case that was done in an unnecessary rush, with a single witness by a single hyper-aggressive prosecutor. The OJ analogy is far closer.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Everyone is correct. An acquittal will not change my mind about Bonds being on the juice. It will only show that there is not enough proof that he lied about not knowing he was on the juice. There is just too much evidence. Please don't ask me for it again. Buy the book -- or browse it in the store.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't seem to understand the difference between allegation and fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are more than mere allegations. Allegations are words without support. There is plenty of documented support here.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

"White says one thing and the government says the opposite."

And one of them has a motivation to lie and the other doesn't.

Oh, no, wait, I forgot. The Great International Negro Conspiracy. They are just looking out for each other.

This has always just been about Bonds. The entire issue of steroids in baseball has always just about Bonds. That's why nobody gives a [censored] about Palmiero, Grimsley, Merriman, etc. Sportswriters hate Bonds, sportswriters make the public hate Bonds, the steroids issue is the way that they can finally bring him down and get back at him for that goddamn Barcalounger.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
"White says one thing and the government says the opposite."

And one of them has a motivation to lie and the other doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

what motive?

[ QUOTE ]
That's why nobody gives a [censored] about Palmiero, Grimsley, Merriman, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

What??? Palmeiro's use of steroids was a huge story, as was Giambi. Grimsley was already out of the game when his name came out. I am not as big of a football fan, but I am very familiar with the Merriman situation because it was all over the sports news. Bonds is a bigger deal because (1) he is one of the best baseball players of all times who set records while using PEDs and (2) he changed his story many times and then lied about it in a place where he really shouldn't have.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

Bad news RedBean look at the prosecutions positive drug test. airtight IMO.
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/...ind-of-sketch/

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bad news RedBean look at the prosecutions positive drug test. airtight IMO.
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/...ind-of-sketch/

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta give Conte credit. Sounds like he knew the tests would come up positive, but threw enough doubt into the process in case the test results ever became public.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

ZOMG Johnny Cochran amirite or what?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"White says one thing and the government says the opposite."

And one of them has a motivation to lie and the other doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

what motive?

[ QUOTE ]
That's why nobody gives a [censored] about Palmiero, Grimsley, Merriman, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

What??? Palmeiro's use of steroids was a huge story, as was Giambi. Grimsley was already out of the game when his name came out. I am not as big of a football fan, but I am very familiar with the Merriman situation because it was all over the sports news. Bonds is a bigger deal because (1) he is one of the best baseball players of all times who set records while using PEDs and (2) he changed his story many times and then lied about it in a place where he really shouldn't have.

[/ QUOTE ]


Didnt Merriman make the Pro Bowl the same year he served a steroids suspsension?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"White says one thing and the government says the opposite."

And one of them has a motivation to lie and the other doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

what motive?

[ QUOTE ]
That's why nobody gives a [censored] about Palmiero, Grimsley, Merriman, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

What??? Palmeiro's use of steroids was a huge story, as was Giambi. Grimsley was already out of the game when his name came out. I am not as big of a football fan, but I am very familiar with the Merriman situation because it was all over the sports news. Bonds is a bigger deal because (1) he is one of the best baseball players of all times who set records while using PEDs and (2) he changed his story many times and then lied about it in a place where he really shouldn't have.

[/ QUOTE ]


Didnt Merriman make the Pro Bowl the same year he served a steroids suspsension?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, if he is convicted, you and others will certainly hold that up as the centerpiece in your reasoning.

Must be nice to have it both ways.

Conviction = Guilty
Acquittal = Still Guilty

[/ QUOTE ]wow i take this to mean if bonds is convicted, redbean will not give excuses that the trial was unfair, or that the jury was biased, or that the defense was feeble, or that media blah blah blah, but will accept the fact that bonds did steroids and will recant all his earlier statements?