Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly? I'd say yes

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

In my opinion it looks more likely Bonds is going to be found innocent than not.

Anyway, RedBean wins again. TMTTR is so biased that you can't even take his opinion seriously, he goes against all facets of logic.

"

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..."

/thread

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

Is Vyse for real? In the matter of just a few words, he gives an opinion you can't take seriously and then says mine can't be taken seriously without explaining why -- although it seems clear he has come here to slam me because he is still upset than I have beaten him into the metaphorical bloody pulp in our earlier exchange.

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion it looks more likely Bonds is going to be found innocent than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

oops. You dont't get "found innocent," you get found not guilty. Big difference. See OJ.

How can you not understand the U.S. judicial system? Bonds can be found not guilty of perjury and still have used steroids. Indeed he might have still known he used steroids. If he is found not guilty under the criminal law for perjury, it doesn't even mean he didn't lie. Indeed it could still be more likely than not that he did lie. Criminal trials have very high burdens of proof to protect the innocent even though it allows some of the bad guys to get away.

Bonds may truly have never used steroids -- but there is a lot of evidence to overcome to reach that conclusion and it would likely involve proving a tremendous conspiracy against him.

[ QUOTE ]

TMTTR is so biased that you can't even take his opinion seriously, he goes against all facets of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coming from Vyse the Illogical, this is a compliment. I have no bias against Bonds. i have posted mostly facts and my opinions are backed up by facts or published reports by reputable sources.

Please attack one point that I have made. Please tell me what is clearly not true.

But those requests are futile. I have already proven Vyse incapable of rational thought in our earlier meetings on other topics. Yet, you keep coming back to insult and prove yourself lame, overwhelmed and unworthy of serious consideration.

[ QUOTE ]
/thread

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you mean "/vyse" before he sticks his foot back in his mouth. Too late.

In short, for vyse: Long posts you disagree with != illogical. You need to show the holes. You never do.

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 ]

WTF I thought everyone in the media is a douchebag part of a hudge conspiracy out to get Bonds?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

Why is it such a big deal that Bonds used steroids and not a big deal that tons of others did?

Why does everyone make a big deal out of this leaked testimony that doesn't even show valid evidence of Bonds using steroids, while the Grimsley report names Clemens, Pettite, Tejada, etc. and nobody cares?

Why can Palmeiro scream he never used steroids under oath, test positive for steroids, and nobody care?

Why can Merriman test positive for steroids and nobody care -even elected him to the pro bowl!

If you really think this is about how bad steroids is and how lying is bad you are completely ignorant/dreaming/etc.

TMTTR,

You said that there is proof Bonds used steroids....

LOL

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

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..."

/thread

[/ QUOTE ]

blah blah blah flame all you want, when you're getting owned all you can do is flame. but there's a reason why you won't even bother to reply to the above, because it's 100% true and it owns everything about you.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

Vyse,

I'm pretty sure the reason you should be ignored is that you're a huge POS troll who deliberately derails every thread you post in, not for the lame-ass substitute reasons you provide.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

Unscientifically and purely based on my own hazy remembrances, but it seems that a lot of the people who are up in arms about Bonds were writing a lot of "Pete Rose should go in the Hall if he apologizes" columns and before his admission were in the "Rose either didn't bet on baseball or if he did he only bet on his team so he didn't do anything wrong" group.

Just for my edification, could some of the more outspoken people in this thread give their opinions on Rose PRIOR to Rose's admission when the issue was still in doubt?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
Vyse,

I'm pretty sure the reason you should be ignored is that you're a huge POS troll who deliberately derails every thread you post in, not for the lame-ass substitute reasons you provide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad I didn't write it, RedBean did. Stop breathing.

Glad I can keep pissing you off, though. What does it say about you that every time you respond to me you're always reduced to third-grade flaming? It amuses me.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
Vyse,

I'm pretty sure the reason you should be ignored is that you're a huge POS troll who deliberately derails every thread you post in, not for the lame-ass substitute reasons you provide.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]

Too bad I didn't write it, RedBean did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also funny considering how if you're quoting it for truth, your actions sure disagreed... You responded to me enough just so that you could flame me but you still ignored what isn't even my point originally -- it's REDBEAN's. His post. His argument. And I'm noticing that you ignored it and calling you out on it and will keep calling you out on it until you respond. You not responding just shows that he was right -- not that there's any doubt here -- and whatever excuse you can come up for not answering it doesn't fly because, again, you were arguing against RedBean and not mine, and so conveniently decided not to respond to HIS point. ^^

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

Are you talking to me, Vyse? Your posts are confusing and respond to your own posts. I believe I have responded to everything RedBean addressed to me at one point or another. If you are writing to me, please respond to me -- or just let me guess so you can criticize me and call me an idiot later because I can't figure out what is going on in that cloudy little mind of yours.

Wile I am here:
I know that Thay3r challenged me on the existence of proof of steroid use. (You see how I make it clear that I am respond to something Thay3r wrote, Vyse?) In response to that, I would point to the list in the first appendix to <u>Game of Shadows</u> as a starting point. There is more in subsequent articles and disclosures. If there was only one document or one person, I would be far less confidence. The mountain of proof of use, from related and unrelated sources, leads to my very strong opinion that Bonds used steroids.

In court, Bonds will seek to prove that he did not lie about knowing what he was taking -- and he might succeed. I will be interested to see whether he tries to prove what he doesn't need to prove -- that he did not use steroids AND was not given steroids without his knowledge. He probably won't do that and thus, even if he is acquitted, many questions will likely remain open.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
In response to that, I would point to the list in the first appendix to Game of Shadows as a starting point

[/ QUOTE ]

why would a book that the Pulitzer committee basically said was hearsay and not able to be looked at as factual have any real value

is the Pulitzer committee in on the conspiracy too?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In response to that, I would point to the list in the first appendix to Game of Shadows as a starting point

[/ QUOTE ]

why would a book that the Pulitzer committee basically said was hearsay and not able to be looked at as factual have any real value

is the Pulitzer committee in on the conspiracy too?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is with people and the way they make crap up and distort reality? Is that really the only way they can debate these issues?

The Pulitzer committee decided that the series of articles that preceded the book would not be a finalist for the award in whatever year that was. I don't think they ever said why -- but it was likely because of the controversy over the exposure of grand jury testimony and the inability to confirm it. This is the first time I have heard the word hearsay used (and since that is a courtroom rule of evidence thrown around in conversation by those who don't understand it, I don't believe the Pulitzer committee would use it). I have read in blogs that the committee found the earlier articles were "unsubstantiated" but (1) I could only find blogs that said that, (2) it was prior to the publication of the book and (3) has nothing to do with the appendix to the book which was not yet published and not submitted to the Pulitzer committee.

But nice try.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm pretty sure he's never actually said that before

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

arod mvp

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In response to that, I would point to the list in the first appendix to Game of Shadows as a starting point

[/ QUOTE ]

why would a book that the Pulitzer committee basically said was hearsay and not able to be looked at as factual have any real value

is the Pulitzer committee in on the conspiracy too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Likely full of black people imo.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you talking to me, Vyse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, can you follow simple conversational exchanges?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BINGO! As could be expected, RedBean completely misrepresents the situation. This was no trap to put Bonds in jail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I didn't explain it well.....but the trap went like this:

If Bonds admits steroid use, they leak the testimony and destroy him in public opinion.
If Bonds denies the steroid use, they prosecute him for perjury.
They offer him immunity so he can't plead the fifth, and if he refuses to answer questions a la McGwire, they put him in jail for contempt.


[/ QUOTE ]

So if he did lie he did it because he cares sooooo much about his public image he would risk jail time to preserve it? Is that what you mean?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

barry thrives under pressure, hell be back and beter than ever

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
"The courtroom is not always the best forum to get all the facts..."

Yes, a vastly better source is douchebag sportswriters and idiots on the internet. Courts have this big hangup about things being "true" instead of "interesting", and after all Barry Bonds has a barcalounger at his locker. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence gets thrown out of courts all the time for reasons unrelated to it being true or not. Not saying everything you read on the interwebs is true either. Just that a trial does not always include all the evidence.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly? I'd say yes

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, but it works both ways. If he is not convicted it still does not mean he did not use steroids.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it such a big deal that Bonds used steroids and not a big deal that tons of others did?

Why does everyone make a big deal out of this leaked testimony that doesn't even show valid evidence of Bonds using steroids, while the Grimsley report names Clemens, Pettite, Tejada, etc. and nobody cares?

Why can Palmeiro scream he never used steroids under oath, test positive for steroids, and nobody care?

Why can Merriman test positive for steroids and nobody care -even elected him to the pro bowl!

If you really think this is about how bad steroids is and how lying is bad you are completely ignorant/dreaming/etc.



[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Because Bonds is arguably the GOAT, the holder of the most hallowed record in sports, and is generally considered a prick? That make sense? The public could give two [censored] about steroids being bad or dangerous or whatever. It is about "protecting" the national pastime.

Fair or not, that is why he is the poster child for the era.

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 ]

Why would Bonds need to take a weekly test at all if there was not at least something borderline going on?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The courtroom is not always the best forum to get all the facts..."

Yes, a vastly better source is douchebag sportswriters and idiots on the internet. Courts have this big hangup about things being "true" instead of "interesting", and after all Barry Bonds has a barcalounger at his locker. QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence gets thrown out of courts all the time for reasons unrelated to it being true or not. Not saying everything you read on the interwebs is true either. Just that a trial does not always include all the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Which does nothing to change the conclusion, that courtroom&gt;&gt;&gt;court of public opinion when it comes to discerning truth. Especially when one side is under gag order.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would Bonds need to take a weekly test at all if there was not at least something borderline going on?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have said the exact opposite, why does he need to take a weekly test if he knows he is dirty.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly? I'd say yes

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, but it works both ways. If he is not convicted it still does not mean he did not use steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. We've been over this. NOTHING could ever possibly mean he didnt do steroids. It is impossible to prove that. An acquittal, the summary firing of everyone involved from the DoJ side, admissions it was all a witch hunt, Jesus coming down to testify on Bonds behalf, none of that would mean he didnt take steroids.

Remember when we had a big discussion about weighted probabilities? Are you claiming that an acquittal doesnt shift the likelihood AT ALL? Or just that it could never possibly shift the likelihood any meaningful amount? Or what?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming that an acquittal doesnt shift the likelihood AT ALL? Or just that it could never possibly shift the likelihood any meaningful amount? Or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hypothetically, I would expect an acquittal to shift the likelihood that Bonds was not aware that he was given steroids considerably (although this will also depend on what evidence is permitted and disallowed). The likelihood of whether he was actually given steroids with or without his knowledge (or with his intentional or reckless disregard of what was being put into his body) could change in either direction depending on the evidence presented at trial -- or there could be no effect at all.

I don't want to start a new thread to ask this, so I will ask it here: What gag order?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming that an acquittal doesnt shift the likelihood AT ALL? Or just that it could never possibly shift the likelihood any meaningful amount? Or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hypothetically, I would expect an acquittal to shift the likelihood that Bonds was not aware that he was given steroids considerably (although this will also depend on what evidence is permitted and disallowed). The likelihood of whether he was actually given steroids with or without his knowledge (or with his intentional or reckless disregard of what was being put into his body) could change in either direction depending on the evidence presented at trial -- or there could be no effect at all.

I don't want to start a new thread to ask this, so I will ask it here: What gag order?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that Bonds was not allowed to talk about anything discussed at the grand jury proceedings since they were sealed.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would Bonds need to take a weekly test at all if there was not at least something borderline going on?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have said the exact opposite, why does he need to take a weekly test if he knows he is dirty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? The "clear." Like, you can take it and your test comes up clear. Would you not want to make sure it was working?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]


Remember when we had a big discussion about weighted probabilities? Are you claiming that an acquittal doesnt shift the likelihood AT ALL? Or just that it could never possibly shift the likelihood any meaningful amount? Or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it shifts it.

But think of it this way. If you had to make a yes/no decision with only 25% of the total evidence surrounding it, how confident would you be in that decision? What about with 50%? 75%? 99%?

Now what percentage of the total evidence available do you think the DOJ, Bonds lawyers, etc etc have and can use in court? How honest will all the witnesses be? And on and on.

For example, if Conte and Anderson both testify that Bonds had no idea what was going on do we take their word at face value? Some would, some would not.

So if he is acquitted but only say, 25% of the total evidence (obv totally subjective) is admissable that moves the likelihood less than if 75% of the evidence is shown. Agree?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would Bonds need to take a weekly test at all if there was not at least something borderline going on?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have said the exact opposite, why does he need to take a weekly test if he knows he is dirty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? The "clear." Like, you can take it and your test comes up clear. Would you not want to make sure it was working?

[/ QUOTE ]

He may know he's dirty, but that doesn't mean he would test dirty.

At some point, don't you think Bonds would ask why the lab administering him supplements would also be testing him for steroids?

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming that an acquittal doesnt shift the likelihood AT ALL? Or just that it could never possibly shift the likelihood any meaningful amount? Or what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hypothetically, I would expect an acquittal to shift the likelihood that Bonds was not aware that he was given steroids considerably (although this will also depend on what evidence is permitted and disallowed). The likelihood of whether he was actually given steroids with or without his knowledge (or with his intentional or reckless disregard of what was being put into his body) could change in either direction depending on the evidence presented at trial -- or there could be no effect at all.

I don't want to start a new thread to ask this, so I will ask it here: What gag order?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that Bonds was not allowed to talk about anything discussed at the grand jury proceedings since they were sealed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the grand jury witness is the only person in the grand jury room that is allowed to disclose his testimony outside of the grand jury room without leave of court (at least in the federal system). Everyone else is bound to secrecy.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

linky

Somebody must have written him a pretty big check....

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
linky

Somebody must have written him a pretty big check....

[/ QUOTE ]

This has always puzzled me because Anderson is basically saying that his truthful testimony will incriminate Bonds. I cannot believe he is going to sit in jail otherwise (whether or not someone is paying him to be silent).

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

Man Bonds must be a pretty huge prick to have friends like that.

Re: Barry Bonds indicted
 

[ QUOTE ]
Man Bonds must be a pretty huge prick to have friends like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never met the man and have never called him a prick... and if he is a prick, he is a prick with a big checkbook.

But that avoids the point -- if he has nothing incriminating to say, why won't he testify? I know someone will slam me for saying this, but Anderson's refusal to testify is one of the things that makes me believe that Bonds knowingly took steroids... his silence is not admissible in court, but it is incriminating in the court of public opinion.