View Single Post
  #680  
Old 08-08-2007, 04:57 PM
DrewDevil DrewDevil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,715
Default Re: Official Barry Bonds Countdown Thread

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He admitted taking a substance that he thought was flaxseed oil but was actually steroids.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correction: A substance the authors BELIEVED to be steroids based on their interpretation of circumstantial evidence. Key distinction.

[ QUOTE ]
even though no one has ever disputed that it was in fact steroids. Not even Bonds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you say at one time you are studying or have studied law?

You do realize that the defense does not get to present evidence at grand jury to refute the prosecutions evidence?

[ QUOTE ]

Also, steroids were banned from MLB by commissioner Fay Vincent in 1991, though there was no testing until recently. So using steroids has been against the rules and therefore cheating since 1991.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correction: "illegal drugs, including illegal steroids."

Call it semantics, but lawfully prescribed steroids, not to mention HGH which is not a steroid, were not against the rules of the game.

And considering that Bonds has not been allowed to present his side yet....who knows what sort of surprises you're in for.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Redbean, please assert and/or present compelling evidence that Bonds has never used ILLEGAL steroids.

[not holding breath]

Edit: never mind, you're just going to ctrl+v the crap about never testing positive. Whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's impossible to prove a negative. I can't believe how much you suck at logic in this thread. I'm done with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't ask for proof, I asked for evidence. Big difference. And Redbean has basically discounted anything that isn't absolute proof from the other perspective. I just want a little evidence to support his position.

The problem, of course, is that Redbean knows Bonds is dirty, just like every other carbon-based life form who knows anything about the subject. That's why he can only attack the semantics and the technicalities of the evidence, and not the actual question.

Never in this thread has Redbean argued that Bonds is clean.
Reply With Quote