Re: More Bonds
[ QUOTE ]
Redbean demands absolute proof of any evidence that Bonds used steroids, but he is not held to the same standard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Quick quiz.....
1. The burden of proof is on the ________.
a) accuser.
b) accused.
2. You cannot logically prove a ________.
a) negative.
b) affirmative.
Bonus Question:
1. Barry Bonds has failed ______ MLB steroid tests.
a.) zero
b.) none
c.) nada
d.) all of the above
[ QUOTE ]
For example, he has made several assertions calling the Game of Shadows book into question... but he has not made a detailed, sourced, point-by-point refutation of all of the detailed, sourced, point-by-point pieces of evidence in the book.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let's start with this.....the leaked testimony that is central to the book......the same testimony that is being viewed in WHOLE and without the author's biased narrative, and without witholding the parts from the public that don't support their case......based on that testimony in whole....two seperate grand juries have adjourned without producing even so much as an indictment.
The original federal prosecutor in the case, prior to being fired, when asked to comment on the importance of Greg Anderson's testimony....said (paraphrasing) "In the abscence of Mr. Anderson implicating Bonds' knowingly using steroids, and without any new discovery, we don't have enough evidence to go to trial."
Hence, a third GJ was impaneled for the sole purpose of putting Greg back in jail for the past 9 months in hopes he eventually "cracks" and gives up Bonds.
If so much evidence exists, why not take it to trial already?
Oh, wait...the grand jury looking at all the evidence doesn't think there is enough.
As we don't have access to all the evidence, nor has Bonds been allowed to present his defense in public, we can do one of three things:
1. Defer to the biased author's opinions of the illegally obtained testimony, despite them not sharing it in whole, and only picking out the parts they liked....pile on with the rest of the angry mob that only needs the flimsiest of excuses to openly hate and spew vitriol for someone they "didn't like anyway".
or
2. Defer to the judgement of the Grand Jury that is looking at all the evidence being presented by the prosecution, and still fails to find enough merit to proceed to trial, and question why if "so much evidence exists", do the very folks who are privy to it disagree?
or
3. Reserve judgement until all evidence and both sides are permitted to be presented to the public and only then make an informed opinion.
Remember, the DA is investigating whether or not Bonds lied when he denied under oath using steroids. They do not feel they can even proceed to trial with the current evidence!!
The same evidence that was re-packaged and presented in a narrative form and sold for-profit by the GoS authors.
If the GJ that is privy to ALL of the evidence, in native format and free from the narrative bias and re-packaging cannot determine there is enough evidence to even GO TO TRIAL, then I must say, the issue needs little more examination than to say "Hmm....they must not have as much compelling evidence as the for-profit, sensationalized book would have you believe."
Secondly, the Griffey/Bonds dinner convo as related second-hand to the authors, and then placed in opinionated narrative......Griffey has personaly spoken about this allegation and vehemently denied it ever took place, and the "source" for the authors wasn't even present at the event. Consequently, the source also declined to testify to the same facts under oath.
Did the authors dispute Griffey's claim? No. They merely said "well, that's what our source said, so we went with it."
But, oddly enough, when issuing a reprint later with added text to "update" the reader on the status of Bonds case, and his pursuit of Hank Aaron, this section regarding the Griffey/Bonds dinner convo was not removed, changed, corrected, or even addressed in the update notes as being disputed by the actual persons in attendance, Ken Griffey Jr.
Not to mention, Kim Bell's testimony under oath has been described as "contradictory" to what she told the authors in the book, and on what they based the majority of their fictionalized recounting of their opinions of Bond's motivations.
[ QUOTE ]
But that's what he demands from anyone who doesn't agree with him.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't demand incontrevertable proof from anyone. I just point out that no conclusive proof exists, and remind everyone we are seeing "evidence" as filtered through the brains of two biased hacks, and not any evidence that has been released from either side, and most importantly from the defense.
[ QUOTE ]
For example, he keeps referring to the GoS authors as "biased" and mentioning that the book was made "for profit," but of course, even if those assertions are true, it doesn't mean the evidence in the book is false.
[/ QUOTE ]
Would you call the narrative opinions of the authors "proof", or would you concede it is their own opinions presented in a narrative style?
You are a lawyer, and I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you that the majority of the book is inadmissable because it is rampant speculation and hearsay. It's exactly the kind of stuff that works in the court of public opinion on non-critical thinkers who only need an excuse to hate someone they already have a preconcieved notion towards....and it's exactly the type of crap that isn't allowed in court because it in no way resembles "proof".
[ QUOTE ]
And in our long, ridiculous argument about whether Bonds admitted using steroids, even the great Redbean admitted it was "highly likely" that the substance Bonds used was a steroid.
[/ QUOTE ]
If the one sided story we have been told by the criminal associates of the leak in the GJ testimony is in fact true, then I would agree it would be "highly likely".
I am also capable of suspending belief when watching "Back to the Future" for the sake of entertainment.
But considering that we have not been privy to any of the official testimony, in it's entire native format, free from biased narratives, MUCH LESS have not been presented any information from the accused....it's awfully early to make judgements based on evidence that has not been seen.
We're basically being asked right now to believe as gospel the words of two biased hacks who assisted in the commission of a federal crime, for the purposes of making a dollar, and in the process throw a few stones at a guy they had been highly critical of in the past for a variety of selfish reasons.
Yeah, sounds like a perfect witness to place complete faith in!!!
This is PRECISELY why GJ testimony is sealed, and precisely why the folks who leaked it are sitting in prison for 2+ years while Bonds is still being paid millions to play baseball....guilty of no crime, and breaking no baseball steroid rules.
[ QUOTE ]
His contention was simply that I could not prove to his level of satisfaction that Bonds had "knowingly admitted" using steroids.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, the authors of GoS have since conceded that Bonds never admitted using steroids.
Considering that was your source for claiming he "admitted using steroids", you must give up by now.
[ QUOTE ]
Redbean knows Bonds used steroids.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're resorting to the same outright fabrication and falsehoods like Mark Fahrin-Wada-Bada-Bing-Bang and Lance WhatsHisFace when they penned their work of fiction.
You're passing your own opinion off as fact, and if you could manage to get it published in SI, millions would lap it up. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
<u>Cliff notes:</u>
Greg ain't talking...
Bonds is walking...
762 and counting....
|