Barry Bonds indicted

[TMTTR]

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.

[bottomset]

[ 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?

[TMTTR]

[ 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.

[FlyWf]

[ 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.

[Vyse]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you talking to me, Vyse?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, can you follow simple conversational exchanges?

[AcTiOnJaCsOn]

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