The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko

[MikeyPatriot]

Fans deserve a historic artifact defaced because they can look at a situation objectively?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
what has been said is that the amount of evidence v Barry is similar to that v OJ


[/ QUOTE ]

It's been "said" but not "shown"......especially to those who have had access to all of the evidence presented to the respective grand juries.

Considering OJ's case had one GJ indict with ease, and proceeded to trial.....yet Bonds' prosecutors are on their third GJ attempt and have yet to sniff an indictment.

Look at another high profile case for another example....Mike Vick's investigation began this year, and the guy was indicted with ease and is scheduled to be sentenced Dec 10.

Contrast that to the fact that the investigation by Jeff Novitsky into Barry Bonds first began SIX YEARS ago.

And not even and indictment to show for it.


[ QUOTE ]

it's also been said that your 'defense' of Bonds is simlar to that of Cochran defending OJ


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the "Chewbacca Defense"?

If anything, the irony is that in Bonds case, it's more like the "Chewbacca Prosecution" as all sorts of media types are throwing wild assertions and irrelevant issues against the wall hoping that something sticks, and if not due to the collection of numerous accusations, whether true or not, public opinion will blindly follow along anyway.

[DrewDevil]

So do I have this straight, Redbean?

It is your position that the 1991 memo, which on its face prohibited non-prescribed steroids, did not ban steroids? The prescription qualifier, in your mind, removes the prohibition?

I mean, that's really amazing, even for you.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Dude, RedBean, how could you possibly have been so negligent as to forget about "the little things?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I notice, once again, someone glossing over stuff and trying to identify one point where they can try to twist a semantic argument to discredit the rest of what was said


[/ QUOTE ]

What is he glossing over?

You assert the evidence against Bonds to be:

1. "what he said"
2. "his numbers"
3. "his pictures"
4. "the little things"

I'll engage in intelligent, rational debate about all 4 of these items until I'm blue in the face, if you'd like, but to be honest the sarcasm dripping from Vhawk's reply to you was due to the fact that such debate probably isn't possible by the mere fact that you are pointing to numbers and pictures as evidence of steroid use.

[Triumph36]

i thought i was bored of these threads - nope, they are still awesome. redbean ftw.

[MyTurn2Raise]

ummmmmm

the bodies
bloody glove at brentwood mansion

why isn't there an indictment? no way to pressure those that know the nitty gritty


hmmmm........................
hmmmmm...................
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

i haven't seen anything that could explain these things away

Bonds very likely doped
he wasn't alone
he was obvious
fans didn't hold MLB to the fire

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
i thought i was bored of these threads - nope, they are still awesome. redbean ftw.

[/ QUOTE ]


hahahahhahahahahah.....how did he win?

he creates fictitious points and beats them---whoopeee

I've dragged his ass through the ground on this



I clearly see you are trolling me now just because shortstacks are stealing from your bucket....lollerskates

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Dude, RedBean, how could you possibly have been so negligent as to forget about "the little things?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I notice, once again, someone glossing over stuff and trying to identify one point where they can try to twist a semantic argument to discredit the rest of what was said


[/ QUOTE ]

What is he glossing over?

You assert the evidence against Bonds to be:

1. "what he said"
2. "his numbers"
3. "his pictures"
4. "the little things"

I'll engage in intelligent, rational debate about all 4 of these items until I'm blue in the face, if you'd like, but to be honest the sarcasm dripping from Vhawk's reply to you was due to the fact that such debate probably isn't possible by the mere fact that you are pointing to numbers and pictures as evidence of steroid use.

[/ QUOTE ]

what??????????????

you look at those numbers and those pictures combined with Barry's personal attitude and the close relationships he had with dopers, yet don't see that as very compelling evidence of performance enhancement product use above and beyond OTC use???????????

hahahahhahahahahha
hahahhahahahahhahah
rofl


hahahahahhahahah

EDIT: notice everyone how i've used the tactic largely adopted by some people in the long-going Barry saga of reducing the opposing view by laughing at it as it doesn't even merit consideration.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
So do I have this straight, Redbean?

It is your position that the 1991 memo, which on its face prohibited non-prescribed steroids, did not ban steroids? The prescription qualifier, in your mind, removes the prohibition?

I mean, that's really amazing, even for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is your position that a 10 year old memo has any authority whatsoever in comparison to the CBA?

[Triumph36]

plenty of non-shortstacks have tried to beat redbean. he's unassailable unless you actually come armed with facts. you are making yourself look worse and worse with these 'refutations' which are basically hand-waving, and then laughing. they're not arguments at all.