Barry Bonds indicted

[Edge34]

I happen to think that its not much of a "perversion" of the legal system to pursue a case against someone who you believe perjured himself.

I happen to think Barry's rights were perfectly taken care of. He will get his chance to defend himself against these charges, and if they are proven false, he will never set foot in a jail. If he is convicted, he will rightfully go to jail. This particular case isn't about steroids, its about whether someone who can hit a lot of home runs should be above the justice system.

From wiki (save it):

[ QUOTE ]
A grand jury is part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word. The grand jury, as an impartial panel of ordinary citizens, must first decide whether there exists reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. The grand jury's decision is either a "true bill" (meaning that there is a case to answer) or "no true bill". Jurors typically are drawn from the same pool of citizens as a petit jury, and participate for a specific time period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, whether you like the way they're run today or not, nobody can argue that this is how they work, and the simple fact is that a group of people moved to allow this case to go to trial. This isn't going on the prosecution's word alone, nor is it the work of the currently-popular "rogue judge looking for camera time".

I'm white, and you may disagree with me as is your prerogative, but I don't have any dislike for Bonds due to his race. I do believe that if he is proven innocent of these charges (which is certainly possible, or more accurately "not guilty") then he should go free and I will be the first to say "hey, the justice system did what it was meant to do". But if he IS guilty, he should pay for his crime. This all would've been over a long time ago if he had admitted taking steroids (again, assuming he did) the first time around. If that's what happened, he basically gave the justice system the finger and put the home run chase ahead of honesty and integrity.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
RedBean,
I also saw Steve Phillips more or less guaranteeing Bonds would never play again and that he thinks there is good chance Bonds' record will not just have an asterix, but will be stricken from the record book all together.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Bonds will play again either. Obviously, he is now engaged in a fight for his freedom, and needs to focus on that instead of hitting baseballs.

As for the record being stricken, that would be ridiculous, but if MLB wants to be ridiculous, it's their game, they can do what they want. It wouldn't be the first time they tried to pretend something didn't happen.

But they can't change what happened on the field. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Triumph36]

i am greatly enjoying NT's contributions to this thread

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is that a thing to really be proud of? Not really. Would pretty much anybody in their situation do that? Without a second thought. The profit motive you are so hung up about isn't unique to this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the fact that others would do the exact same thing makes these guys reliable... how exactly? The fact that most reporters are whores for money means we should trust these particular whores?

Hint, the same guys who wrote that book are now hired commentators for major media outlets, presumably due to the notoriety they achieved from illegally leaking grand jury testimony. Aren't there statutes that are supposed to prevent people from profiting off criminal activity in this country?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're discrediting them because they stood to make a buck, nothing else. Which, of course, is fine if you then proceed to discredit the majority of journalists who would have done the exact same thing in their shoes.

Your referral to Son of Sam laws is completely irrelevant, because while, yeah, they're likely to be "special reporters" because of the book, they're not profiting from illegal activity, they're profiting from what would appear to me to be special knowledge of this case. Well, that and the fact that their name recognition will bring up ESPN's ratings, etc. etc.

The Son of Sam law is there to keep convicted criminals from selling their stories. You wouldn't see an OJ book if he had gone to jail. Many states' versions of this law have been eliminated, as well.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RedBean,
I also saw Steve Phillips more or less guaranteeing Bonds would never play again and that he thinks there is good chance Bonds' record will not just have an asterix, but will be stricken from the record book all together.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Bonds will play again either. Obviously, he is now engaged in a fight for his freedom, and needs to focus on that instead of hitting baseballs.

As for the record being stricken, that would be ridiculous, but if MLB wants to be ridiculous, it's their game, they can do what they want. It wouldn't be the first time they tried to pretend something didn't happen.

But they can't change what happened on the field. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the record would be stricken from the book only upon conviction, which I think is pretty fair since they've kept Pete Rose out of baseball for stuff he (at least technically) did OFF the field.

[NT!]

I didn't say you were a bad guy. I said this is a farcical legal proceeding and anyone who defends it is a [censored] idiot. No surprise, the people defending it are Rockies fans and L.A. lawyers.

You want to know why I am trying to 'get at' people? Because this is not an issue of splitting legal hairs, it's an issue of common [censored] sense. The entire investigation was a farce, a PR exercise for MLB, a corrupt and laughable process on which millions of dollars have been wasted. Dollars that could have been spent on catching actual tax evaders, or feeding victims of natural disasters, or defending the public from terrorism, or a hundred other more useful projects.

Suppose Bonds did lie. Why? Maybe because he knew he was the subject of a witch hunt. Knew that MLB would stop at nothing to attack him and, to a lesser extent, any other steroid user who spoke out about their hypocritical new stance. Look at what happened to Giambi - he makes critical remarks and within the week they leak the results of an 'anonymous' amphetamine test.

I think Bonds probably DID lie, but this is not the time for getting on a soapbox about the sanctity of legal proceedings, when the whole thing was a [censored] joke to begin with. If people are trying to highlight the 'sanctity of the process' here they are [censored] daft, there is no other way to say it. Lying to this grand jury is the rough equivalent of paying an extortionist with counterfeit bills.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to think that its not much of a "perversion" of the legal system to pursue a case against someone who you believe perjured himself.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually agree here. It was completely within the rule of law, as far as what we know so far....although I'd think we'd both agree that it was done with more zeal than usual, going through 3 GJ's and 4+ years, whereas in other examples it may have been abandoned prior to that point.

[ QUOTE ]

I happen to think Barry's rights were perfectly taken care of. He will get his chance to defend himself against these charges, and if they are proven false, he will never set foot in a jail. If he is convicted, he will rightfully go to jail. This particular case isn't about steroids, its about whether someone who can hit a lot of home runs should be above the justice system.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree here, with the exception of his rights being violated with the leaking of the sealed testimony in the first place, and the subsequent trial in the court of public opinion....but to be fair, the person who did that was convicted of a crime, and sentenced to prison.

Conte, Valente, Arnold and Greg served 2-4 months for their Balco convictions.

Greg served 1+ year for contempt in refusing to testify after his plea, pursuant to his plea.

Ellerman is serving 2.5 years for leaking testimony.

Obviously, this thing has spun wildly out of control from the original BALCO counts.

[ QUOTE ]
But if he IS guilty, he should pay for his crime. This all would've been over a long time ago if he had admitted taking steroids (again, assuming he did) the first time around. If that's what happened, he basically gave the justice system the finger and put the home run chase ahead of honesty and integrity.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if he is found not guilty?

Does the media issue retractions and apologies? Or do they continue to consider him guilty in the court of public opinion?

See why GJ testimony is sealed? In order to preserve a person's right to a fair trial and the right to confront accuers.

It's going to be damn near impossible to find 12 jurors who haven't been spoon-fed reckless allegations from SI, etc for the past 4 years.

Hell, the majority of this forum is already convinced he's guilty before he's even had a chance to present a defense.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

Your referral to Son of Sam laws is completely irrelevant, because while, yeah, they're likely to be "special reporters" because of the book, they're not profiting from illegal activity

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't think they are profiting from the illegal leaking of the testimony? How else would they get their story? Do you think the lawyer just leaked it for [censored] and giggles to whoever he felt like? Of course not, he leaked it to them because they went looking for it and they got it. Claiming that these reporters are just innocent observers of the process is a [censored] joke, when they engaged in a concerted, cooperative effort with someone they knew to be a criminal to conceal him from justice. Get [censored] real, of course they profited from the crime.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the record would be stricken from the book only upon conviction, which I think is pretty fair since they've kept Pete Rose out of baseball for stuff he (at least technically) did OFF the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could see your point if you were talking suspending or banning Bonds from baseball......but you're talking about removing his stats, which is completely different.

As for the example, they didn't take away Pete's hit record....they banned him from baseball.

[owsley]

lol