"Bonds reportedly preparing to sue Schilling" - Yahoo!

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, not going to get completely dragged in to this again, BUT...

[/ QUOTE ]
Without reading the rest of the thread or your post. I would assume otherwise.
This is pretty awesome of Bonds from a pure spite perspective.

[BowToYourSensei]

thank [censored] god

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
HEY REDBEAN PROVE BONDS DIDN'T DO STEROIDS YEAH THAT'S RIGHT YOU CAN'T

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to originally reply to this by explaining the obvious logical problem that this assertion lacks falsifiability, commonly known as "you can't prove a negative", and then transition into an explanation of the logical fallacy of 'negative proof'.

But then, I realized I would be replying to a post in the Sporting Events forum that was mashed out with the caps lock on and lacking any attention to even the most basic of sentence structure -- so I'm guessing the application of logical reasoning isn't real high on your "10 things to do before I die" list.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually "they" have never tried Bonds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. They haven't even been able to muster enough eidence to convince the grand jury to indict, much less attempt a trial.

[niss]

Pssst. Grand jury still seated. Call me when it's dismissed without filing charges.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Pssst. Grand jury still seated. Call me when it's dismissed without filing charges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pssst. First two Grand juries dismissed without filing charges. This is third attempt.

Statute of limitations expires next summer. Will call then. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[daryn]

so..

bonds definitely juiced up, right? or do people actually not think so?

[EvanJC]

[ QUOTE ]
so..

bonds definitely juiced up, right? or do people actually not think so?

[/ QUOTE ]

its not been proven, innocent until proven guilty, etc. he most likely did. almost certainly. but it doesnt matter.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if Schilling said Bonds did steroids, and Bonds did, in fact, do steroids, then it would be a defense to the defamation suit. If this suit goes forward, it could easily become a trial to determine whether or not Bonds did steroids.

And wouldn't that be interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would have nothing to do with whether or not Bonds took steroids.

The key part you're missing is that the issue is that Schilling asserted as fact that Bonds admitted to taking steroids, among other things, which he didn't.

Kind of like how you originally asserted that Bonds admitted as much was fact, when it isn't. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Schilling said on national radio the following:

1. Bonds admitted cheating on his wife.
2. Bonds admitted cheating on his taxes.
3. Bonds admitted taking steroids.

It's going to be awfully difficult for Schilling to use truth as a defense considering the above three things never happened.

Schilling, of course, can get out of it by claiming he didn't do it with the intent to defame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't Schilling state those things based on Bonds' girlfriend testifying as such?

[Hurrrr]

[ QUOTE ]
so..

bonds definitely juiced up, right? or do people actually not think so?

[/ QUOTE ]


LDO, just like Clemens, McGwire, Sosa and probably 50% of players in the 1995-2005 range.