More Bonds

[DrewDevil]

I don't think Redbean has discredited the arguments, but simply called them into question. I think he conflates "evidence" and "proof" on purpose, and quite well.

For example, increased HR output after age 35 is suspicious because most players don't do that. Is it "evidence" of steroid use? Meh, maybe it's evidence, but as I said earlier, it's not compelling. It's certainly not proof of steroid use.

But showing that Hank Aaron also increased HR output after age 35 does not "discredit" the theory that steroids helped Bonds improve HIS production after 35. It may very well be that that's exactly what happened. Redbean has simply shown that it's not NECESSARILY the cause for the effect.

That is not the same thing as "discrediting" the evidence, just showing that it's not the absolute incontrovertible proof Redbean demands.

Dammit, I told myself I was through with this debate...

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this specific case, I agree with Redbean. Increased HR output after age 35 is not compelling evidence of steroid use IMO.

There is, of course, tons of OTHER evidence that Bonds used steroids, but Redbean only argues the specific technical merits of specific arguments, not the big picture.

Redbean is an intelligent guy and so he knows Bonds used steroids and has never denied that, choosing instead to offer a well-crafted defense to prosecution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but look at it this way: people like you say there is TONS of evidence. So RedBean asks for it. You list Argument A. He defeats it. You give Argument B. He defeats it. You give argument C. He defeats it, and you say, "Sure, argument C might be wrong, but there are A, B, C, so many arguments! He is obv guilty!"

Its a common tactic, just keep bringing up more and more arguments, no matter how terrible they are and no matter how often they are defeated, because it gives the impression that there must be SOMETHING there. 10 arguments can't all be wrong, and if you repeat them over and over, 40 arguments cant all be wrong! And look at the Bonds apologists, they just keep making excuses over and over again! They keep using the same tired excuses!

See where I'm going?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with much of what you said, but saying that there is tons of evidence is not the same thing as saying there is absolute incontrovertible proof. Obviously I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bonds used steroids---especially on an interweb message board. Please keep that crucial distinction in mind.

Redbean demands absolute proof of any evidence that Bonds used steroids, but he is not held to the same standard. 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. I don't demand that he does so, because this is just a flippin' internet board. But that's what he demands from anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Redbean is certainly good at calling evidence into question, but I don't agree that he has "defeated" point A, point B, point C, etc. He simple challenges the evidence as a defense attorney might. 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.

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. His contention was simply that I could not prove to his level of satisfaction that Bonds had "knowingly admitted" using steroids.

Redbean knows Bonds used steroids, and almost every Bonds supporter on this board has said they know Bonds used steroids. They just want to argue the technicalities of whether it's been "proven" to a sufficient burden of proof by a sufficiently worthy authority. The actual argument--that Bonds used steroids--gets lost in the technicalities, semantics, and the minutiae.

Great debate tactic, but a little disingenuous IMO.

See where I'm going?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is, its impossible to defeat your arguments if by defeat you mean disprove. I cannot PROVE that what you are saying is incorrect, because it is impossible. All I can do is discredit your arguments, which is what RedBean has done. Since he hasn't 100% disproved them, for some reason you (and I mean you in the general sense, this isn't a personal attack on you) think you can add up the 3% uncertainty here, the 5% uncertainty there, and add them all together to make a whole bunch of uncertainty. Thats not the way it works, but it does seem to convince a lot of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edit: I'm a little amazed that you posted this, because this is exactly Redbean's tactic. He calls evidence into question--creating a small uncertainty--and then people like you think he has "discredited" the evidence completely---when in fact, he has just cast doubt on the evidence.

A perfect example of this is Redbean's repeated statement that the feds have not been able to indict Bonds, much less convict him. The fact that Bonds has not been indicted does not in any way mean that he will never be indicted, or that there is not sufficient evidence to indict him. And yet that is the implication Redbean draws---that because Bonds has not yet been indicted, then it follows that he cannot be indicted.

Do you see how this doesn't make sense?

These are the types of arguments Redbean uses, and it is why I am amazed that he is hailed on this board as a paragon of logic.

But whatever.

[RedBean]

[ 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....

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
We're in a situation where if Bonds is convicted he might actually be kept out of the HoF or Selig might do something crazy like take away his records. These are very serious consequences, so I think it is very legitimate to be a huge nit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truth be told, the HOF is based on the sole discretion of the very same vitriolic sports media that has villified Bonds for years.

It is their "alibi in advance" for denying him HOF entry, at least on the first ballot as he deserves.

And as for the records, nobody can take them away. They can refuse to print them, but they can't unhit all those homeruns.

But all that aside, that is not what is at stake here at all.

What is at stake is Greg Anderson's freedom, for one. He served 4 months in jail as part of his plea agreement, and was released.

Since that time he has spent a total of 15 months in jail for "contempt of court" in refusing to testify any further.

FWIW, his original plea deal stipulated that he would never have to testify further.

Secondly, Bonds freedom is at stake if convicted. The penalty for perjury is rather severe, and the reason he is not too concerned right now about the court of public opinion is that he is embroiled in a 4 year total investigation by several major federal agencies who want him to be the trophy on their mantles.

It's already caused one Federal prosecutor his job, another defendant's lawyer his freedom, and several much more serious federal laws violated and the commision of those crimes condoned by the media in their bloodthirst for Bonds.

Thirdly, it's about the constant onsluaght of vitriol directed at Bonds by a biased media that sides with the allegations of their own peers without question, and presses forward on a mission to convince the world of the same....knowing full well that the accused is prevented by law from addressing the situation as he is bound by the Grand Jury seal while they are not.

And lastly, it's about an outspoken angry defiant black man armed with a baseball bat thumbing his nose at the IRS, the FBI, the DEA, the DOJ, and the entire resources of the federal government as they've poured countless amounts of taxpayer dollars down the drain in their pursuit of him.....and they still can't touch him.

Truth be told, Barry Bonds is a true American hero before you even take into consideration what is on the back of his baseball card or what he has accomplished between the white lines. I'd be surprised if many people would last a day in his shoes, much less the past four years.

Viva la Bonds!
All hail the King!

[MyTurn2Raise]

Has it been established that Bonds used the cream and the clear?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Has it been established that Bonds used the cream and the clear?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

It has been highly <u>speculated</u> that the clear-like substance he believed to be flaxseed oil was the same substance as "the clear".

Circumstantial at best.

Likely? Maybe so.

Established fact? Nope.

Remember, just because you draw the conclusion that the clear-like substance believed to be flaxseed oil "must be the same" as THE CLEAR....doesn't make it an established fact....especially when the defense is disputing the assertion, and they haven't been provided a chance to present their case.

Greg Anderson and Victor Conte have both testified under oath that they supplied THE CLEAR (THG) to several of the known athletes involved in the BALCO investigation, and they also testified and are on record as saying they never provided that substance to Barry Bonds.

And unfortunately for the government, Greg isn't ever getting back on the stand to clarify Bonds testimony.

[Pudge714]

[ QUOTE ]
Redbean demands absolute proof of any evidence that Bonds used steroids, but he is not held to the same standard. 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. I don't demand that he does so, because this is just a flippin' internet board. But that's what he demands from anyone who doesn't agree with him.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a little late, but the instant I read this I thought. I bet RedBean would be willing to do it.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

It's a little late, but the instant I read this I thought. I bet RedBean would be willing to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just give it time. When the farce that is the investigation ends courtesy of the statute of limitation expiration next fall.....Bond's story will be told.

The relationship between Bonds and the media was always tedious, even before the the investigation began in 2000, and the 2003 GJ testimony.

The media has been getting their shots in why they could for the past 4 years, knowing he was unable to respond pending the GJ seal and the ongoing investigation that is attempting to rob him of his freedom.

Some of them have even started slowing down and backtracking knowing that the free ride is almost over, and the muzzle is to come off soon.

You just don't stew over this type of ridiculous vitriol directed your way on a national media level without loading up for bear and preparing to go to war once you get the green light.

As Bonds himself said when asked if we would ever hear his responses to the hate..."My time will come."

For starters, look for more details regarding agent Jeff Novitsky and the early stages of the investigation, and how it grew out of an unnatural obsession of Bonds by the IRS agent, who happened to work out at his gym.

It started off looking into Bonds for tax evasion, and branched into every direction imaginable....not targeting a specific crime, but instead, a specific person and then hoping to find a crime...any crime...to pursue him for.

Jonathan Littman interviewed three fellow IRS agents who worked with Novitsky, and were disturbed at the manner in which the investigation spiraled, along with jurisdicitonal concerns witht he IRS eventually investigating steroids. Agent Ira White, for example, recounted this conversation from 2000, three years prior to the Balco grand jury.

"That Bonds. He's a great athlete," White says Novitzky told him. "You think he's on steroids?"

White replied "I think they're all on steroids. All of our top major leaguers."

Novitzky seemed to care only about Bonds. "He's such an [censored] to the press," he said. "I'd sure like to prove it."


And on that day 7 years ago began the "official investigation" with Novitsky setting about on his own to rummage through the Balco dumpsters.

Novitsky is also the author of the Grimsley Report, an investigation in Arizona, that was originally pursued with much fanfare as an attempt to get Grimsley to implicate Bonds, and pretty much buried after he only implicated 20 other major leaguers not named Bonds, but did include Clemens.

Novitsky had a hand in the Met's clubbie indictments and plea, in New York....and was a part of the raids last Feb. on the Florida Pharmacy that recently rolled up Rodney Harrison, Glaus, Ankiel....etc

Novitsky is chasing his white whale going on 7 years, and in less than a year, it all crumbles apart....with no trophy on the mantle....and the defiant angry black man allowed to finally speak.

Stay tuned folks. They had their shots. But his time will come.

[RedBean]

[ 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 ]

You say GoS has "detailed, sourced, point-by-point" pieces of evidence?

It's a narrative opinion of the authors based loosely on some anonymous and other uncorroborated sources.

Did you know that the Chronicle submitted the work of the authors in their articles to Pulitzer for nomination?

Buster Olney reported on ESPN News that the author’s articles, which were submitted to the Pulitzer by the S.F. Chronicle:

[ QUOTE ]

"...never made it beyond the initial jury stage to the Pulitzer committee. Their work was deemed by the jury too based upon unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence and was therefore not able to be viewed as factual."


[/ QUOTE ]

Think about that....

The initial jury that decides Pulitzer nomination merit deemed their work to be based on <u>unsubstantiated</u> and <u>uncorroborated evidence</u>, and was NOT ABLE TO BE VIEWED AS FACTUAL!

Oops!

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Quick quiz.....

1. The burden of proof is on the ________.

a) accuser.
b) accused.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a ___________.

a) internet message board.
b) federal court of law.

[ QUOTE ]
2. You cannot logically prove a ________.

a) negative.
b) affirmative.

[/ QUOTE ]

c) neither, on an internet message board.

[ QUOTE ]

Bonus Question:

1. Barry Bonds has failed ______ MLB steroid tests.

a.) zero
b.) none
c.) nada
d.) all of the above


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Bonds took steroids before testing was instituted, so this is a red herring you keep bringing up. It's quite possible he's only using HGH now.

Everytime you lapse into courtroom speak (referencing indictments, admissibility of evidence, etc.), you are asking for a level of proof that is not possible on this board. I don't have access to all the witness statements, exhibits, etc., and so I can't "prove the positive" any more than you can "prove the negative."

This is just a message board, he repeated.