McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Padres Trade Khalil Greene To Cardinals Bar-right-arrows

BONDS INDICTED

Grant_tiny by Grant on in News

Instant analysis and opinion. Relevant point. Examination of an angle to the story you hadn't thought of yet. Platitudes. Memories. Anecdotal evidence. Unqualified legal analysis.

Critique of other opinions. Pithy comment. Rhetorical question? Possible answer. Finger-wagging. Finger-pointing. False bravado and mock outrage. Name calling. Not in my America.

The same thing you just read, phrased differently. Something underlined for emphasis. Reference to another famous scandal. Moment of silence for America's innocence.

Overblown conclusion.

0 recs | Comment 135 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Going to be a blast hearing a bunch of sports analysts on ESPN talk about a 10 page indictment for days on end.

by Edge on Nov 15, 2007 4:29 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
/infinite loop footage of Bonds hitting HRS

by xanthan on Nov 15, 2007 4:30 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
waddya mean loop?
Pedro Feliz: Marginally better this year.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Nov 15, 2007 11:51 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
I think he means a .GIF
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 1:24 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
haha i know what he was talking about.

i was trying to say that there's no need for a loop as Bonds has so many homers that there's no need for a repeat.

Pedro Feliz: Marginally better this year.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Nov 16, 2007 8:54 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Ah. Gotcha.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 12:07 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Isn't just like A-Rod
to try and focus all the attention on himself., Right after Bonds gets indicted, A-Rod agrees to a 10 year contract with the Yankees.
I did MY job.

by MeSoKrabby on Nov 15, 2007 4:30 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
picture of oompa loompas fucking

by xanthan on Nov 15, 2007 4:32 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
I can't put it any better than that.
Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Nov 15, 2007 4:59 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Now, no matter how tired everybody is of this topic, an indictment is a pretty big deal.

by cheno on Nov 15, 2007 4:33 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
I care more about the Geoff Jenkins rumor, and now that's overshadowed by the indictment. Just great.

by Grant on Nov 15, 2007 4:36 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Grant, this indictment is the perfect opportunity for Sabean to sign Jenkins while everyone else is focused on Bonds.
I did MY job.

by MeSoKrabby on Nov 15, 2007 4:45 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Nate Schierholtz sure noticed the Jenkins' rumors. Five for five today in the season finale. Take that, Sabean!!
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 6:29 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
I think we need some diaries about this.
Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Nov 15, 2007 4:58 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Maybe a diary about Eugenio Velez's reaction to the charges?
Rajai Davis: fast.

by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Nov 15, 2007 5:46 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Gushing, overly sycophantic comment about Grant's wit.  Bad pun.  Lame altered graphic.
Bochy: grounded until he stops hitting and running with slow runners and crappy hitters

by Stuttering John Tamargo on Nov 15, 2007 5:01 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Obligatory request for hilarious and timely Natto! graphic.

by Skaldheim on Nov 15, 2007 5:23 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
If I didn't have homework, I would grant that request.
Nattowear | comics | Durham? I hardly know 'im!

by Natto on Nov 15, 2007 8:04 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Accidental double post.

by Skaldheim on Nov 15, 2007 5:23 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Accidental double post.

by Skaldheim on Nov 15, 2007 5:23 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Request to ban.
Democracy is lovely but baseball is more mature. BVCE supports Manny Burriss and SF Dugout.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Nov 15, 2007 5:26 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
all too carefully worded request for sanity.
"Bri-an Sab-e-an, I hope you're satisfied with what you've done..."

by The Gene Hackman on Nov 15, 2007 8:57 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Unnecessary post by a Babe that may or may not follow baseball.
I luv when the Giants play in SoCal

by Jessica Alba on Nov 16, 2007 7:07 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
at least he'll retire a Giant.
2002? I'm over it. But I'll never be over Rich Aurilia.

by wjackalope on Nov 15, 2007 5:25 PM PST   0 recs

Owner Hates It When a Giant Un-Retires
Magowan, hearing Bonds has offer from Angels, contacts Grand Jury and agrees to be star witness at Federal Trial.

by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 11:51 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
I was kind of hoping they'd come around to this after his retirement...maybe Orenthal James Simpson can give him some timely advice on how to somehow avoid being convicted of the obvious.
Rockies juggernaut rolls o...ver , dead. NL West TempestTeapot CASE IN POINT!

by victor frankenstein on Nov 15, 2007 5:50 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
The defense attorney can produce a batting glove from Bonds' Pittsburgh days, have Barry try it on in court, and if it fits use it as proof that only his natural muscles got bigger, obviously prooving he's never juiced up.  "The glove still fits, you must throw out all charges."  Something tells me they'd still get him in civil court, though.  It is the IRS afterall.

by ololo3 on Nov 15, 2007 6:15 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
...So much for speculation on this very website earlier this week about where Alex Rodriguez and Bonds might end up next week ...

Bonds - DONE

A Rod - Still with the Yanks

by codedfreaq on Nov 15, 2007 6:16 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
ERR...make that Next Season..not next week...

by codedfreaq on Nov 15, 2007 6:18 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
I just don't have the energy anymore to talk Bonds and steroids. Let's just say it's going to be fun watching his lawyers take apart the government's case. It doesn't even matter if Bonds is guilty, no jury will convict when it's shown what a witch hunt went on here.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 6:26 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
You're likely pretty wrong. Federal cases are notoriously strong.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 6:33 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
I'm not saying they don't have a strong case. But do I have to give you a list of how many celebrities beat charges in trials, especially when the lawyers are able to get the jury to focus on some other aspect other than the charges??
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 6:47 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
I think you need to look no further than Vick on this.
If he doesn't plea out, he'll do time, and maybe do a little time anyway.
...just my opinion of course, and I'm not a lawyer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn.
Fairley odd parent to Wendell...

by Mark carry on on Nov 15, 2007 7:23 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Vick's case is different though. We're talking about steroids here, not the vicious abuse of man's best friend. Vick would have had a better chance if he had killed humans.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 7:58 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

and we're not even talking about steroids...
we're talking about perjury, a very hard thing to prove. Especially when the testimony that forms the accusation was "I didn't knowingly use illegal stuff." The prosecution will have to show that he knew what he was doing, and that's a tough thing to show to a bunch of jurors in San Francisco.
With the season over, I release my adoptee Brian Sabean. Good luck in the world, little buddy.

by Mayor of 311 on Nov 15, 2007 11:48 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: and we're not even talking about steroids...
I heard the lawyer for Kelly White, who was one of the Olympic Balco athletes on the radio this morning and he said that there was no doubt that all Balco athletes were told they were using flaxseed oil and not told about steroids. Needless to say they realized it later when their body started to change, but the government is going to have to prove exactly when Bonds knew it for a fact. All those media asses convicting Bonds already without a trial are going to be very surprised when the case collapses. They seem to think it's simply a case on whether Bonds used steroids or not.
BRING ME ANDRUW JONES!!!

by rxmeister on Nov 16, 2007 5:39 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: and we're not even talking about steroids...
"They seem to think it's simply a case on whether Bonds used steroids or not."

Which, to them, it is.  And they convicted him along time ago.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 16, 2007 9:53 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Federal....

List away.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 7:23 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Okay, so could you provide evidence for these assertions of yours so we could at least move forward.  

Because right now you are repeating yourself.  

Whoever you are.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 15, 2007 10:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
What assertions have I made?

All I have stated is that Federal cases are notoriously strong cases. That's a know fact to pretty much everyone. If you want to refute that then go ahead.

Now start listing all of the famous people who have beaten federal raps...

by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 9:26 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Well, it's not a known fact to me.  Perhaps I am just ignorant.  This very well could be the case considering I am not terribly interested in how many people get off after being indicted by a Federal grand jury.  So, rather than telling me to do your work for you, why don't you provide evidence instead of just re-stating your assertion over and over?  

And, in case you really are lost as to what your assertion is, that would be you saying that Grand Jury indictions lead to a better than 90% conviction rate.  

Maybe you are correct.  Please prove or stop throwing this out there as your only argument.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 16, 2007 9:58 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
A simple google search will lead you to your answers.

Even if it's 85%, which would be low end, I'd say that's pretty strong, wouldn't you?

by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 10:03 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Also, in your attempt to deflect the burden of proof onto me, you asked me to name the famous people who have gotten off.  Why just famous people?  That would narrow down the criteria an awful lot, wouldn't you say?  And it's not terribly relevant towards proving or disproving your assertion.
Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 16, 2007 10:01 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
rxmeister mentioned celebrities. I was just following up on that.

I've never claimed that no one ever beats federal raps. It's just really hard to do.

As I stated in this thread, I had to read a few different articles to get to the 87-92% claim.

You can read them to with a simple google search.

Hell, the state trial conviction rate is around 80% and that's without a grand jury in most states.

I thought that the numbers were high too when I first heard them, but they're true. Just because you want to put your hands up to your ears and hum show tunes doesn't make them any less true.

by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 10:08 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Ha.  You're funny.  You think that because I call for proof that means I am in denial over this.  I could care less if you are correct about this.  I just wanted to move the "conversation" forward.  Now, there won't be any "this is the way it is"  "no, you're wrong"  "no, I'm right."  etc.  I will probably leave the conversation now.  The repetition without citing any sources was just annoying to me.  Now, at least, anyone who wants to can check your sources and come to their own conclusions.  

That's all I cared about.  

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Nov 16, 2007 10:34 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Scroll down. Indictment's have a high conviction rate because almost all of them are low-profile slam dunks because in general nobody calls for an indictment if they don't think they can either win or get their name known. It's all about careerbuilding.

In this case, it likely doesn't matter who wins, as everybody will have their names all over the press to begin with.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 11:59 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
if the case was so strong...why did it take 4 years of investigation and 2 grand juries??

delorean got off...so will bonds

by bacci40 on Nov 15, 2007 7:51 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Great. Now my friends will have to ask me the same questions about Bonds again, and I'll have to answer the same questions about Bonds again.
Still tears up listening to 'Smoke on the Water'

by NinthWithoutNen on Nov 15, 2007 6:30 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
That's what you get for having friends.
Steve Kline: How okay is he, really? I would say he is pretty okay.

by groug on Nov 15, 2007 10:24 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
nonsequitur defense of Brian Sabean typed in runonsentenceswith no punctuation
All those Giants fans down in Giants land love that Crazy Crab!

by BlackDougal on Nov 15, 2007 6:33 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
The Feds need to prove that the positive test(s) they claim to have were infact of Barry's urine and that nowhere along the chain of custody of that urine was it subject to contamination. If you recall from the Game of Shadows and the Chronicle Articles these tests were urine samples sent by Anderson thru Balco Labs to Quest Labs in which the idenity of the person being tested was claimed to actually be Anderson not Bonds. The Feds proving that Barry was the actual person tested when the urine no longer exists seems to me to be very hard to do.

Personally I think the Feds have a weak case and will lose when this goes to trial. I think this indictment is politically motivated by the desire to appease the public's desire to lynch Barry driven by the continuous ongoing witch hunt by the media.  I believe the Feds do believe that Barry is guilty but I also believe that the Feds would never bring these changes if they were not politically motivated and were basing this decision on the likelyhood of a conviction.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 6:36 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Weak cases don't go to trial at the federal level.

Besides the urine tests only relate to one count of the perjury charges. Read the indictment.

Amazing how this entire board got law degrees this afternoon.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 6:42 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
The urine test is worthless. Bonds said he didn't INTENTIONALLY use steroids, not that he didn't use steroids. What good would a positive test do here??
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 6:49 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
In general this is true.  But when politics are involved as they are in this case all such aasumptions are not wise.  The Feds have done the political calculus and determined that, as I said above, they are better off trying to convict even if they fail then not trying at all.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 7:01 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
What about the concept of a grand jury do you fail to understand?

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 7:22 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Actually it is you who does not understand the concept of a grand jury.  All a grand jury decides is probable cause.  It has been the practice of the Feds to normally seek internally a higher standand of probable conviction.  But this is an internal process that can clearly be circumvented by politics.  If you think that politics plays no role in this you are just proving yourself to be nieve if not outright stupid.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 7:38 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Not saying this case and Bonds' case are similar, but here's one example of a federal perjury charge being thrown out:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/11/17/perjury-sept-eleven.html

Rajai Davis: fast.

by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Nov 15, 2007 7:46 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
So please explain what the department of justice has against Barry Bonds....

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 7:48 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
I do indeed think some in the department of justice have something personal against Barry Bonds.  The Balco investigation was after all started by Jeff Novitsky based on his personal desire to show that that SOB that is so nasty to the press uses steroids.

But, this is not what I mean by politics.  What I mean by politics is the desire to do what the puplic wants.  This desire is independent of the mission of the judicial system to seek actual justice.  This political desire by the justice department is the direct result of the Media's sucessfull effort to whip you and so many others into this frency to hunt and lynch the witches and in particular to hunt and lynch Barry Bonds.

Frankly, the politics of this is really far more obvious then the guilt of one Barry Lamar Bonds.  To not see this is to be blinded by the hatred the press has welled up in you for one Barry Lamar Bonds.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:01 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
So it's your belief that Bonds not only did not lie to the grand jury, but has never taken PEDs?

Read the indictment. A large portion of Bonds GJ testimony is in there. He was asked so many different ways about steriods/HGH/Clear/Cream/Injectable substances that the feds would basically have to be incompetent to not get a conviction out of this.

This isn't just a "No" to "Did you take roids?" indictment. Basically if they even prove that Anderson as much as handed Barry a PED he's going to be convicted.

If you think that the Fed's entire case is based on Bonds' mistress' testimony and chicken scratch on a piece of paper you're delusional. There are surely going to be people testifying that you've never heard of and that you can't accuse of having some axe to grind with Barry.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 8:15 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
I think what most of us are having a hard time wrapping our heads around is, if not testimony from Anderson, exactly what new evidence has come to light to allow this indictment to happen now rather than any other time in the last 4 years?  If they couldn't prove that Anderson handed Barry a PED then, what makes them able to do so now?

Also, since this is your first day at this site, you clearly haven't been around long enough to realize that there is nobody that we can't accuse of having some axe to grind with Barry.

Rajai Davis: fast.

by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Nov 15, 2007 8:24 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Good Question
I think what most of us are having a hard time wrapping our heads around is, if not testimony from Anderson, exactly what new evidence has come to light to allow this indictment to happen now rather than any other time in the last 4 years?

The only thing I can think about is possibly they got Gary Sheffield, who Bonds introduced to Balco, to turn or former Mets clubhouse employee, Kirk Radomski, supplied some info that investigators were able to run down.

by wilriv21 on Nov 16, 2007 12:59 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Nicely done.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 8:14 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
This reply was to me not PLU so what do you support it?  

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:17 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Like I said in the other thread, my bad. I failed to scroll up properly in both cases. I have no qualms with you here. I was amused at the reference to my Diary, though.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 8:28 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
No problems.  That is what I thought.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:39 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
By the way, this PLU Tim never posted before over here, and has now posted seven times about Bonds being indicted. Anyone smell a troll??
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 6:51 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Oh , can it. I posted seven times the day I discovered this place...am I a troll?

No.

I'm an orc.

Rockies juggernaut rolls o...ver , dead. NL West TempestTeapot CASE IN POINT!

by victor frankenstein on Nov 15, 2007 9:56 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
disappointed grumble. bad mood. poorly thought out joke designed to bely said bad mood. Oregon's not making it better.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 7:07 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
My tolerance for sports BS has already been exceeded. I really don't need this crappy Oregon game.
Democracy is lovely but baseball is more mature. BVCE supports Manny Burriss and SF Dugout.

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Nov 15, 2007 7:09 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Since I long ago made my peace with the fact Barry was a user (which was why he was so careful to say he never knowingly used), this situation for me has always hung on what constitutes knowledge. Is the standard actual knowledge, which might be hard to prove without Anderson's ccoperation, or constructive knowledge? I could well be wrong but I think the latter is something like asking the jury to conclude that any reasonable person knew or should have known he was getting illegal drugs from the circumstances. The Feds may well feel they have a good shot at that.
I could never figure out what was going to happen in this case and still can't (I always assumed -- and still do -- that they will get him for tax fraud since all these players are vulnerable there). But I've always been troubled by his apparent willingness to let Anderson rot in jail to protect him. What happens at the trial if Anderson refuses to testify now? Can he be jailed again? Any lawyers out there?  

by NearestNorwich on Nov 15, 2007 7:24 PM PST   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Not a lawyer, but I would guess they're not going to call Anderson as a witness. They got their indictment without him, and I would think that the case they present has nothing to do with his testimony.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 8:00 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
Oh they could call him. . .and he'd take the 5th, the gov would prob grant him immunity, as I'm sure they offered in the GJ stage as well, nullifying his 5th ammend arg, and if he still refused to answer, same thing, contempt, jail mofo.
For WilltheThrill, this is Jon Miller saying goodnight. . . .

by WilltheThrill on Nov 16, 2007 12:39 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Re: BONDS INDICTED
This is true.  They can also then question him as a "hostile witness" because of his previous "lack of cooperation" and thus have fewer restrictions on how and what they question him about.  

That said, I see no reason why Anderson would start cooperating and answering questions then.  The trial is not expected to last more then a few weeks.  So, why would being in jail for this much shorter time period bother him if he has already put up with much longer jail time?  Is it not reasonable to assume that he will continue to refuse to cooperate because he continues to feel that the Feds have lied to him and not lived up to their portion of his plea bargin agreement?  It does not matter to Greg that the courts have ruled that he was not promised that he would not have to cooperate with any further investigations.  Gary believes this is what he was promised and has stated (and shown by his actions) that he is not going to cooperate because he feels he just can't trust the Feds to keep any promises.

by giantsrainman on Nov 16, 2007 1:30 AM PST