McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Ole Miss-Alabama: "Let's Go Eat.Wait. What Happened?"

Bonds Indicted?

From the ABC news website: FEDERAL GRAND JURY INDICTS BASEBALL SLUGGER BARRY BONDS ON PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES, AP REPORTS

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs  |  Comment 168 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Yeah, I just saw a blurb on Rotoworld about this.

by xanthan on Nov 15, 2007 2:18 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

It's everywhere...
even the Wall Street Journal has it front and center, with the same graphic they use to announce epidemics and catastrophes.
I'll take the freight train, Bengie Molina.

by Brother Bummer on Nov 15, 2007 2:24 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
So whats the potential penalty for that?  Will Bonds go the route of I. Lewis Libby, and receive a presidential pardon?  Obviously, something of great national security and importance is of harsher penalty than whether or not Bonds smeared drugs on his a$$.

by Chods on Nov 15, 2007 2:25 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Word.

Time to start donating to the Bush Presidential Library Barry!

by Nathan on Nov 15, 2007 4:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Chronicle has it too: Bonds Indicted for Perjury

This would suggest his career is done - no team will touch him now.

by eugene on Nov 15, 2007 2:26 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Well this is bizarre:
"During the 2001 season he broke Mark McGwire's single-season home run crown, and by 2006, he'd passed Babe Ruth to move into second-place among the sport's most prolific power hitters. He will soon in all likelihood surpass Aaron's career mark of 755 homers."....

What the hell?!? did Paul Elias just wake up from a year long coma?

by Cookyman on Nov 15, 2007 2:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I think he had a 30 second deadline to write that article.  All other websites have two sentences dedicated to the story.
Thank God that's over.

by southcitysteve on Nov 15, 2007 2:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Yeah, but it's not like he just mixed up the numbers... this was obviously copied from an older article.

For shame Paul Elias.

by Cookyman on Nov 15, 2007 2:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
"During the criminal investigation, evidence was obtained including positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances for Bonds and other athletes," the indictment reads.

That could mean no hall of fame.

by ResDog on Nov 15, 2007 2:34 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Well, I may be reading this too finely, but it seems to say to me that Bonds and other athletes collectively tested positive for steroids and other performance enhancing substances.  It doesn't necessarily mean that Bonds himself tested positive for steroids.  

He might have tested positive for some kind of steroid precursor.  Or he might have tested positive for any other performance enhancing drug (amphetamines?).

In any event, I think he's still HOF bound, but maybe not first ballot.  The indictment only accuses him of steroid use beginning in 2001.  Even if you assign some ridiculous premium to the effect of steroids (e.g., half of his home runs were steroid-caused), his numbers should be HOF material.

by War on Nov 15, 2007 3:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Move over OJ... let the new media circus begin.

Wonder if the Giants had some inkling this was coming.

BB

All those Giants fans down in Giants land love that Crazy Crab!

by BlackDougal on Nov 15, 2007 2:36 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I'll bet that they did.  

Do we get a first round draft pick from the Department of Justice for Type A compensation as it came before the signing deadline?

by slcgiant on Nov 15, 2007 2:38 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Well I hope we can finally stop hearing all the bitching and moaning from people who wanted the Giants to sign Bonds for next year.  Nice timing by Magowan and Sabes, almost too good.
Thank God that's over.

by southcitysteve on Nov 15, 2007 2:39 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
If you ask me PMG certainly knew this was coming
Frandsen for 3B (til July 08)

by NeifiChicken on Nov 15, 2007 2:41 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I think when I suggested this back when they announced he wouldn't be re-signed, I was mocked.

I remember a lot of talk about "There won't be an indcictment, otherwise they would have done it by now."

See Barack Obama at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium Nov. 14th! Visit https://donate.barackobama.com/sanfran for details.

by Goofus on Nov 15, 2007 3:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
That's not fair. We mock you for your eye-popping truths and your jaw-dropping falsehoods.

It's a blanket mocking policy.

by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 3:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I will not tolerate you, or anyone else here, mocking my blanket!
See Barack Obama at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium Nov. 14th! Visit https://donate.barackobama.com/sanfran for details.

by Goofus on Nov 15, 2007 3:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Your blanket has a stupid doo-doo face!
Steve Kline: How okay is he, really? I would say he is pretty okay.

by groug on Nov 15, 2007 10:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

PREPARE YOURSELVES
For at least a month of "does he deserve to be in the hall of fame" on ESPN.

by UnleashTheGore on Nov 15, 2007 2:48 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: PREPARE YOURSELVES
I will be avoiding ESPN at all costs through the weekend.

by KCE on Nov 15, 2007 2:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: PREPARE YOURSELVES
I wonder if Scott Ostler waffles again and goes back to his previous statement that Bonds shouldn't be in the HoF.  Hah loser.
Thank God that's over.

by southcitysteve on Nov 15, 2007 2:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Just remember the old saying -- you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.  

by War on Nov 15, 2007 2:51 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
And there's no sandwich hammier than this one.

BB

All those Giants fans down in Giants land love that Crazy Crab!

by BlackDougal on Nov 15, 2007 2:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
yeah, but you can indict a ham sandwich on the first try. this is (at least) the 2nd grand jury to go after Bonds.
Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Nov 15, 2007 3:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
And at least we got to enjoy the home run record for a half a year.

Although, if the trial ends up being thrown out or if they rule in Bonds' favor, it may be helpful to his legacy. There will still be naysayers but at least he would have overcome a jury.

by UnleashTheGore on Nov 15, 2007 2:53 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Copy of the indictment:  http://www.ktvu.com/download/2007/1115/14608977.pdf
If you root for the Dodgers, the terrorists have already won.

by SF Pete on Nov 15, 2007 2:54 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Am I reading this wrong, or does it seem that most of his answers were along the lines of not KNOWINGLY using steroids? It seems to me that if, say, he did fail a test, then he would be found guilty of taking steroids, not necessarily KNOWINGLY taking steroids. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like trying to prove knowledge or intent would be far more difficult.

by UnleashTheGore on Nov 15, 2007 3:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Unless, of course, they get someone to testify that they gave him steroids and he knew of it, like Anderson or a coworker of his. Then it would probably be easier, I would guess.

by UnleashTheGore on Nov 15, 2007 3:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
that's exactly right. to show intent to lie, they'll have to show that Bonds had knowledge of what he was taking. Evidence would be conversations he had with people (most likely Anderson) who knew what the substances were and that fact came up during the conversations.

Basically, Anderson needs to testify that "I told Barry it was an anabolic steroid or HGH that he was putting in/on his body."

I seriously doubt Anderson will do that. He'll stay in jail forever, rather than testify against Bonds.

Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Nov 15, 2007 3:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
ESPN just announced that a judge has ordered anderson to be released.
See Barack Obama at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium Nov. 14th! Visit https://donate.barackobama.com/sanfran for details.

by Goofus on Nov 15, 2007 3:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
It's over, man.  Best thing Barry can hope for now is a plea deal to avoid jail time.

by Skaldheim on Nov 15, 2007 3:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
That's only because the grand jury has issued its indictment, so there's no point to holding him in jail anymore.

Anderson will likely refuse to testify at trial and will go to jail again to avoid contempt charges.  Or maybe (gasp), he'll testify and nothing will be harmful to Bonds after all.  The perjury charges are pretty specific.

by War on Nov 15, 2007 4:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Look at the indictment, it all appears to center around Anderson.  I don't know how they can prove all those to be lies without Anderson's testimony.
See Barack Obama at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium Nov. 14th! Visit https://donate.barackobama.com/sanfran for details.

by Goofus on Nov 15, 2007 4:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Anderson's lawyer was quoted as saying that Anderson will still not cooperate in this upcoming trial.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 6:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Yeah, but lawyers are also famous for saying "my client looks forward to his day in court and proving his innocence" right before they cop a plea.
See Barack Obama at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium Nov. 14th! Visit https://donate.barackobama.com/sanfran for details.

by Goofus on Nov 16, 2007 10:04 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
It wouldn't surprise me to see Barry cop a plea if it means avoiding jail time. His career is over, his records will probably be expunged, and he isn't going to Cooperstown. He might as well do whatever he can to stay out of prison.
BRING ME ANDRUW JONES!!!

by rxmeister on Nov 16, 2007 11:29 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
That's it for Bonds.  You can bet that Selig will suspend him, citing the precedents in the NFL.  It may not stick, but...he's done now.

by Skaldheim on Nov 15, 2007 3:09 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
He's already treated by fans around the league like he's the one and only player to have ever used performance-enhancing drugs.  I'm thinking Selig see's this as an opportunity to passively turn Bonds into the scapegoat for the entire league.  Keep Bonds out of the HOF, and he gets to throw dirt on the entire issue by making it look like the league has some form of integrity left.

by ololo3 on Nov 15, 2007 7:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
This is good news, now there is no temptation for Magowan to bring him back for 2008.

by Cainer on Nov 15, 2007 3:14 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
-1
Vizquel leads by a higher level of example. --BS (Brian Sabean)

by Woody Wins on Nov 15, 2007 3:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Woody posts the number of sportswriters, per minute, changing their Bonds-For-the-Hall vote.

by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 3:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
good news? You're a giants fan? Really?

by MikeyJ on Nov 15, 2007 4:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Welcome to the Barry Bonds post Career Circus ladies and gentlemen.  
Word.

by alech on Nov 15, 2007 3:15 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I wonder if they have a legitimate test showing him testing positive for steroids.  
Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Nov 15, 2007 3:20 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
The indictment says "evidence was obtained including positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances or Bonds and other professional athletes."

So, yes, he tested positive.  Baseball Prospectus is saying it was part of the 2003 post-CBA agreement testing that was supposed to remain secret.

by KCE on Nov 15, 2007 3:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I missed a key word in that quote - should have for Bonds, not or Bonds.

by KCE on Nov 15, 2007 3:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
the indictment says "tests" plural

but it seems he failed one test

and it couldnt be for "the cream or the clear" for those were both alledgedly undetectable

i say he gets off

by bacci40 on Nov 15, 2007 8:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
According to the indictment (and this was also in Game of Shadows and the Chronicle Articles) they have copies of test results from tests that either Anderson, Balco, or both had done that they claim were of Barry's urine.  They do not claim to have the urine.  They also do not specify what evidance they have that the tests were actually perfromed on Barry's urine and that the tests were not contaminated somewhere in the chain of custody.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 4:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
If Anderson (or another agent that actually delivered PEDs to him) testifies against him, I think he will be found guilty.  Otherwise, I think he will not be convicted.

I am not a lawyer.

by zenbitz on Nov 15, 2007 3:24 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
but you did stay at a Holiday Inn once, didn't you?

by wilriv21 on Nov 15, 2007 4:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, yay
On the front page of espn.com they have a little video about this, in which they get 'espn investigative reporter Mark Fainaru-Wada' on the phone for some expert investigative reporting. Seems like espn picked a good time to hire that ass hole... Maybe a little too good? Muahahahaha

by stress on Nov 15, 2007 3:28 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Cool...we now have his home address.  Nice of them to print that.  Reading through all that testimony I without any evidence to back it up was pretty odd.

I don't think he will be found guilty by a jury.  Probably won't matter seeing the court of public opinion ruled against him ages ago.

by positiveuphemism on Nov 15, 2007 3:29 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I thought it was a little odd that wasn't redacted, but what do I know from criminal procedure.

BB

All those Giants fans down in Giants land love that Crazy Crab!

by BlackDougal on Nov 15, 2007 4:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Well, at least I know on what street corner to open up my new Torches Direct outlet.  Though we'll likely stiff competition from Torches Torches Torches and Bob's Inflatable Mobs.
"When Jackson Williams thinks of how many times Madison Bumgarner has tried to kill Tyler Walker..."

by multiphasic on Nov 15, 2007 4:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
+face
"When Jackson Williams thinks of how many times Madison Bumgarner has tried to kill Tyler Walker..."

by multiphasic on Nov 15, 2007 4:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
not our headache any more
Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?

by shikantaza on Nov 15, 2007 3:39 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
They just announced that Anderson was released from prison. So he either flipped on Barry or they found somebody else to flip.
"I'd take pleasure in gutting you boy" Oh and ignore the spelling. I do.....

by someguynamedg on Nov 15, 2007 3:44 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Got to love America...
Here's the results of the ESPN poll after I took them:

1) Does Barry Bonds' indictment on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice change your opinion of him as a player?

69.5% No
30.5% Yes

7) If Bonds is found guilty, is he still a Hall of Famer?

58.3% No
41.7% Yes

Either voters honestly don't think he's a Hall of Famer without steroids, or they're complete morons. Actually, either way their morons.

by UnleashTheGore on Nov 15, 2007 3:44 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Got to love America...
For the first question, some who said their opinion hasn't changed alreay thought he was guilty, so the indictment doesn't change anything.
See Barack Obama at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium Nov. 14th! Visit https://donate.barackobama.com/sanfran for details.

by Goofus on Nov 15, 2007 3:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Got to love America...
Then 30.5% of people are complete morons. The indictment has nothing directly to do with steroid use. 30.5% of people are essentially saying that Barry Bonds is a worse baseball player because he's a liar.

I'm seeing a major disconnect. I guess lying is a performance enhancer. Or something.

People sre stupid. I relly fucking hate people.

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

by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 6:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Got to love America...
Howie, in this case I think the disconnect is on your end. The 30.5% aren't saying they think less of him as a player because he lied about where he buys his shirts, or something else trivial. The charges are directly related to steroid use. The government thinks it can prove he was lying when he said "I didn't take steroids", and you could only prove that if you can prove he did take steroids. So give the morons a little more credit.
SJ Giants, 2007 Cal League champs! Couldn't have done it without the All-Father.

by EliminateMe on Nov 16, 2007 9:44 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Got to love America...
Yes.

I also think the people's whose opinions have changed might include those who have, until now, believed him when he said he didn't or said he didn't know he had.

See Barack Obama at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium Nov. 14th! Visit https://donate.barackobama.com/sanfran for details.

by Goofus on Nov 16, 2007 10:54 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Got to love America...
Then that 30.5% is still misunderstanding the question. It's about whether he KNEW he was taking steroids or not. Not whether he was taking them or not. He all but admitted that he took them by testifying that he didn't knowingly take them.

Oh well. It's not like you're wrong. The people who voted that way either were either voting based on a simple misconception that this was about steroid use, or were voting because they don't like Bonds. It doesn't really matter what the poll actually meant in those cases.

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

by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 11:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Got to love America...
There's nothing to indicate they misunderstood the question, which was, does the indictment change your opinion of him as a player?

There are lots of people out there who would like to believe that Bonds was clean; I'm one of them. For me, the indictment is just one more piece of "plausible deniability" being taken away. He still might be innocent, but the odds of it just got slightly longer, in my non-scientific estimation. Before, one could say "if he had juiced, they'd have indicted him by now" and dismiss it at that. Not any more.

So, I don't think it requires any misconception at all for 30.5% of those polled to be more convinced today than they were yesterday that Bonds juiced and did it knowingly.

The bottom line is it is about steroid use, even though that's not how the charges read.

SJ Giants, 2007 Cal League champs! Couldn't have done it without the All-Father.

by EliminateMe on Nov 16, 2007 12:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Got to love America...
That's perfectly fair and makes sense.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 12:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Got to love America...
The conclusion you reach, that nearly 60% of voters think that Bonds wouldn't have had HOF numbers without steroids, is not legitimate.  I think that if you took a poll asking, "Had Bonds never used, do you believe he would have compiled numbers worthy for the Hall of Fame?" you'd have probably had 100% answer in the affirmative.  These people are saying that his HOF numbers are invalidated by steroid use...not that steroid use created a HOF career.

I don't think that it would be unreasonable for one to take the stance that Bonds is clearly, on talent alone, worthy of a HOF induction, but that his steroid use makes him invalid for the Hall.  

by biff pocoroba on Nov 16, 2007 10:51 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Statistics
And as to these numbers...we all know that you can get a poll to say just about anything you'd like, based on the particular phrasing you use.

I read recently that scientists estimate that approximately 50% of the public is below average intelligence.

by biff pocoroba on Nov 16, 2007 10:54 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The Glass is Not Half Full
The bad news is: Only 10% of the public is above average intelligence.

The other 40% is in a multi-purpose room, taking the GED.

by Moggeee on Nov 16, 2007 11:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Anderson released according to ESPN.

Did he finally roll over on Bonds?

See Barack Obama at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium Nov. 14th! Visit https://donate.barackobama.com/sanfran for details.

by Goofus on Nov 15, 2007 3:46 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Scandalous bedfellows
He rolled over on him, mostly because they shared the same mocking blanket.

by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 3:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Finally.
Now that's the kinda slashfic I'm talkin' about.
"When Jackson Williams thinks of how many times Madison Bumgarner has tried to kill Tyler Walker..."

by multiphasic on Nov 15, 2007 3:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Not necessarily... if the grand jury ended, then he isn't withholding testimony any more.
Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?

by shikantaza on Nov 15, 2007 3:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I ain't no fair-weather Bonds supporter. I hope he beats the rap. I think there's a good chance he will. I hope his jury is filled with Giants season ticket holders.

After reading the indictment, I have a couple of comments.

  1. What a tremendous waste of time and energy and money by the government. Yes, perjury and obstruction of justice charges are serious matters, but this all happened 4 years ago and I seriously doubt the justice system has suffered for it. The system lost more credibility when the confidential grand jury secrets were illegally leaked to and then published by those SF Comical douchebags so they could get rich and famous trading on Barry's name. And it took them how many grand juries to get an indictment?
  2. The testimony in which Bonds allegedly perjured himself is pretty vague. Some of the questions are compound. Even if Bonds took a bunch of steroids, there's no evidence that he knew. That's a very subjective charge and difficult to prove, especially without any direct testimony that Bonds was told what he was taking. There is plausible deniability there.
  3. An indictment means that there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial, i.e., there's probable cause. It doesn't mean that there is enough evidence to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Bonds perjured himself and obstructed justice. I'm not a criminal attorney, but it seems that the case is pretty weak. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to move the trial...to Los Angeles!
  4. I hate to say it, but Barry Bonds baseball career is over. I was hoping to see him play for another team, but now no team will sign him while he's under indictment and the process will probably go on for the next year (Bonds won't plea.) He's just that much more radioactive. At his age, he can't take a whole season off and have a realistic expectation of coming back to play.
  5. Selig might move to suspend him, but unless he's on a team, he might just wait and see.
  6. He's still the best baseball player I've ever seen.
Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Nov 15, 2007 3:53 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
+1 to #6. And that's how I will continue to remember him.

by KCE on Nov 15, 2007 3:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Heh...

The White House quickly weighed in on the indictment. President Bush is a former owner of the Texas Rangers.

"The president is very disappointed to hear this," Bush spokesman Tony Fratto said. "As this case is now in the criminal justice system, we will refrain from any further specific comments about it. But clearly this is a sad day for baseball."

by KCE on Nov 15, 2007 3:54 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Well, I hope Mr. Bush knows that I'm very disappointed in him >:(

by xanthan on Nov 15, 2007 4:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"We're bad, but isn't Bonds Worse?"
Every day is a sad day for that Loser President.

Just so we know the White House gameplan: The aim of the administration is to deflect any attention from Bush' historically unpopular presidency. To make an official, "woe-unto-our-nation" comment on this is to unethically give more fuel to the "Bonds-is-guilty-until-proven-innocent" crowd.

It's tough for a guy like Bonds, who we all know is already responsible for global warming.

by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 4:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: "We're bad, but isn't Bonds Worse?"
or perhaps not everything can be seen through your myopic left wing political lenses. keep your irrelevant political views to yourself. This is a baseball site.
Bonds stands alone.

by nostocksjustbonds on Nov 15, 2007 4:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Bush crossed the line before I did
I will adhere to your rules as soon as the White House stops trying to prejudice the jury in the Bonds Case.

by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 4:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bush crossed the line before I did
I like the way they are saying that Bonds faces a possible 30 years in prison. All this because of testimony in a trial where the worst prison sentence handed out was three months.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 6:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
He's finally going to jail?
Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
The rally pumpkin guy, round and full of seeds; unlike the Giants.

by jtoj on Nov 15, 2007 4:01 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
let's not wish death on him.  let's wish a multi-year federal investigation spotlighted by the media non-stop that ultimately leads to people cheering for an indictment on random blogs for him.

by positiveuphemism on Nov 15, 2007 4:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
He's still the best option the Giants have for a middle of the order bat. And this should definitely lower his price.

by mxmob33 on Nov 15, 2007 4:04 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
that's the kind of humor in the face of adversity that keeps america strong.
"Bri-an Sab-e-an, I hope you're satisfied with what you've done..."

by The Gene Hackman on Nov 15, 2007 4:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Is it even necessarily humor?
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 6:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Yeah, Bonds'll be pretty cheap, and he may only be allowed to play on a weekend-release pass.

JTOJ already has him working out with he San Quentin Quarrymen of the Penitentiary Fall League.

by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 4:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
If he really did use steroids knowingly and lied about it then I hope he is convicted of perjury.  

That said, this is a terrible waste of time and resources.  I find it interesting in stark contrast to the undercover CIA agent whose true occupation was leaked to Robert Novak by Rove & Co.  

People are way more interested in seeing a baseball player get punished for lying under oath than they are in seeing a traitor get justice.  

Zealously advocating for Nate the Great since 2007.

by orangeandblackattack on Nov 15, 2007 4:09 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
In the grand scheme of things, there's SO many worse things an individual can do.  Genocide, homicide, raping and pillaging, arson, mistreatment of women and/or children, throwing dogs from moving cars...

Until Bonds does one of these things, I'll continue to not hope he goes to jail for lying about maybe putting something on/in his body.  As a father myself, I'd rather he didn't go jail and leave his young children fatherless (except on visiting days).

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 15, 2007 4:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
As a father I would hope that if something happened to your children and the lies of people to protect the persons responsible prevented said persons from going to prison you would want them held to account for perjuring themselves.

Obviously you wouldn't mind.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 5:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
You mean if something happened to his son like somebody playing better than him at something?

This isn't perjury about murder here. Or genocide. Or whatever else is on that list. Your rhetoric is deeply, deeply flawed.

Perjury and obstruction of justice are major (major, HUGE) issues when the case is even remotely consequential. This case is not remotely consequential for anybody in the world not named Barry Bonds. Or, I suppose, Greg Anderson.

The whole thing is a huge joke. Just a ridiculous farce of a joke.

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

by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 6:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
oh my god.

So there should be some times in which lying is ok? So how would you determine what is "consequential" and what isn't? A vote of the people? All we need is a bunch of "grey areas."

You make no sense.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 7:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
If I believed you were here for any other reason than to call people like me idiots and jerks who have no understanding of how the world works, I might bother explaining the concept of a spectrum of wrongfulness, which generally starts at a point marked "stealing cookies" and generally ends at a point marked "violently and deliberately tortures, raped, and kills more living things than anybody in history has ever tortured, raped, and killed," and why somebody lying in the context of a children's game and having done no personal harm to others might fall much closer to "stealing cookies" than anything else.

I might also bother explaining why initial federal involvement in the steroid issue in baseball was a waste of time to begin with and how everything that followed that initital involvement has done nothing but compound that waste.

But you'd just call me an idiot and fail to care. So whatever.

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

by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 8:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Don't you get it, howie?  If a child steals a cookie, and LIES to their parent, they should be tried as an adult and sentenced to no less than 30 years in prison!

For the record, I don't abide by liars.  I think it's a despicable act.  I can't really tell you why this doesn't bother me, except that I already don't look at sports figures, celebrities, or political figures as modern day heros.  Guess I've grown up a little over the years.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 8:16 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
If you're not a complete idiot, I would think you could tell the difference between lying to a Grand Jury about your involvement harming children vs. the difference in possibly cheating at baseball.

But I already suspect you're a complete nincompoop incapable of rational thought, at least as far as Barry is concerned.  So away with you, troll!

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 8:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Ok so we agree that a 4 year old lying about taking a cookie isn't a matter for the federal courts!

The question I have, is who in the hell are you to determine what crimes hurt somone and which ones don't?

According to the posters on this board lying under oath about stealing a car should be thought of as trivial, but lying under oath to protect someone who harms a child is not ok.

So where in hell is the line? Is it at the value of the car that was stolen? Is it at PHYSICAL harm? What about lying about a white collar crime that cost families millions of dollarts? What if the white collar crime only cost a few families a few hundred dollars each? Is it then inconsequential?

You guys seem to convinced that there should be some line drawn somewhere where acts of pejury and OOJ are just trivial offenses...

I want to know where that line is.

What if Bonds were a fringe MLB player that only managed to stay in MLB due to PEDs? If that's too hypothetical to you, then what about any fringe MLB player that received PEDs from BALCO? Would this is so trivial to the minor leaguer who never got to live his dream because he was clean and left in AAA behind the fringe MLB player?

by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 9:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Dude, you are making the worst, single-most asinine leaps of faith to make your retarded points.  You think people here think lying about stealing a car is okay?  But what's worse is, you're actually dumb enough to put possibly lying about taking PEDs in the same category as things like Enron or stealing a car.  Wow, that's so dumb.

Here's one way to look at it:  Who got hurt by Bonds possibly taking PEDs?  Were there minor leaguers who were blocked from pursuing their ML careers?  If you think so, you're obviously not a Giants fan.  Were you personally hurt?  Did Barry possibly recovering from injury faster steal your car?  Or take your money?  Did his continued career kill Uncle Ben?

Who am I to determine what crimes hurt someone and which don't?  I don't know, I'm no lawyer, politician, or person who was hurt by Barry's alleged crime.  I'm just a fan that refuses to put Bonds in jail because popular opinion is that Barry's a jerk and deserves it.

Now let me ask you, who the hell are you to tell us we all need to agree with you that Bonds is a criminal and needs to be crucified?  Are you part of the prosecution?  Does our fandom harm you in some way?  Or are you just trying to incite a lynch mob, so you can burn his house down?  Why are you here?

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 9:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
  1. I've never made one comment in regards to Bonds' guilt or innocence. I've only stated that assuming that a federal case is "weak" is a pretty huge leap of faith because that is just simply very rarely the case.
  2. This isn't about TAKING PEDs. It's about DISTRIBUTING PEDs. That's what the BALCO case was about. Are you of the opinion that peddling PEDs hurts no one else? BB's PED usage or non-usage is simply a by-product of that investigation.
  3. If you would have actually read my prior post, I specifically took Bonds out of the situation.
I feel bad for you that you believe that the fringe MLB player who kept his MLB career alive by BALCO (Note: I don't know if this did happen or didn't happen, but it certainly could have if BALCO were allowed to continue to operate) thus costing some minor leaguer a chance of living his dream have and having a life of financial security is somehow less relevent than some guy getting his jelopy stolen.

by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 10:31 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Wait, Bonds was PEDDLING PEDs???

When the hell did THAT happen???  Let's hang him by his probably-shrunken testicles!

Regarding fringe players...  I think the Giants could have done with a FRINGE guy to replace Bonds.  Our roster is already filled with them.

So by your own argument, a guy who's car is stolen is something a GJ should be assembled for?

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 10:40 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I never said that Barry was peddling PEDs Bro.

BALCO was. That was the initial investigation.

If you want to say that Barry's actions with PEDs are inconsequential to others then fine...you win.

But what about BALCO's peddling?  

by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 10:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
What the fuck are you trying desperately to discuss here?  Are we talking Bonds or BALCO?  Because we have two very separate cases.  This is about whether Bonds lied to a GJ or not.

And if I may state again, I'm simply not rooting for him to go to jail.  You, on the other hand, have conspicuously created an account on this site for the sole purpose of trying to get people here to buy into your desire to have Bonds thrown in prison for POSSIBLY committing a crime.  That basically makes you a dick, don't you think?  I'm terribly sorry if I just can't get on board with you.

As for someone else's career, could you please tell me who would have made the majors in his place?  If not, it's all weak speculation and general jackassery.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 11:14 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Many of your buddies here are claiming that the offenses commited by BALCO weren't "bad" enough to warrant looking into who told the truth and who didn't?

Ok let me ask you this in plain english...

Do you believe that lying to a grand jury in an investigation about the illegal distribution of drugs is something that should be punished or is it one of those "closer to a 4 year old taking a cookie from the cookie jar sorta things."

Note: My question above mentioned NOTHING about Barry Bonds.

by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 12:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
What's it matter what I think?  Am I prosecuting him?  Is ANYONE on here prosecuting him?  Will we, in the future, be prosecuting other baseball players who may or may not have lied to a Grand Jury?

So what's the problem?  Is it whether or not he lied about the illegal distribution of drugs, or whether or not he lied about knowingly injesting said drugs?  Either way, try to incite a lynch mob somewhere else.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 12:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
By the way, isn't something like a white collar crime that costs a few families a few hundred dollars something that can be resolved in small claims court?  They handle that kind of issue on Judge Judy, dude.  If you're trying to lump something like a few million dollars into the same category as a few hundred dollars, you're definitely a blowhard.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 10:10 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Crimes aren't punished in small claims court.....

Guy1 lies to a GJ in an investigation of a crime which costs 10 families $500 each.

Guy2 lies to a GJ in an investigation of a crime which costs 500 families their pension plans.

Should Guy1's lying to the GJ be considered a non-crime?

Draw the line....

by PLU Tim on Nov 16, 2007 10:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Draw the line between the two?  Are you serious?  Dude, your points are getting more and more all over the board.  You're pointless anymore.  Why are you here?  I honestly don't get it.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 10:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I agree that child who stole a cookie should not be put before a Grand Jury. But if that child is put before a Grand Jury and lies about it, then they will charge the child for perjury and obstruction of justice. Not because the child lied about stealing a cookie, but because the child lied about anything to a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury should have never been involved. But since they were, now the child is being lawfully charged for breaking the law. But it's still about a fucking cookie.

And that's pretty much my analogy. It's not perfect, but that's it.

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

by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 11:51 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Richard Armitage
I love how everyone gets on Novak, Rove and Scooter while Armitage lives happily ever after.

by wilriv21 on Nov 15, 2007 7:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I'm not wavering in my positive view of and support of Bonds. To hell with the U.S. Attorney's office and the money they wasted on chasing him. I don't give a damn if he is eventually convicted he is still my favorite player regardless.  
I adopted Barry Bonds

by BondsApologist on Nov 15, 2007 4:24 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I think I like Barry even MORE now!  Hey should immediately get some prison tattoos --a lone teardrop, skull and crossbones chomping on the fourth amendment, Patty Hearst's SLA press photo with the gun. He should start spouting off ludicrous political statement like "Bomb Iceland", or "Barack Obama is pro-slavery!" He should start wearing a cape with a fur collar and take a dump in the reflecting pool on the National Mall.  Play this motherf*cker up, because, really, perjury and obstruction of justice, that's pretty a pretty weak-ass trumped up charge to throw a brother away on.

by satyricrash on Nov 15, 2007 5:04 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
A grand jury pretty much prevents "trumped up" charges....

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 5:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Barry could guest-star on "My Name Is Earl!"

by Skaldheim on Nov 15, 2007 5:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Barry crosses the picket lines!  Perfect!

by satyricrash on Nov 15, 2007 5:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
We SHOULD bomb Iceland, those jerks.
If you root for the Dodgers, the terrorists have already won.

by SF Pete on Nov 16, 2007 9:59 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Beating a federal indictment is extremely difficult. They don't need Greg Anderson for a conviction. If they did, there wouldn't have been in indictment.

Martha didn't beat these charges.
Scooter didn't beat these charges.

It's very unlikely that Barry beats these charges.

In fact, I'll bet money that Barry pleas out to prevent some of the details from coming out in a trial.

Calling Perjury and OOJ crimes that shouldn't be pursued by prosecutors is just ignorance.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 5:09 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Why is it ignorance and not opinion?  I know they are laws.  If i feel they put those laws on the "BOOKS" as a last ditch escape clause for prosecutors to prosecute someone they otherwise have no other way to throw into the slammer, why is that ignorance? That's how I feel, that's how I see the world.  The government makes these laws up as an extra "GOTCHA".  Perjury and OOJ:  It's the last refuge of sons-of-bitches.

by satyricrash on Nov 15, 2007 5:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
It's ignorance because some jerkoff who has never posted here before and just signed up because he hates Barry Bonds, wants you to think it's an open and shut case and Barry is going to prison forever.
BRING ME ALEX RODRIGUEZ!!

by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 7:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Crap, I forgot about the jerk-off factor!  

by satyricrash on Nov 15, 2007 7:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
You're right.

Now go get some signatures, write your law makers, and get those useless OOJ and perjury laws changed.

They are obviously pointless. Requiring someone to tell the truth to a grand jury is just silly anyways.  

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 7:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
So, I jumped back into one of your many "conversations."  

I'm wondering, what is your opinion on leaked grand jury testimony?

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

by thehavenot on Nov 16, 2007 10:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Spending four years of federal resources only to get indictments for perjury and obstruction of justice is pretty weak.

That being said, for the government to win, they need credible eyewitnesses.  People who saw Bonds inject himself or rub himself or whatever it is that you do with these things.  Or people who heard him say "yep, I'm using them steroids here."

You have Anderson, who already went to jail rather than testify.  Maybe he'll finally crack.  Even if he doesn't, I'm guessing the prosecutors will ask for some kind of adverse inference instruction.  But would a jury be willing to send Barry Bonds to jail based on an adverse inference instruction?

I guess you also have Conte and maybe Bonds's ex-mistress.  Both have credibility issues.

Does the government have the advantage?  Yeah, probably.  But they lose their fair share of cases too.  Scooter went down because folks like Tim Russert were viewed as highly credible witnesses.  Martha's conviction was a joke, but I guess people believe the FBI never lies or is mistaken about anything.

by War on Nov 15, 2007 5:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
If they didn't have witnesses and evidence that is viewed as credible, there wouldn't have been in indictment.

The federal conviction rate is through the roof. You pretty much don't beat those raps unless the prosecutor is a dummy.

I am not saying any of this as a "Bonds Hater." That's just facts. Having to present evidence to a GJ and then in trial pretty much ensures convictions.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 5:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
This is generally true.  But, in this case politics is envolved.  The Feds has invested too much time and money and the witch hunting meidaq has sucessfully whipped up the public lynch mob to expect and accept nothing short of this action from the Feds.  In this case the Feds are pursuing these charges independent of the actual likelyhool of a conviction.  The Feds have rightly determined that it is politically better for them to try to convict Barry and fail then it is to not try at all.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 6:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
The Feds aren't pursuing any charges. The Grand Jury is. This isn't a state charge where a prosecutor can point a finger at you and say "I'M PUTTING YOU ON TRIAL!!!"

It just doesn't work that way on the federal level. As for it taking 4 years, that isn't all that abnormal.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 6:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Sorry PLU but you just lost all credibility on the practices of the Feds.  The Grand Jury's really do not make the decision to pursue charges all they do is determine that there is "probable cause" to pursue the charges.  It is the Feds that decide to pursue or not pursue and they do indeed normally make this decision based on the probablity of a sucessful conviction.  But, as I said above, there are exceptions to this especially when politics is involved.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 7:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Good grief.

I love all credibility because I didn't articulate myself well enough for you?

The prosecution convenes the grand jury, but the grand jury has to give the green light to pursue charges.

Playing the "politics" card is just silly. Scooter Libby got convicted and there was certainly more politics involved in that case than there is with Berry freaking Bonds. They do have to provide a preponderance of evidence to the grand jury in order to get the indictment.

You guys are all obviously itching for your jury duty notices.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 7:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
What is so hard to understand about the fact that the grand jury only has to determine probable cuase for making the change and does not have to determine probable conviction of the charge resulting from this probable cause?  A grand jury finding probable cause says very little about the likelyhood of conviction.  In our Federal System it is normally the discression of the Feds that leads to not charging without this likelyhood.  But again, when something becomes as political as this press driven witch hunt seeking the lynching of one Barry Lamar Bonds then the Feds find themselves in a position where they just can't not try for a conviction even if the odds of actually getting one is not great.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 7:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Your prose is definitely hard to understand.

by kwyjibo on Nov 15, 2007 7:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
In any rate...

the Federal Conviction rate is somewhere between 87-92% from what I can tell.

Good luck believing that this case is somehow different than everything else and more political than the Libby trial.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 8:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I wouldn't say the politics is different then the Libby trial but I would say that the evidance is.
With what we know now (and there was nothing new made public in these indictments that had not already be revealed in "Game Of Shadows") the evidance supporting conviction is weak.  

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Who cares what you know now? There is certainly 100 times more evidence than anyone other than the prosecution or the GJ knows about at this time.

This isn't a Duke Lacrosse case where the evidence was not only weak, but in fact favored complete innocence.

I am actually looking forward to seeing what kind of a doctor that Barry's defense digs up that will say that Barry's increase in shoe size and hat size aren't all that abnormal. As silly as it is, I am sure that will be presented at the trial as evidence that he at least took substances over a long enough period of time that he can't play the ignorance card.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 8:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
With all the leaks we have had in this case I would be very suprised if the Feds have any signigicant evidence we do not know about.  Could I be wrong, sure I could.  But, I doubt it.  

On the otherhand, you want to convict on your emotions of hatred before seeing what if any new evidance the Feds actually have.  

Personally I think Barry used and knew he was using but the evidance of this does not reach the level of "beyond reasonable doubt" necessary for conviction.  I also think Bill Clinton needs to go to jail for his simular lies before our judical system if Barry is to be jailed for making the same choice to try and protect himself from this "steroid" witch hunt that Clinton did from the "sex" witch hunt.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
You sound like you're running on wishful thinking more than anything.

I am not convicting Barry of anything. I just know that beating federal raps is nearly impossible without egregious mistakes by the prosecution.  

It's you guys who think that just because Barry has been an a-hole to everyone he's ever met it somehow discredits every person who says something bad about the guy.

I am just being a realest here. The feds wouldn't be going to trial if all they had was Kim Bell and "BB" on a piece of paper - despite what you guys want to believe.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 9:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
You are just failing to see the difference between average run of the mill cases and highly charged political cases.  The conviction rate in these highly charged political cases is much lower.  

Again, could I be wrong?  Could there be more evidance that is convincing?  Sure I could on both counts.  But, again with all that has been leaked on this case I very much doubt it.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 9:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
So true, you aren't convicting Barry yourself.  But I think everyone here can tell you sure as hell want him strung up because he was rude to the press and set two home run records.

If he called you personally and apologized for those two things, would you forgive him and hope he doesn't go to jail?

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 8:27 AM PST up reply actions   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 8:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
As I said in the other diary, this reply was to me.  So please explain what I need to chill?

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Oh, sorry. I failed to scroll up properly in both cases. I actually thought this was directed at somebody else.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 8:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Again, no problems.  That is what I thought.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 8:42 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The truth behind this mysterious phrase
What did he mean by "Chill It?"

After a parallel investigation lasting five years, another crack Grand Jury probe has determined that Kwyjibo has been giving clandestine advice to the Williams family concerning what to do with Ted's recently severed head.

by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 11:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Funny how the MLB waits until he breaks the record and they make all their money until they finally go for him...

by boonitez on Nov 15, 2007 6:42 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
So basically everything is pretty much the same, minus some possible minor jail time and a courthouse.

Anderson still has to talk for anything to happen. We'll see. There's two reasons that the indictment has happened now:

  1. Anderson has agreed to testify.
  2. The system isn't willing to waste anymore time sitting pat on a case they aren't winning.
That's all. One of the two. Pick your poison. I'm sure we'll find out in less than a month anyway.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 6:50 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
That's, I should say, my total layman opinion. Based on what I know about the law (not a lot) and what I've read in these comments. But hey, no reason to complicate things if Anderson is still the one and only key. Either he talks or he doesn't, right?
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 6:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
They got the indictment without Anderson, so they won't be basing the case on his testimony. I'm sure they won't even call him as a witness. The one thing you're right about is that they have a weak case without him, and listening to Bonds' lawyer, Michael Raines, he can't wait for the start of this trial.
BRING ME ANDRUW JONES!!!

by rxmeister on Nov 15, 2007 8:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Two assumptions:
  1. You have no idea what evidence the prosecution has at this time.
  2. Federal Cases very rarely ever go to trial with "weak" evidence.
Knowing these 2 facts, what makes you think that their case is weak? Seriously.

And Vick's attorney couldn't wait to start his trial either.

by PLU Tim on Nov 15, 2007 8:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
What makes me think the case is less than the open-and-shut case you make it out to be is that it took them 4 years and 2 grand juries to finally get an indictment.  What new evidence do the feds have now that they didn't have any other time in the last 4 years?  If they couldn't prove that Anderson handed Barry a PED then, why now?  This may become clear in time, but until then, I think it's very reasonable to have some doubts about the strength of this case.
Rajai Davis: fast.

by Mike Benjamin Hit King on Nov 15, 2007 8:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Have you ever heard the lawyer for someone who's been indicted who didn't say their client is looking forward to their day in court?
See Barack Obama at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium Nov. 14th! Visit https://donate.barackobama.com/sanfran for details.

by Goofus on Nov 16, 2007 12:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
Goofus aside (who in the hind had some foresight), a lot of people everywhere are going to start claiming a serious amount of hindsight.

Boy I can't wait for that! >:(

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

by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 6:59 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Bonds and Giambi
Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi walked down similar paths until grand jury appearance. When presented with the same options they took different routes.

by wilriv21 on Nov 15, 2007 8:30 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Track Record
Abundantly true.

But Barry has thumbed his nose at conventional behavior since, eh...um...er...his nativity, it seems.

I predict he fights it like a mother, remains his aloof and confident self, and wins this latest battle, too.

by Moggeee on Nov 15, 2007 11:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds and Giambi
I don't know what I'm supposed to take from this. Giambi is a good person and Barry is not?
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 1:23 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Much simplier than that
when the time came to address the grand jury properly Giambi did, Bonds did not.

by wilriv21 on Nov 16, 2007 1:28 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Much simplier than that
Or maybe Barry had more to lose by telling the Feds what they wanted to hear and Giambi had more to lose by not telling the Feds what they wanted to hear.  The motivation of self preservation could be exactly the same.

by giantsrainman on Nov 16, 2007 1:38 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Much simplier than that
No, I mean, what is the pertinence in even bringing Giambi into the question. Before the GJ any person has no more than one choice: lie or tell the truth. Regardless of which one Bonds did, there would be an example of somebody who did the other.

Having an example of somebody who told the truth seems to shed no light on the situation, unless you are trying to prove a point about Bonds through Giambi or about Giambi through Bonds. And if that point is nothing more than that Bonds lied, well I don't think you needed the Giambi example to make it.

It was just a very strange comment for me. The logic that went into making it and my brain must not be on speaking terms.

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

by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 1:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I, for one,
separate Barry the person from Barry the player.  Barry the player was the best I have ever seen and is one of the top two players ever.

Barry the person is not a very good person.  At the very least he is an adulterer.  A long-term adulterer.  

So, while it would be a very sad thing for his children to be without their father, color me indifferent on whether he is convicted or not.  If he's guilty, he should do the time.

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

by thehavenot on Nov 15, 2007 10:01 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Re: I, for one,
On that point, I'd be surprised if anybody disagreed. I think the question of high interest is whether or not they can actually prove his guilt, regardless of the reality of that guilt.
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 15, 2007 10:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: I, for one,
Personally I think Barry used and knew he was using but the evidance of this does not reach the level of "beyond reasonable doubt" necessary for conviction. I also think Bill Clinton needs to go to jail for his simular lies before our judical system if Barry is to be jailed for making the same choice to try and protect himself from this "steroid" witch hunt that Clinton did from the "sex" witch hunt.

by giantsrainman on Nov 15, 2007 10:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: I, for one,
If he goes to jail because he's actually guilty, I'm okay with that.  But I'm not going to sit on the moral high ground or cheer from the bleacher section for a conviction.
"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 8:35 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: I, for one,
And neither shall I.  Which is why I am going to be avoiding anything that is remotely related to opinion about Barry Bonds right now.  I just don't need to make the effort in tearing apart people's self-righteous and nostalgic nastiness directed at the home-run king.

Okay, maybe if this one guy at the Vallejo Times-Herald does his self-righteous and nostalgic article (like he's done twice before), then I might make the effort.  But mostly because he's local and because he likes to paint anybody who doesn't also hate Barry Bonds as some sort of sheep who might even be comlicit in Barry's crimes.

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

by thehavenot on Nov 16, 2007 9:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: I, for one,
Wow. The Times-Herald is still functioning?
Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Nov 16, 2007 11:54 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: I, for one,
Well, I guess I am not so interested because, to me, it does not really matter whether they prove his guilt or not.

If they prove his guilt then he is guilty (unless they manufactured evidence, which I won't speculate about).  If they do not prove his guilt he is either not guilty and goes free or he is guilty and goes free.  The latter option is not something that would make me angry because lying to a grand jury about steroid use is much further down the spectrum (Hi, PLU Tim!) towards stealing cookies than beating an infant to death with a baby bunny.  

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

by thehavenot on Nov 16, 2007 9:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: I, for one,
It's funny, I hate the Patriots, but the whole CameraGate thing was such an overblown load of crap, I could never get myself worked into a lather that they should all be labeled cheaters or what not.

I AM a fan of Bonds, and just can't get worked up about this either.  Lying is definitely bad.  Obstruction of Justice is bad.  But this case never once caused me any mental anguish or other forms of pain.  His skill set never made me or lost me one dime.  And I've never heard any substantial evidence that what he may or may not have done actually hurt anyone else's major league career.  So if he goes free, my life will continue.  This isn't like a famous dude murdering his wife and her boyfriend.  Very different set of circumstances.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 16, 2007 10:06 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Bonds Indicted?
I loved having him here, and I believe that he's probably the best of all time. And I could care less if he actually took steroids. He did whatever he did and that's that. That's his deal. Whether he goes to the can or goes free doesn't affect me, thus I don't really care either way.

But...having some experience with the courts (on the good side, not as a defendant, ha), I can tell you that you DO NOT MESS AROUND with the legal system. You lie, you're going to get it, big time. So if he did, then he needs to get punished the way the rest of us would. If not, then good luck to him. The US Attorney's Office generally won't pursue anything if they think they can't get a conviction. So, based on what I've seen so far, he better get his ducks in a row, because he's going to need whatever help he can get.

The Johnnie LeMaster fan club vice-president. E6 Forever!

by Van Smack on Nov 16, 2007 11:42 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about San Francisco Giants.
Start posting about the Giants »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Hidey-fern_small
OT: Classics Video Games
Small
Quote of the day

Recent FanPosts

Timbreakin_small
OT: Super Bowl Losers: Colts, Advertisements
Tempesque7189_small
Elitist East Coast McCC meet up.
Hb307-1_small
Angel Villalona Community List Poll
Lakfjla_small
OT: Super Bowl Predictions
Small
The In Context Case For The Franchise Getting $13M
Hatoyama-southpark_small
Your 2013 World Series Champions! (2k9)
Small
My National Pastime Can Beat Up Your National Pastime
39135485-59af19dbb26654095f910f34176af094_4ae8a81e-scaled_small
Predictions Group
Louseal_small
Fantasy League, or Baseball Pokemon

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Overlord

174246766_ea2fd78204_small Grant

Minions

Dog2_small kenshin1

Lincecum_small Natto

Fawlty_small WalrusMan

Goofus_small Goofus

Howtheyscoredcat_small howtheyscored

Det_7193_small jponry

Minor League Guru

Small steve S