Soxbadger

Hes being elected in 2 weeks? So your position is that if that the only reason the DA is charging these people is for the election? Because if that is the case after he is re-elected he will then drop the charges. If you are wrong, after he is re-elected he will continue with the case. I say the latter will happen. I thought that his election was in the normal time period (November or so) so that the trial would be under way.

Whitesoxfan, I disagree. The number 1 thing for District Attorney is percentage of convictions. If you want to move up from a states attorney to federal or flip to the defense, the first thing that your future employer will look at is "What percentage of cases did you win." A good prosecutor is up over the 90% range, because they do not bring to trial cases that they feel they are going to lose. On the other hand a good defense attorney is aiming for 50% win rate, as you are always playing behind the 8 ball, even with the burden of proof being so high for the govt. The entire argument of yours is based on him winning the case. If he gets a conviction, then yes this will increase his chances at re-election. But if he loses, you will undoubtedly get a candidate to run against him on the platform that he botched this case. I doubt I will convince you though, seems that you are basing your entire argument on your own opinion. But any DA, or other lawyer who has knowledge on prosecutors will tell you, high profile cases with marginal evidence are a great way to lose an election, not win one.

Um how can you say that? In an election year the last thing you want as a DA is a controversial case that you may lose. The thing the DA wants most is for this s***ty case to go away, and a bright shining new case to show up with great evidence and an assured conviction. The statement this is only about being re-elected is very misguided in my opinion.

Does this mean the media actually follows the Sox now?

Right now this is all posturing. DA posturing that they have the evidence, Defense posturing that DA has nothing. Basically this round is for the plea bargain. Defense attorney trying to get his client a great plea by putting the DA to the coals and saying "If you dont get him on some slap on the wrist, your not going to get any conviction." On the other side you have the DA saying to the defense attorney "If he pleas guilty now we will give him a deal that he would never have gotten if this goes to trial." Next will come the round where the attorneys try and break down the 2 defendants. Since they are being defended by 2 different attorneys (its very rare for a criminal case for 2 defendants to have a single attorney) the DA is going to try and flip one for a deal. "You tell on X, we will give you probation or plead you to a misdemeanor so this never goes on your record." The DNA evidence is not 100% exculpatory, especially if you can get a second witness to corraborate the story of the girl. Even if the next round of DNA comes back positive, there will still be some wiggle room for the defense. With out the evidence its hard to speak specifically about what tactics I think would be more successful, just in general this is the type of stuff thats going on now. Another problem for the defendants is that they are both from NY, meaning that if the trial does take place the DA will paint them as outsiders.

Actually there are 2 outliers on that list: Maryland and Illinois. The other 3 programs are some of the best in the nation.

Tru, The haha is at the experts who said that some how the White Sox lost that deal. Ah to be an expert.

1) I do not know the exact nature of the immunity agreement. Without seeing the actual document itself, I do not know what the prosecutor offered and what was not offered. It seems that Bonds was offered limited immunity, as perjury was not covered. 2) Bonds admitted to using the cream and the clear, which we now know to be steriods. Therefore the evidence of 73 home runs and his trainer being involved in steriods just reaffirm what Bonds has stated "I took the clear and cream, but did not know what they were." 3) Bonds has no duty to find out what he his taking. Not to mention in many industries, business's, and even in the law, the policy of "Dont ask a question you dont want to know the answer to" is prevelant. In political circles its called plausible deniability. Why would Bonds want to find out what he was taking? He was getting the results he wanted and had the great excuse of being told it was not steriods. If anything ever happened he could always go up on the stand and say "I never knew what I was taking." And then when asked "Why did you not ask" He will say "I did ask and I was told it was flaxseed oil." There is almost no way you can argue that he should of done more. When a Dr gives you a prescription and says "This is penicillin" do you go out and have it tested for yourself to make sure that it is actually not something else? The answer is no, because as a lay person we expect the advice of experts to be truthful. All they are going to keep getting at is was Bonds was lied to. 4) Im not saying you justify cheating. I am saying that I have seen many people on these boards, in real life, and in general who have wanted to cruxify Bonds, but are willing to look the other way when it concerns them. Each point goes towards 1 quotation.

Lets not get crazy here. Anderson is not worth a s*** load more than Rowand, perhaps over time Anderson will be better. But as of today Rowand > Anderson. Anderson may have more potential, but Rowand is better right now.

Bonds is not being charged with anything related to steriod use. The point of my statement "Why does anyone care" is more towads the peoplel who want to crucify Bonds for cheating. Im not saying cheating is right, just that almost everyone justifies cheating when it is in their own favor, and condemns it when it is convenient. As for the rest, I believe that the foundation of the United States judiciary is "innocent until guilty", and therefore it does not matter what people think, it matters what the evidence says. So far there has yet to be any evidence that even suggests Bonds "knowingly" took steriods. And its very hard for me to take any argument seriously that rests on "anybody with more than 2 functioning brain cells." While I think its more than likely Bonds had some inclination what he was taking was not flaxseed oil, it is still much different than "knowing beyond reasonable doubt" that it was in fact steriods. Bonds is not a Dr., Chemist, or any other type of scientist who on his own could determine what the substance was. He took the word of his trainer, and perhaps went as far as not asking questions because he did not want to know the answers. The problem for the prosecution though is that there is no duty on Bonds part to find out what substances he was taking. And even worse for the prosecution is at the time of the incident it is unclear whether the drugs were even illegal. That is why this never went forward until a bunch of reporters tried to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I mean the easier case is trying to convict on controlled substance which is statutory. In a statutory crime you do not have to prove "knoweldge" as that is not one of the requirements. When you dont see the govt go forward on the easier charge, its very strange they are going to go forward on the much more difficult charge.

Wow this is pretty much nothing like I suspected. Its not even enough to get to a jury at the Petit Jury scale (regular trial as opposed to grand jury). The function of a grand jury is much different, it gets to see evidence regardless of whether or not it will actually be useable at trial. A large piece of this is hearsay evidence which is not admissible under the rules of criminal procedure. In a grand jury it is allowed because the point of a grand jury is to get evidence and to see whether or not there is enough to go to trial, not to actually convict. Right now it seems the govt is on a fishing expedition. There is nothing in this article that even suggests perjury. His initials on pieces of paper not even in his own hand writing? That does not refute his claim that "he did not know", which is a necessary part of perjury. Not only do they have to prove what Bonds said is a "lie" they have to prove that he actually knew it was a lie at the time he said it. Therefore they are going to have to get a Conte or Anderson to testify, which will almost be impossible as they are going to take the 5th, which you can do even if you have been prosecuted and convicted, or even if you have been offered immunity. Now the real question here is, "Why does anyone care". Bonds cheated in a game? So f***ing what, I would say 9 out of 10 people on this board have cheated at something that was far worse than a baseball game. Never looked at some one elses test, or swiped a line from a book in a research paper? Please let those without sin cast the first stone. As for this case, if the Prosecution can get a Grand Jury indictment (possible), they will have almost no chance at the burden of "reasonable doubt". Any witness that dares to get up against Bonds, ie Sheffield, Giambi, etc will be decimated on the stand in cross. The reason why perjury was never charged is because the US does not want to waste my tax dollars on a crime that will be nothing more than a drain on the judiciary. As I write the check for my taxes, I wonder how much will be spent in unnecesary litigation this year. SS2k, Actually going to a grand jury means that there is not that much evidence, so they want to convene the grand jury to use its awesome power to try and get enough evidence. Also if you have a grand jury indictment its an easier sell at the Petit Jury level. I mean we havent even gotten to the jury make up problems that would kill the US's case, ie if you get 1 Bonds fan or sympathist the show is over as 11-1 is a loss for the prosecution.

I grew up here also. Most of the people I know from Chicago dont even care about basketball since the end of the Jordan era. If you are talking about high school football in Chicago, then yes there are not as many teams because of the fact that they cant build stadiums. But then you have the Mt Carmels of the world who put out Rice and McNabb. In my opinion though more people in Chicago are football fans than basketball fans, and that is in both NCAA and professional.

WHAT????? College football is huge in Chicago, just not for people who went to schools that dont have a very good college team. hehe And Im just kidding around, if Wisconsin ever had anyone as talented as Rush Im sure Id be happy he was staying too.

The only thing I can imagine Kansas doing in a few years is choking in the NCAA tournament like its their job. I dont see why this needed its own thread, but congrats Jayhawks. Im just suprised so many people are still talking basketball when Football is coming.

Name one thing Pods can do Freel cant? Bat left handed. The reality is Freel and Pods are similar players, I dont get what the point of the thread was?

Reminds me of Schoenweiss or however you spelled the name.

Im pretty sure that letting the pitcher select them was something that came with Ozzie. I dont remember Manuel or prior managers doing it.

No one in the world is going to say Benson has more value than Garland. Thats just absurd.

Garland is the 5th starter. No team in the majors has an ace 1-5, the White Sox are pretty damn close. Every person in the majors is human and every one is going to go through a slump at some time. You would think last season winning the World Series would breed some f***ing loyalty in Sox fans. f***ing sickening. You go with the horses that got you there, you dont just f***ing take them in the back and shoot them because they had a bad day.

Garland is the Sox's 5th starter in all reality. Think back to the years where the White Sox went the entire season and got 0 wins from their 5th starter. No need to throw Jon under the bus after 2 bad games. No need even if he slumps the entire first month. Its not where you start the race, its where you finish it.

How does Verlander look? Unfortunately cant see the game.

I dont see all the hate for the new Simpsons. I thought this weeks take off of Apocalypse Now / Heart of Darkness with Homer being a God was great. Not to mention the scene coming from the Ghanges where all of the Indian workers are dressed like Homer in the classic white shirt blue pants. Comedy central should of not backed down, but then again I think the point was Manatee's have more back bone then Comedy Central. And King of the Hill is a good show, i generally prefer it to family guy.

White Sox used to have good closers. Thigpen, Hernandez, and then Foulke was looking like the guy to carry the torch. Its only been recently where the closer has been some what of a concern, and even then the White Sox have been lucky to get outstanding years from guys like Hermanson, Shingo.

I think you have to stay with Jose here. He has the best chance versus Pudge.

Unless Konerko is really struggling you just cant put men on base in front of him. The risk versus reward is just to high because in general Konerko and Thome are about as dangerous in any 1 at bat. Another problem with walking Thome is match up dependent. Today you have a lefty in Robertson so it would be very unconventional to walk the lefty Thome to get to the righty Konerko.