The perjury evidence against Bonds

[whitesoxfan101]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGQOI9U7L1.DTL

 

Yet again, these 2 writers provide more overwhelming evidence agianst Bonds. I doubt he is found guilty of perjury, but it's pretty obvious he was/is on a lot of s***.

[Jimbo's Drinker]

I am so f***in sick of Barry Bonds, its all they talk about. He cheats, and it comes to a point where I cannot take anymore.

[southsider2k5]

Purjury is not easy to prove, so there must have some hellacious evidence if they are going to go to a grand jury.

[Balta1701]

I will say and ask this 1 more time.

 

Barry Bonds's grand jury testimony was in December of 03. Since then, Conte and Anderson have plea bargained out, and Conte is already out of jail. Bonds has hit something like 50 home runs. 2.5 years have passed.

 

Why the Hell did it take so long to get the perjury investigation started?

[JoeBatterz]

It's justice the American Way. ;-)

[Soxbadger]

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.

[WCSox]

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?

 

Those offenses aren't punishable outside of the academic institution. IIRC, perjury before a federal grand jury is a felony. The possession of anabolic steroids is also highly illegal. Bonds didn't just "cheat in a game."

 

I agree that the government is on a fishing expedition and that the perjury case against Bonds is not strong from a legal standpoint. That said, anybody with more than two functioning brain cells could tell you that Barry knowingly took steroids. Any professional athlete who spends several hours per day working out and has his own personal trainer and cook would damn well know what was in "The Cream" and "The Clear" before taking them.

[Soxbadger]

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.

[WCSox]

Bonds is not being charged with anything related to steriod use.

 

Because he received immunity for his testimony against BALCO, correct?

 

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.

 

Seventy three home runs, association with a trainer convicted of steroid distribution, and admitting to using two steroid-containing products is a hell of a lot of evidence.

 

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.

 

If Bonds "had some inclination" that he was being lied to, he would've either had the products tested or chosen not to do business with Conte.

 

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.

 

That's a weak argument. If he "didn't want to know the answer," he knew exactly what he was taking.

 

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.

 

When did I ever justify cheating?

Edited April 17, 2006 by WCSox

[Soxbadger]

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.

[WCSox]

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.

 

At the grand jury, Bonds was told he would not be prosecuted for any crime he admitted, but he was warned that if he lied in his testimony he could be charged with perjury.

 

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."

 

Again, it's very difficult to believe that a pro athlete who is on such a strict diet that he has a personal chef didn't know what was taking. If this ever goes to trial, he'd better hope that a couple of jurors are that gullible... or that they buy into his portrayal of poor Barry being harassed by the racist, white government.

 

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?

 

Because Bonds DOES have a duty to follow our laws regarding illicit drugs. If my personal drug dealer... um, I mean personal trainer were to supply me with an ounce of "oregano" and the police were to tell me that it was pot, I couldn't claim ignorance to avoid prosecution.

 

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.

 

But one definitely could argue that Barry had a responsibility to follow our laws regarding the purchase/use of controlled substances. Ignorance is no excuse.

 

Barry would have to be a complete idiot to NOT KNOW that he was taking some form of steroid, rather than flaxseed oil. I don't believe that he's that stupid.

 

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.

 

Bad comparison. Medicine is obtained by licensed pharmacists from FDA-regulated pharmaceutical companies. BALCO produced supplements, which are not regulated by the FDA. (They should be, but that's a different debate for a different time.) Victor Conte is nothing more than a white-collar drug dealer.

 

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.

 

Did these people also purchase/use steroids and commit perjury?

Edited April 17, 2006 by WCSox

[Balta1701]

But one definitely could argue that Barry had a responsibility to follow our laws regarding the purchase/use of controlled substances.  Ignorance is no excuse.

 

Barry would have to be a complete idiot to NOT KNOW that he was taking some form of steroid, rather than flaxseed oil.  I don't believe that he's that stupid.

But the key problem is proof. If 5 people go to the police and say that you're using an illegal drug, but the police search your house, person, and all your possessions, and find nothing illegal, and you don't fail any drug tests, is that enough to charge you? Without the hard evidence I don't think they can, but perhaps i'm mistaken.

[WCSox]

But the key problem is proof.  If 5 people go to the police and say that you're using an illegal drug, but the police search your house, person, and all your possessions, and find nothing illegal, and you don't fail any drug tests, is that enough to charge you?  Without the hard evidence I don't think they can, but perhaps i'm mistaken.

 

Barry already admitted to using an illegal drug. But I agree that it may be difficult to prove in a court of law that he "knowingly" did it, although it would defy common sense to believe that he didn't.

[Steff]

But the key problem is proof.  If 5 people go to the police and say that you're using an illegal drug, but the police search your house, person, and all your possessions, and find nothing illegal, and you don't fail any drug tests, is that enough to charge you?  Without the hard evidence I don't think they can, but perhaps i'm mistaken.

 

 

FWIU, usage of the C&C is covered under the immunity agreement, thus not able to be used against him.

[Balta1701]

Bonds's current trainer has reportedly been subpoenaed by this grand jury.

[Phuck the Cubs]

But the key problem is proof.  If 5 people go to the police and say that you're using an illegal drug, but the police search your house, person, and all your possessions, and find nothing illegal, and you don't fail any drug tests, is that enough to charge you?  Without the hard evidence I don't think they can, but perhaps i'm mistaken.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well if they have a calender of him on drug schedule, and can trace payments he made to Conte, they could

[YASNY]

Bonds's current trainer has reportedly been subpoenaed by this grand jury.

 

More accurately, and pehaps even more noteworthy, is that this is the San Francisco Giants current trainer.

[Phuck the Cubs]

More accurately, and pehaps even more noteworthy, is that this is the San Francisco Giants current trainer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I read in the Sun-Times this morning that he is NOT related to Victor Conte

http://suntimes.com/output/baseball/cst-spt-bbnt19.html