Cheater Bonds Indicted!

[Linnwood]

Greg Anderson, Bond's trainer and supplier, who has been sitting in jail, covering Bonds butt, was just released from federal prison. Too coincidental to be a coincidence?

 

 

Maybe someone learned how to sing while he was in the big house.

[Soxfest]

3 years too late!

[Linnwood]

whats funny is none of the legal experts on ESPN seem to think that its such a slam dunk. Most are saying its a hard conviction and very strange it took so long, and that relying entirely on Anderson may be risky.

 

 

ESPN's sports analysis is worthless, and that is supposed to be what they are in the business of doing. I think I'll get my legal analysis elsewhere.

 

Again, what exactly is "strange" or "suspicious" ?

[Leonard Zelig]

http://www.ellison-law.com/answers.html

 

And Barry Bonds is not anyone, he is like OJ. Which means those stats mean nothing, you are looking at 50/50 odds on a conviction if it goes to trial. No matter what the evidence, he will get up there and say he didnt know they were steriods.

 

Or Michael Vick?

[Buehrle>Wood]

ESPN's sports analysis is worthless, and that is supposed to be what they are in the business of doing. I think I'll get my legal analysis elsewhere.

 

Legal analysis. Not sports analysis. The guy was right on in the Vick case as well as the Duke case. No reason not to trust him.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Buehrle>Wood

[WCSox]

Maybe someone learned how to sing while he was in the big house.

 

Yep. I hardly find it coincidental that he was released on the same day that Barry was indicted. I've always suspected that Barry was paying him under the table to keep his mouth shut. Perhaps Barroids missed a couple of payments?

 

[Soxbadger]

Linnwood,

 

Well Lester Munson is a real attorney, he came and spoke at my law school.

 

I am a real attorney, I have a pretty little license, degree, and card that lets me get in the Daley Center with out having to pass through metal detectors.

 

What legal expert has exactly disagreed with any of the attorneys that have been on ESPN?

 

I assume your an attorney since you can just dismiss people that actually passed the bar like Munson.

 

Some one just brought up Vick.

 

His indictment came out in less than 6 months.

 

Bonds indictment took 4 years.

 

Why?

 

Simple, Anderson was told that he would be in jail until he told the feds what they wanted. Anderson finally told the feds that Bonds knew he did steroids. The fed is so hell bent on getting Barry that it is willing to go to trial basing its entier case on Anderson.

 

Sorry but there is no smoking gun.

 

There is no tape of Bonds saying : "I know the cream is roids"

 

Its going to be Anderson on the stand going:

 

"I told Barry it was steriods"

 

And then it will be Barry saying "He never told me it was steriods"

 

Then youll have the prosecutor argue you cant believe bonds cause hed do anything to save his career/life, youll ahve the defense attorney argue you cant believe Anderson because he would do anything to get out of jail, and clearly the fed was fishing for an answer because its to coincidental that they only released him once he gave the information they wanted to hear.

 

Then it will go to a jury of San Francisco fans, and they will be asked to convict their hero.

 

Yep I can see why you are all so confident in this case as compared to vick where they had a myriad of evidence and multiple flipper witnesses.

 

I believe the terms are analagous and distinguishable.

[Linnwood]

I assume your an attorney since you can just dismiss people that actually passed the bar like Munson.

 

 

Last time I checked Mike Nifong had passed the bar too. Being a lawyer does not make you incapable of being wrong. Maybe they didn't teach you in law school that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

 

Is it posable that Bonds gets off? Sure. But it seems highly unlikely.

[pierard]

Linnwood,

 

Well Lester Munson is a real attorney, he came and spoke at my law school.

 

I am a real attorney, I have a pretty little license, degree, and card that lets me get in the Daley Center with out having to pass through metal detectors.

 

What legal expert has exactly disagreed with any of the attorneys that have been on ESPN?

 

I assume your an attorney since you can just dismiss people that actually passed the bar like Munson.

 

Some one just brought up Vick.

 

His indictment came out in less than 6 months.

 

Bonds indictment took 4 years.

 

Why?

 

Simple, Anderson was told that he would be in jail until he told the feds what they wanted. Anderson finally told the feds that Bonds knew he did steroids. The fed is so hell bent on getting Barry that it is willing to go to trial basing its entier case on Anderson.

 

Sorry but there is no smoking gun.

 

There is no tape of Bonds saying : "I know the cream is roids"

 

Its going to be Anderson on the stand going:

 

"I told Barry it was steriods"

 

And then it will be Barry saying "He never told me it was steriods"

 

Then youll have the prosecutor argue you cant believe bonds cause hed do anything to save his career/life, youll ahve the defense attorney argue you cant believe Anderson because he would do anything to get out of jail, and clearly the fed was fishing for an answer because its to coincidental that they only released him once he gave the information they wanted to hear.

 

Then it will go to a jury of San Francisco fans, and they will be asked to convict their hero.

 

Yep I can see why you are all so confident in this case as compared to vick where they had a myriad of evidence and multiple flipper witnesses.

 

I believe the terms are analagous and distinguishable.

 

I have a Civ Pro final coming up...any chance you can come up here to Cornell and take it for me. All I can remember is 12(B)(6)

 

[Soxbadger]

Civ Pro I hell no. Forum, venue, jurisdiction is ridiculous.

 

Civ Pro II thats minimum contacts, that shoe case, class actions, etc? That one wasnt so bad.

 

 

Linnwood,

 

Nifong is a perfect example of why not to believe an indictment.

 

He got an indictment against the Duke Lax players, so that must mean they are all guilty right?

 

We will see but I would say 50/50 is giving the feds great odds in a very tough case. Unless they have some sort of surprise evidence, but at teh same time if they had that evidence why were they waiting?

 

 

[WCSox]

Something tells me that Anderson isn't going to make or break this case, and that Barry isn't going to serve any time. That said, it'll make it even more painfully obvious to everybody that Barry was taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs. And perhaps MLB will step in and do something to his records.

 

[Linnwood]

Nifong is a perfect example of why not to believe an indictment.

 

He got an indictment against the Duke Lax players, so that must mean they are all guilty right?

 

We will see but I would say 50/50 is giving the feds great odds in a very tough case. Unless they have some sort of surprise evidence, but at teh same time if they had that evidence why were they waiting?

 

 

As I said before, I understand perfectly that there is vast gulf between being indicted and being convicted. But considering the evidence the government claims in the indictment, that Anderson just happened to walk out of jail the same day the indictment drops, and that the Feds know this would be an embarrassment if they don't get a plea or conviction, considering how high profile this is, I find it rather hard to believe that the Feds don't have the goods on him.

 

Bonds could walk away unscathed. But it seems rather unlikely.

 

(Also, I am very much less concerned about Bonds going to jail or paying a fine. I just want Bonds apologists to shut the hell up, and quit pretending that he wasn't juicing. It is so painfully obvious that he used 'roids.)

Edited November 16, 2007 by Linnwood

[Gregory Pratt]

Even if Bonds is found "innocent" we all know he used steroids. I'm just glad he probably won't be playing now.

 

No, I don't hate Bonds, but I'm tired of his career, fans and apologists. Of course now I'll have to listen to them go back-and-forth about whether or not he's legally guilty.

[Soxbadger]

Okay Kevin Ryan the lead prosecutor of the Balco case is on now.

 

He thinks Anderson didnt testify.

 

And there is no evidence in the charging document, there are allegations.

 

Unlike a grand jury, the federal govt now has to prove the allegations.

 

And I think its more of an embarassment if they never get an indictment and bring charges.

 

You make 0 of the shots you dont take, and i think at this point the fed knew if they wait any longer Bonds is unconvictable so they are taking their shot.

 

(edit)

 

I dont believe Bonsd didnt use roids, I think he did. Whether he knew or not is up for speculation.

 

I think thatmany other players used roids and its a shame that only Bonds has to be held accountable.

 

Wont it be funny if A-rod used roids.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Soxbadger

[fathom]

Okay Kevin Ryan the lead prosecutor of the Balco case is on now.

 

He thinks Anderson didnt testify.

 

And there is no evidence in the charging document, there are allegations.

 

Unlike a grand jury, the federal govt now has to prove the allegations.

 

And I think its more of an embarassment if they never get an indictment and bring charges.

 

You make 0 of the shots you dont take, and i think at this point the fed knew if they wait any longer Bonds is unconvictable so they are taking their shot.

 

(edit)

 

I dont believe Bonsd didnt use roids, I think he did. Whether he knew or not is up for speculation.

 

I think thatmany other players used roids and its a shame that only Bonds has to be held accountable.

 

Wont it be funny if A-rod used roids.

 

I would say it would be naive to think he wasn't using some sort of performance-enhancer. I just hope the Sox are careful in who they sign this offseason, because we don't need any of our big acquisitions to be named in the Mitchell report.

[WCSox]

I dont believe Bonsd didnt use roids, I think he did. Whether he knew or not is up for speculation.

 

Only a retard wouldn't know that he's on steroids and/or HGH. (Wow, flaxseed oil has added a full inch to my head!) And I don't believe that Barry is mentally-challenged.

 

I think thatmany other players used roids and its a shame that only Bonds has to be held accountable.

 

+1

 

[Gregory Pratt]

Hey, alright fathom! Someone else who says that, hey, something's up because.

[Linnwood]

And there is no evidence in the charging document, there are allegations.

 

 

Right, that is why I said "considering the evidence the government claims in the indictment" "Claims" being the keyword there. For a lawyer you sure do have a hard time reading.

[jackie hayes]

Only a retard wouldn't know that he's on steroids and/or HGH. (Wow, flaxseed oil has added a full inch to my head!) And I don't believe that Barry is mentally-challenged.

+1

Something seems to be missing in this discussion. Much of the indictment seems to be based on the timing. Bonds claims that he used nothing from Anderson prior to the 2002/2003 offseason. He wasn't saying merely, I didn't know what it was. He's saying, I didn't use ANYTHING he gave me before just now.

 

I'm also not convinced that Bonds is the only one being targeted. The Feds charged Tammy Thomas, a former Olympic cyclist, on similar charges. Hardly a household name.

[chisoxdavid]

Funny that some people do not care he's guilty, only if he can be convicted.

Whats the deal with him? Why was he released?

 

[Texsox]

Did you even read the link:

 

Indictments come at the drop of a hat.

 

I guess the Black Sox were convicted no questions asked because they had an indictment against them.

 

Oh wait no they didnt.

 

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1446555

 

 

 

 

A lot of people are going to be sad when Bonds is not guilty, whats funny is none of the legal experts on ESPN seem to think that its such a slam dunk. Most are saying its a hard conviction and very strange it took so long, and that relying entirely on Anderson may be risky.

 

Do you even care that he has used steroids?

[Balta1701]

Since we're on the subject of the guys @ ESPN, here's one of them in writing.

Last winter, President Bush obtained Ryan's resignation along with those of other U.S. Attorneys, which led to a partisan political battle. Although neither Bush nor Ryan ever discussed the Bonds investigation as a reason for Ryan's departure, numerous observers expected a Bonds indictment under the new leadership in the U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco. Ashcroft's resignation may also have contributed to the delay. His replacement, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, had other problems, and resigned in August, causing further delay. Now, finally, with Scott Schools serving as the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco, and a new attorney general in Washington, Michael Mukasey, the indictment is a reality.

 

Are there any surprises in the indictment?

 

Most of the material in the indictment is familiar to anyone who has followed the BALCO investigation, but there is one surprise. The surprise is that, according to the indictment, during the criminal investigation evidence was obtained, including positive tests for steroids and other performance-enhancing substances for Bonds and other professional athletes. When asked about it in front of the grand jury, Bonds denied a positive test. It will be one of the most difficult charges for Bonds to deny. He will be scientifically connected to a positive test with DNA and other techniques.

Interesting thought line there. This did come awfully rapidly after the nomination of the new AG was approved. Perhaps Mr. Anderson was water-boarded? Anywho, that's got to play into this somehow. And the positive test thing is going to be big...because that might well say something about those 2003 MLB tests, because who else would have given ones that we hadn't heard about?

[YASNY]

I'm just glad that we'll never have to hear "There's never been any solid evidence that Bonds used steroids."

 

Well now there is. A positive test is now public record.

[Soxbadger]

Texsox,

 

If the trial was about whether or not Bonds used steroids than I might care.

 

As it is, Bonds is not being charged with using an illegal substance.

 

I dont care that he used steroids because I believe many other MLB players used steroids at the same time and you can only compare Bonds to the players of his era.

 

Football had a steroid era, but everyone seems to still love the Pittsburgh Steelers.

 

I guess I just dont understand what Barry did so wrong. He cheated at a game, he cheated to better himself, and maybe you have never cheated at anything, never looked at some ones answers, stolen a line on a paper etc, but I myself am not that perfect.

 

At the end of the day I just believe that Barry was not the worst player to step on the field, not even the worst player of his era. I think corking your bat is as bad, using vasoline, ky jelly, etc all equally as bad. But those are all just part of the game of baseball, slaps on the wrist.

 

I dont care that Bonds cheated, because I expect every player to try and cheat. It was up to baseball to stop cheating, and they really didnt care. Now in retrospect after Sosa, Big Mac, Bonds etc made them millions they want to clean up their act.

 

 

[max power]

I agree, steroids are treated differently because of some social stigma. To me Bonds is no worse than greg maddux is for licking his hand up and down in disgusting fashion or any other cheater.

Edited November 16, 2007 by max power