Cheater Bonds Indicted!

[YASNY]

I completely agree with you. I just wish they had made more of an effort to go after others. Especially others who have tested positive as of late. Raffy would have been a good start.

 

I think they'll go after those that they believe they have a good chance of convicting. I'm no lawyer, but they probably can't convict on use ... just possesion, attempting to or purchasing, or in Bonds' case perjury.

[jackie hayes]

Use of an illegal substance? And I'm not even specifically referring to the BALCO bunch. Raffy wasn't part of that crew. And neither are any of the others that have tested positive in the past 4 years.

Can't do it. Everyone who testified was given immunity, except (of course) against perjury/obstruction. And Congress, not the federal prosecutors looking into BALCO, would have to decide to investigate Palmeiro, McGwire, etc. That would be fine, but the fact that they don't want to get involved does NOT mean that the BALCO investigation is a let's-get-Bonds witchhunt. They've gone after Marion Jones, Tammy Thomas, and Barry Bonds. Seeing some grand conspiracy in all this is pretty silly.

[YASNY]

Can't do it. Everyone who testified was given immunity, except (of course) against perjury/obstruction. And Congress, not the federal prosecutors looking into BALCO, would have to decide to investigate Palmeiro, McGwire, etc. That would be fine, but the fact that they don't want to get involved does NOT mean that the BALCO investigation is a let's-get-Bonds witchhunt. They've gone after Marion Jones, Tammy Thomas, and Barry Bonds. Seeing some grand conspiracy in all this is pretty silly.

 

I ceratinly don't think she implied she was seeing some conspiracy. She was saying that the race card would be played, as it always seems to be. Steff said nothing that could be considered silly. If I am misreading you, I apologize.

[WCSox]

Can't do it. Everyone who testified was given immunity, except (of course) against perjury/obstruction. And Congress, not the federal prosecutors looking into BALCO, would have to decide to investigate Palmeiro, McGwire, etc. That would be fine, but the fact that they don't want to get involved does NOT mean that the BALCO investigation is a let's-get-Bonds witchhunt.

 

They most likely didn't go after Palmeiro because they don't have a positive sample obtained BEFORE he testified under oath. And McGwire stonewalled them, so he didn't even have an opportunity to commit perjury.

 

[jackie hayes]

I ceratinly don't think she implied she was seeing some conspiracy. She was saying that the race card would be played, as it always seems to be. Steff said nothing that could be considered silly. If I am misreading you, I apologize.

I never said I was referring to something Steff said. But there are multiple posts within the thread that make it sound like the feds 'are out to get Bonds', or that he's being charged just because of visibility. Those are what I am referring to.

[YASNY]

I never said I was referring to something Steff said. But there are multiple posts within the thread that make it sound like the feds 'are out to get Bonds', or that he's being charged just because of visibility. Those are what I am referring to.

 

As i said, my apologies are extended. However, I do believe that his visibility is part of the equation.

Edited November 16, 2007 by YASNY

[jackie hayes]

They most likely didn't go after Palmeiro because they don't have a positive sample obtained BEFORE he testified under oath. And McGwire stonewalled them, so he didn't even have an opportunity to commit perjury.

That's apparently right. He testified on March 17, tested positive on May 4.

 

Congress did look into charging him, but decided against it.

[jackie hayes]

As i said, my apologies are extended. However, I do believe that his visibility is part of the equation.

Then why go after Tammy Thomas? Do you know of anyone they are not charging, who said he/she didn't take steroids, against whom they seem to have good evidence?

[YASNY]

Then why go after Tammy Thomas? Do you know of anyone they are not charging, who said he/she didn't take steroids, against whom they seem to have good evidence?

 

Read my post, number 69 in this thread. Should they just go after the BIG NAMES? No, but it still sends a message that reverberates through the sports community when they can catch a big fish.

Edited November 16, 2007 by YASNY

[Texsox]

Texsox,

 

 

 

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.

 

Then why publish a rules book? Nice ethics. I suppose you follow that creed in your own life? Cheat any chance you get? That is so sad.

[jackie hayes]

Read my post, number 69 in this thread. Should they just go after the BIG NAMES? No, but it still sends a message that reverberates through the sports community when they can catch a big fish.

I'm not arguing whether they should or not. I'm only talking about what they actually are doing. And I've seen nothing to suggest that Bonds is being targeted because he's visible. They're going after someone nobody remembers (Thomas) and a well-liked Olympic star (Jones). It looks like they're going after anyone who gives them a good case.

[Texsox]

When the feds give you immunity if you tell the truth, and then you lie, that reaches farther than just baseball. Remember this is a real world case, not something that baseball is doing. They gave him immunity, yet he still lied. Nice character. Yet, to some people, he is their hero. Sad.

[StrangeSox]

Then why publish a rules book? Nice ethics. I suppose you follow that creed in your own life? Cheat any chance you get? That is so sad.

Hey now, lawyers are known to be the most ethical people around!

[NorthSideSox72]

Then why publish a rules book? Nice ethics. I suppose you follow that creed in your own life? Cheat any chance you get? That is so sad.

He's used that line of reasoning in here before. Other cheat, so cheating is OK. That excuse doesn't work for 12 year olds, and it certainly isn't a legal defense for an adult.

 

[Steff]

Can't do it. Everyone who testified was given immunity, except (of course) against perjury/obstruction. And Congress, not the federal prosecutors looking into BALCO, would have to decide to investigate Palmeiro, McGwire, etc. That would be fine, but the fact that they don't want to get involved does NOT mean that the BALCO investigation is a let's-get-Bonds witchhunt. They've gone after Marion Jones, Tammy Thomas, and Barry Bonds. Seeing some grand conspiracy in all this is pretty silly.

 

 

Umm.. yes. I understand that. Which is why I am directing my comments, specifically stating so, of going after those NOT involved with BALCO.

[Steff]

I never said I was referring to something Steff said. But there are multiple posts within the thread that make it sound like the feds 'are out to get Bonds', or that he's being charged just because of visibility. Those are what I am referring to.

 

He's being gone after because he lied. Not because he used.. but because he lied about it.

 

 

As I said a few minutes ago, I would love to see those who have tested positive outside of BALCO gone after. And by not going after them I do believe it will open the door to the race card being played - which I do NOT agree with, BTW.

[Steff]

Then why publish a rules book? Nice ethics. I suppose you follow that creed in your own life? Cheat any chance you get? That is so sad.

 

 

That was necessary. :rolleyes

[YASNY]

I'm not arguing whether they should or not. I'm only talking about what they actually are doing. And I've seen nothing to suggest that Bonds is being targeted because he's visible. They're going after someone nobody remembers (Thomas) and a well-liked Olympic star (Jones). It looks like they're going after anyone who gives them a good case.

 

All I am saying is that by going after Bonds, they have an opportunity ... one that should be taken, btw ... to send a message across the board that this will not be accepted. That fact that are also going after the Thomas' reinforces that message. They are actually sending the strongest message possible by going after big and small fish. I agree, they are going after anyone who gives them a good case ... as they should do.

[jackie hayes]

I'm not quite sure what everyone expects the rest to be charged with. The SF Chron story stated that the following players were questioned: Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, Armando Rios, Benito Santiago, Bobby Estalella, Gary Sheffield, and Barry Bonds. Sheffield and Bonds were the only ones who denied knowingly using steroids. Bonds was charged because there are BALCO records that contradict his testimony. Sheffield probably did perjure himself, but his relationship to Bonds & Anderson seems to have been more informal and fleeting, so there probably isn't much documentation that can be used to charge him. So what should the others be charged with?

 

Use of an illegal substance? And I'm not even specifically referring to the BALCO bunch. Raffy wasn't part of that crew. And neither are any of the others that have tested positive in the past 4 years.

 

Umm.. yes. I understand that. Which is why I am directing my comments, specifically stating so, of going after those NOT involved with BALCO.

 

Umm...no. You said you weren't "specifically referring to the BALCO bunch" -- that doesn't exclude them, it just means, not restricted to those. If you meant to exclude them entirely, then I don't see why you were replying to my post, which very clearly dealt with ONLY those testifying in the BALCO case.

[jackie hayes]

He's being gone after because he lied. Not because he used.. but because he lied about it.

As I said a few minutes ago, I would love to see those who have tested positive outside of BALCO gone after. And by not going after them I do believe it will open the door to the race card being played - which I do NOT agree with, BTW.

Did I say otherwise?

[Steff]

Umm...no. You said you weren't "specifically referring to the BALCO bunch" -- that doesn't exclude them, it just means, not restricted to those. If you meant to exclude them entirely, then I don't see why you were replying to my post, which very clearly dealt with ONLY those testifying in the BALCO case.

 

 

What part of "I am not referring to the BALCO bunch" are you not understanding? I've said it several times now, and you have repeated it for me. It is what it is and nothing more.

 

I replied to your post in general because you asked what should others be charged with. My mistake. It will not happen again.

 

And no you did not say anything otherwise, and I did not say you did.

[Texsox]

I wonder if this was MLB, and not the United States of America, going after players, which end they would have started, if they would have started at all.

 

Even Bonds rejects the I cheated because everyone else did defense. He had a chance to come clean, and didn't. Clearly he knew he was using. Clearly he was the greatest player to use.

[jackie hayes]

What part of "I am not referring to the BALCO bunch" are you not understanding? I've said it several times now, and you have repeated it for me. It is what it is and nothing more.

 

I replied to your post in general because you asked what should others be charged with. My mistake. It will not happen again.

 

And no you did not say anything otherwise, and I did not say you did.

I am pointing out that, if that's what you meant, your original post (replying to mine) was very misleading. You did not exclude the BALCO testifiers (you said you were "not even specifically referring to" those, which means something different than "not even referring to"), and my post was very specific about the group I was talking about (I even listed them). If you're just saying someone else should do something else -- fine. It's got nothing to do with my post, that's all.

[Balta1701]

I wonder if this was MLB, and not the United States of America, going after players, which end they would have started, if they would have started at all.

Did you pay attention to the performances of Selig et al. a few years ago when they went before Congress? They were 100% about covering their own ass. None of this would have ever happened had the government not gotten involved.

[Soxbadger]

Texsox,

 

Then why publish a rules book? Nice ethics. I suppose you follow that creed in your own life? Cheat any chance you get? That is so sad.

 

Actually I don’t follow that ethic. I just also don’t get on a soap box and pretend that I have never cheated in my life.

 

Ive looked at my friends plays in madden a few times, I took money from the bank in monopoly while my friends were out of the room, I stacked the deck in Candyland…

 

So what they are games, baseball is a game. It is for fun, for entertainment. So perhaps I just don’t value the game of baseball like others do. To me its just a sport, and when baseball itself became addicted to steroids, it is very hard for me to blame just one person. To me it is all or nothing, either baseball goes after every player with the same vigor as Bonds, or it doesn’t.

 

And that has nothing to do with the Fed, it has to do with things like “asterisk” etc, things that never were contemplated with Big Mac and Sammy. If Bonds records all go away, does Big Mac become the record holder for most Hr in a season? We replace a cheater with a cheater, and in the end, who cares. Everyone was cheating, you cant change the past. You cant change your mind about whether or not you wanted players using steroids. Baseball wanted players hitting more hr’s, it wanted fans, it wanted big monster players. It got what it asked for and now it wants to clean its hands because the game is popular again.

 

So I guess you have never cheated at any game Texsox?

 

He's used that line of reasoning in here before. Other cheat, so cheating is OK. That excuse doesn't work for 12 year olds, and it certainly isn't a legal defense for an adult.

 

Here is an interesting quote.

 

I have never said cheating is okay because others cheat. I have said that it is hypocritical to only hold 1 individual accountable for cheating when it was commonplace. Either baseball needs to go after every player that cheated in that era, or they go after none. You just don’t go after 1 guy.

 

As to “legal defense”, not sure where you pulled that from but if you actually read my posts youll see that Ive basically outlined what Bonds defense will be. He didn’t knowingly use steroids. Who cares what the tests say, who cares that he tested positive in 2000, he didn’t know he was doing it. Just like Merriman, just like every other player who tests positive; “It must have been in some supplement I didn’t know.” It wont matter that he failed, that’s not the case.

 

The case is did he during 2000, or 2003, or whenever he was taking the cream and clear know it was steroids. It doesn’t even matter if he found out in 2006, all that matters is at the time of the occurrence what was Barry Bonds state of mind. Not to mention they will have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that even if for one split second you believe that maybe Barry didn’t know, you have to find him not guilty. And in a he said she said case, its very hard not to have any doubt.