Cheater Bonds Indicted!

[NorthSideSox72]

Texsox,

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?

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.

When you are dealing with famed people, a network or heirarchy if you will, all involved in crime, you go after one or a few high profile people first, to establish place and authority. Then you work your way up, across and/or down. That's the way they go after organized crime, and for much the same reasons. Its the best way to build cases, like building blocks, off each other. That is what they are doing here. And its probably the most effective way to do it.

 

[Soxbadger]

When you are dealing with famed people, a network or heirarchy if you will, all involved in crime, you go after one or a few high profile people first, to establish place and authority. Then you work your way up, across and/or down. That's the way they go after organized crime, and for much the same reasons. Its the best way to build cases, like building blocks, off each other. That is what they are doing here. And its probably the most effective way to do it.

 

huh?

 

Organized crime RICO cases they always go after the small fish first because they need them to flip on the bigger fish. IE Vick, they went after his buddies first, and then when they all agreed to flip they went after Vick.

 

Look at the Chicago Family Secret's trial, they only went after those guys because they already had lower guys who were willing to testify.

 

You are right, the best way to build a case is from the ground up. Establishing authority has nothing to do with this case, Bonds is not being held accountable for what anyone else is doing.

 

This is purely that the case was getting stale, as it is now it already is very old for a perjury trial. They needed to do something, and its kind of strange that they finally brought charges in San Fran the year when barry left San Fran. Almost like there was some sort of connection.

 

I dont know of any case where the Fed goes after the "big fish" to then catch the "small fish". The fed always gets small fish, and then turns them on the big fish.

 

Hence why they went after Balco first, and then Bonds second. They thought that they could get Anderson (small fish) to testify.

[Steff]

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.

 

Right. Which is why I said I responded in general, which was my mistake, and would not happen again.

[YASNY]

One point I'd like to inject into this discussion, is that TPTB in baseball knew this crap was going on and and did nothing about it ... and that includes Don Fehr as well as Bud Selig. When Harry Truman said "The buck stops here", he slapped the top of his desk. When Bud Selig said it, he slapped his wallet.

 

Okay, it's technically not true but the point is made.

[WCSox]

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, because MLB and the MLBPA decided to conveniently look the other way as players were engaging in illegal activities, we're supposed to lower the bar of acceptable behavior... because, you know, it's just a game and it really isn't that important? Uh, sorry, but many people consider it to be a bit more than that. Especially children. Gezz, I remember how let down I felt when, as a 12-year-old, I learned that the Eddie Van Halen was an alcoholic. I can't imagine how much worse I would've felt if I would've found out that Carlton Fisk and Harold Baines were on 'roids.

 

As for coming down on a select few where damning evidence is present, while little or nothing is done to others due to a lack of evidence, what's wrong with that strategy? You prosecute/expel/damage the legacies of those who have clearly broken the rules and they serve as examples. That's similar to (and much less heavy-handed than) what Landis did to the eight Black Sox players back when organized crime was fixing games left and right. Was it a perfect solution? Absolutely not. Did it clean up baseball and go a long way towards regaining the trust of the fans? Hell yes.

Edited November 16, 2007 by WCSox

[Soxbadger]

Well the MLB and MLBPA are in charge of baseball. It seems that they should be the ones who should be held responsible. If they had a policy of looking the other way, then they should be held to pay. if baseball encouraged it, then they should face the music.

 

They shouldnt get to make millions off Barry and then sell him to the wolves.

 

As for coming down, its only the fed, and they are doing it only because they are pissed about Bonds not telling them what they want to hear. If Bonds just told the feds what they wanted 4 years ago, it all would have been swept under the rug.

 

I guess I dont stand up for the govt bullying people into giving testimony they want to hear.

 

/shrugs

 

I also think that Bonds should not have had to testify in front of the Grand Jury originally because the entire point of a Grand Jury is that you are promised all evidence and testimony will never be revealed to the public. Bonds never had the safety, he knew that if he testified that it would be leaked, and it was.

 

If our legal system is so corrupt that a man cant even get the most basic security of the Grand Jury, dont we have bigger problems?

Edited November 16, 2007 by Soxbadger

[WCSox]

Well the MLB and MLBPA are in charge of baseball. It seems that they should be the ones who should be held responsible. If they had a policy of looking the other way, then they should be held to pay. if baseball encouraged it, then they should face the music.

 

They shouldnt get to make millions off Barry and then sell him to the wolves.

 

No, they should go down with him. But, unfortunately, they won't. That said, it's not like the owners and MLBPA were distributing steroids/HGH to the players or knew what they were doing once they left the clubhouse.

 

As for coming down, its only the fed, and they are doing it only because they are pissed about Bonds not telling them what they want to hear. If Bonds just told the feds what they wanted 4 years ago, it all would have been swept under the rug.

 

I guess I dont stand up for the govt bullying people into giving testimony they want to hear.

 

How is enforcing laws "bullying"? Bonds was given IMMUNITY by the Feds and he then proceeded to give them a massive middle finger by lying. Why SHOULDN'T he be charged for that?

 

I also think that Bonds should not have had to testify in front of the Grand Jury originally because the entire point of a Grand Jury is that you are promised all evidence and testimony will never be revealed to the public. Bonds never had the safety, he knew that if he testified that it would be leaked, and it was.

 

That's unfortunate, but it wouldn't have mattered if Bonds hadn't ILLEGALLY used steroids and HGH in the first place. And nobody coerced him into ILLEGALLY lying under oath. Here's a novel idea: If you don't want to be embarrassed/discredited, don't commit the f'n unethical act in the first place!

 

If our legal system is so corrupt that a man cant even get the most basic security of the Grand Jury, dont we have bigger problems?

 

We do, but that doesn't excuse the lesser problems.

Edited November 16, 2007 by WCSox

[Texsox]

That was necessary. :rolleyes

 

You are correct. Sorry.

[The Critic]

One point I'd like to inject into this discussion, is that TPTB in baseball knew this crap was going on and and did nothing about it ... and that includes Don Fehr as well as Bud Selig. When Harry Truman said "The buck stops here", he slapped the top of his desk. When Bud Selig said it, he slapped his wallet.

 

Okay, it's technically not true but the point is made.

If it's possible to "actively do nothing", that's what Selig did.

He was so happy about the McGwire/Sosa record chase "bringing baseball back" that there was NO WAY he was going to rain on that parade.

I actually find Bud's newfound vigilance more than a little disingenuous, and I'm certain that if Congress hadn't started sniffing around Bud would still be hiding in a hole about PEDs.

[Soxbadger]

Wcsox,

 

That said, it's not like the owners and MLBPA were distributing steroids/HGH to the players or knew what they were doing once they left the clubhouse.

 

I disagree, the owners are responsible. The owners knew, and they should be held accountable.

 

How is enforcing laws "bullying"? Bonds was given IMMUNITY by the Feds and he then proceeded to give them a massive middle finger by lying. Why SHOULDN'T he be charged for that?

 

First Bonds has not been convicted of lying. I dont believe that he lied per the definition of perjury, but that is my opinion.

 

The fact is the only reason you are compelled to testify at the Grand jury level is the secrecy of the proceeding. The fed gave Barry a big middle finger by compelling him to testify and then leaking the transcripts. Bonds could not use the 5th, that is why the whole process is a sham. They brought him in knowing only 2 things could happen:

 

A) Bonds admits to using steroids, they leak it and destroy his career.

 

B ) Bonds denies using steroids, they leak it, and destroy his career by going after him for perjury.

 

He didnt have the Big mac option of going "I dont want to talk about the past".

 

So lets call a spade a spade, it was a set up to destroy him. Bonds did the only thing he possibly could have done to try and save his baseball career, denying using steroids.

 

If he admits, he never breaks the record, he never gets to play the last few years.

 

That's unfortunate, but it wouldn't have mattered if Bonds hadn't ILLEGALLY used steroids and HGH in the first place. And nobody coerced him into ILLEGALLY lying under oath. Here's a novel idea: If you don't want to be embarrassed/discredited, don't commit the f'n unethical act in the first place!

 

Bonds never used steroids illegally. Ive already dispelled this myth, but according to the statute you need to "knowingly" possess or use.

 

Bonds defense is he did not know what they were.

 

Hence why the govt is not prosecuting him for using illegal drugs.

 

It would be like prosecuting me for using a drug my Dr. proscribed and then it turned out to be LSD. I cant be convicted for unknowingly doing something. (Thats different than ignorance of the law by the way, ive already had do argue against that.)

 

So at the end of the day Bonds had a catch-22.

 

Perhaps tell the truth and never play baseball again.

 

Deny the truth and live to fight another day.

 

I guess I dont blame him for choosing the one he had a fighting chance.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

Selig is vigilant?

[Texsox]

Bottom line is some people's warped sense of morality is based on what is proven in a court of law, or based on how many other people do it. They can ignore, or even actively make up a fantasy reality, of he really didn't do the drugs if it can't be proven in a court of law or if a thousand other guys should have been prosecuted first. Barry would have to be among the stupidest people on this planet if he never questioned why is head and other body parts were getting so big. He clearly knew the rules of baseball and should be held responsible for not following them. Any below average intelligence person would wake up one day and say "hey, why my noggin' swellin'?" and visit a Doctor. What a sad day when people will make up excuses for the cheater and lier. I'd make a political comparison now, but then we'd have to move this to the 'buster.

 

You can try and make a thousand excuses for Barry, and then you will need a thousand and one. And then he'll write "My Prison Without Bars II", and his fans will moan and gnash their teeth in pain.

[Soxbadger]

Tony Gwinn's head became huge.

 

Was that guy on steroids?

 

I dont change my morality, I stand by what ive said.

 

Bonds is no worse than any other, and the fact people come in here and want to destroy him just based on allegations sicken me.

 

Guilty until proven innocent, and should he be proven guilty I will say that he had his day in court and lost. But until that day, I will uphold the American principle of giving people the ability to defend themselves.

 

You do realize Bonds attorneys were not even allowed to be present during the grand jury.

[jackie hayes]

Wcsox,

I disagree, the owners are responsible. The owners knew, and they should be held accountable.

First Bonds has not been convicted of lying. I dont believe that he lied per the definition of perjury, but that is my opinion.

 

The fact is the only reason you are compelled to testify at the Grand jury level is the secrecy of the proceeding. The fed gave Barry a big middle finger by compelling him to testify and then leaking the transcripts. Bonds could not use the 5th, that is why the whole process is a sham. They brought him in knowing only 2 things could happen:

 

A) Bonds admits to using steroids, they leak it and destroy his career.

 

B ) Bonds denies using steroids, they leak it, and destroy his career by going after him for perjury.

 

He didnt have the Big mac option of going "I dont want to talk about the past".

 

So lets call a spade a spade, it was a set up to destroy him. Bonds did the only thing he possibly could have done to try and save his baseball career, denying using steroids.

 

If he admits, he never breaks the record, he never gets to play the last few years.

Bonds never used steroids illegally. Ive already dispelled this myth, but according to the statute you need to "knowingly" possess or use.

 

Bonds defense is he did not know what they were.

 

Hence why the govt is not prosecuting him for using illegal drugs.

 

It would be like prosecuting me for using a drug my Dr. proscribed and then it turned out to be LSD. I cant be convicted for unknowingly doing something. (Thats different than ignorance of the law by the way, ive already had do argue against that.)

 

So at the end of the day Bonds had a catch-22.

 

Perhaps tell the truth and never play baseball again.

 

Deny the truth and live to fight another day.

 

I guess I dont blame him for choosing the one he had a fighting chance.

AGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

STOP, STOP, STOP passing off stuff as truth IF YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TRUE. Jesus f'n Christ...

 

The Feds DID NOT leak the testimony. DID NOT. STOP SPREADING THIS BULLs***. It was a lawyer for BALCO, who pleaded guilty to doing so.

 

And you don't know AT ALL if he knowingly used steroids. If you want to say there's no evidence, fine. But don't say, "Bonds never used steroids illegally." as if it were some fact that you actually know.

 

"So lets call a spade a spade..." Now THAT'S some f***ing irony.

[WCSox]

Wcsox,

I disagree, the owners are responsible. The owners knew, and they should be held accountable.

 

I already said that they bear SOME responsibility. But not ALL of it, as you're implying.

 

The fact is the only reason you are compelled to testify at the Grand jury level is the secrecy of the proceeding. The fed gave Barry a big middle finger by compelling him to testify and then leaking the transcripts. Bonds could not use the 5th, that is why the whole process is a sham. They brought him in knowing only 2 things could happen:

 

A) Bonds admits to using steroids, they leak it and destroy his career.

 

B ) Bonds denies using steroids, they leak it, and destroy his career by going after him for perjury.

 

You forgot about...

 

C) Bonds fesses up and tells the truth, as outlined in the terms of his immunity deal.

 

He didnt have the Big mac option of going "I dont want to talk about the past".

 

Neither did Giambi, but he realized that telling the truth and avoiding prison was more important than lying to protect his sham of a career.

 

Bonds was doing business with a company running an illegal steroid ring. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

 

If he admits, he never breaks the record, he never gets to play the last few years.

 

Says who? MLB didn't ban Giambi for telling the truth.

 

Bonds never used steroids illegally. Ive already dispelled this myth, but according to the statute you need to "knowingly" possess or use.

 

Bonds defense is he did not know what they were.

 

Hence why the govt is not prosecuting him for using illegal drugs.

 

If you actually believe this, you're either a massive Barry apologist or a complete idiot. I'm assuming that you're in the former category.

 

It would be like prosecuting me for using a drug my Dr. proscribed and then it turned out to be LSD. I cant be convicted for unknowingly doing something. (Thats different than ignorance of the law by the way, ive already had do argue against that.)

 

Did Barry's doctor prescribe him BALCO-manufactured drugs? Were Victor Conte's products FDA-approved?

 

No? Then your comparison is ridiculous.

 

Bottom line is some people's warped sense of morality is based on what is proven in a court of law, or based on how many other people do it.

 

+1

 

[Gregory Pratt]

Tony Gwinn's head became huge.

 

Was that guy on steroids?

 

It is definitely possible.

 

/Devil's advocate

 

...

 

I would like to know -- why is Bonds a "cheater" and what rules did he break? Didn't his juicing, and McGwire's/Sosa's juicing/everybody else's juicing come before it was a Major League rule? Or am I missing something?`

 

[Balta1701]

It is definitely possible.

 

/Devil's advocate

 

...

 

I would like to know -- why is Bonds a "cheater" and what rules did he break? Didn't his juicing, and McGwire's/Sosa's juicing/everybody else's juicing come before it was a Major League rule? Or am I missing something?`

According to several published reports, including this one, in 1991 Fay Vincent sent around a memo explicitly stating that Steroids would be placed on MLB's banned substance list. While there was no testing for it, it was therefore supposedly something that you'd treat like, I dunno, Steve Howe's cocaine problem; if a guy was caught doing something then he was caught breaking the rules and MLB would have the ability to react.

A year earlier Congress had raised penalties for possessing those and 25 other anabolics. But now the stuff violated baseball's rules, too. On June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids." The seven-page document didn't cover random testing -- that had to be bargained with the union -- but it did outline treatment and penalties.

[NorthSideSox72]

It is definitely possible.

 

/Devil's advocate

 

...

 

I would like to know -- why is Bonds a "cheater" and what rules did he break? Didn't his juicing, and McGwire's/Sosa's juicing/everybody else's juicing come before it was a Major League rule? Or am I missing something?`

He broke the law (regardless of MLB rules) to gain a competitive edge. How is that not cheating?

 

[Gregory Pratt]

He broke the law (regardless of MLB rules) to gain a competitive edge. How is that not cheating?

 

It's a question posed to me by someone I've spoken with. "Bonds may go to prison and I'm sure he broke the Law several times, but whether or not he cheated, as in breaking baseball's rules, is what I'm more interested in." I laughed, but I know exactly what it means and it's an interesting discussion. I've come to the belief that if it isn't against Major League Baseball's rules, then it isn't cheating in Major League Baseball to do such a thing.

 

Certainly, the fact that it was illegal is a consideration to be given, but that makes him a criminal rather than a "cheater" if we take "cheating" to be "breaking the game's rules".

 

And another Q, for those of you who know the rulebook: is it a formal rule that you couldn't, or shouldn't, steal signs? It's somewhat a tangent but I'm curious.

[Balta1701]

Certainly, the fact that it was illegal is a consideration to be given, but that makes him a criminal rather than a "cheater" if we take "cheating" to be "breaking the game's rules".

 

And another Q, for those of you who know the rulebook: is it a formal rule that you couldn't, or shouldn't, steal signs? It's somewhat a tangent but I'm curious.

But, I think I just pointed out...as of 1991, it was clearly against MLB's rules, according to the statement laid down by the commissioner, to use steroids. The problem was that the rule was not enforceable, as the Union wasn't bargained in on it, and you could probably spend some time arguing over what exactly was banned and what wasn't since "Steroids" is a pretty generic classification.

 

So, here's the question I'll put back to you which I think is the more accurate one: do you consider him to be a cheater if he broke an unenforced rule, and an unenforceable (at the time) rule? Because, if that memo from Commissioner Vincent is setting the rules MLB plays by, Mr. Bonds broke that rule but knew at the time that MLB couldn't punish him for it.

[Gregory Pratt]

But, I think I just pointed out...as of 1991, it was clearly against MLB's rules, according to the statement laid down by the commissioner, to use steroids. The problem was that the rule was not enforceable, as the Union wasn't bargained in on it, and you could probably spend some time arguing over what exactly was banned and what wasn't since "Steroids" is a pretty generic classification.

 

So, here's the question I'll put back to you which I think is the more accurate one: do you consider him to be a cheater if he broke an unenforced rule, and an unenforceable (at the time) rule? Because, if that memo from Commissioner Vincent is setting the rules MLB plays by, Mr. Bonds broke that rule but knew at the time that MLB couldn't punish him for it.

 

Yes, I do. I was genuinely asking -- is there a rule he broke?

I do know that for a long time Barry Bonds and many others had issues with steroids because they considered it cheating and believed it tainted the game but as to whether or not there was a rule he was breaking was up for discussion.

 

But yes, I'd call that "cheating." I wouldn't if it were just a law.

[StrangeSox]

It's a question posed to me by someone I've spoken with. "Bonds may go to prison and I'm sure he broke the Law several times, but whether or not he cheated, as in breaking baseball's rules, is what I'm more interested in." I laughed, but I know exactly what it means and it's an interesting discussion. I've come to the belief that if it isn't against Major League Baseball's rules, then it isn't cheating in Major League Baseball to do such a thing.

 

Certainly, the fact that it was illegal is a consideration to be given, but that makes him a criminal rather than a "cheater" if we take "cheating" to be "breaking the game's rules".

 

And another Q, for those of you who know the rulebook: is it a formal rule that you couldn't, or shouldn't, steal signs? It's somewhat a tangent but I'm curious.

 

Why should baseball, or any sport for that matter, have to make rules explicitly banning illegal substances? By running their operations in countries that list steroids as controlled substances, there is a de facto rule.

[Gregory Pratt]

Why should baseball, or any sport for that matter, have to make rules explicitly banning illegal substances? By running their operations in countries that list steroids as controlled substances, there is a de facto rule.

 

There's something about that that I'm not fully comfortable with.

I just mean: if the game doesn't consider it cheating to use these drugs and so doesn't ban them, then using them becomes a legal matter for the player but not one at his workplace.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[Balta1701]

Yes, I do. I was genuinely asking -- is there a rule he broke?

I do know that for a long time Barry Bonds and many others had issues with steroids because they considered it cheating and believed it tainted the game but as to whether or not there was a rule he was breaking was up for discussion.

 

But yes, I'd call that "cheating." I wouldn't if it were just a law.

According to the Vincent Memo, baseball's rules banned MLB players from taking any illegal substance, and that memo specifically referenced steroids, which were made illegal in 1988 or thereabouts.

 

So if your question is, did Barry Bonds break a rule? The answer must be yes. He clearly broke a rule; you were not allowed to take an illegal substance.

[StrangeSox]

There's something about that that I'm not fully comfortable with.

I just mean: if the game doesn't consider it cheating to use these drugs and so doesn't ban them, then using them becomes a legal matter for the player but not one at his workplace.

 

Why does the game need to spell out that anything banned by the law is also against the rules? Isn't it implicit by the fact that a country's legal system trumps a game's rulebook?