Feds Get Bonds' Steroid-Laced Urine

[lostfan]

It's total horses*** that Pete Rose isn't in the Hall.

 

Just wanted to take another opportunity to say that.

[Milkman delivers]

It's total horses*** that Pete Rose isn't in the Hall.

 

Just wanted to take another opportunity to say that.

 

And Shoeless Joe. He was banned for life, and he's been dead for decades. Put the guy in already.

[MHizzle85]

I'm waiting until Jason Whitlock writes an article about how Barry Bonds is getting picked on only because he's black

Correction, Mrs. Whitlock would write an article about how Bonds is a horrible person to represent the black community.

[Buehrle>Wood]

If he really was the man he wouldn't of had to cheat. As soon as on cheats they can no longer be the man; they are just a cheat.

 

He could do coke off a hooker's ass and he'd still be the man. Come to think of it, that would probably even make him cooler.

[DukeNukeEm]

well my view is if he gets convicted, not only is it perjury, but proof that he did illegal steroids. isn't that sufficient to ban someone from baseball?

Using Pete Rose as precedent it's more than enough. That said, I agree with lostfan that Pete Rose belongs in the HoF.

Edited January 29, 2009 by DukeNukeEm

[lostfan]

And Shoeless Joe. He was banned for life, and he's been dead for decades. Put the guy in already.

Agreed.

[southsider2k5]

On the bright side at least we can have a Barry Bonds thread now without hearing how he has never actually been busted cheating.

[BobDylan]

of course we're allowed to make statements of opinion, but when you word your statement "he never would have", that's not an opinionated statement, it's made as fact. you need to word it more like "I don't think he ever would have", in order for it to be understood as an opinion

 

Tell that to your English professor and enjoy the F. People can certainly, and should, write opinions as fact; it's what supports that "fact" that matters.

Edited January 30, 2009 by BobDylan

[Soxbadger]

On the bright side at least we can have a Barry Bonds thread now without hearing how he has never actually been busted cheating.

 

Well actually Bonds has been consistent since the Grand Jury testimony. He took the "Cream" and the "Clear" he just did not know they were steroids, he believed them to be flaxseed oil.

 

Thus there never has been any reason to bust Bonds, as he already has admitted to taking those substances.

 

I doubt that they convict Bonds, if they thought the evidence was in their favor they wouldnt be raiding a 60 year old woman's home under the auspice of a tax audit.

 

As to the HOF, if it keeps denying the best players entrance, then it no longer becomes relevant.

 

Pete Rose's case is different, he bet against his own team. That is cheating to lose. In comparison, Bonds cheated to win.

 

Is Gaylord Perry in the HOF?

 

Is Phil Niekro in the HOF?

 

Is Ty Cobb in the HOF?

 

Is John McGraw in the HOF?

 

Whats the difference between Bonds and those mentioned?

 

Each of them cheated, some of them admittedly.

 

Why are they in the HOF if cheating disqualifies you?

 

 

[Texsox]

This is completely ridiculous and completely irrelevant to the Prosecutions case.

 

The Prosecution must prove that Bonds "KNOWINGLY TOOK STEROIDS".

 

How does a sample of urine with Steroids prove that Bonds knew he was taking steroids?

 

Its the same answer as before:

 

I took the cream and clear, I didnt know what they were.

 

I took Pill B that my Dr gave to me, I didnt know what it was, he said it would help the pain, I believed him.

 

Also they have no "chain of evidence".

 

Who has had these substances for 6 years, how do we know that they were not tampered with, etc etc.

 

I wonder how much govt money has been wasted trying to discredit Barry Bonds because he isnt lovable enough.

 

Bonds is a professional athlete whose livelihood depended on his physical conditioning. There is no way he would take anything without knowing what it is. There is no way he didn't notice the muscle mass developing. Then after steroids became more well known, he continued to use them. Beyond the point that any reasonable person would think he was an unknowing victim.

 

But if you prefer to think of Bonds as the stupidest f***ing moron to ever walk the planet, that just blindly ingested and/or injected whatever someone gave him and didn't ask what it was and what it did, go for it. Hey look, I'm chewing bubble gum and my biceps are getting huge!

 

[Soxbadger]

I think Bonds was smart enough that when the Drs said: "Dont ask" he didnt ask.

 

Plausible Deniability.

 

Remember Anderson and Bonds were really good friends, to the extent that Anderson has said he would never testify against Bonds. Bonds was their meal ticket, they had an incentive to protect him at all costs and that includes being smart enough to know that as Drs if they cover for Barry, hed always have an excuse.

 

The question for perjury is did he actually know, not did he have an idea, not did he think maybe, its did he actually know.

 

If he did not know for sure, he can not be convicted.

 

This is just breaking the law 101, whoever is the most important part of the group, you protect at the cost of the rest of the group.

 

(Edit)

 

More specifically think of it this way.

 

I develop an undetectable steroid for Barry.

 

I at the same time start Barry on a new training regiment.

 

Barry can swear on his life that he believed it was the new training regiment that made him stronger and develop more mass.

 

I as the Dr tell him its the training regiment, that the flaxseed oil is doing nothing.

 

He relied on my statements as the Dr.

 

I insulate Bonds, because Bonds has the money. I know as long as I protect him Im set.

 

Its just so simple to make it impossible to prove this type of stuff.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

Why are they in the HOF if cheating disqualifies you?

 

Because people learn from their mistakes. At some point society says enough is enough and stops rewarding the behavior. Why was I able to drink at 18 and now kids have to wait until 21? Why could my dad have an open can of beer in the car while driving and I couldn't? It is a very simple concept that most people grasp.

[Texsox]

I think Bonds was smart enough that when the Drs said: "Dont ask" he didnt ask.

 

Plausible Deniability.

 

Remember Anderson and Bonds were really good friends, to the extent that Anderson has said he would never testify against Bonds. Bonds was their meal ticket, they had an incentive to protect him at all costs and that includes being smart enough to know that as Drs if they cover for Barry, hed always have an excuse.

 

The question for perjury is did he actually know, not did he have an idea, not did he think maybe, its did he actually know.

 

If he did not know for sure, he can not be convicted.

 

This is just breaking the law 101, whoever is the most important part of the group, you protect at the cost of the rest of the group.

 

Whaaaat??? That was crack I was smoking!!?? Not my fault officer. I didn't know what I was smoking, they didn't tell me!!! Sorry, ignorance is not an excuse.

[Texsox]

I think Bonds was smart enough that when the Drs said: "Dont ask" he didnt ask.

 

So upon hearing this, did Bonds think he was taking a legal or illegal drug?

 

Why would a Doctor not tell him about a legal drug?

[witesoxfan]

Whaaaat??? That was crack I was smoking!!?? Not my fault officer. I didn't know what I was smoking, they didn't tell me!!! Sorry, ignorance is not an excuse.

 

Are you going to get crack from a certified doctor? Because if you are, then I imagine you are fine.

 

Not fine per se, but they cannot convict you of perjury in the court of law if a doctor says "this will help, don't ask what it is but it will help you" and you have no idea you are on crack.

Edited January 30, 2009 by witesoxfan

[Soxbadger]

Texsox,

 

Whaaaat??? That was crack I was smoking!!?? Not my fault officer. I didn't know what I was smoking, they didn't tell me!!! Sorry, ignorance is not an excuse.

 

This is a horrible misconception.

 

Ignorance can be an excuse.

 

If the crime is "Knowingly committed"

 

Then the first part that needs to be proved is "knowingly".

 

If I go to a Dr and I he tells me "You have strep through, Im prescribing Penicillin."

 

I go down to the Pharmacy and give the Pharmacist my script and he goes "Here is your Penicillin."

 

I walk out the door and the police arrest me, when they open the container the "Penicillin" is actually X.

 

Could I be convicted?

 

Maybe on some charges, but not on all of them. I would have a valid defense that I did not attempt to purchase, that I did not attempt to sell, etc etc. The only thing that they could have me on is "possession".

 

So ignorance in certain situations can be an excuse.

 

Just like if your drunk you cant be convicted for certain crimes. They dont tell you that, but for "specific intent" crimes you need to not only commit the crime, but also have the "guilty mind". If you prove that you were drunk and didnt understand what you were doing was wrong, youd be found not guilty.

 

Because people learn from their mistakes. At some point society says enough is enough and stops rewarding the behavior. Why was I able to drink at 18 and now kids have to wait until 21? Why could my dad have an open can of beer in the car while driving and I couldn't? It is a very simple concept that most people grasp.

 

Then remove the other cheaters.

 

If cheating disqualifies you from being in the HOF, then remove them all.

 

Otherwise your picking and choosing when it counts and when it doesnt count.

 

[ptatc]

It's total horses*** that Pete Rose isn't in the Hall.

 

Just wanted to take another opportunity to say that.

 

I disagree, betting on a baseball game of which you have direct control over maybe worse cheating than Bonds.

 

Rose should never be allowed near the game of baseball.

[ptatc]

Texsox,

 

 

 

This is a horrible misconception.

 

Ignorance can be an excuse.

 

If the crime is "Knowingly committed"

 

Then the first part that needs to be proved is "knowingly".

 

If I go to a Dr and I he tells me "You have strep through, Im prescribing Penicillin."

 

I go down to the Pharmacy and give the Pharmacist my script and he goes "Here is your Penicillin."

 

I walk out the door and the police arrest me, when they open the container the "Penicillin" is actually X.

 

Could I be convicted?

 

Maybe on some charges, but not on all of them. I would have a valid defense that I did not attempt to purchase, that I did not attempt to sell, etc etc. The only thing that they could have me on is "possession".

 

So ignorance in certain situations can be an excuse.

 

Just like if your drunk you cant be convicted for certain crimes. They dont tell you that, but for "specific intent" crimes you need to not only commit the crime, but also have the "guilty mind". If you prove that you were drunk and didnt understand what you were doing was wrong, youd be found not guilty.

 

 

 

Then remove the other cheaters.

 

If cheating disqualifies you from being in the HOF, then remove them all.

 

Otherwise your picking and choosing when it counts and when it doesnt count.

 

If you agree that it's fine to break rules of the game, how about keeping him out of the HOF with the morality clause. He commited a few federal crimes which directly impacted the intergirty of the game.

 

You can believe it's fine if you want, but just like anyone else who breaks the rules and damage the game of baseball, he should not be allowed in the HOF.

 

[Soxbadger]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_...21----000-.html

 

having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

 

 

Key part:

 

"WHICH HE DOES NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"

 

So as long as Bonds believed it to be true, he has to be not guilty of perjury.

 

So if I really thought that crack was aspirin, it is not perjury when I say "I thought it was aspirin" even if every other person in the world would have known the difference.

 

The only person that matters is Bonds.

 

How do you prove what Bonds knew or didnt know?

 

Unless you can bring in a witness to testify that Bonds knew, the case is dead in the water.

 

Ptatc,

 

What law do you believe Bonds broke?

 

And do you think that all players who break the law should be prevented from being HOF? (DUI, fake id, marijuana included)

 

 

Edited January 30, 2009 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

You said he was smart enough not to ask.

 

Why wouldn't he ask if it was a legal drug?

[Milkman delivers]

I think Bonds was smart enough that when the Drs said: "Dont ask" he didnt ask.

 

Plausible Deniability.

 

Remember Anderson and Bonds were really good friends, to the extent that Anderson has said he would never testify against Bonds. Bonds was their meal ticket, they had an incentive to protect him at all costs and that includes being smart enough to know that as Drs if they cover for Barry, hed always have an excuse.

 

The question for perjury is did he actually know, not did he have an idea, not did he think maybe, its did he actually know.

 

If he did not know for sure, he can not be convicted.

 

This is just breaking the law 101, whoever is the most important part of the group, you protect at the cost of the rest of the group.

 

(Edit)

 

More specifically think of it this way.

 

I develop an undetectable steroid for Barry.

 

I at the same time start Barry on a new training regiment.

 

Barry can swear on his life that he believed it was the new training regiment that made him stronger and develop more mass.

 

I as the Dr tell him its the training regiment, that the flaxseed oil is doing nothing.

 

He relied on my statements as the Dr.

 

I insulate Bonds, because Bonds has the money. I know as long as I protect him Im set.

 

Its just so simple to make it impossible to prove this type of stuff.

 

You're not telling anybody anything new. We understand the concept. You're looking at this only in a legal matter. Yes, they probably won't be able to convict Bonds. What most people are saying is that we don't need a conviction, as it is abundantly clear to anyone with a brain that he took steroids, and did so knowingly. The HOF voters don't need a conviction. They are smart enough, as is the rest of the nation, to know he cheated without having him thrown in jail.

[Texsox]

So he never asked if the drug was legal or not? He just took it. He had no idea what he was using for years??

Which, at the minimum, proves he didn't care if he was cheating or not.

 

I'm outta hear. You can't wake someone pretending to be asleep.

[Milkman delivers]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_...21----000-.html

 

 

 

 

Key part:

 

"WHICH HE DOES NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"

 

So as long as Bonds believed it to be true, he has to be not guilty of perjury.

 

So if I really thought that crack was aspirin, it is not perjury when I say "I thought it was aspirin" even if every other person in the world would have known the difference.

 

The only person that matters is Bonds.

 

How do you prove what Bonds knew or didnt know?

 

Unless you can bring in a witness to testify that Bonds knew, the case is dead in the water.

 

Ptatc,

 

What law do you believe Bonds broke?

 

And do you think that all players who break the law should be prevented from being HOF? (DUI, fake id, marijuana included)

 

He took illegal steroids. And before you say, "you can't prove that he took them willfully," it doesn't matter in terms of the HOF. The HOF doesn't have to prove he meant to do it, they just know he did use illegal steroids. That can be grounds for keeping him out.

[ptatc]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_...21----000-.html

 

 

 

 

Key part:

 

"WHICH HE DOES NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE"

 

So as long as Bonds believed it to be true, he has to be not guilty of perjury.

 

So if I really thought that crack was aspirin, it is not perjury when I say "I thought it was aspirin" even if every other person in the world would have known the difference.

 

The only person that matters is Bonds.

 

How do you prove what Bonds knew or didnt know?

 

Unless you can bring in a witness to testify that Bonds knew, the case is dead in the water.

 

Ptatc,

 

What law do you believe Bonds broke?

 

And do you think that all players who break the law should be prevented from being HOF? (DUI, fake id, marijuana included)

 

He broke federal laws regarding illegal steriods. If you think that he didn't know what he was putting in his body, Ithink you are misguided. And if didn't know what was going in his body he should have figured it out when after the age of 40 he all of a sudden got bigger and stronger.

 

He knew what he was doing.

 

I think in regards to not letting crminals in the HOF it would need to be case by case. If the crime was commited in an attempt to defraud the game then yes keep them out of HOF. If you think they used the fake ID to help their performance in baseball then yes, if you think the marijuana was smoked to improve there performance to cheat the game of baseball then again yes keep them out of the HOF.

 

The HOF is for the best players if the voters think that the players did something to defraud the game, don't let them in. It's not a criminal trial, they do not hjave the right to be in the HOF. It's a privelege, if they abuse the privilege during their career, don't let tham in.

 

Edit: Holy crap!! Sorry about the spelling. IronicallyI'm trying to help my son study for his spelling test while doing this.

Edited January 30, 2009 by ptatc

[Texsox]

Adjective

plausible (comparative more plausible, superlative most plausible)

 

Positive

plausible

 

 

Comparative

more plausible

 

 

Superlative

most plausible

 

1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
2. Worthy of being applauded; praiseworthy; commendable; ready.
3. Obtaining approbation; specifically pleasing; apparently right; specious; as, a plausible pretext; plausible manners; a plausible delusion.
4. Using specious arguments or discourse; as, a plausible speaker.

 

It does not seem plausible for a professional athlete to take a drug without knowing what it is. Especially if his Doctors were unwilling to tell him. Here take this, but don't ask me what it is.

 

And it is crazy to think that if one cheater gets in to the HoF, that every cheater for the rest of history should be allowed in. It is not required anywhere to continue to make the same mistake forever.

 

It is interesting, using the "he didn't know" theory, that he wasn't worried that the drug would hurt his performance. He just seemed unconcerned what it would do or how. He wasn't concerned about how it would affect his baseball career. He just took it because someone told him to take it. No second opinion. He just didn't care one way or the other. Yeah, that's plausible. And look it up. A one in a million chance is not plausible. Possible? yes. But not plausible.