Barry Bonds quest for HR record

[papsrus]

I don't buy that and neither should you.

Lying to Congress has brought retribution to numerous people dating back to the Rosenburgs [sic] commie scare days. The feds are playing selective rerasoning only because Bonds is a record holder. It makes a splashier headline and diverts attention away from Iraq, gas prices and the piss poor economy. No more, no less.

That may be true, but we see people lying to Congress on almost a daily basis with little or no consequence (to them).

As to prosecuting every track atlete, the only ones targeted have been, again, the record holders. So, yes, I believe this stuff is selectively and unfairly applied and only to nail the stars. I am certain you cannot believe only the top stars have used steriods....so it only follows that this is the case relative to prosecution.

Are you sure only the record-holders are targeted? That may well be the case. I'm just not so sure. And if it is the case, isn't it common for federal prosecutors to go after the big fish? You're not going to crack open substance abuse in baseball by prosecuting some AAA call-up. I'm not sure I see a problem with the tactic, really.

As an aside, the Mitchell report should break things open even further, with reportedly more than 100 names. We'll see. Selig will have his hands full.

[Tim McG]

I don't buy that and neither should you.

Lying to Congress has brought retribution to numerous people dating back to the Rosenburgs [sic] commie scare days. The feds are playing selective rerasoning only because Bonds is a record holder. It makes a splashier headline and diverts attention away from Iraq, gas prices and the piss poor economy. No more, no less.

That may be true, but we see people lying to Congress on almost a daily basis with little or no consequence (to them).

As to prosecuting every track atlete, the only ones targeted have been, again, the record holders. So, yes, I believe this stuff is selectively and unfairly applied and only to nail the stars. I am certain you cannot believe only the top stars have used steriods....so it only follows that this is the case relative to prosecution.

Are you sure only the record-holders are targeted? That may well be the case. I'm just not so sure. And if it is the case, isn't it common for federal prosecutors to go after the big fish? You're not going to crack open substance abuse in baseball by prosecuting some AAA call-up. I'm not sure I see a problem with the tactic, really.

As an aside, the Mitchell report should break things open even further, with reportedly more than 100 names. We'll see. Selig will have his hands full.

Well, if the lesser players are getting their heads handed to them by the feds...I'm not seeing it.

As to the Mitchell report, we will see if anything else comes of this. Bottom line, it is a game and I fail to understand why the feds are so fired up interested. I sense a smoke screen.

[Dan Gould]

Obviously, the goal here is [as it was with Clinton] is to tie an albatross around Bonds' neck in an effort to tarnish his career. They have an uphill battle to prove perjury and they know it, but the feds can embarrass the guy and they will. Just like they did with President Clinton.

That makes this a witch hunt and of the shoddiest kind.

The feds are playing selective rerasoning only because Bonds is a record holder. It makes a splashier headline and diverts attention away from Iraq, gas prices and the piss poor economy. No more, no less.

You cannot honestly believe any of this.

The San Francisco office of the Justice Department is simply doing this to "tarnish his career"? They only wish to "embarass" the man.

Even worse, you honestly believe that this indictment is meant to "divert attention away from Iraq, gas prices, and the piss poor economy"?? So, the President just waited and waited til things were at their worst, then he said "INDICT BONDS! I gotta get a break from these bad headlines!!!!"

You have gone completely insane. Seriously, you're a fucking moron if that is what you believe. Let me give you an alternative reason why Barry finds himself in the position he is now in.

Once upon a time, Justice Department officials became aware of a criminal organization called BALCO. It was an illegal distributor of steroids and used money laundering techniques to hide its income. Search warrants were issued, and mountains of evidence were obtained that demonstrated the illegal acts of BALCO owners and employees. The evidence also demonstrated that many world class athletes were BALCO clients and that they received and used illegal steroids.

In the course of the investigation, these athletes were granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony before the Grand Jury which was impaneled to issue indictments of BALCO owners and employees. The only possible legal jeapordy these athletes were in was if they failed to tell the truth under oath.

Jason Giambi told the truth. His reputation ultimately took a hit but he is in no legal jeapordy.

Marion Jones lied before the grand jury. She is now going to jail on perjury charges, among others.

Barry Bonds, because of his monumental ego and belief that the laws do not apply to him (or else out of fear that his use of steroids would destroy his reputation) lied to the Grand Jury. He is now indicted for perjury.

In short, the Justice Department in San Francisco had a criminal organization in its cross hairs. It investigated, and has pursued all illegal acts committed by any party related to the criminal organization.

[Dan Gould]

Unless the feds go after Sosa, McGuire, Palmerio, Gagne, Canseco, Giambi or whomever, this nothing more than a witch hunt. Pure and simple.

Palmiero is the only person who said under oath (before Congress) that he has never used steroids. His positive test came after his testimony, and therefore does nothing to disprove his statement under oath. The only thing that would prove perjury is a failed drug test taken prior to his testimony.

Giambi testified truthfully under oath about the steroids he received from BALCO and Greg Anderson.

No one else has been called upon to testify under oath.

Why, you have to ask, is Bonds targeted and nobody else?

Here's a wild guess: because he was given a grant of immunity from prosecution with the sole proviso that he would be held criminally liable if he did not tell the truth under oath. He chose to give knowingly false, perjured testimony. He is being targeted for violating the immunity agreement and the law.

IMO, the complete lack of intelligent discourse here on this point is astounding.

It truly staggers the mind that someone who has found ZERO support for every single one of his assertions and arguments in this matter is complaining about a lack of intelligent discourse.

[Tim McG]

Whatever, Dan.

You have convinced yourself that anyone who disagrees with the Jazz enthusiasts of this BBS has to be a complete idiot. You told me so on a previous post about what you percieve they think about Bonds' alledged guilt.

That makes just about as much sense as saying Gee Dumbya was actually elected to office. He was assigned to office and by the right wing leaning Supreme Court. You know it, I know it. Pretending it isn't so just shows your ignorance.

Bonds, conversely, is being judged by a tabloid seeking media with has obviously tainted the GJ with all of the unsubstatiated kiss-and-tell bullshit.

Why all the anger? Why all the vitriol? Why all the insult?

Is it because what I have said all along that people have a problem with a Black man doing well and breaking a time hnored HR record?

Is it because you're afraid I just might be right?

Look in the mirror, Dan....do you see honesty looking back at you?

I predict the GJ trial will turn up more of the same and will not be able to prove perjury.

Bonds walks...but because of simple minds like yours...his career will be forever tainted.

Satisfied now?

Edited November 17, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

Whatever, Dan.

You have convinced yourself that anyone who disagrees with the Jazz enthusiasts of this BBS has to be a complete idiot. You told me so on a previous post about what you percieve they think about Bonds' alledged guilt.

That makes just about as much sense as saying Gee Dumbya was actually elected to office. He was assigned to office and by the right wing leaning Supreme Court. You know it, I know it. Pretending it isn't so just shows your ignorance.

Bonds, conversely, is being judged by a tabloid seeking media with has obviously tainted the GJ with all of the unsubstatiated kiss-and-tell bullshit.

Why all the anger? Why all the vitriol? Why all the insult?

Is it because what I have said all along that people have a problem with a Black man doing well and breaking a time hnored HR record?

Is it because you're afraid I just might be right?

Look in the mirror, Dan....do you see honesty looking back at you?

I predict the GJ trial will turn up more of the same and will not be able to prove perjury.

Bonds walks...but because of simple minds like yours...his career will be forever tainted.

Satisfied now?

I haven't a clue why you bring up Dubya and couldn't care less.

The simple point is that if there was the slightest flicker of an intelligent argument from you, there would be people here backing you up. The fact that there aren't any says everything about your knowledge (you continue to assert factual inaccuracies about what Bonds admitted to) and your intelligence (your laughable assertions about steroids and a batter's power and proclivity to hit home runs - rejected by every single person who has bothered to offer an opinion).

You are a lonely, sad, pathetic man, railing at the "injustice" of it all. Sound like someone who was just indicted by a Grand Jury?

[Tim McG]

Whatever, Dan.

You have convinced yourself that anyone who disagrees with the Jazz enthusiasts of this BBS has to be a complete idiot. You told me so on a previous post about what you percieve they think about Bonds' alledged guilt.

That makes just about as much sense as saying Gee Dumbya was actually elected to office. He was assigned to office and by the right wing leaning Supreme Court. You know it, I know it. Pretending it isn't so just shows your ignorance.

Bonds, conversely, is being judged by a tabloid seeking media with has obviously tainted the GJ with all of the unsubstatiated kiss-and-tell bullshit.

Why all the anger? Why all the vitriol? Why all the insult?

Is it because what I have said all along that people have a problem with a Black man doing well and breaking a time hnored HR record?

Is it because you're afraid I just might be right?

Look in the mirror, Dan....do you see honesty looking back at you?

I predict the GJ trial will turn up more of the same and will not be able to prove perjury.

Bonds walks...but because of simple minds like yours...his career will be forever tainted.

Satisfied now?

I haven't a clue why you bring up Dubya and couldn't care less.

The simple point is that if there was the slightest flicker of an intelligent argument from you, there would be people here backing you up. The fact that there aren't any says everything about your knowledge (you continue to assert factual inaccuracies about what Bonds admitted to) and your intelligence (your laughable assertions about steroids and a batter's power and proclivity to hit home runs - rejected by every single person who has bothered to offer an opinion).

You are a lonely, sad, pathetic man, railing at the "injustice" of it all. Sound like someone who was just indicted by a Grand Jury?

Yeah, yeah, yap, yap, yap.

Maybe we see how the trial turns out, eh?

Then we see who had it right and who had it wrong, eh?

Perjury is a helluva hard provable point here and you know it, Dan. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so damned smug and abusive.

Berate me, abuse me, but when it all comes down to it....you don't know shit from Shinola relative to how the trial will turn out.

I don't pretend to know how it will turn out...why do you?

Edited November 17, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Jazzmoose]

there's only one way dan and good speak will resolve their disputes

an "I Quit" Steel Cage Match with Stone Cold Steve Austin as special guest referee

and that's the bottom line................................................................

actually, i feel they are the same person merely amusing themself.

You misspelled "abusing"...

[Jazzmoose]

Here's a wild guess: because he was given a grant of immunity from prosecution with the sole proviso that he would be held criminally liable if he did not tell the truth under oath. He chose to give knowingly false, perjured testimony. He is being targeted for violating the immunity agreement and the law.

That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can see. They gave him immunity and he pissed in their faces. This tends to upset people for some reason.

[Free For All]

I don't know about the rest of you, but this thread just fills me with all the warmth of the holiday season!

Have a very Barry Christmas everyone!

[Dan Gould]

Yeah, yeah, yap, yap, yap.

Maybe we see how the trial turns out, eh?

Then we see who had it right and who had it wrong, eh?

Perjury is a helluva hard provable point here and you know it, Dan. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so damned smug and abusive.

Berate me, abuse me, but when it all comes down to it....you don't know shit from Shinola relative to how the trial will turn out.

I don't pretend to know how it will turn out...why do you?

I don't pretend to know what will happen in a jury room. What I am reasonably certain of is that in open court, the prosecution will present a mountain of evidence regarding Bonds' use of steroids and his lies on the stands regarding it.

We can only hope that we do not get a re-run of the OJ criminal trial, in which a jury acquits even though every rational person on the planet knows what the truth is. That is my fear, due solely to where the trial will take place.

[Matthew]

Goodspeak: You're entitled to your opinion, it's all cool, but I want to run this quote from the ESPN legal expert again:

Q. Are there any surprises in the indictment?

A. 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.

Now this seems to me the crux of the whole matter: The government has proof of a positive test and can link it by DNA to Bonds, and this was the very thing Bonds denied. Remember, BALCO was an illegal, for profit, drug operation, that sold illegal and dangerous drugs. As you say, the trail might tell a different story, but for right now, it doesn't look good for Bonds. One last comment about the length of time: It would not be the first time the the DA's office was hesitant to indict a famous, popular local figure -- not good for the reelection prospects.

[Dan Gould]

Goodspeak: You're entitled to your opinion, it's all cool, but I want to run this quote from the ESPN legal expert again:

Q. Are there any surprises in the indictment?

A. 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.

Now this seems to me the crux of the whole matter: The government has proof of a positive test and can link it by DNA to Bonds, and this was the very thing Bonds denied. Remember, BALCO was an illegal, for profit, drug operation, that sold illegal and dangerous drugs. As you say, the trail might tell a different story, but for right now, it doesn't look good for Bonds. One last comment about the length of time: It would not be the first time the the DA's office was hesitant to indict a famous, popular local figure -- not good for the reelection prospects.

Thanks for that tidbit, Matthew, as its already being reported that the defense will contest the validity of the result, on the basis that Conte was cheap in his provision of testing services. He used "quick and dirty" techniques. Normal protocols were not followed by the testing company they used - no one watched Bonds piss in the cup, so how can anyone know that it was his urine, and additionally, where is the chain of custody?

If in fact they can make DNA connections between Bonds and the material tested, he's good as done.

[Tim McG]

Not so fast, Dan.

I read in the paper this morning that the all important damning evidence is a tainted urine sample taken from Conte during a raid on his place in 2003.

If that's all they have, this witch hunt is over.

To wit: [Read it and weep, Dan]

Bonds' lawyers to question steroid test

By PAUL ELIAS11/16/07 16:48:18

AP sports analyst Ben Walker says many players are hypocritical about steroid use. "I've never seen these documents," Barry Bonds said. He was testifying before a federal grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, or BALCO, and had just been shown what prosecutors say was a positive steroid test conducted on a player named Barry B.

"I've never seen these papers," Bonds repeated, according to Thursday's indictment charging Bonds with perjury and obstruction of justice.

Those test results may now be the vital linchpin to proving he lied under oath.

Bonds' lawyers are expected to fiercely attack their reliability, much the way O.J. Simpson's legal team undermined the football star's murder case by questioning the handling of his blood samples.

Bonds' attorney, Michael Rains, declined to comment. But BALCO founder Victor Conte offered some insight Friday into how the slugger's legal team might cast doubt on the evidence.

It was November 2000, and Bonds was preparing for the season in which he would shatter Mark McGwire's single-season home run record.

According to Conte, himself a convicted steroids dealer, Bonds would visit the lab on Saturdays and after normal business hours with an entourage that included his trainer, Greg Anderson, and his personal physician, Dr. Arthur Ting.

Anderson had convinced Bonds to use BALCO to develop a dietary and supplement regimen, which Conte designed based on the results of the blood and urine samples.

Conte said Bonds was put through the same tests as other elite athlete clients, including tests to detect the use of 30 different steroids.

Conte hired Quest Diagnostics to do a "quick and dirty" analysis of the samples, to save money. The lab charged Conte $80 per test, rather than its usual $120, after Conte agreed to cut out much of the paperwork and elaborate protocol that typically accompany drug tests.

For instance, Conte said a licensed lab technician never watched Bonds urinate in the bottle. Nor were the samples ever formally sealed, dated and signed by an independent collector. There was also no formal process for who handled the samples at Quest, Conte said.

The indictment does not explain where prosecutors obtained the results, but Conte said they were seized when federal agents raided his lab in September 2003.

"If that's the smoking gun," Conte said, "it doesn't have any bullets."

The U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco declined to comment.

Criminal defense attorneys not affiliated with the case say the reliability of blood and urine tests are always open to second-guessing even when the forensic handling is done flawlessly.

"There is always an opportunity to attack that kind of forensic evidence through its chain of custody," said attorney William Sullivan, who recently won an acquittal for former federal prosecutor Richard Convertino on an obstruction charge alleging he withheld evidence in a terrorism trial in Detroit.

"You look at how the evidence was preserved, who handled it," Sullivan said. "You can even attack the analysis itself."

Similar chain-of-custody problems exploited by Simpson's lawyers helped derail the prosecution's murder case against him.

Los Angeles County prosecutors argued that DNA testing on blood, hair and fibers collected at the murder scene proved Simpson's blood and the blood of the two victims were present.

But Simpson's defense team was able to cast doubt on whether the evidence tested was the same as that collected at the scene by showing that each piece of DNA evidence was handled by at least three people before it was tested.

The problems with the Simpson evidence prompted law enforcement agencies to adopt more stringent protocols. Few of those protocols were followed in collecting and analyzing Bonds' blood and urine, Conte said.

"I don't think you can prove those were Barry's samples," he said.

Another vulnerable spot in the government's case is Anderson's steadfast refusal to testify against Bonds.

Because federal prosecutors were so adamant that the trainer should go to prison for refusing to testify, the trainer's lawyers - and most other observers - believed Anderson's testimony was necessary to indict Bonds.

But Anderson was released from prison Thursday and, according to his lawyers, he never cooperated with the investigation. He could land back in prison, however, if prosecutors decide to call him as a witness during the trial and he refuses to testify.

Criminal defense attorneys said other parts of the government's case against Bonds are ripe for attack - none bigger than the testimony of his former mistress, Kimberly Bell.

In 2005, Bell told a grand jury investigating Bonds for perjury that the slugger told her he used steroids. But Bell is open to withering cross-examination, lawyers said.

Rains said she was miffed that Bonds didn't pay her the nearly $200,000 she demanded when their 10-year relationship ended in 2003. Bell said she was asking Bonds to keep a promise to buy her house in Arizona, but Rains said the demand amounted to extortion.

The indictment cited 19 instances in which Bonds lied during his grand jury testimony, including several denials that he took performance enhancing drugs.

Little other evidence is presented in the indictment, but that doesn't mean prosecutors don't have something else up their sleeve, legal experts said.

"He testified four years ago and they indicted him Thursday," said New York criminal defense attorney Brad Simon, a former federal prosecutor. That tells me they have a new witness or some new evidence we don't know about that seals the deal."

Edited November 17, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Here's a wild guess: because he was given a grant of immunity from prosecution with the sole proviso that he would be held criminally liable if he did not tell the truth under oath. He chose to give knowingly false, perjured testimony. He is being targeted for violating the immunity agreement and the law.

That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can see. They gave him immunity and he pissed in their faces. This tends to upset people for some reason.

If you were innocent wouldn't you tell the GJ to go to take a flying leap if they offered immunity? I sure as hell would.

They were assuming guilt at that point, otherwise it never would have been offered.

Edited November 17, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

Here's a wild guess: because he was given a grant of immunity from prosecution with the sole proviso that he would be held criminally liable if he did not tell the truth under oath. He chose to give knowingly false, perjured testimony. He is being targeted for violating the immunity agreement and the law.

That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can see. They gave him immunity and he pissed in their faces. This tends to upset people for some reason.

If you were innocent wouldn't you tell the GJ to go to take a flying leap if they offered immunity? I sure as hell would.

They were assuming guilt at that point, otherwise it never would have been offered.

You continue to be a dumb ass fuck.

The government was going after BALCO and its employees. It offered the exact same deal to every athlete caught up in that criminal organization: testify truthfully, and there will be no charges whatsoever.

Only Giambi understood that and doesn't suffer from the immense ego that prevented Bonds from understanding the risk he was running.

There have been so many articles about the indictment I can't recall which one this appeared in, but it is went like this:

You go after the customers to get the company.

**********************

As for your wholesale acceptance of how the defense is going to try to explain away the positive steroid test, good luck. Anyone with a brain will see the mountain of evidence for what it is: A devastating picture of a man who used countless steroids and failed to tell the truth under oath.

[Tim McG]

Here's a wild guess: because he was given a grant of immunity from prosecution with the sole proviso that he would be held criminally liable if he did not tell the truth under oath. He chose to give knowingly false, perjured testimony. He is being targeted for violating the immunity agreement and the law.

That pretty much sums it up, as far as I can see. They gave him immunity and he pissed in their faces. This tends to upset people for some reason.

If you were innocent wouldn't you tell the GJ to go to take a flying leap if they offered immunity? I sure as hell would.

They were assuming guilt at that point, otherwise it never would have been offered.

You continue to be a dumb ass fuck.

The government was going after BALCO and its employees. It offered the exact same deal to every athlete caught up in that criminal organization: testify truthfully, and there will be no charges whatsoever.

Only Giambi understood that and doesn't suffer from the immense ego that prevented Bonds from understanding the risk he was running.

There have been so many articles about the indictment I can't recall which one this appeared in, but it is went like this:

You go after the customers to get the company.

**********************

As for your wholesale acceptance of how the defense is going to try to explain away the positive steroid test, good luck. Anyone with a brain will see the mountain of evidence for what it is: A devastating picture of a man who used countless steroids and failed to tell the truth under oath.

Whatever, Dan.

Evidence? If you think the prosecution can advance it's case with a non-secured urine sample, one which anybody could have messed with, then you have gone completely 'round the bend, my misguided friend. The rest has been pure speculation, Dan.

This case should never have been brought this far....but, that's what you get in a witch hunt, eh?

I wait with baited breath for this "mountain of evidence" you keep harping on....I wonder if his ex-girlfriend will testify? That'll seal it, huh.

Edited November 17, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[papsrus]

You continue to be a dumb ass fuck.

I'm sensing a little hostility here.

[Dan Gould]

You continue to be a dumb ass fuck.

I'm sensing a little hostility here.

You'd be correct.

He's a fool and a joke and has yet to say a single intelligent, defensible thing about this issue, and I am going to continue to point that out.

[Matthew]

Well, just my personal opinion, but Bonds being so famous has kept him out of serious trouble so far. If you want to see what happens to non-famous people jerking a GJ around, look no further than Greg Anderson -- not famous=jail time. I'm willing to wait and see the evidence, which I think looks bad for Bonds. The DA office isn't saying anything about what they have, and Bonds attorney is doing what he's supposed to be doing: defending his client. I would be very surprised if the government's case came down to a single vial of blood/urine, there's way too many other people involved, and if Greg Anderson has made a deal, or cooperates in the trail, that would be big trouble for Bonds. I still wonder about Anderson; if it's true that Bonds never took steroids, why won't he confirm it? Why does he continue to hold out? I also would not be surprised to see a tax-evasion charge coming down the pike either. But we'll see how this all shakes out in a couple of months.

[Tim McG]

You continue to be a dumb ass fuck.

I'm sensing a little hostility here.

You'd be correct.

He's a fool and a joke and has yet to say a single intelligent, defensible thing about this issue, and I am going to continue to point that out.

Why...because you say so? That's laughable at best and a pathetic cry for attention at the very least.

Apparently, you aren't used to people calling you on your bullshit.

Are you a school board member or a school administrator of some type? VP or CEO, perhaps? Denny's manager, maybe?Your attitude toward those who disagree with you fits the profile: Arrogant and abusive.

Cheers!

Edited November 18, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[robviti]

Once again for clarity, I never said Bonds didn't use steroids.

What I did say was there is no substantiated or physical proof that he had.

so you do think he took steroids, and therefore he did commit perjury.

you don't think they'll be able to prove it, so their efforts to do so amount to a witch hunt?

[Jazzmoose]

You continue to be a dumb ass fuck.

I'm sensing a little hostility here.

Goddamn fuck shit piss, papsrus, shit asshole damn shit hell!

[NaturalSoul]

You continue to be a dumb ass fuck.

I'm sensing a little hostility here.

Goddamn fuck shit piss, papsrus, shit asshole damn shit hell!

What the fuck are you talking about, motherfucker? You're a sad, pathetic lonely fucking man!

[Tim McG]

Yer killin' me, Guys