Barry Bonds On Trial

[Tim McG]

"She's my girl" can and often does mean nothing more than "she's on my side", "she's got my back", "she'll always be there for me", etc. Under no circumstances should it be assumed to be a statement of romantic involvement.

Geez, just how white are you guys?

JUST KIDDING!

The term "my girl" has always meant a romantic involvement...since time began, for pete's sake. There have been song lyrics, a song, poetry and fiction with that term meaning just exactly that. You never heard of the Temptations? Sheesh.

My Girl

I was voicing an assumption with no proof to make a point about what the prosecution is doing with their "evidence". Dan took the bait. My point is made.

Factual observation cannot be insulting. You are ignorant of the facts, as I have laid out several examples and you cannot contradict them.

There is absolutely no reporting anywhere that Ms Hoskins ever had a romantic relationship, with Bonds, she was his employee. Like her brother, she knew him since childhood. If anything "she's my girl" shows how he treats employees - as children or servants.

And that would be an assumption, Dan.

Er, a "factual observation" of your assuming this to be true, that is.

Edited April 2, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[JSngry]

"She's my girl" can and often does mean nothing more than "she's on my side", "she's got my back", "she'll always be there for me", etc. Under no circumstances should it be assumed to be a statement of romantic involvement.

Geez, just how white are you guys?

JUST KIDDING!

The term "my girl" has always meant a romantic involvement...since time began, for pete's sake. There have been song lyrics, a song, poetry and fiction with that term meaning just exactly that. You never heard of the Temptations? Sheesh.

My Girl

That's a nice group. Do they have any other records?

And what I said was that "my girl" does not only signify a romantic involvement. It's actually pretty common these days for it to not.

Do you know anybody under 40? And if so, do they go around jamming The Temptations all day?

[Tim McG]

"She's my girl" can and often does mean nothing more than "she's on my side", "she's got my back", "she'll always be there for me", etc. Under no circumstances should it be assumed to be a statement of romantic involvement.

Geez, just how white are you guys?

JUST KIDDING!

The term "my girl" has always meant a romantic involvement...since time began, for pete's sake. There have been song lyrics, a song, poetry and fiction with that term meaning just exactly that. You never heard of the Temptations? Sheesh.

My Girl

That's a nice group. Do they have any other records?

And what I said was that "my girl" does not only signify a romantic involvement. It's actually pretty common these days for it to not.

Do you know anybody under 40? And if so, do they go around jamming The Temptations all day?

I know hundreds of people under 40. You?

They dig the hell out of [late 60s] 70s music, too.

And I didn't say "only" either.

Edited April 2, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[JSngry]

And you've never heard the term "my girl" used in a non-romantic manner? I find that hard to believe, unless everybody you know that is under 40 was also raised in Pleasantville...

Hell, almost everybody I know is under 40. Most people my age don't leave the house any more unless it's to go to a job where they get left alone by people under 40.

"She's my girl" can and often does mean nothing more than "she's on my side", "she's got my back", "she'll always be there for me", etc. Under no circumstances should it be assumed to be a statement of romantic involvement.

Geez, just how white are you guys?

JUST KIDDING!

The term "my girl" has always meant a romantic involvement...since time began, for pete's sake. There have been song lyrics, a song, poetry and fiction with that term meaning just exactly that. You never heard of the Temptations? Sheesh.

My Girl

That's a nice group. Do they have any other records?

And what I said was that "my girl" does not only signify a romantic involvement. It's actually pretty common these days for it to not.

Do you know anybody under 40? And if so, do they go around jamming The Temptations all day?

I know hundreds of people under 40. You?

They dig the hell out of [late 60s] 70s music, too.

And I didn't say "only" either.

Oh, so you're pseudo-arguing against a point with which you do not disagree. In order to, what...deflect energy away from the obvious primary point (that Bonds was on steroids, irregardless of whether or not it can be "legally" proved)?

Mr. Weizen, have you been taking on students for supplemental income?

[Tim McG]

And you've never heard the term "my girl" used in a non-romantic manner? I find that hard to believe, unless everybody you know that is under 40 was also raised in Pleasantville...

Hell, almost everybody I know is under 40. Most people my age don't leave the house any more unless it's to go to a job where they get left alone by people under 40.

"She's my girl" can and often does mean nothing more than "she's on my side", "she's got my back", "she'll always be there for me", etc. Under no circumstances should it be assumed to be a statement of romantic involvement.

Geez, just how white are you guys?

JUST KIDDING!

The term "my girl" has always meant a romantic involvement...since time began, for pete's sake. There have been song lyrics, a song, poetry and fiction with that term meaning just exactly that. You never heard of the Temptations? Sheesh.

My Girl

That's a nice group. Do they have any other records?

And what I said was that "my girl" does not only signify a romantic involvement. It's actually pretty common these days for it to not.

Do you know anybody under 40? And if so, do they go around jamming The Temptations all day?

I know hundreds of people under 40. You?

They dig the hell out of [late 60s] 70s music, too.

And I didn't say "only" either.

Oh, so you're pseudo-arguing against a point with which you do not disagree. In order to, what...deflect energy away from the obvious primary point (that Bonds was on steroids, irregardless of whether or not it can be "legally" proved)?

Mr. Weizen, have you been taking on students for supplemental income?

I use the term "my girl" in reference to my daughter all the time. I also refer to my wife, romantically, using the very same term. I've known my wife a while longer, so on that level, the romantic involvement would be the way I have used it most. I think most people do, too.

As to the "pseudo-arguing", TBH, I have no idea what you mean. But I can tell you this: It's regardless, not irregardless. Ask somebody who is over 40.

Edited April 2, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[JSngry]

Well, irregardless of all dat/that, if your point is anything other than that their may not be a legally provable case that Bonds took steroyds, I have no idea what your point might be then, so I'll see you at the ballpark, if only in my dreams, because as much as I'd like to see SF one of these daze, it just ain't in the budget right now, but not in this thread any more, because to claim that, provable or not, Bonds was not juicing is just wack and/or whack.

[Tim McG]

Well, irregardless of all dat/that, if your point is anything other than that their may not be a legally provable case that Bonds took steroyds, I have no idea what your point might be then, so I'll see you at the ballpark, if only in my dreams, because as much as I'd like to see SF one of these daze, it just ain't in the budget right now, but not in this thread any more, because to claim that, provable or not, Bonds was not juicing is just wack and/or whack.

Cool.

Look me up and we'll go together.

I'll even buy you a beer: Duke's Dodger Hater [sic]

Edited April 2, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[jlhoots]

Not guilty & innocent are not the same thing.

[Aggie87]

Again, I patiently await proof that Bond knowingly took steroids.

Logical "proof" that he took something illegal and knew it: Greg Anderson is sitting in jail refusing to testify.

If Bonds was innocent (despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence) of the charges of lying to the Grand Jury about taking steroids, then Anderson would have no reason to avoid the trial. He'd be able to waltz right in, say he never injected Bonds with anything, or at the very least never told Bonds what he was injecting into him. That despite all the other ballplayers flocking to Anderson to get similar injections, knowing what it had done for Bonds, and all of them knowing they were asking for illegal substances.

Since Anderson is refusing to testify, he obviously has information that would hurt Bonds, and doesn't want to share it. Otherwise he'd be there at the trial. He probably has a golden handshake from Bonds and is waiting and for a big payday once everything is finally over. That's his incentive.

That's about enough reasonable proof to me.

Also, a credible witness (Kathy Hoskings) who didn't want to testify at all, stated today that she personally saw Anderson injecting Bonds:

"'This is Kathy. That's my girl. She ain't going to say nothing to nobody,"' she quoted Bonds as saying. "So Greg shot him in the belly button."

Why would Bonds be worried she would say something to anybody, if he was doing something legal?

Still waiting for a reasonable, logical response from Goodspeak on why Anderson's in jail, from Goodspeak's perspective.

[Tim McG]

Again, I patiently await proof that Bond knowingly took steroids.

Logical "proof" that he took something illegal and knew it: Greg Anderson is sitting in jail refusing to testify.

If Bonds was innocent (despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence) of the charges of lying to the Grand Jury about taking steroids, then Anderson would have no reason to avoid the trial. He'd be able to waltz right in, say he never injected Bonds with anything, or at the very least never told Bonds what he was injecting into him. That despite all the other ballplayers flocking to Anderson to get similar injections, knowing what it had done for Bonds, and all of them knowing they were asking for illegal substances.

Since Anderson is refusing to testify, he obviously has information that would hurt Bonds, and doesn't want to share it. Otherwise he'd be there at the trial. He probably has a golden handshake from Bonds and is waiting and for a big payday once everything is finally over. That's his incentive.

That's about enough reasonable proof to me.

Also, a credible witness (Kathy Hoskings) who didn't want to testify at all, stated today that she personally saw Anderson injecting Bonds:

"'This is Kathy. That's my girl. She ain't going to say nothing to nobody,"' she quoted Bonds as saying. "So Greg shot him in the belly button."

Why would Bonds be worried she would say something to anybody, if he was doing something legal?

Still waiting for a reasonable, logical response from Goodspeak on why Anderson's in jail, from Goodspeak's perspective.

Well, if you read the newspapers you would know Anderson got screwed over by the prosecution relative to a deal they made regarding immunity for his testimony. So, basically, he told them to go fuck themselves.

Besides, I am certain he knows this is a three ring circus just like the rest of us who care about keeping trivial cases like this one out of the court system.

Edited April 3, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

Well, if you read the newspapers you would know Anderson got screwed over by the prosecution relative to a deal they made regarding immunity for his testimony. So, basically, he told them to go fuck themselves.

Besides, I am certain he knows this is a three ring circus just like the rest of us who care about keeping trivial cases like this one out of the court system.

That's it? That's all you got??

He's in jail because he wants to say FU to the Grand Jury??

[Tim McG]

Well, if you read the newspapers you would know Anderson got screwed over by the prosecution relative to a deal they made regarding immunity for his testimony. So, basically, he told them to go fuck themselves.

Besides, I am certain he knows this is a three ring circus just like the rest of us who care about keeping trivial cases like this one out of the court system.

That's it? That's all you got??

He's in jail because he wants to say FU to the Grand Jury??

No. That's all there is.

He's in jail because he refused to cooperate with the prosecution after they jerked him around. The judge subsequently held him in contempt and made him nothing less than a political prisoner.

I'm real sorry if you don't like the answer, but do the research and find out for yourself, then.

Edited April 3, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

Well, if you read the newspapers you would know Anderson got screwed over by the prosecution relative to a deal they made regarding immunity for his testimony. So, basically, he told them to go fuck themselves.

Besides, I am certain he knows this is a three ring circus just like the rest of us who care about keeping trivial cases like this one out of the court system.

That's it? That's all you got??

He's in jail because he wants to say FU to the Grand Jury??

No. That's all there is.

He's in jail because he refused to cooperate with the prosecution after they jerked him around. The judge subsequently held him in contempt and made him nothing less than a political prisoner.

I'm real sorry if you don't like the answer, but do the research and find out for yourself, then.

If he had no information that was damaging to Barry Bonds, he wouldn't be sitting in jail for attempting to say "FU" to a Grand Jury. If he knew his hero was innocent he'd be doing everything in his power to help him, which would include testifying. That would be more important to him. Since he KNOWS he has damaging information, he's sitting in jail.

[Dan Gould]

In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever of Anderson being yanked around by the prosecution. Since when does a plea agreement say "you are required to provide truthful testimony in any related matter with the sole exception of any criminal case involving Barry Bonds"? In fact, plea agreements that require truthful testimony by a conspirator or co-conspirator always include an obligation to provide testimony in any matter related to the crime or the criminal enterprise.

What is ridiculous is that the defense gets all the benefit by his actions and no penalties. The judge should be allowed to make a statement that Anderson has refused to testify in this matter and the jury may draw any conclusion it wishes to. So what if it might be a conclusion not supported by the evidence that's been entered in the case - Anderson is the one refusing to provide evidence.

Instead the judge is obligated to say some BS about Anderson being "unavailable" and that the jury should draw no conclusion about that.

Fortunately, counts 2 and 4 of the indictment don't require Anderson's testimony anyway. And Ms Hoskins + the tape that was played with Anderson talking about the different places he injects Bonds provide more than enough evidence to convict.

If the jury is serious about their oath and no Bonds fans snuck on by lying about their allegiance, I predict at least two guilty verdicts.

[Tim McG]

Convict him on what, Dan...getting injections?

Last I heard it is still legal in this country to that.

The principle reason for this charade is the use of steroids. If they convict him on being injected then it only proves what a joke trial this really is.

Edited April 3, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[papsrus]

Fact: Bonds took performance-enhancing drugs. He admits it.

Fact: Virtually the entire medical community -- Dr. GoodSpeak excluded -- agrees that performance-enhancing drugs, well, enhance performance.

So on those two established points alone, Bonds' baseball legacy is already toast.

This case is about whether or not Bonds lied in sworn testimony about knowingly taking the performance-enhancing drugs he admits to taking.

The evidence so far is pretty convincing that he did knowingly take drugs. But the trial isn't over, the defense still has its shot, so you never know how a jury might be swayed by whatever evidence the defense produces.

But the outcome of the trial is almost irrelevant at this point. If Bonds is found guilty, it simply exposes him as a liar, in addition to the already established fact that he was a drugged athlete. If he's found not guilty, then he'll be exposed as just another dumbass elite athlete who didn't care what someone was injecting into his belly button, as long as it enhanced his performance.

Edited April 3, 2011 by papsrus

[JSngry]

So on those two established points alone, Bonds' baseball legacy is already toast.

Short term, yeah, but any objective evaluation of the man's career (which will in time be possible) will show one helluva player pre-steroid use, which really makes the juicing all the more unfortunate in my mind.

[Dan Gould]

Convict him on what, Dan...getting injections?

Last I heard it is still legal in this country to that.

The principle reason for this charade is the use of steroids. If they convict him on being injected then it only proves what a joke trial this really is.

Convict him of lying about a material fact in testimony before a Grand Jury. That is perjury, its a felony, and he lied in so many ways in his testimony that they have two charges that don't relate in any way to whether he knowingly took HGH or steroids.

So congratulations on finally learning and accepting that there are perjury charges that don't specify that he had knowingly taken steroids or HGH.

When your hero is convicted, you can celebrate that he wasn't found guilty of knowingly using steroids or HGH. The rest of the rational world has already figured out what he took and that he knowingly took them, regardless of what a jury may find when they are being denied the testimony of Greg Anderson, and as a result, an enormous amount of other evidence that was excluded as a result of Anderson's actions to obstruct justice.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Dan Gould

[Tim McG]

Convict him on what, Dan...getting injections?

Last I heard it is still legal in this country to that.

The principle reason for this charade is the use of steroids. If they convict him on being injected then it only proves what a joke trial this really is.

Convict him of lying about a material fact in testimony before a Grand Jury. That is perjury, its a felony, and he lied in so many ways in his testimony that they have two charges that don't relate in any way to whether he knowingly took HGH or steroids.

So congratulations on finally learning and accepting that there are perjury charges that don't specify that he had knowingly taken steroids or HGH.

When your hero is convicted, you can celebrate that he wasn't found guilty of knowingly using steroids or HGH. The rest of the rational world has already figured out what he took and that he knowingly took them, regardless of what a jury may find when they are being denied the testimony of Greg Anderson, and as a result, an enormous amount of other evidence that was excluded as a result of Anderson's actions to obstruct justice.

Point of clarification: My hero is Miles Davis. He didn't play baseball.

As to the rest: Papsrus, I'm not going to re-hash all the pointless palaver about "performance enhancing drugs" which could range from aspirin to that so-called "boo-boo juice" batters get after being hit with a baseball. None of which makes a player hit HRs.

Additionally, as I have already stated, numerous times, on this BBS that he has admitted to using the "clear" and I really don't much care if he did use steroids. Eric Gagne did and nobody is talking about taking his Cy Young away. So what is the BFD? We going to put all the guys who did steroids on trial now? A ridiculous concept.

Catching Bonds in a lie about who gave him injections [which clearly does not prove he knew what was in those injections] is not what this case is about and you know it, Dan. It is about whether he knowingly took steroids. Period. All the rest is just prosecutorial add-on bullshit.

Look, you have already made up your mind about this whole business because the truth of the whole matter no longer means anything to you. That's fine, Dan. Believe what you want, OK? But it is also painfully clear that any discussion with you along these lines is virtually impossible without you having to hurl insults.

It's only a game, Dan...quit taking it so personally.

Edited April 3, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[TedR]

I think I just read a perfect example of projecting. It also was interesting to read that the use of "my girl" is "always" considered romantic ......except when it's not. And I learned that anything that is photo shopped is not considered proof. As to the rest of the debate, I arrogantly share Good's sentiment, don't waste my time.

Edited April 3, 2011 by TedR

[papsrus]

As to the rest: Papsrus, I'm not going to re-hash all the pointless palaver about "performance enhancing drugs" which could range from aspirin to that so-called "boo-boo juice" batters get after being hit with a baseball. None of which makes a player hit HRs.

Yes, I'm familiar with the "steroids/hgh is equivalent to aspirin/boo boo juice" argument. It is pointless, because it's medically and legally nonsense to compare aspirin with roids.

Additionally, as I have already stated, numerous times, on this BBS that he has admitted to using the "clear" and I really don't much care if he did use steroids. ...

That's pretty ... er ... clear.

... Eric Gagne did and nobody is talking about taking his Cy Young away. So what is the BFD?

I haven't heard anyone demand that Bonds be stripped of his MVP awards. Just a little * is all. That should goe for Gagne's Cy Young, too.

We going to put all the guys who did steroids on trial now? A ridiculous concept.

Here's a concept: Lets hold people accountable for lying under oath (which is different from taking steroids). See Roger Clemens.

I'd think that as someone who deals with kids, you might see this as a teachable moment. As in, hey kids, don't do something wrong and then lie about it to try to cover it up. Come clean, acknowledge you screwed up, and you'll be better off in the end. See Andy Pettitte.

[Matthew]

One of the possible outcomes of the trial is that Bud Selig will declare Bonds home run record wiped out if Bond's is found guilty. Selig hates the idea of Bonds having Aaron's record, and might be his chance to take it away. For the record, I would not agree with that course of action.

[Aggie87]

One of the possible outcomes of the trial is that Bud Selig will declare Bonds home run record wiped out if Bond's is found guilty. Selig hates the idea of Bonds having Aaron's record, and might be his chance to take it away. For the record, I would not agree with that course of action.

That really doesn't make sense to me. If he wants to take the record away for Bonds' use of steroids, there is at least some logic to that, whether others agree or not.

But considering taking a record away based on whether Bonds is found guilty of lying doesn't really make sense. He's not on trial for steroids, but for lying. Lying doesn't seem like a reason to take a record away. Steroid use - possibly, depending on your perspective.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Aggie87

[Matthew]

I mean: Simce when does anything that Bud does make any sense

Darn iPhone, I'm even a worse speller using it.

[Quincy]

I mean: Simce when does anything that Bud does make any sense

Seriously! I mean the man puts ketchup on hot dogs...

(Secretly hoping the thread derails into f-bombs about ketchup on hot dogs.)