Barry Bonds On Trial

[Tim McG]

All I have ever said on this topic is there is no proof he knowingly took steroids. The rest makes for a nice fiction piece, that is, if you are into that sort of thing.

Film at Eleven.

I recall someone, somewhere around here saying that steroids have no effect on a hitter's physical abilities.

And I recall someone slamming prosecutors at just about every turn leading up to the trial.

And, correct me if I'm mistaken, but an essential part of Bonds' defense is to discredit the witnesses testifying against him (naturally).

I'm just glad they disallowed testimony from his former mistress about the size of his shrinking balls.

No. What I said was steroids only make you bigger. They don't make you hit HRs.

No. I slammed the whole waste of taxpayer money and the fact the Feds have no case.

No. I said a jilted ex-girlfriend who was summarily kicked to the curb has about as much credibility as a community bedpan.

Shrinking balls? M'kay. Now you're just making it up as you go along.

[Dave James]

More proof. How long can GoodSpeak hold out?

http://satiricalpolitical.com/2009/02/05/barry-bonds-giant-head-qualifies-for-tarp-funds/

Edited March 30, 2011 by Dave James

[Noj]

This trial is as pointless and wasteful the Bill Clinton perjury trial.

Noj, I think it's hard to have a trial system of justice if people don't take perjury seriously.

Right. It's also difficult to have justice when no one in the courtroom is in the right.

[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?

Edited April 1, 2011 by Aggie87

[Tim McG]

Guilt by association is not proof Bonds knowingly took steroids.

That is the the charge, Guys.

The Feds have no case.

[Dan Gould]

Wrong!

As Aggie states, she witnessed an injection by Anderson of Bonds.

One of the few unequivocal statements Bonds made to the grand jury was that only his doctor gave him injections.

Right there is your perjury conviction.

Bonds becoming the greatest home run hitter in history starting in his late 30s: Unlikely without chemical enhancement.

Bonds perjury trial: tens of millions of dollars spent by the feds.

Bonds convicted on one perjury charge related to steroid dealer Greg Anderson injecting him: Priceless.

[Aggie87]

Guilt by association is not proof Bonds knowingly took steroids.

That is the the charge, Guys.

The Feds have no case.

Please explain why Greg Anderson is sitting in jail, in a realistic way that supports your argument.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Aggie87

[Dan Gould]

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.

This of course is it in a nutshell. If Anderson testifies and does so falsely, he knows the government will destroy him. If Anderson testified truthfully, not only would the doping calendar come in, but he would provide the chain of custody testimony needed to connect Bonds' urine sample to the BALCO tests that were positive for steroids.

Personally I think there should be criminal charges over and above 'contempt of court' for anyone who refuses to testify in a criminal matter when they are not the defendant. Of course defendants have a right to remain silent. But citizens have an obligation to testify truthfully to what they witness, particularly under grants of immunity from prosecution. Anderson should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice for his refusal to participate in this trial.

[Dave James]

Guilt by association is not proof Bonds knowingly took steroids.

That is the the charge, Guys.

The Feds have no case.

So you're asking us to believe that Bonds was getting regularly injected like he was some kind of pin cushion, he undergoes all these physical and emotional changes and at no point does he stop to ask, "oh, by the way, what is that stuff?" Please.

[vajerzy]

No one will ever convince me Bonds didn't take steroids.

EVER.

I played 30+ baseball one summer with a guy who took steroids- late 1990s....he admitted it, talked freely about it...said it made his eyesight better..and made him stronger. He felt invincible....he became huge, very ripped. Hit balls a LONG way. He also became a nutcase, challenging me to a fight right on the field when I made an infield error behind his pitching....I didn't nor wanted to play on a team with him anymore.

Yeah, Bonds may be found guilty on perjury or not guilty on taking steroids....however my common sense says to me he did.....and so did MANY other ballplayers.

[Tim McG]

Wrong!

As Aggie states, she witnessed an injection by Anderson of Bonds.

One of the few unequivocal statements Bonds made to the grand jury was that only his doctor gave him injections.

Right there is your perjury conviction.

Bonds becoming the greatest home run hitter in history starting in his late 30s: Unlikely without chemical enhancement.

Bonds perjury trial: tens of millions of dollars spent by the feds.

Bonds convicted on one perjury charge related to steroid dealer Greg Anderson injecting him: Priceless.

An injection of what, pray tell.

Like I said, she has no motive but to screw Bonds. Zero credibility. A she said he said nothing of a case.

Guilt by association is not proof Bonds knowingly took steroids.

That is the the charge, Guys.

The Feds have no case.

So you're asking us to believe that Bonds was getting regularly injected like he was some kind of pin cushion, he undergoes all these physical and emotional changes and at no point does he stop to ask, "oh, by the way, what is that stuff?" Please.

I'm not asking you to believe anything.

[Jazzmoose]

At this point, Bonds could confess, and Goodspeak would call him a liar...

[Dave James]

I'm not asking you to believe anything.

Well, it's pretty clear to me you're asking us to believe that Bonds didn't knowingly take steroids. Seems to me, more and more evidence is accumulating every day that undermines your position, so I'm curious; if Bonds is eventually convicted, will you then claim it's a miscarriage of justice or is there a point in the process where you will concede that he was, indeed, aware of what he was doing?

[Dan Gould]

Wrong!

As Aggie states, she witnessed an injection by Anderson of Bonds.

One of the few unequivocal statements Bonds made to the grand jury was that only his doctor gave him injections.

Right there is your perjury conviction.

Bonds becoming the greatest home run hitter in history starting in his late 30s: Unlikely without chemical enhancement.

Bonds perjury trial: tens of millions of dollars spent by the feds.

Bonds convicted on one perjury charge related to steroid dealer Greg Anderson injecting him: Priceless.

An injection of what, pray tell.

Like I said, she has no motive but to screw Bonds. Zero credibility. A she said he said nothing of a case.

What part of "only my doctor has ever given me an injection" don't you understand? No one has to prove that steroids were in the syringe - she has testified to witnessing the injection given by Greg Anderson to Barry Bonds. Greg Anderson is NOT a doctor.

The prosecution has proven that count of perjury.

And you obviously pay no attention to this trial in the first place. This testimony was by his "personal shopper" not his mistress or business partner. She cried on the stand from beginning to end because she did not want to testify at all. Her brother, the former business partner, told the feds that she had witnessed Anderson inject Bonds and because unlike the scumbag trainer, she takes her obligation as a citizen seriously, she testified to what she witnessed.

The defense did nothing to impeach her credibility and I suspect that her being so upset on the stand will go a long way toward confirming her account for the jury.

[Soulstation1]

Total waste of time and money

Fine Barry $762 and move on

[Tim McG]

At this point, Bonds could confess, and Goodspeak would call him a liar...

Better check with the prosecution's star witness, Dr. Arthur Ting. He testified he had one generic conversation about steriods with Steve Hoskins, the brother of Bonds' ex-girlfriend [you know, The Queen of Credibility], who claims to have spoken over 50 times with him about Bonds steriod use. They're both liars.

So much for that slam dunk case against Bonds, huh.

Bullshit in, bullshit out: The Feds got no case.

Wrong!

As Aggie states, she witnessed an injection by Anderson of Bonds.

One of the few unequivocal statements Bonds made to the grand jury was that only his doctor gave him injections.

Right there is your perjury conviction.

Bonds becoming the greatest home run hitter in history starting in his late 30s: Unlikely without chemical enhancement.

Bonds perjury trial: tens of millions of dollars spent by the feds.

Bonds convicted on one perjury charge related to steroid dealer Greg Anderson injecting him: Priceless.

An injection of what, pray tell.

Like I said, she has no motive but to screw Bonds. Zero credibility. A she said he said nothing of a case.

What part of "only my doctor has ever given me an injection" don't you understand? No one has to prove that steroids were in the syringe - she has testified to witnessing the injection given by Greg Anderson to Barry Bonds. Greg Anderson is NOT a doctor.

The prosecution has proven that count of perjury.

And you obviously pay no attention to this trial in the first place. This testimony was by his "personal shopper" not his mistress or business partner. She cried on the stand from beginning to end because she did not want to testify at all. Her brother, the former business partner, told the feds that she had witnessed Anderson inject Bonds and because unlike the scumbag trainer, she takes her obligation as a citizen seriously, she testified to what she witnessed.

The defense did nothing to impeach her credibility and I suspect that her being so upset on the stand will go a long way toward confirming her account for the jury.

The charge is Bonds lied about whether he knowingly took steroids.

An injection without any evidence that it is, in fact, steroids is no proof of anything beyond pure speculation.

The Feds got no case.

Edited April 2, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[JSngry]

Not having a case and actually being wrong are not the same thing.

[Tim McG]

I'm not asking you to believe anything.

Well, it's pretty clear to me you're asking us to believe that Bonds didn't knowingly take steroids. Seems to me, more and more evidence is accumulating every day that undermines your position, so I'm curious; if Bonds is eventually convicted, will you then claim it's a miscarriage of justice or is there a point in the process where you will concede that he was, indeed, aware of what he was doing?

Will you acknowledge his innocence if he is found not guilty?

I haven't been claiming Bonds wasn't on steroids and TBH, I couldn't care less if he was. I have, however, been saying that there is no proof that he knowingly took steroids. Big difference, Dave.

Not having a case and actually being wrong are not the same thing.

Wrong about what?

There is no actual evidence, only hearsay testimony. That isn't enough to convict Bonds of jaywalking.

Total waste of time and money

Fine Barry $762 and move on

Hear, hear.

[Dan Gould]

Your ignorance is appalling. And mods, you should in no way consider that a personal attack. It is a factual observation. Timmy knows nothing about this case and he demonstrates his ignorance with every post he makes.

• 
  
  
• Today alone he has called Steve Hoskins the "brother of Bonds' ex-girlfriend" when Kimberley Bell is the ex-girlfriend, and Steve Hoskins' sister is the person who personally witnessed Anderson inject Bonds.
  
• That personal observation is by definition not hearsay evidence, which he has stated is "all the prosecution has".
  
• And on top of that, he continues to assert that the charges relate exclusively to Bonds lying about his knowingly taking steroids, when I have pointed out several times that one of the five perjury charges regards Bonds' statement that no one but his doctor has ever given him an injection.
  
  

[JSngry]

Not having a case and actually being wrong are not the same thing.

Wrong about what?

Really?

[Tim McG]

Your ignorance is appalling. And mods, you should in no way consider that a personal attack. It is a factual observation. Timmy knows nothing about this case and he demonstrates his ignorance with every post he makes.

• 
  
  
• Today alone he has called Steve Hoskins the "brother of Bonds' ex-girlfriend" when Kimberley Bell is the ex-girlfriend, and Steve Hoskins' sister is the person who personally witnessed Anderson inject Bonds.
  
• That personal observation is by definition not hearsay evidence, which he has stated is "all the prosecution has".
  
• And on top of that, he continues to assert that the charges relate exclusively to Bonds lying about his knowingly taking steroids, when I have pointed out several times that one of the five perjury charges regards Bonds' statement that no one but his doctor has ever given him an injection.
  
  

I quote: "This is Katie, she's my girl, she won't say anything."

I further quote: The ballplayer called it a "little somethin', somethin'" he took before heading out on road trips.

Source: San Jose Mercury News

What, one might posit, would the term "she's my girl" denote? I am making an assumption based on very little proof. Just like the prosecution is.

What, one might further posit, would this "somethin'" be? Yet another assumption, no proof.

Her brother was caught in a lie earlier on the stand, and under oath. Why, then, shouldn't we expect his sister isn't a liar, too?

And I am asking you nicely, Dan: Please stop the insults or I will ask the moderator to shut this thread down. Thank you.

Edited April 2, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

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.

[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!

[Dan Gould]

Your ignorance is appalling. And mods, you should in no way consider that a personal attack. It is a factual observation. Timmy knows nothing about this case and he demonstrates his ignorance with every post he makes.

• 
  
  
• Today alone he has called Steve Hoskins the "brother of Bonds' ex-girlfriend" when Kimberley Bell is the ex-girlfriend, and Steve Hoskins' sister is the person who personally witnessed Anderson inject Bonds.
  
• That personal observation is by definition not hearsay evidence, which he has stated is "all the prosecution has".
  
• And on top of that, he continues to assert that the charges relate exclusively to Bonds lying about his knowingly taking steroids, when I have pointed out several times that one of the five perjury charges regards Bonds' statement that no one but his doctor has ever given him an injection.
  
  

I quote: "This is Katie, she's my girl, she won't say anything."

I further quote: The ballplayer called it a "little somethin', somethin'" he took before heading out on road trips.

Source: San Jose Mercury News

What, one might posit, would the term "she's my girl" denote? I am making an assumption based on very little proof. Just like the prosecution is.

What, one might further posit, would this "somethin'" be? Yet another assumption, no proof.

More demonstration of your continued ignorance of the facts and the law.

Count #2 in the indictment refers to Bonds grand jury testimony that only his doctor has ever injected him. THERE IS NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER IN COUNT TWO AS TO WHAT GREG ANDERSON WAS INJECTING HIM WITH.

[Dan Gould]

Its actually good to read through the entire amended indictment. Count Four refers to when Anderson had Bonds take anything other than vitamins - prior to 2003. Bonds is clear in stating that he did not. Again, no reference to what he might have given him, but Bonds denies anything prior to the 2003 season. Looks like another winnable charge even without Anderson's testimony on what he gave him. And again, nothing about what was given, only that it wasn't vitamins, and whether it happened before the 2003 season.

I can't find any reporting that specifically states when Ms. Hoskins witnessed the injection but I am sure that the prosecution had to lay the foundation by soliciting testimony about a time frame for what she witnessed. If that time frame was before the 2003 season, boom - her testimony convicts him on two of the four perjury charges - with nothing ever said about specifically what he was given.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Dan Gould