So don't try to deflect what you said. Oh, I stand by every word. I could be wrong, but not in any way you're arguing. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just can't argue against something I never said. This is the comment from bullpenpro I was responding to: That the feds are going after Bonds so hard is weird. I could see a concerted effort to nail Palmeiro since it is so easy to make a perjury connection, but what is the strong federal interest in Bonds? I disagree with that statement. Even though a perjury conviction is difficult to get, I can easily see why they believe they have as good a chance with bonds, maybe even better, than Palmeiro. Palmeiro failed a drug test. He's guilty. I never said he wasn't. I never have. Bonds did not fail a drug test, but the feds have a ton of evidence that he knowingly knew he was taking steroids. A little off topic. An assault victim identifies her attacker. That's strong evidence, and despite not much else, she can't put him away. And yet we know sometimes we end up with the wrong person going to jail. We also have cases where an assault victim has no idea who attacked them, but due to overwhelming evidence, someone is convicted. Palmeiro is guilty. We take that as fact. Even though the test could be wrong, we know the chances are small, so we don't question it. Bonds never failed a test (which could mean he was simply better at hiding it, or luckier). But there's a ton of evidence that he knowingly took steroids. I don't think the feds see any difference. I think they believe both are guilty, and both lied. They may only have the drug test on Palmeiro, and nothing else. They don't have the drug test on bonds, but, just from what we know to be true, have a lot of other evidence on bonds. If all they have against Palmeiro is the drug test, his defense might be simple. The test was wrong, I was framed, they mixed up the blood...etc. etc. While if there's as much evidence against bonds as it seems the feds have, it would be much more difficult to explain away. He might be stuck going back to "I never failing a test, no matter how much evidence there is against me". The problem with a perjury charge is that it has to be proven the defendent knowingly lied. Palmeiro can say, just as easily as bonds, the he had no idea he was taking steroids. In fact, that's what Palmeiro said after the positive test. He has no idea how steroids got in his system (if he's since changed his story, I have no idea). If all they have against Palmeiro is the positive drug test, but they have a strong case against bonds, and both deny knowing they too steroids, the case against bonds could be stronger than against Palmeiro. And all this lawyer talk whether bonds said he didn't know he was using steroids or said he didn't know if what the feds claim is steroids is what he was using is just semantics. If all the feds had was bonds' statement, it might mean something. In the big picture, if what we know is true, it doesn't. In announcing the panel's decision, Rep. Thomas A Davis III (R-Va.), the committee chairman, did not fully absolve Palmeiro. "We couldn't find any evidence of steroid use prior to his testimony," Davis said. "That's not a finding of innocence, but it's a finding that we could not substantiate perjury." A report released by the committee raises questions about Palmeiro's testimony that a tainted B-12 shot given to him by teammate Miguel Tejada had caused a positive steroid result. link Shows almost no evidence except failed test which Palmeiro claims came from a tainted B-12 shot. Erwin Cherminsky, a Duke University criminal law professor, said the excerpt he has read of the recently published book "Game of Shadows," which details extensive and knowing steroid use by Bonds, "certainly suggests he lied under oath." No failed test, but details exensive and knowing steroid use suggesting he lied under oath. Let's go back to bullpenpro's statement: That the feds are going after Bonds so hard is weird. I could see a concerted effort to nail Palmeiro since it is so easy to make a perjury connection, but what is the strong federal interest in Bonds? 2000 words later, I still disagree with this statement. Maybe you understand now, maybe not. Hey, I tried.
Disagree with me, will you, justgary? I will just have to administer a little justice and pop some bold all over you. Okay, maybe no bold. There has been a lot of parsing here, though, and as careful as I have tried to be with my semantics, I'm clearly not doing that well with accuracy or getting my point (which is less a point than a question) across. I could see a concerted effort to nail Palmeiro since it is so easy to make a perjury connection My words, and I stand by them. It is easy to make a perjury "connection," not a perjury "conviction." Palmeiro said he never used steroids, and has a positive test for steroids. (Ying Yang: Anyway, failing a drug test does not mean that it was steroids. "Rafael Palmeiro's positive steroid test was for stanozolol, a powerful anabolic steroid that is not available in dietary supplements, according to a newspaper report."[Story]) No line straighter than that. Bonds said he may or may not have done something, but if he did he didn't know it, and since then there has been no connection so direct that he may not have been telling the truth. And it seems to me it's a lot easier to get a perjury conviction from a black-and-white statement like Raffy's than from a very gray one like Bonds'. They may only have the drug test on Palmeiro, and nothing else. Justgary's words, and I don't disagree. But why? Is it because none exist, or does Raffy have just as much of a paper trail as Bonds that has been totally overlooked in the Bonds-focused witch hunt? My question, and my issue, is this: Is the media driving this investigation by doing the feds' work for them? If so, I have an issue with that. Maybe it's just Bonds first because of what they have, and Raffy later -- I have less of a problem with that, so it remains to be seen how this plays out. But, if the purpose here is just to get Bonds out before he breaks anymore records, then this isn't a federal issue, it's a baseball issue, and it makes me wonder who is sleeping with who here. That's all.
Thanks BullpenPro I wasn't sure if it had been a steroid or not. However, in general just because there is a failed drug test does not mean it was for steroids. There are many substances banned by the MLB that aren't steroids but their use would result in a failed drug test.
You already know they won't. Pujols is (basically) universally liked, a good guy, and media friendly. Let me quote the comment about Dwight Gooden (#76 pitcher of all time) from "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract" (2001): "When a young player comes to the major leagues and has success right away, writers will almost always write about what a fine young man he is as well as a supreme talent. Never pay any attention to those articles or those descriptions. Albert Pujols is going through this now...people who didn't know Albert Pujols from Jack the Ripper six months ago and have never talked to him more than six feet from his locker are writing very sincerely about what an exceptional young man he is. Doc Gooden, his first three years in baseball, was supposed to be mature beyond his years, polite to everybody, and kind to stray kittens. Rickey Henderson was routinely described, from 1980 through 1982, as "a Jack Armstrong type kid"." "Sportswriters, despite their cynicism or because of it, desperately want to believe in athletes as heroes, an will project their hopes onto anyone who offers a blank slate. The problem with this is that, when the palyer turns out to be human and fallible, people fee betrayed. It is a disservice to athletes to try to make them more than they really are."
What a bunch of immature brats on here...I disagree with something and everybody has a fit. Pathetic. And do you really want me to go back and find every instance of you-vs.-me aggression on this site? It would take a while and be a pretty long post. So cool the schoolyard crap already.
donnnnnnnny, as the board is expanding and membership increasing by the day, we're trying to build a sense of decorum and order, regardless of happenings in the past either here or elsewhere. I am sure as you were posting that comment you gave some thought to perhaps your position was incorrect, seeing how everyone disagreed with you. I'm sorry this was a cause of frustration for you. I am certainly disappointed that you disapprove of our high road attempts, and think we're immature brats. I'd actually classify the actions in here as anything but immature and bratty. As members and moderators, we're all taking a personal stake in SpoFi and we're trying to make this a great little flourishing community. It won't be easy, and there are bound to be hiccups here and there. I certainly hope you'll want to stick around to contribute to the ongoing process of improvement. So yeah, please cut the schoolyard crap.
I agree with jerseygirl about proper decorum. I, for one, never post until properly attired in jacket and tie. As for what else I'm wearing......weeeeeelllll.....
.. Just Kidding!!!!
It is easy to make a perjury "connection," not a perjury "conviction." Palmeiro said he never used steroids, and has a positive test for steroids. O.K. Thanks for explaining further. I think I understand what you're getting at now. And I too am curious. Is there nothing except the failed test for Palmeiro because he hid it so well, or they just didn't look very hard? I doubt we'll ever know.
