FanDuel - WFBC

November 15, 2007

The indictment charges Bonds with lying when he said that he didn't knowingly take steroids given to him by his personal trainer Greg Anderson. He also denied taking steroids at anytime in 2001 when he was pursuing the single season home-run record. "During the criminal investigation, evidence was obtained including positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances for Bonds and other athletes," the indictment reads. He is also charged with lying that Anderson never injected him with steroids.

posted by kirkaracha at 04:27 PM on November 15

If his buddy and personal trainer Greg Anderson is still unwilling to cooperate with prosecutors, I'm not seeing how they prove that Bonds lied about knowingly being injected with steroids. The trial, if it happens, should establish beyond most doubt whether the home run record is held by a steroid user. That's a lot more certainty than we've gotten about Mark McGwire, Floyd Landis and other athletes whose achievements are now regarded with suspicion. A guilty verdict would put Bonds' legacy in such sorry state that Pete Rose would feel sorry for him.

posted by rcade at 04:46 PM on November 15

The big controversy here is that the Indictment had an "*" next to it so Bonds is going to refuse to attend the trial.

posted by Joey Michaels at 04:52 PM on November 15

There will doubtless be a lot of snickering, grave-dancing and told-ya-so, but this is a sad day for the sport.

posted by chicobangs at 05:27 PM on November 15

beyond most doubt whether the home run record is held by a steroid user? "During the criminal investigation, evidence was obtained including positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances for Bonds and other athletes." Positive drug tests for steroids for Barry Bonds. The only way this won't go to trial is if barroids cops a plea. The only question left is what will that spineless jellyfish that passes for a baseball commissioner do about it.

posted by irunfromclones at 05:29 PM on November 15

Does anyone still not believe Barry was juicing?

posted by jerseygirl at 05:43 PM on November 15

I agree with chico. I don't see how this can have a positive outcome for baseball.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:47 PM on November 15

A sad day as Chico said. It means that the rain cloud will hang over the most important record in sports probably until someone else breaks it and ESPN just said the trainer (Anderson) is to be released. I am guessing that this isn't a coincidence.

posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 05:47 PM on November 15

I disagree, chico. This is a step towards closure -- whatever form that happens to take.

posted by cl at 05:48 PM on November 15

Steven A. Smith is going off on ESPN right now, and he just played the race card

posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 05:49 PM on November 15

This isn't a sad day, it's a necessary day. And his trainer Anderson was supposedly just released from prison.

posted by vito90 at 05:54 PM on November 15

"Does anyone still not believe Barry was juicing? posted by jerseygirl at 5:43 PM CST on November 15" Until a trial and failure of his defemse to impeach witnesses that testify against him proves that he has, he hasn't.

posted by Cave_Man at 05:55 PM on November 15

"and other athletes" I've stipulated before that Bonds used steroids, but it's in a context where baseball owners, players, and fans turned a blind eye on steroids abuse for years, and I'm opposed to any punishment that singles Bonds out or uses him as a scapegoat for widespread abuse. That said, if they convict him, he should go to jail. (Unless President Bush pardons him. According to contemporary Republicans perjury and obstruction of justice aren't that big a deal.) I'm not seeing how they prove that Bonds lied about knowingly being injected with steroids. I thought that, too.

posted by kirkaracha at 05:59 PM on November 15

cave man- there is no longer any doubt or lack of proof that barry was using steroids. the only question that remains is if he knowingly used it. "During the criminal investigation, evidence was obtained including positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances for Bonds

posted by irunfromclones at 06:20 PM on November 15

This isn't a sad day, it's a necessary day. It's only necessary the same way any legal due process is necessary. The only people happy today are lawyers. And people who hate Barry on principle, I guess.

posted by chicobangs at 06:24 PM on November 15

The worst part is that Barry is being scapegoated for something that dozens, if not hundreds, of other MLB players are likely guilty of as well. The scandal is only beginning. It will take baseball over a generation to recover from this.

posted by gnutron at 06:30 PM on November 15

They've been at him for so long, it's gonna take lead-pipe-anchored-in-cement-sourrounded-by-Kryptonite proof. I'd really need to see these reports and results, just to see how scientifically trustworthy they are. In my heart, I've always thought he was on the juice, but I could never say definitively for sure. If this proof turns out to be unimpeachable, and can be proven without doubt, I think it's a sad day for baseball, as chico said, but I can also look at it in the spirit of closure, as cl said, or in the spirit that vito90 brought up, as a necessary thing in the sport's lifecycle. Beautiful trees and grasses will spring up on the scorched ground in California in the future, and hopefully baseball will start to rise from its own self-immolation. If he's guilty, I'd like to see how the fans react, and how MLB, in turn, reacts toward the fans.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:33 PM on November 15

Why are we clogging up our judicial system & jail space for stuff like this don't we have bigger priority's in this country. Why is congress involved? Its what sports demands, bigger, stronger athletes. No one man is responsible for this.......everyone is. You can't put this entire era of abuse on B.B.

posted by bo_fan at 06:36 PM on November 15

Oh, I'm sure they have that kind of evidence, Mr. Hand. If they went ahead with this prosecution and then he got off on insufficient evidence or a technicality somewhere, they'd shut all three branches of the federal government down to hunt him down and hang him from the nearest tree.

posted by chicobangs at 06:42 PM on November 15

Wow... That's just shocking. Ordinarily I'd think "Bah, celeb, he'll get away with it"... But the impression and vibe I get is he's going to be made an example of... So what's the precedent with the Hall of Fame for convicted felons? Or is there even one?

posted by Drood at 07:06 PM on November 15

Until a trial and failure of his defemse to impeach witnesses that testify against him proves that he has, he hasn't. Also, Clinton didn't inhale. No one man is responsible for this.......everyone is. You can't put this entire era of abuse on B.B. I don't recally anyone here saying the entire era is Bonds' fault, but that doesn't give him a pass either. Barry was a great athlete, getting paid in the top tier and a lock for the HOF before his head swelled to the size of a pumpkin. No one made him do this except Barry. Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro & Giambi are all similarly disgraced. At least Giambi told the truth. None of those guys will get in the HOF, and now neither will Bonds.

posted by drumdance at 07:14 PM on November 15

So what's the precedent with the Hall of Fame for convicted felons? They have their own express lane. Steve Howe, Ron LeFlore, Denny McLain and Darryl Strawberry are on the ballot this year.

posted by chicobangs at 07:28 PM on November 15

I guess I'm glad that some sort of official resolution will be eventually made of all this, by people who know more about it than I ever will. Bud Selig's glad, too, although I bet he thinks it's a few months too late.

posted by DrJohnEvans at 07:38 PM on November 15

Ladies and gentlemen what you about to witness from the Bonds indictment and the Mitchell report being released is the Black Sox scandal all over again. And this time there will be no Babe Ruth.

posted by brickman at 08:02 PM on November 15

I have no doubt bonds knowingly used steroids. I also have no doubt many others did also. I agree with chico that this is a sad day for baseball, and probably the beginning of a sad period, but I'd rather get it over with than have it linger and never go away. Ladies and gentlemen what you about to witness from the Bonds indictment and the Mitchell report being released is the Black Sox scandal all over again The black sox scandal was about one team throwing a series. Steroids in baseball was never limited to one team, or a few players. Big difference. And this time there will be no Babe Ruth. And it won't matter. Most fans won't care and baseball will continue to break attendance records. And I know that kills you.

posted by justgary at 08:16 PM on November 15

Bud Selig's glad, too, although I bet he thinks it's a few months too late. No, I don't think that's the case. Selig and MLB did quite fine with all the extra attention that Bonds gave them with his HR record pursuit. It wouldn't have done them any good if he'd been indicted before the record. Ladies and gentlemen what you about to witness from the Bonds indictment and the Mitchell report being released is the Black Sox scandal all over again. And this time there will be no Babe Ruth. They were saying the same thing about the cocaine scandals of the 1980s, and I think everyone came out of that one without horror. They said the same thing about Pete Rose and getting banned for gambling, and nobody seems to have batted an eye. Perjury is probably the weakest "felony" that a person can be charged with. Lying? 99.99% of people do it, and we'll see if the charge even makes it past the discovery phase of the trial. If Anderson sticks to his guns and doesn't talk, it would be almost impossible to convince a jury that Bonds "knowingly" took steroids and then lied about it under oath.

posted by grum@work at 08:29 PM on November 15

The black sox scandal was about one team throwing a series. Steroids in baseball was never limited to one team, or a few players. Big difference. There are a lot of similarities. The Black Sox scandal was about the corruption of the game's integrity by gambling interests, the owners who contributed by mistreating players and the lack of a strong commissioner to catch these problems when it mattered. Bonds/Mitchell is about the corruption of the game's integrity by performance enhancing drugs, the owners who contributed with willful blindness, and the lack of a strong commissioner to catch these problems when it mattered.

posted by rcade at 08:38 PM on November 15

Perjury is probably the weakest "felony" that a person can be charged with. Lying? 99.99% of people do it ... 99.99 percent of the people wouldn't lie to a grand jury, FBI agent or police officer. Bonds also faces an obstruction of justice charge.

posted by rcade at 08:39 PM on November 15

Yeah, but during the Black Sox scandal, at least they had the excuse of not having a Commissioner at all. In fact, and I may be remembering this wrong (it has been 90 years), isn't that why the post of Commissioner was created in the first place? Because I think a lot of the blame for what's going to happen to the sport of baseball in the next 20-50 years can be laid at the feet of the current Commissioner, who let this happen on his watch and hoped it wouldn't blow up too much. He could have stopped this scandal in its infancy ten years ago instead of looking the other way and letting the players feel they could proceed with impunity.

posted by chicobangs at 08:43 PM on November 15

There are a lot of similarities. No doubt. But also huge differences. If you told me a team was throwing the world series I'd lose complete faith in the game. A whole league doping up will have to be looked upon as just that, a period where a roided up bonds faced roided up pitchers. And I don't think this is going to make a dent in baseball popularity. Time will tell if I have to eat my words.

posted by justgary at 08:57 PM on November 15

And I know that kills you. Though I don't agree with Brickman's point, I do think that this comment was an F.U. to him and seems to be out of character with what you, as one of the creators of the site, espouse as its ideals. If I made a comment like this, I would expect to be raked over the coals. I realize that this may be better suited for a locker room discussion but I felt it was worth addressing right now.

posted by cjets at 09:00 PM on November 15

If I made a comment like this, I would expect to be raked over the coals. I don't apologize. I meant exactly what it says. But if I must be raked, as you said, please do it in the locker room. Thanks.

posted by justgary at 09:04 PM on November 15

The fans may continue to fill the seats after this, but if the scandals keep coming, then one of them will eventually become the tipping point that causes baseball to fade from popularity. It happened to boxing, among others.

posted by chicobangs at 09:08 PM on November 15

It happened to boxing, among others. posted by chicobangs You maybe right, but I don't believe scandal is boxing's biggest problem. Lack of great boxers and all the matches moving to pay per view comes to mind. but if the scandals keep coming Here's to hoping they don't.

posted by justgary at 09:14 PM on November 15

99.99 percent of the people wouldn't lie to a grand jury, FBI agent or police officer. You're only legally obligated to tell the truth to one of those groups. This isn't some fascist police state like . . . England or something.

posted by yerfatma at 09:20 PM on November 15

I think widespread corruption is boxing's biggest problem. If boxing was clean, and the best fighters weren't segregated from each other by crooked promoters, then the good fighters wouldn't have flockd to Ultimate Fighting/MMA/Muy Thai over the last 30 years. Hucksters and confidence men have bled what was once the most popular sport on the planet dry over the last 30 years, and to think a similar erosion couldn't happen to baseball is shortsighted. Drug scandals, collusion, gambling, sucking money out of municipal governments, skyrocketing ticket prices, I don't know what it's going to be, but if they keep coming, then it's going to be something.

posted by chicobangs at 09:23 PM on November 15

A bit of legal perspective from Baseball Prospectus.

posted by yerfatma at 09:39 PM on November 15

And I don't think this is going to make a dent in baseball popularity. One of the reasons to love baseball is because of the reverence for the records in the sport -- especially numeric ones that invite comparisons across generations. I think steroids will do lasting and perhaps irrevocable damage to the sport by devaluing some of the most cherished records. Especially if they can't be broken by athletes who aren't on the juice.

posted by rcade at 10:05 PM on November 15

Especially if they can't be broken by athletes who aren't on the juice. That would be a problem for sure, but that's not really the reality, is it (1)? The career home run record isn't out of reach. Dimaggio's streak might be, most wins (cy young) might be, and neither one of those records was set in the steroid era. But A-Rod has a decent chance at the career home run record. If Bond's goes down while A-Rod makes it through the scandal untouched and breaks the record then wouldn't the record not be tainted? It would make the event much larger than bonds breaking Aaron's record. Of course, I believe comparing records set in the early 1900s to today is a fools game anyway, so I'm probably biased. (1) The season record may be the exception here.

posted by justgary at 10:12 PM on November 15

I think steroids will do lasting and perhaps irrevocable damage to the sport by devaluing some of the most cherished records. Do people devalue the (recently set) all-time single game rushing record in the NFL? It was set in an era of rampant steroid use in the sport. If pitchers and hitters are both using steroids, I don't see how the records are devalued any more than they would be by ash bats. Drug scandals, collusion, gambling, sucking money out of municipal governments, skyrocketing ticket prices, I don't know what it's going to be, but if they keep coming, then it's going to be something.

  • Drug scandals - Every sport has them. Some people simply turn a blind eye to the obvious ones (NFL) and focus on the media-driven ones.
  • Collusion - I'd say less than 1% of the fans care about that, or even know about it.
  • Gambling - Are we talking about players, or on the sport itself? If the former, only one player in the past 30 years have even been accused, and his punishment is well known. If the latter, then I think the NFL is doing okay with it.
  • Sucking money out of municipal governments - Sports franchises are only one area of business that does that. Look at how local governments will bend over backwards to get a new auto manufacturing plant.
  • Sky-rocketing ticket prices - Supply and demand, and considering that baseball tickets are cheaper than hockey and football tickets...

posted by grum@work at 10:52 PM on November 15

You're talking about these issues individually, not collectively or consecutively, which is how they've been happening. Individually, those scandals are easily brushed off. But if they keep coming, and the leadership vacuum at the top of MLB is leaving the door open for all kinds of god-knows-what-else-is-coming, then eventually people are going to be worn down by this stuff. Something is rotten in baseball, and Barry Bonds is a symptom, not the cause.

posted by chicobangs at 11:00 PM on November 15

Do people devalue the (recently set) all-time single game rushing record in the NFL? It was set in an era of rampant steroid use in the sport. Records aren't as big in the NFL as they are in baseball. Pete Rose breaking the all-time hits record played considerably bigger than Emmitt Smith setting the rushing yards record.

posted by rcade at 11:06 PM on November 15

This is not a sad day for baseball. On the contrary, it is a great day. We can finally move past this dreadful situation. Everyone knew the man used steroids, some just chose to look the other way for a variety of reasons. If the proof holds up, and it will, we can dismiss him once and for all, and more forward. Bonds will fade away, ARod will break the record in a few years, and all will be right with the world of baseball.

posted by dviking at 11:40 PM on November 15

Don't expect Bonds to seek a plea agreement Records aren't as big in the NFL as they are in baseball. True, but are there really that many fans that thought Barry never took steroids? That the record was untouched by steroids? It seems most fans already believed he took steroids, or didn't care one way or the other. Those seemed to be the two camps. I don't think the number of fans that thought Barry was innocent and will now be blindsided if he's convicted are in great numbers.

posted by justgary at 11:49 PM on November 15

(I might be as big a Barry Bonds apologist as there is on SpoFi, and even I'm under no illusions about the contents of his bloodstream.) Move past what, dviking? Bonds got indicted today. His trial won't even start until next summer at the earliest, and you have to figure it's going to be another year-plus, and probably more like two, before Barry's trial reaches its conclusion. We'll be hearing about this every single day until then. Think the OJ trial, except it'll actually be about baseball, and the other people involved are also crooked players. And that's just Barry. This whole dance is going to be repeated for every player they have anything on, which could number into the hundreds. We haven't begun to see the bottom of "wrong" in the sport yet. A-Rod hitting #763 is 8 to 10 years away yet. Can you hang on?

posted by chicobangs at 11:55 PM on November 15

This is no surprise - I knew they were ready to come down on Bonds. This is not a sad day - what is sad is Bonds' blatant use and denial of steroids. It will also be sad if Bonds is not held accountable for his actions.

posted by longgreenline at 12:26 AM on November 16

This is terrible. This is a person going to jail. This is gravedancing. I think the worst thing is he is being deprived from playing for the Angels or Yanks, and depriving him of a well deserved ring (though not with NYY, they stink).

posted by Joe188 at 01:19 AM on November 16

Until a trial and failure of his defemse to impeach witnesses that testify against him proves that he has, he hasn't.
Michael Jackson's never been convicted of kiddie fiddling by a criminal court, but I wouldn't leave my daughter in his care.

posted by rodgerd at 03:35 AM on November 16

justgary: I don't believe scandal is boxing's biggest problem. Lack of great boxers and all the matches moving to pay per view comes to mind. Both valid problems in boxing. Greed has crippled the sport. But you left off the alphabet organizations sanctioning events with worthless fighters billed as top class fights. As for baseball, I love the SPORT. Can't stand the majors though for a variety of reasons. Which basically means I'm fucked if I want to see baseball. I can't watch the majors (shit commentary, endless commercials etc...) and that's about it for any decent baseball coverage. Wish you could get streams online of Japanese baseball.

posted by Drood at 05:03 AM on November 16

This is terrible. This is a person going to jail. This is gravedancing. Where's the line on that? If a murder goes to jail and people are happy about it, is that still "gravedancing"? Because your comment feels like just so much contrarianism.

posted by yerfatma at 06:44 AM on November 16

Joe188, he lied to the government and people are discussing it. Some are relieved, some are skeptical, some are pissed. It's not like he died and a roar of applause erupted. It's not gravedancing. And I am not even sure he's going to jail either. And apropos of nothing, there's no DH room for Bonds on the Yankees.

posted by jerseygirl at 07:38 AM on November 16

..he lied to the government.. Allegedly. Right now, Bonds was indicted which doesn't mean he's guilty of anything at the moment. The prosecution must now prove without a shadow of doubt that Bonds lied when he said that he "unknowingly" took the cream & the clear at the deposition for the BALCO case. Without Greg Anderson's testimony, I find it hard for this case to stick. The questions I have are: Why did the government wait this long to indict Barry Bonds instead of letting him continue playing if he's so guilty and also, why keep Greg Anderson locked up for over a year if they really didn't need him to testify in the first place? This really does look like a witch hunt for Bonds IMO and am just gonna sit back and watch this run it's course.

posted by BornIcon at 08:22 AM on November 16

Some say it's a sad day. Some say it's a necessary day. Some say it's a happy day. I say it's an I-don't-care day. Maybe I should, but I don't. I lack the purist's zeal to have every whiff of PEDs removed from baseball -- yes, it would be nice if it happened, but it would be nice if a lot of things happened, like if I got a pony for Christmas. Realistically, I have to consider what goes into getting to that happy state, and most especially, what it would cost. There will never be a simple solution, a magic bullet that makes the whole problem go away as so many clearly would like, and making one big example out of Barry Bonds isn't going to bring closure to much of anything. The zealots are going to have to learn to be content with a messier and less total solution to the larger problem, one that involves an untidy combination of incentives for staying clean, reasonable regulations and enforcement, and a constant focus on the real reason why this is all being done so it doesn't devolve into a series of witch-hunts.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:30 AM on November 16

He is not on trial for doing steroids, he is on trial for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Stop saying he is a scapegoat.

posted by Steel_Town at 08:33 AM on November 16

Move past what, dviking? That would be Barry Bonds and the denial of the use of steroids in sports. They (collective league administrations) will finally have to own up to this situation and deal with it. It is not just about Bonds, as clearly other have taken the juice as well. However, he made himself the poster child by both his denial of taking the drugs, and, of course, his breaking the home run record. Had he simply gone away, like McGwire and Palmeiro, we would not be having this discussion, and the use would continue. I believe this will be a catalyst for a more open discussion of the use of PED's in baseball, and most likely, all professional sports. As to ARod, assuming he isn't involved as well, it is more like 6 or 7 years away before he gets to 763. Or, is it 755 that he has to get to? Will Bond's record be the benchmark after all this? Either way, yes, I can wait.

posted by dviking at 08:35 AM on November 16

yerfatma, it could be contrarianism, or it could just be infatuation. And, after reading LBB's comments, I guess I'll have to take this pony back to the store.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 09:53 AM on November 16

And that's just Barry. This whole dance is going to be repeated for every player they have anything on, which could number into the hundreds. posted by chicobangs at 11:55 PM CST on November 15 The only flaw with that, chico is that THIS is just about only Barry. As has been pointed out repeatedly here, the indictment is about perjury and obstruction. So, unless your hundreds of other players have lied under oath, then this won't carry on and on, encompassing other players. I've been on both sides of the "bonds-hating fence". I dislike him tremendously, but this has been a witch-hunt. I think he's been bad for baseball, but he's only a part of a bigger problem. But, I think that the reason that I don't consider this a bad day is because this shouldn't have any additional negative impact on baseball. If anything, it might make casual observers take the stance of "wow, baseball has really gone after this guy, it was really too much ... but, now look, it turns out that they were kinda right and he really is a douche for reasons other than just taking steroids."

posted by littleLebowski at 09:58 AM on November 16

And, after reading LBB's comments, I guess I'll have to take this pony back to the store. I didn't want your old store-bought pony anyway, so there.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:59 AM on November 16

That Ratto piece is excellent.

...The questions surrounding the Bonds case remain more open than you, I or the feral punditocracy thinks. We have just gotten started. And finally, there is one last conclusion not to be jumped. That with Bonds indicted, the Steroid Era is finally behind us, and baseball can dance free and untainted. No, it's in front of us, halogen high-beams right through our corneas, and it's going to stay in front of us for at least as long as it took for the drugs to become a full-blown era. No player can be presumed to be clean on his say-so or the lack of a positive test administered by those crack scientists working for MLB. The presumption of innocence works in a courtroom but nowhere else in our judgmental society. We conclusion-jump because we have too much time on our hands and too much media to allow for the dead air required to reconfirm baseball's chemical virtue. In other words, think 30 years, give or take a pennant race.

posted by chicobangs at 11:00 AM on November 16

That's a good excerpt, chico, and I'm not arguing many of the points within. I'm just saying that it's my humble opinion to disagree with your contention that the Bonds indictment is the onset of more problems. I look at it as a bell curve, the peak of which is the maximum amount of attention, negative publicity, overall crap associated with baseball and steroids. I certainly don't think that Bonds being indicted makes that chart fall of the cliff and everything else will magically go away. I just feel that we're finally on the downslope of the peak - still close to that peak, but at least on the downslope towards some sense of normalcy.

posted by littleLebowski at 11:15 AM on November 16

Bonds will always be the face of the steroid era because he was its most productive and least lovable cheater. Ann Killion at her best.

posted by irunfromclones at 12:05 PM on November 16

BB is a cheater that got caught cheating and lying about it to a bunch of other lying cheaters. He was given a free pass to tell the truth like the others did (JG e.g.) bb chose to play stupid, actually I donít think he or feds could have played it any other way. One thing for sure, he or the witch-hunters will never be accused of taking ďintelligence enhancing drugsĒ unless truth pays more than lying and cheating. (Add something about pots and black kettles here.) For the obvious betrayal of honest american trust strike his name from the record books if the intention is use bb a an example. But complicity of the commish to plant butts in seats is to be faulted. If the feds wanted to do something productive about professional sports doping, knowing the pros cannot or will not police themselves, they would have done it by now. It is always about the Benjamins.

posted by kosmicdebris at 12:27 PM on November 16

littleLebowski, that's just, like, your opinion, man. We're going to disagree on that. I'd bet Pete Rose's last dollar that we're going to be hearing about steroids and the stars of this generation in baseball, hitters and pitchers alike, for many years yet. If this is the peak of the storm, then great. But that slope back to "the next untainted age" (as if there's been an untainted age yet - I can't name one) is going to be long and torturous. Once again, if Barry perjured himself, then he deserves to be punished for it. But I still say that Bud Selig could have fixed this problem ten years ago, and none of this -- none of it -- would have ever happened.

posted by chicobangs at 02:38 PM on November 16

Asshole, scapegoat, poster boy, corrupt league, bad commissioner, no integrity, racism, double-standard, pitchers and catchers report in four months. Done!

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:23 PM on November 16

Nuff Ced

posted by tron7 at 03:28 PM on November 16

This is no surprise - I knew they were ready to come down on Bonds. They've convened two grand juries and imprisoned a "witness" for a year. They HAD to indict him soon. Of course there is no surprise about the indictment. The intriguing part is trying to figure out what was the final piece of evidence that pushed them to do it right now? Anderson still hasn't said anything while being unfairly imprisoned. All that bluster from the DA about his testimony being vital to their case sure turned out to be a big f*cking lie. The previous grand jury testimony has been poured over with a fine-tooth comb for over 3 years now, so I can't imagine they just found a smoking gun in that information. It smells like someone in the upper-level of the government has turned the screws on the men in charge of this case to "do something", and dismissing a second grand jury without an indictment after all this time would be a monstrous blow to everyone involved (except Bonds). So they gritted their teeth, decided their "evidence" isn't going to get any better, and decided to take a run at it. Now consider this: What if the indictment gets tossed out, or Bonds is found not guilty of all charges? They'll have given him and his records "legitimacy". While it looks like Bonds is in trouble now, it could turn into a huge public relations boon for him in the end.

posted by grum@work at 10:17 PM on November 16

Anderson still hasn't said anything while being unfairly imprisoned. How was it unfair? He was found in contempt of court for refusing to testify and sentenced to jail, not once, but twice. Sounds fair to me. Testify.....get out of jail. Don't testify....stay in jail. Of course, I am not all knowing and all seeing, so I could be wrong.

posted by tommytrump at 12:24 AM on November 17

How was it unfair? He was found in contempt of court for refusing to testify and sentenced to jail, not once, but twice. Sounds fair to me. Testify.....get out of jail. Don't testify....stay in jail. The reason he was kept in jail (twice) was because the prosecutors insisted that his testimony was important to their case. If it wasn't important to their case, they couldn't charge him with contempt of court. What makes it unfair is that Anderson made it perfectly clear that he was never going to testify (two stints in the slammer should be enough proof) and that his testimony was obviously NOT important to the prosecutor's case (as they made their indictment and Anderson NEVER talked). So explain to me why Anderson had to spend time in jail?

posted by grum@work at 10:35 AM on November 17

So explain to me why Anderson had to spend time in jail? Anderson chose not to testify. He was found guilty of contempt of court(not once, but twice). The judge sentenced him to jail. I'm just a simple cave man sports fan, but it seems easy enough to connect the dots on that one.

posted by tommytrump at 11:08 AM on November 17

Anderson chose not to testify. He was found guilty of contempt of court(not once, but twice). The judge sentenced him to jail. "The penalty for civil contempt is usually payment of a fine, or imprisonment for an indefinite period of time until the party in contempt agrees to perform his legal obligation, unless the imprisonment clearly fails to act as coercion and acts merely to punish; 65 N.J. 257. ." link Anderson was convicted of civil contempt. After spending time in prison for the first conviction of contempt, why was he imprisoned again? Did they think a second term would make any difference? In the end, he didn't testify, so the coercion didn't work and the prosecutors went ahead with their indictment without him. The prosecutors basically lied to the judge when they said that his testimony was important to their case. His imprisonment was nothing more than punitive. That's why it's unfair. I'm just a simple cave man sports fan, but it seems easy enough to connect the dots on that one. Maybe you need to go back to grade school to figure out how to do those "connect the dots" puzzles? If you are going to mock me, at least take the time to do a little research on the topic.

posted by grum@work at 11:56 AM on November 17

Maybe you need to go back to grade school to figure out how to do those "connect the dots" puzzles? If you are going to mock me, at least take the time to do a little research on the topic. I would go back to grade school, but the administration of the school, and the police in my city seem to frown on men in their forties hanging out there. Any other suggestions? grum, apparently we see this issue from different perspectives. I have no problem with someone being incarcerated for failing to follow a legal request from a judge. You seem to differ in your opinion. I suppose we'll have to leave it there.

posted by tommytrump at 01:51 PM on November 17

Well, the difference is grum is discussing the specifics of this case whereas you're talking about an abstract point. It's all well and good to say you have no problem with people being jailed for not speaking to a judge, but are you ok with it regardless of context or circumstance?

posted by yerfatma at 02:13 PM on November 17

Yes, I am okay with people for being jailed for failure to follow a legal order from a judge. For all of its imperfections, the American judicial system is in my opinion, quite fair. I don't believe most American judges decide to incarcerate people for no reason.

posted by tommytrump at 03:39 PM on November 17

The prosecutors basically lied to the judge when they said that his testimony was important to their case. His imprisonment was nothing more than punitive. So, you know for certain that no new evidence has arisen and that no other witnesses have come forward? Remember, the whole Balco investigation started several years ago because of an anonymous whistle blower. Maybe that person or someone else has come forward, in which case Anderson's testimony may no longer be critical.

posted by drumdance at 04:41 PM on November 17

So, you know for certain that no new evidence has arisen and that no other witnesses have come forward? Remember, the whole Balco investigation started several years ago because of an anonymous whistle blower. Maybe that person or someone else has come forward, in which case Anderson's testimony may no longer be critical. Who cares if other new evidence has arisen? What does that have to do with Anderson spending time in prison? And why would it take 4 years for someone to suddenly come forward with ground-breaking evidence? Instead of speculating that something brand new has landed in their laps, how about we instead check the date of the indictment and compare it to when the second grand jury convened for this would have expired. Indictment: November 15, 2007 Expiration date of second grand jury: November 21, 2007 (16 months after it was convened on July 21, 2006, which was 16 months and one day after the first grand jury was empaneled) I'm sure the magic evidence just HAPPENED to land on their desk less than a week before they would have to impanel a third grand jury for this matter.

posted by grum@work at 06:55 PM on November 17

Of course, none of our opinions really matter. I think everyone wants to know what Charles Barkley thinks about this story.

posted by grum@work at 07:39 PM on November 17

Why did it take so long to "go after" Barry? Bonds was not the initial primary focus of the government's investigation. It began with a raid on the Balco lab near the San Francisco airport. At first, the case appeared to be mostly about track and field athletes - and the eccentric Balco operator, Victor Conte. The government's first mission, then, was to convict Conte and the people around him, including Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson. Which is exactly what took place. Other athletes visited the grand jury courtroom and were not indicted because they told the truth and admitted they took Balco drugs. Conte and Anderson were sent to jail based on that testimony. Then, and only then, did the government turn its attention to Bonds and whether he had told the truth on the witness stand by claiming he thought the substances he was taking were "flaxseed oil" and "arthritis balm." But the indictment says the government has "evidence" that Bonds tested positive "for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances."

posted by irunfromclones at 12:40 AM on November 18

I don't know much about steriods. I did seen a picture of Bonds when he played for the Pirates and a recent picture. His head and physical present was bigger. Can weight lifting and nutrition accomplish this metamorphosis? Or for that matter, linseed oil?

posted by Janowitz at 01:12 AM on November 18

Then, and only then, did the government turn its attention to Bonds and whether he had told the truth on the witness stand by claiming he thought the substances he was taking were "flaxseed oil" and "arthritis balm." But the indictment says the government has "evidence" that Bonds tested positive "for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances." Actually, they've been "after" Bonds for 3 years. Two separate grand juries were convened specifically to go "after" Bonds for perjury (current indictment) and tax evasion (which they haven't got an indictment). The fact that Bonds tested positive for anabolic steroids or other PEDs doesn't really matter when it comes to the perjury case. The fact that Bonds used PEDs isn't the crux of the case. The government has to prove that he KNEW he was using PEDs and then LIED about it to the grand jury. If Greg Anderson sticks to his story (that he didn't tell Bonds the truth what he was giving him) and Bonds sticks to his (that he thought they were flaxseed oil, or that he didn't know "clear" and "cream" were steroids/HGH), then the government's case is going to need a hail mary from some third source which hasn't been leaked out to the press. Can weight lifting and nutrition accomplish this metamorphosis? Yes. In fact, it can't be accomplished WITHOUT weight lifting. The steroids don't give you magic muscles, like Popeye's spinach. They give you the ability to heal from a workout much quicker. Healing quicker means you can do more workouts (and for longer), which increases your muscle mass. It should also be pointed out that men tend to get bigger/fatter the older they get.

posted by grum@work at 08:26 PM on November 18

Thanks grum for the info. Linseed oil was incorrect as I read the other threads. Oh well, live and learn.

posted by Janowitz at 08:46 PM on November 18

If you ask anyone whoís worked out seriously a major pitfall is recovery time. To get the best results you have to push yourself, but by pushing yourself your body tends to need greater recovery time. If you try and push yourself when you should be recovering the results will level off and you're at risk of injury. So while steroids isnít the spinach that popeye took itís not far off. Just add a panel with popeye working out after every can and youíre good to go. And yes, we gain weight as we get older, but within limits. The Bob you knew in high school that was 170 but is 230 at your 20 year old reunion didnít gain that weight simply because his metabolism slowed down. He also drank more beer, ate more food, and sat on the couch watching football instead of playing it. When you see an elite athlete known for his workout regimen a good 40 or 50 pounds heavier than when he came into the league 'getting older' doesn't cut it. Another effect of getting older is losing muscle mass. Working out solves that problem, but as we get older recovery time is also longer. Put everything together and itís not difficult to see why players would turn to steroids, especially as they age.

posted by justgary at 04:53 PM on November 19

Thanks for the info justgary. I guess it's a form of cheating unless all players were allowed to partake, however I've read it has some severe side effects on the body.

posted by Janowitz at 05:05 PM on November 19

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.