He is not on trial for doing steroids, he is on trial for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Stop saying he is a scapegoat.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 don't 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 "intelligence enhancing drugs" 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.
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.
Asshole, scapegoat, poster boy, corrupt league, bad commissioner, no integrity, racism, double-standard, pitchers and catchers report in four months. Done!
Nuff Ced
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Of course, none of our opinions really matter. I think everyone wants to know what Charles Barkley thinks about this story.
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."
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?
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.
Thanks grum for the info. Linseed oil was incorrect as I read the other threads. Oh well, live and learn.
If you ask anyone who's 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 isn't the spinach that popeye took it's not far off. Just add a panel with popeye working out after every can and you're 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 didn't 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 it's not difficult to see why players would turn to steroids, especially as they age.
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.
