Bonds Trial Set To Begin March 21st.

Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
Since this is set to begin relatively soon, and there are strong parallels, I thought a thread might be good to keep track of the Bonds trial.


Judge says former team mates must testify.

Judge: Former players must testify

Some of Barry Bonds' former teammates, along with other retired Major League Baseball players and perhaps current player Jason Giambi, will have to testify at the slugger's upcoming perjury trial, a federal judge said Friday.
This allows the prosecution an opportunity to introduce evidence about Bond's relationship with Greg Anderson, even though he is happy sitting in jail rather than testifying himself.
 
I think this is an iffy case. The biggest key to proving Bonds guilt is Anderson, and he'd rather be in prison than tell the truth. Of course that in itself sends up a red flag - if there's nothing to hide, why go to jail over it?

But Bonds, despite coming across as a jerk to most people, was admired by most teammates, and it's possible that none saw much of anything, and only heard talk, or casual conversations with the man about drugs. The numbers certainly show he doped - he grew into a monster after the age of 30, but is there enough of all of this to convict him? I don't know.

Just in case anyone is curious, federal prosecutors have a very high conviction rate. They usually will not indict someone unless they are 90% sure they can convict. Take that for what it may be when considering the Armstrong case.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I think this is an iffy case. The biggest key to proving Bonds guilt is Anderson, and he'd rather be in prison than tell the truth. Of course that in itself sends up a red flag - if there's nothing to hide, why go to jail over it?

But Bonds, despite coming across as a jerk to most people, was admired by most teammates, and it's possible that none saw much of anything, and only heard talk, or casual conversations with the man about drugs. The numbers certainly show he doped - he grew into a monster after the age of 30, but is there enough of all of this to convict him? I don't know.

Just in case anyone is curious, federal prosecutors have a very high conviction rate. They usually will not indict someone unless they are 90% sure they can convict. Take that for what it may be when considering the Armstrong case.
The feds are not going to present any teammate testimony that hurts them. If they're calling the teammates, they've already got statements and a teammate would be a jail-bound fool if he were to materially contradict his prior statement to federal investigators.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
True. But I have to wonder what they have? It's going to be an interesting trial.
And you can bet that at least one person from Armstrong's legal team will be in the courtroom, watching.
 
Sep 16, 2010
226
0
0
Baseball tried to sell us the reason for all the home runs was a new ball. Remember that the ball was supposed to have been wound tighter.

Cycling tried to sell us cadence.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
Definitely will be an interesting case to follow. I wonder, though, if the ultimate lesson for the Lance team won't simply be to plead the fifth. This would seem to be in keeping with Lance's longstanding "I've never tested positive" and "they've never proven anything against me" defenses.

As much as such a refusal might seem damning to many of us, it seems there are more than enough fanboys and Livestrong devotees (and I do see those as two very different groups) who either believe this stubborn defense or who simply don't care because they resent the idea of prosecuting Lance in the first place.
 
Dec 4, 2010
98
0
0
Not even close!

Lance Armstrong's fraud perpetrated on a gullible world is FAR and AWAY larger and more significant than Barry Bonds'. Many, many more people are complicit in LA's fraud - even involving a Fed agency; aka the American people's money...insignificant parallel, at best...but this discussion should serve as a capable distraction for those that want to point fingers at other sports...carry on...
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
fujisst said:
Lance Armstrong's fraud perpetrated on a gullible world is FAR and AWAY larger and more significant than Barry Bonds'. Many, many more people are complicit in LA's fraud - even involving a Fed agency; aka the American people's money...insignificant parallel, at best...but this discussion should serve as a capable distraction for those that want to point fingers at other sports...carry on...
I think the parallel drawn had more to do with jurisprudence than moral culpability. The point is not whether the magnitude of the fraud is the same. The point is that a professional sports figure in the United States is standing trial for lying about doping.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
ergmonkey said:
I think the parallel drawn had more to do with jurisprudence than moral culpability. The point is not whether the magnitude of the fraud is the same. The point is that a professional sports figure in the United States is standing trial for lying about doping.
Exactly. Both sides of the Armstrong case will be monitoring the Bonds trial with a microscope. That trial will serve as a bellwether for any Armstrong proceedings that may follow. The Novitsky connection in and of it's self is inescapable.
 
Sep 19, 2009
91
0
0
Dec 4, 2010
98
0
0
A MUCH more apropos discussion would be a comparison and contrast of the Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens investigations. Then you folks can at least compare apples with apples. However, it appears your collective consciences feel better to drag BB through the mud on a cycling forum...

"Bellweather"? Get real. The BB case won't have anything to do with LA's case. The US government has a hard-on and is trying to bury BB, while they're looking for ways to allow LA to get away gracefully while still trying to save face concerning their "investigation" of him...vastly different intentions by the feds...very obvious...
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
fujisst said:
A MUCH more apropos discussion would be a comparison and contrast of the Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens investigations. Then you folks can at least compare apples with apples. However, it appears your collective consciences feel better to drag BB through the mud on a cycling forum...

"Bellweather"? Get real. The BB case won't have anything to do with LA's case. The US government has a hard-on and is trying to bury BB, while they're looking for ways to allow LA to get away gracefully while still trying to save face concerning their "investigation" of him...vastly different intentions by the feds...very obvious...
1. If you think you're thread is more "apropos" for us "folks", then start it. It's real simple.

2. Why don't you educate us all on how the feds are "looking for ways to allow LA to get away gracefully while still trying to save face concerning their "investigation" of him". Sounds like you have a hard on for the LA investigation. Again, in case you didn't get it the first two times, no one is saying the two cases are related in ANY way. The way the feds approach the two cases will be, and the fact that Jeff Novitsky was lead investigator in both will most definitely have the Armstrong team closely monitoring how much of his evidence is allowed, what challenges are raised, etc.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
fujisst said:
A MUCH more apropos discussion would be a comparison and contrast of the Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens investigations. Then you folks can at least compare apples with apples. However, it appears your collective consciences feel better to drag BB through the mud on a cycling forum...

"Bellweather"? Get real. The BB case won't have anything to do with LA's case. The US government has a hard-on and is trying to bury BB, while they're looking for ways to allow LA to get away gracefully while still trying to save face concerning their "investigation" of him...vastly different intentions by the feds...very obvious...

If it is so obvious why can't you explain it?

When people are the least sure, they are often the most dogmatic
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY