Is Barry Bonds' Trial The Hold Up?

Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Didn't Miller (prosecutor) already get assigned to a different and unrelated case? We've been told all along by the insiders that there was a rush to get an indictment delivered, etc. As early as the first of the year?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
scribe said:
Didn't Miller (prosecutor) already get assigned to a different and unrelated case? We've been told all along by the insiders that there was a rush to get an indictment delivered, etc. As early as the first of the year?
Who said there was a rush?
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Damn! I've posted in an Armstrong thread, and the resident expert leaps at the opportunity....

I know RR, they are gonna apply mobster rules and take it to Armstrong for the next 75 years. So no hurry here. There is nothing to see...
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
While there certainly are many who would like some kind public action the Feds will take their time.

People are no longer scared of wonderboy, they are coming forward in droves and the Feds are smart to examine all avenues and take their time. Armstrong is also smart to abandon his comeback to focus on his legal fight....as much as he tries to downplay it he is in serious trouble and has a long fight ahead of him.

The Bonds case will have zero effect on the Armstrong case.....but if it starts going bad for the Feds expect the media spin to say it will
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Race Radio said:
While there certainly are many who would like some kind public action the Feds will take their time.

People are no longer scared of wonderboy, they are coming forward in droves and the Feds are smart to examine all avenues and take their time. Armstrong is also smart to abandon his comeback to focus on his legal fight....as much as he tries to downplay it he is in serious trouble and has a long fight ahead of him.

The Bonds case will have zero effect on the Armstrong case.....but if it starts going bad for the Feds expect the media spin to say it will
OK. Discussion done. Let's lock the thread.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
So Scribe says
scribe said:
Didn't Miller (prosecutor) already get assigned to a different and unrelated case? We've been told all along by the insiders that there was a rush to get an indictment delivered, etc. As early as the first of the year?
And the "insider" asks
Race Radio said:
Who said there was a rush?
Which causes Scribe to get all sarcastic
scribe said:
Damn! I've posted in an Armstrong thread, and the resident expert leaps at the opportunity....

I know RR, they are gonna apply mobster rules and take it to Armstrong for the next 75 years. So no hurry here. There is nothing to see...
Defensive much?


Race Radio, shuddup and let him put words in your mouth:D
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
scribe said:
Didn't Miller (prosecutor) already get assigned to a different and unrelated case? We've been told all along by the insiders that there was a rush to get an indictment delivered, etc. As early as the first of the year?
Correct.
Perp walk before the 2010 TdF starts...
Perp walk by end of year....

The Hater Train was originally on a Fast Track to arrive at Indictment Station before the statues of limitations expired. Statutes of Limitations are VERY critical for WhistleBlower cases BTW. Choo Choo.

But now that the train jumped the tracks and did not arrive at the station in time, it has become a slow boat enroute to the Port of Indictment off the island of Alcatraz. Lance the New Birdman Tweet Tweet.

http://hubpages.com/hub/5-Famous-Prisoners-Who-Haunt-Alcatraz
.
.
.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
0
0
Polish said:
CorreBut now that the train jumped the tracks and did not arrive at the station in time, it has become a slow boat enroute to the Port of Indictment off the island of Alcatraz. Lance the New Birdman Tweet Tweet.
Polish the new Polisher. Spank Spank
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
3 different people have taken over at the federal prosecutors office since the Bonds investigation started. The NYT and WSJ both had stories that indicate that when a new person comes in as the boss of the entire office that they don't drop the Bonds case for a few reasons. 1 reason is that all the work that has been done on the case would really cause a moral problem if the boss says drop it..good work but not good enough. There have been more than one person quoted that say that this case will go to trial even if the government thinks they will lose...just because there would be such internal bitterness if the new boss threw it in the garbage..It is also an injustice that the federal investigators have not followed up on the collusion between the MLB owners not to hire Bonds for any job in MLB. He surely would have got a job as a DH in some small market..if Bonds is not found guilty a dozen people should quit/retire or be fired for wasting millions of dollars for nothing
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
fatandfast said:
3 different people have taken over at the federal prosecutors office since the Bonds investigation started. The NYT and WSJ both had stories that indicate that when a new person comes in as the boss of the entire office that they don't drop the Bonds case for a few reasons. 1 reason is that all the work that has been done on the case would really cause a moral problem if the boss says drop it..good work but not good enough. There have been more than one person quoted that say that this case will go to trial even if the government thinks they will lose...just because there would be such internal bitterness if the new boss threw it in the garbage..It is also an injustice that the federal investigators have not followed up on the collusion between the MLB owners not to hire Bonds for any job in MLB. He surely would have got a job as a DH in some small market..if Bonds is not found guilty a dozen people should quit/retire or be fired for wasting millions of dollars for nothing
It's an interesting point about collusion against hiring Bonds - but would baseball's anti-trust exemption allow them to do so? The teams can obviously "collude" in many other respects. Not sure if they can collude against players in that manner.
 
eleven said:
It's an interesting point about collusion against hiring Bonds - but would baseball's anti-trust exemption allow them to do so? The teams can obviously "collude" in many other respects. Not sure if they can collude against players in that manner.
Does the guy need to work another day in his life? Unless he's addicted to G4's, hookers, and blow, the answer is no.

My reading is Congress only calls up the MLB commissioner when the show gets too ridiculous. At the baseball club level, that's a very small community. I would argue the difference between an obviously tainted player and collusion is impossible to determine among such a small group.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Race Radio said:
While there certainly are many who would like some kind public action the Feds will take their time.

People are no longer scared of wonderboy, they are coming forward in droves and the Feds are smart to examine all avenues and take their time. Armstrong is also smart to abandon his comeback to focus on his legal fight....as much as he tries to downplay it he is in serious trouble and has a long fight ahead of him.

The Bonds case will have zero effect on the Armstrong case.....but if it starts going bad for the Feds expect the media spin to say it will
"Droves?" You have absolutely no evidence of droves. The grand jury process is secret and (thank goodness) there have been no leaks. No leaks means no proof of "droves," which means your daoteckian statement lacks credibility.

If there are droves, nobody outside the GJ process knows it.
 
fatandfast said:
3 different people have taken over at the federal prosecutors office since the Bonds investigation started. The NYT and WSJ both had stories that indicate that when a new person comes in as the boss of the entire office that they don't drop the Bonds case for a few reasons. 1 reason is that all the work that has been done on the case would really cause a moral problem if the boss says drop it..good work but not good enough. There have been more than one person quoted that say that this case will go to trial even if the government thinks they will lose...just because there would be such internal bitterness if the new boss threw it in the garbage..
You are making lots of bold claims. I don't know enough about it. Please provide references that corroborate your statements.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
MarkvW said:
"Droves?" You have absolutely no evidence of droves. The grand jury process is secret and (thank goodness) there have been no leaks. No leaks means no proof of "droves," which means your daoteckian statement lacks credibility.

If there are droves, nobody outside the GJ process knows it.
Daoteckian <--- I like that. Has some possibility
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
MarkvW said:
"Droves?" You have absolutely no evidence of droves. The grand jury process is secret and (thank goodness) there have been no leaks. No leaks means no proof of "droves," which means your daoteckian statement lacks credibility.

If there are droves, nobody outside the GJ process knows it.
When the charges are filed I promise to accept your apology with grace and not rub your nose in it
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
0
0
This investigation involves acts that occurred over several years and in several nations. Witnesses or other persons of interest to the investigators live across the globe. Many people who would have much to offer also have much to lose, and will seek legal counsel before meeting with investigators. There must be an awful lot for the investigators to uncover and for the attorneys to consider before deciding to lay charges. And that's assuming they don't have other cases taking up their time. Delays do not surprise me.
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
MarkvW said:
"Droves?" You have absolutely no evidence of droves. The grand jury process is secret and (thank goodness) there have been no leaks. No leaks means no proof of "droves," which means your daoteckian statement lacks credibility.

If there are droves, nobody outside the GJ process knows it.

As I understand the process, the questions and evidence presented before the GJ are secret. However an informed individual* stationed outside# the GJ rooms would observe the quality and quantity of witnesses presenting.


*Informed individual: someone with knowledge of the cycling community and the relevant "faces".
#Outside may mean in public space outside the building.

Just my guess.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
JA.Tri said:
As I understand the process, the questions and evidence presented before the GJ are secret. However an informed individual* stationed outside# the GJ rooms would observe the quality and quantity of witnesses presenting.


*Informed individual: someone with knowledge of the cycling community and the relevant "faces".
#Outside may mean in public space outside the building.

Just my guess.
All participants are sworn to secrecy, but witnesses are allowed to say what ever they want about their testimony.

Also the GJ is hardly the only method for gathering evidence. They may take 1-2 witnesses in to make their case but often that case is so overwhelming they save the other 5 witness for trial and interview them separately.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS