Is Barry Bonds' Trial The Hold Up?

[skippythepinhead]

That reality is 5 years old.
It is history.

This is reality 2011:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17627687?nclick_check=1
.
.
.

Actually, the two realities mesh rather nicely. So the guy peddles vitamins now. This is America; everybody gets a second chance. Is he selling steroids illegally now?

If not, then I'd say we're on a better track.

 

[Polish]

Actually, the two realities mesh rather nicely. So the guy peddles vitamins now. This is America; everybody gets a second chance. Is he selling steroids illegally now?

If not, then I'd say we're on a better track.

I agree.
Conte is on the straight and narrow kudos.

But how about steroids in BaseBall?

Has the FDA allocated their limited resources over the last few years effectively? Was going after Barry for perjury/obstruction the most effective way to eliminate the steroid problem in Baseball?
Not sure about that.

 

[stephens]

Bonds chose to lie.

However, Barry Bonds lied to a grand jury

Careful. He was accused of doing so. But a jury heard extensive evidence and they were not convinced that Bonds lied to the grand jury. So isn't it somewhat irresponsible for us to speak of it as if it is fact?

 

[Race Radio]

Careful. He was accused of doing so. But a jury heard extensive evidence and they were not convinced that Bonds lied to the grand jury. So isn't it somewhat irresponsible for us to speak of it as if it is fact?

Um, how did he obstruct justice? By lying.

 

[stephens]

That's simply not true. He was convicted of obstruction for the following exchange. The jury decided it was evasive. He never really answered the question. Saying only one doctor touched him doesn't rule out that Greg did not touch him or give him a syringe. But the jury felt it was evasive enough to be obstruction. There is a possibility this will be tossed by the judge when she reviews it anyway.

Q: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?


A: I've only had one doctor touch me. And that's my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don't get into each others' personal lives. We're friends, but I don't - we don't sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don't want - don't come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we'll be good friends, you come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don't talk about his business. You know what I mean? ...

Q: Right.


A: That's what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that - you know, that - I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don't get into other people's business because of my father's situation, you see ...



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/14/MNUD1J08M7.DTL#ixzz1JdgQaAc7

 

[Race Radio]

That's simply not true. He was convicted of obstruction for the following exchange. The jury decided it was evasive. He never really answered the question. Saying only one doctor touched him doesn't rule out that Greg did not touch him or give him a syringe. But the jury felt it was evasive enough to be obstruction. There is a possibility this will be tossed by the judge when she reviews it anyway.

Q: Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?


A: I've only had one doctor touch me. And that's my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don't get into each others' personal lives. We're friends, but I don't - we don't sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don't want - don't come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we'll be good friends, you come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don't talk about his business. You know what I mean? ...

Q: Right.


A: That's what keeps our friendship. You know, I am sorry, but that - you know, that - I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don't get into other people's business because of my father's situation, you see ...



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/14/MNUD1J08M7.DTL#ixzz1JdgQaAc7

thanks for proving my point.

 

[stephens]

If you see a lie in there, you're seeing something no one else did.

 

[Race Radio]

If you see a lie in there, you're seeing something no one else did.

the jury voted 11-1 that he lied, hardly "No One"

 

[stephens]

The perjury charge #2 that ended in an 11-1 vote wasn't about Statement C quoted above. It was on his answer to whether "anyone other than perhaps the team doctor or your personal physician has ever injected anything into you." Bonds replied "no" to the grand jury.

11 members believed his personal shoppers testimony about seeing Anderson inject Bonds with something. But it takes 12 to make it official, so...

Let's review:

Count 1: Perjury
The charge: Bonds lied when he said he did not knowingly take steroids.
The verdict: Mistrial; jury deadlocked at 8-4 to acquit.

Count 2: Perjury
The charge: Bonds lied when he said no one other than his doctors ever injected him with anything.
The verdict: Mistrial; jury deadlocked at 11-1 to convict.

Count 3: Perjury
The charge: Bonds lied when he said he did not knowingly take HGH.
The verdict: Mistrial; jury deadlocked at 9-3 to acquit.

ount 4: Obstruction of justice
The charge: Bonds was being evasive when making any one of seven statements to the grand jury.
The verdict: Guilty on a single statement about his childhood as the son of major leaguer Bobby Bonds and his relationship with personal trainer Greg Anderson. The ruling did not address performance-enhancing drugs


So...on all the charges that have to do with PEDs or illegal substances, the jury voted more to acquit than convict. They only were close to conviction on the "Anything" question, and convicted on Bonds' evasiveness on the specific question quoted previously as statement "C".

 

[Race Radio]

The perjury charge #2 that ended in an 11-1 vote wasn't about Statement C quoted above. It was on his answer to whether "anyone other than perhaps the team doctor or your personal physician has ever injected anything into you." Bonds replied "no" to the grand jury.

11 members believed his personal shoppers testimony about seeing Anderson inject Bonds with something. But it takes 12 to make it official, so...

Let's review:

Count 1: Perjury
The charge: Bonds lied when he said he did not knowingly take steroids.
The verdict: Mistrial; jury deadlocked at 8-4 to acquit.

Count 2: Perjury
The charge: Bonds lied when he said no one other than his doctors ever injected him with anything.
The verdict: Mistrial; jury deadlocked at 11-1 to convict.

Count 3: Perjury
The charge: Bonds lied when he said he did not knowingly take HGH.
The verdict: Mistrial; jury deadlocked at 9-3 to acquit.

ount 4: Obstruction of justice
The charge: Bonds was being evasive when making any one of seven statements to the grand jury.
The verdict: Guilty on a single statement about his childhood as the son of major leaguer Bobby Bonds and his relationship with personal trainer Greg Anderson. The ruling did not address performance-enhancing drugs


So...on all the charges that have to do with PEDs or illegal substances, the jury voted more to acquit than convict. They only were close to conviction on the "Anything" question, and convicted on Bonds' evasiveness on the specific question quoted previously as statement "C".

So you are saying that Bonds lied, Got it.

 

[stephens]

Why do you have to be that way? It just wastes so much time on this forum. He was evasive. He was not convicted of having lied. They were close to saying he lied about being injected with "anything," but were much less convinced he lied about PEDs. My personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as should be yours. We have a justice system in place to determine these things.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Why do you have to be that way? It just wastes so much time on this forum. He was evasive. He was not convicted of having lied. They were close to saying he lied about being injected with "anything," but were much less convinced he lied about PEDs. My personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as should be yours. We have a justice system in place to determine these things.

Why does one have to rest on semantics? The point's sort of obvious, isn't it?

And as to wasting time on this forum... That's half of its raison d'etre, isn't it?

 

[Race Radio]

Why do you have to be that way?

Maybe it is because I do not believe in miracles?

 

[Zweistein]

NEITHER the Bonds or "Lance" investigations started with PERJURY and were NOT 100% about PERJURY. Get your facts straight.

It doesn't matter how they started. Don't lie in court is the bottom line.

 

[stephens]

Of course it matters how they started. One may argue that pursuing perjury charges is important because it upholds the legitimacy of our justice system. But it should matter to all of us how and why a person was called into court and asked the questions that they lied about (allegedly) or were evasive about (legally). Is the original investigation and subpoenaed testimony about something that is actually important enough and high enough up on our list of priorities? Is it likely to lead to an improvement in our society? Are the methods used by the prosecution ones that we find appropriate and in keeping with the ideals of our country?

Of course those are important questions to ask ourselves. And if we are not satisfied by the answers, it's not crazy to not be too upset if the witnesses are less than truthful answering the questions we've decided they really shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Of course it matters how they started. One may argue that pursuing perjury charges is important because it upholds the legitimacy of our justice system. But it should matter to all of us how and why a person was called into court and asked the questions that they lied about (allegedly) or were evasive about (legally). Is the original investigation and subpoenaed testimony about something that is actually important enough and high enough up on our list of priorities? Is it likely to lead to an improvement in our society? Are the methods used by the prosecution ones that we find appropriate and in keeping with the ideals of our country?

Of course those are important questions to ask ourselves. And if we are not satisfied by the answers, it's not crazy to not be too upset if the witnesses are less than truthful answering the questions we've decided they really shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

And if my answers are not your answers, why are your answers the right answers?

And if Greg Anderson had testified, what would the jury have said?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Of course it matters how they started. One may argue that pursuing perjury charges is important because it upholds the legitimacy of our justice system. But it should matter to all of us how and why a person was called into court and asked the questions that they lied about (allegedly) or were evasive about (legally). Is the original investigation and subpoenaed testimony about something that is actually important enough and high enough up on our list of priorities? Is it likely to lead to an improvement in our society? Are the
methods used by the prosecution ones that we find appropriate and in keeping with the ideals of our country?

Of course those are important questions to ask ourselves.

Interesting argument. So, it's about the 'why and how' someone is brought to court. Not the crime?

As to the further, more socio-cultural questions... It probably depends on who you ask as to whether the charges are actually 'important'. Does it effect the widening economic sh*t-hole that America is sliding into? Probably not, those dollars were allocated long ago.

Will it improve your society? Well, if 'the system' can remove someone who (and an established system that) is enabling illegal doping, and is also able to illegally procure illegal pharmaceuticals, then that's probably a good thing. Societally speaking, of course...

If it's about "ILLEGAL", let's make it about that. Stop the pedantry.

 

[fatandfast]

Last est I read was 10.3 million spent for the process. Legal experts saying he will probably face a heavy fine, but little to no jail time.

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder how many more they'd catch if they took the millions of dollars being wasted by Novitsky and spent it on improving testing?

The federal government is not charged with improving doping tests in cycling. This is a stupid comment. Who would have thought that a fanboy would write something stupid?

 

[Anonymous]

You should read his post again - totally misinterpreted what he was trying to say with that specific sentence, probably because you wanted to spew the word fanboy and you were not thinking clearly.

Stephens - I don't find any of your comments "fanboy" or "pro-Lance" and just your well thought out opinion of how you feel about government priorities, etc.

Then you're a moron.

 

[Anonymous]

The perjury charge #2 that ended in an 11-1 vote wasn't about Statement C quoted above. It was on his answer to whether "anyone other than perhaps the team doctor or your personal physician has ever injected anything into you." Bonds replied "no" to the grand jury.

11 members believed his personal shoppers testimony about seeing Anderson inject Bonds with something. But it takes 12 to make it official, so...

Let's review:

Count 1: Perjury
The charge: Bonds lied when he said he did not knowingly take steroids.
The verdict: Mistrial; jury deadlocked at 8-4 to acquit.

Count 2: Perjury
The charge: Bonds lied when he said no one other than his doctors ever injected him with anything.
The verdict: Mistrial; jury deadlocked at 11-1 to convict.

Count 3: Perjury
The charge: Bonds lied when he said he did not knowingly take HGH.
The verdict: Mistrial; jury deadlocked at 9-3 to acquit.

ount 4: Obstruction of justice
The charge: Bonds was being evasive when making any one of seven statements to the grand jury.
The verdict: Guilty on a single statement about his childhood as the son of major leaguer Bobby Bonds and his relationship with personal trainer Greg Anderson. The ruling did not address performance-enhancing drugs


So...on all the charges that have to do with PEDs or illegal substances, the jury voted more to acquit than convict. They only were close to conviction on the "Anything" question, and convicted on Bonds' evasiveness on the specific question quoted previously as statement "C".

A lie by any other name...I'd stop if I were you, but you won't

The funniest part is that your whole shuck and jive isn't about Bonds, it is about defending that one balled loser of a fraud people like you cling onto.

 

[Anonymous]

Last est I read was 10.3 million spent for the process. Legal experts saying he will probably face a heavy fine, but little to no jail time.

Then the prosecution will probably re-litigate. There was obviously one sports nut on the jury very similar in character to this stephens. He would't convict if there were videos, because like this stephens, he had no respect for the US Justice system. People like this stephens believe that a fair system of justice can exist by ignoring the crimes of those they like, and only pursuing those they deem deserve to be prosecuted. Its a fu*ked up system you find in third world countries, and it generally benefits those with power and wealth. Great precedent he wants to set. Thankfully, there are people out there who actually understand why the system works the way it does, and protect it from people with a keyboard and hero to worship.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey stephens, if nobody has told you this today, let me be the first (actually, I am pretty sure I wasn't the first as the people in your personal life are surely cognizant of this fact): You're a freaking moron.

 

[Anonymous]

Then the prosecution will probably re-litigate. There was obviously one sports nut on the jury very similar in character to this stephens. He would't convict if there were videos, because like this stephens, he had no respect for the US Justice system. People like this stephens believe that a fair system of justice can exist by ignoring the crimes of those they like, and only pursuing those they deem deserve to be prosecuted. Its a fu*ked up system you find in third world countries, and it generally benefits those with power and wealth. Great precedent he wants to set. Thankfully, there are people out there who actually understand why the system works the way it does, and protect it from people with a keyboard and hero to worship.

It reads just fine that way too (lesson learned)

 

[fatandfast]

Goob, probably not best to defend stephens points of fact. The reason that any of this went to trial is because Bonds lied.
Lots of the testimony stated that he did. Some of the best examples came from the SF Giants staff. They asked Bonds who Greg Anderson was, he explained he was a personal trainer. As to not jump the gun they talked w Greg,they looked at his resume. They also talked to other people he worked with. Then they threw his a$$ in the street and told Bonds he could not have special access.
When all the other players told their stories it was the same thing, Greg was a drug use coach and supplier. Bonds is the only guy of the bunch that stuck to his story.
Everybody else got up on the stand and made themselves look bad but not as bad as not telling the truth. Simple truth I bought drugs from Greg Anderson, he is a scum and I was his customer. Barry is special because he didn't get up there and say it.
In the end any chance that Barry's would be a face for Pirates or Giants went further down the toilet after the trail regardless of the outcome. Another drug user, Andy Petite is a poster child for all that is good in baseball. A-Rod is still playing and got advice to fess up. Manny and Barry are in the same boat. Both guys know how to hit a baseball and could have made millions just correcting people's grip on the bat or some little swing mechanics. Unemployable at the highest level.
Novitzky should retire asap, he should write a book about everything not just the few teaspoons allowed in court. You can bet he caught Bonds in a world of sh!t only some of it had to do with the case