Is Barry Bonds' Trial The Hold Up?

Page 27 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Apparently he sees an upside and is indeed appealing - because the judge has suspended his sentence pending the results of the appeal. Some people spend money on yachts, some people spend it on lawyers (who then spend it on yachts).
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Doesn't the Prosecution have an option to "appeal"?
Do a Re-Trial on the Mis-Trial?

Weren't they waiting to see the sentence delivered before they decide?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
stephens said:
Wouldn't have been an issue legally. But would have been an issue with fans, hall of fame voters, and history. So the assertion that all Bonds had to do was tell the truth, he'd have come out fine is crazy. He came out better this way. And even better once his federal conviction is overturned on appeal in a year
or two.
Really? $15 million less in the bank account, Convicted Felon, universal symbol of doping in baseball.

You know who came out better? Andy Pettite. He told the truth. Bonds is a joke.
 
Race Radio said:
He has a bit of a tax issue....as do his wife and mother in law. The Feds found $60,000, drugs and syringes, hidden in his Mother in law's kitchen.

Wonder if Barry paid by check or cash?
So sad. Those who keep the secret for the heroes always end up worse of...
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Race Radio said:
Really? $15 million less in the bank account, Convicted Felon, universal symbol of doping in baseball.

You know who came out better? Andy Pettite. He told the truth. Bonds is a joke.
I don't follow baseball that closely these days, but even I know that Bonds is a lot more awesome than Pettite.
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
Stephens,

Bonds flouted the Justice System. He was offered a deal to tell the truth and he would not be prosecuted. He chose to lie. Of course he hurts his reputation by admitting to PED usage but he wouldn't have had that problem in the first place had he not cheated. There are many moral, ethical, legal, and health reasons behind the pursuit of drug cheats in sports. I'm hoping your view isn't and doesn't become the prevailing one because the Government is only as good as its people.

If you can't see that the U.S. government was obliged to prosecute Bonds I don't see how I could ever have a reasoned discourse with you.

We can't have people lying under oath about the distribution of illegal drugs. You do that, you get prosecuted, period. You really think people who flout the law like Bonds did should get away with it because they know prosecution will be expensive? What kind of example does that set?
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Was there a source given for this $15mil cost? I'm finding that very hard to believe. Even at $500/hr, that's 14.5 man years of work on this defense.
 
"We can't have people lying under oath about the distribution of illegal drugs. You do that, you get prosecuted, period. You really think people who flout the law like Bonds did should get away with it because they know prosecution will be expensive? What kind of example does that set?"

What kind of example does that set for whom? Other people who can afford to flout the law? They're probably aware of the costs and likely to calculate them on their own given their own exigencies. Or for those who can't afford to flout the law? Seems their actions would and do keep the law in business. Your question was probably rhetorical, but I don't fully appreciate the moral your trying to set out. Or is this just the old canard that celebrity sportsfolk should be extra-athletic social exemplars for the febrile, impressionable and average?
 
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
Polish said:
Doesn't the Prosecution have an option to "appeal"?
Do a Re-Trial on the Mis-Trial?

Weren't they waiting to see the sentence delivered before they decide?
Ooops, nevermind.

Feds decided to drop the perjury counts a couple months back.
No re-trial.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
stephens said:
Was there a source given for this $15mil cost? I'm finding that very hard to believe. Even at $500/hr, that's 14.5 man years of work on this defense.
During the trial, he had a team of seven lawyers, including five from the Skadden Arps law firm, the most expensive lawyers in America. $1000 per hour. This were just his lead lawyers, there were also multiple other lawyers who worked on the case as well as media and PR. Even the appeal is expected to run several hundred thousand

Bonds also hired John Keker, and his team of several lawyers, whose job was to obfuscate and reduce the government case with a series of challenges, filings and appeals. This took several years. Keker bills out at $900 per hour.....and is currently employed by Lance Armstrong.

30 people billing at $900 per hour, about 12 weeks of work each. Easy to do over 8 years.

Wonderboy's legal fees are over $3,000,000 and he has not even been charged yet
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
stephens said:
So...a guy without a real name on an internet forum is the source of the $15mil number? Got it.
You don't have to get it. Fighting a GJ charge is expensive and that's part of the intimidation to those that lack the dough. They roll over rather than pay out and add financial ruin to their lives.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
Oh, I get it. That's why I said it's only the rich who can get a fair shake from the US legal system. Everyone else is outspent a million to one.
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
aphronesis said:
What kind of example does that set for whom? Other people who can afford to flout the law? They're probably aware of the costs and likely to calculate them on their own given their own exigencies. Or for those who can't afford to flout the law? Seems their actions would and do keep the law in business. Your question was probably rhetorical, but I don't fully appreciate the moral your trying to set out. Or is this just the old canard that celebrity sportsfolk should be extra-athletic social exemplars for the febrile, impressionable and average?
Have you been following the arguments? It was advanced that Bonds shouldn't have been prosecuted because of the expense to the taxpayers.

Do you think that should be a criteria for a prosecution such as the one we're talking about here?

I have no idea WTH else you're saying.
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
stephens said:
Oh, I get it. That's why I said it's only the rich who can get a fair shake from the US legal system. Everyone else is outspent a million to one.
Who didn't get a fair shake here?
 
"
LarryBudMelman said:
Have you been following the arguments? It was advanced that Bonds shouldn't have been prosecuted because of the expense to the taxpayers.

Do you think that should be a criteria for a prosecution such as the one we're talking about here?"

Yes, I've been following the arguments. And in fact in some cases it's advanced not that Bonds should not have been prosecuted because of the cost, but that rather the cost could be better deployed if serving the taxpayers were at issue.

Not clear why the rest of it is hard to follow. You asked stephens what sort of example it would set for the rich to flout the law i.e. perjure themselves and get away with it because they can buy their way through the process and presumably that they're allowed to get away with it by the law?

I asked you who is the object of that (bad) example? Other wealthy people? Not wealthy people? Both? And are you basically suggesting that the "cost" to the taxpayers is justified as the example set to the taxpayers?
 
"Do you think that should be a criteria for a prosecution such as the one we're talking about here?"


Yes, I do. Historically the definition of crimes, their terms of illegality and the severity of their prosecution have always been calibrated to a relative cost to society: either in terms of outright material loss or their more pervasive disruption of societal operations.

I see neither here; no matter how far it's spun out. I expect there are some on this thread who will argue otherwise--vehemently so--but Bonds is a symptom not a problem.
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
LarryBudMelman said:
Stephens,

Bonds flouted the Justice System. He was offered a deal to tell the truth and he would not be prosecuted. He chose to lie. Of course he hurts his reputation by admitting to PED usage but he wouldn't have had that problem in the first place had he not cheated. There are many moral, ethical, legal, and health reasons behind the pursuit of drug cheats in sports. I'm hoping your view isn't and doesn't become the prevailing one because the Government is only as good as its people.

If you can't see that the U.S. government was obliged to prosecute Bonds I don't see how I could ever have a reasoned discourse with you.

We can't have people lying under oath about the distribution of illegal drugs. You do that, you get prosecuted, period. You really think people who flout the law like Bonds did should get away with it because they know prosecution will be expensive? What kind of example does that set?
aphronesis said:
What kind of example does that set for whom? Other people who can afford to flout the law? They're probably aware of the costs and likely to calculate them on their own given their own exigencies. Or for those who can't afford to flout the law? Seems their actions would and do keep the law in business. Your question was probably rhetorical, but I don't fully appreciate the moral your trying to set out. Or is this just the old canard that celebrity sportsfolk should be extra-athletic social exemplars for the febrile, impressionable and average?
LarryBudMelman said:
Have you been following the arguments? It was advanced that Bonds shouldn't have been prosecuted because of the expense to the taxpayers.

Do you think that should be a criteria for a prosecution such as the one we're talking about here?

I have no idea WTH else you're saying.
aphronesis said:
Yes, I've been following the arguments. And in fact in some cases it's advanced not that Bonds should not have been prosecuted because of the cost, but that rather the cost could be better deployed if serving the taxpayers were at issue.

Not clear why the rest of it is hard to follow. You asked stephens what sort of example it would set for the rich to flout the law i.e. perjure themselves and get away with it because they can buy their way through the process and presumably that they're allowed to get away with it by the law?

I asked you who is the object of that (bad) example? Other wealthy people? Not wealthy people? Both? And are you basically suggesting that the "cost" to the taxpayers is justified as the example set to the taxpayers?
You're very confusing. The moral is exactly what happened. Bonds lied to a Federal Grand Jury and was prosecuted and convicted for it. He's a felon.

What do you think should have happened? Are you suggesting he shouldn't have been prosecuted and if not, why not?
 
LarryBudMelman said:
You're very confusing. The moral is exactly what happened. Bonds lied to a Federal Grand Jury and was prosecuted and convicted for it. He's a felon.

What do you think should have happened? Are you suggesting he shouldn't have been prosecuted and if not, why not?
I'll keep this short. Maybe we can get somewhere. That's not a moral per se if you're just rehearsing the law and its consequences. (No need for the jumbo font by the way.) That's the law and its consequences as they stand in the present.

One more time: you asked (and I may be paraphrasing here) "what kind of example does/or would that set?" If rich people got away with perjury, etc.

I asked you: Example for whom? Which people? Which peoples? Who are the unlucky recipients of this negative example that you're isolating?
 
LarryBudMelman said:
You're very confusing. The moral is exactly what happened. Bonds lied to a Federal Grand Jury and was prosecuted and convicted for it. He's a felon.

What do you think should have happened? Are you suggesting he shouldn't have been prosecuted and if not, why not?
To answer your question--even though you haven't answered mine--I don't think he should have been prosecuted purely for the sake of upholding the law--not at exorbitant (albeit fictional) cost.

So he's a felon. So what? Clearly that's not going to change his life much. This is part of my question to you as to what example is being set, and to what ends?
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
aphronesis said:
To answer your question--even though you haven't answered mine--I don't think he should have been prosecuted purely for the sake of upholding the law--not at exorbitant (albeit fictional) cost.

So he's a felon. So what? Clearly that's not going to change his life much. This is part of my question to you as to what example is being set, and to what ends?

Your question was so obvious aside from the other nonsense you also posted and I thought I obviously answered it.

The example is, lie to a federal grand jury and you'll be prosecuted for it.

He was at risk of going to prison which he escaped by the skin of his teeth. To wage his idiotic defense in the face of the obvious fact that he lied, he spend a fortune and he's now a felon.

You don't think these are significant penalties?

Even if you don't, it's plain we as a country have entered Alice in Wonderland territory where people will say anything and make any kind of argument now matter how absurd. Like the following statement:

"I don't think he should have been prosecuted purely for the sake of upholding the law."

WTH does that mean? If it's not clear to you what the danger is of everyone just lying under oath when they feel like it, what can I say?
 
LarryBudMelman said:
Your question was so obvious aside from the other nonsense you also posted and I thought I obviously answered it.

The example is, lie to a federal grand jury and you'll be prosecuted for it.

He was at risk of going to prison which he escaped by the skin of his teeth. To wage his idiotic defense in the face of the obvious fact that he lied, he spend a fortune and he's now a felon.

You don't think these are significant penalties?

Even if you don't, it's plain we as a country have entered Alice in Wonderland territory where people will say anything and make any kind of argument now matter how absurd. Like the following statement:

"I don't think he should have been prosecuted purely for the sake of upholding the law."

WTH does that mean? If it's not clear to you what the danger is of everyone just lying under oath when they feel like it, what can I say?

If my question was obvious, why haven't you answered it. Three or four posts asking you: "Example For Whom?"

On top of that you quote me out of context. I said "at exorbitant cost" he should not have been prosecuted for "that."

Why don't you tell me what the danger is of everyone just lying under oath just is? And how likely a reality you think that is?
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
aphronesis said:
I'll keep this short. Maybe we can get somewhere. That's not a moral per se if you're just rehearsing the law and its consequences. (No need for the jumbo font by the way.) That's the law and its consequences as they stand in the present.

One more time: you asked (and I may be paraphrasing here) "what kind of example does/or would that set?" If rich people got away with perjury, etc.

I asked you: Example for whom? Which people? Which peoples? Who are the unlucky recipients of this negative example that you're isolating?
Funny that you think you can condescend to me.


I didn't say anything about "rich" people getting away with perjury."

Finally, even the POTUS GWB, in one of the few things I agreed with, stated in a SOTU address that it was in the national interest to crack down on PED cheating in sports.

There was a federal investigation into Balco regarding PED distribution. Bonds was a witness to those crimes and was offered a free pass if he told to truth to investigators. He lied and not a little bit.

If he doesn't get prosecuted for that, then anybody that goes before a Federal Grand Jury lies thru their teeth with no consequences?

You're really not suggesting that?
 
LarryBudMelman said:
Funny that you think you can condescend to me.


I didn't say anything about "rich" people getting away with perjury."

There was a federal investigation into Balco regarding PED distribution. Bonds was a witness to those crimes and was offered a free pass if he told to truth to investigators. He lied and not a little bit.

If he doesn't get prosecuted for that, then anybody that goes before a Federal Grand Jury lies thru their teeth with no consequences?

You're really not suggesting that?

Funny. I never thought I was condescending to you. Rather asking a question. One I guess you've answered. "Anybody" Ok. We'll come back to that in a minute.

Here's what you said: "We can't have people lying under oath about the distribution of illegal drugs. You do that, you get prosecuted, period. You really think people who flout the law like Bonds did should get away with it because they know prosecution will be expensive? What kind of example does that set?"

"Prosecution would be expensive." Why? Let's track this out. Because Bonds can afford to fight it. He is rich. Or wealthy if you prefer. That is what you said.

As to anybody. I would be thrilled if you could show me any shred of sociological or other social science (hades: even legal statistics) evidence which would allow for the conclusion--inference maybe--that if Bonds slipped free of perjury (and it was duly reported in the news) that everyone subsequent to a Grand Jury would feel at liberty to lie.

Please.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
aphronesis said:
Funny. I never thought I was condescending to you. Rather asking a question. One I guess you've answered. "Anybody" Ok. We'll come back to that in a minute.

Here's what you said: "We can't have people lying under oath about the distribution of illegal drugs. You do that, you get prosecuted, period. You really think people who flout the law like Bonds did should get away with it because they know prosecution will be expensive? What kind of example does that set?"

"Prosecution would be expensive." Why? Let's track this out. Because Bonds can afford to fight it. He is rich. Or wealthy if you prefer. That is what you said.

As to anybody. I would be thrilled if you could show me any shred of sociological or other social science (hades: even legal statistics) evidence which would allow for the conclusion--inference maybe--that if Bonds slipped free of perjury (and it was duly reported in the news) that everyone subsequent to a Grand Jury would feel at liberty to lie.

Please.
Not everyone, but certainly some...but of course you knew that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY