Is Barry Bonds' Trial The Hold Up?

Page 28 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Race Radio said:
Not everyone, but certainly some...but of course you knew that.
Do you really believe that? Wouldn't most calculate it relative to their own circumstances.

And really, the statistically small amount of people emboldened (and stupid enough) to risk a lie to the Grand Jury strictly on Bonds' example: don't you think that their situations will fall out regardless?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
aphronesis said:
Do you really believe that? Wouldn't most calculate it relative to their own circumstances.

And really, the statistically small amount of people emboldened (and stupid enough) to risk a lie to the Grand Jury strictly on Bonds' example: don't you think that their situations will fall out regardless?
"Their own circumstances" include their perception of the Fed's willingness to pursue them legally if they choose to obstruct justice. You are welcome to pretend that it means nothing but the fact is public cases like Jones and Bonds do a lot to shape public perception of legal risk
 
Race Radio said:
"Their own circumstances" include their perception of the Fed's willingness to pursue them legally if they choose to obstruct justice. You are welcome to pretend that it means nothing but the fact is public cases like Jones and Bonds do a lot to shape public perception of legal risk
Your posts over the years often contain this phrase "welcome to pretend," I am not pretending any such thing. I did ask LarryBud for some statistics on the matter.

Set that aside. We could ask that if it's down to grand juries and star athletes that maybe the deterrence is coming a bit too late? Is that all you're arguing at the end of the day. Boo-yah shakes for the miscreants?

Or I could ask you as with LBM: which public?

But setting that aside. Sure, they effect legal risk, but so will every case. You have a lawyer RR, your counsel will lay out the stakes for you. Objectively they shouldn't factor in athlete/celebrity cases unless there is direct relevance. You're a piker dragged in front of the GJ, what will the Bonds/Jones cases really amount to.

Wouldn't the first question for anyone be: "What can be proven?" And they answer accordingly?
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
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.
I am not one of the people who are questioning these prosecutions based on what they cost. People like Stephens and you evidently are saying these people shouldn't be prosecuted based on some kind of cost/benefit analysis.

It is self evident that if a wealthy person insists on fighting these charges, the prosecution might have to spend a lot of time rebutting the idiocy,red herrings, and general lunacy a high paid defense team is expected to argue.

Supposedly, questioning like the Stephanie McIlvaine interrogation took hours upon hours because of the insane stonewalling tactics she insisted upon.

People like you then say something like it's not worth it to prosecute these people.

Your points are just as irrelevant as as those of any of the defense lawyers enlisted in these perjury/doping cases.

In your upside down world the person obstructing justice should benefit from the obstruction?
 
LarryBudMelman said:
I am not one of the people who are questioning these prosecutions based on what they cost. People like Stephens and you evidently are saying these people shouldn't be prosecuted based on some kind of cost/benefit analysis.

It is self evident that if a wealthy person insists on fighting these charges, the prosecution might have to spend a lot of time rebutting the idiocy,red herrings, and general lunacy a high paid defense team is expected to argue.

Supposedly questioning like the Stephanie McIlvaine interrogation took hours upon hours because of the insane stonewalling tactics she insisted upon.

People like you then say something like it's not worth it to prosecute these people.

Your points are just as irrelevant as as those of any of the defense lawyers enlisted in these perjury/doping cases.

In your upside down world the person obstructing justice should benefit from the obstruction?

Hmm. No. But since I take you to represent a good majority, maybe that's why I bother arguing. First, I can't speak for Stevens. (Although maybe I should.) I think we're not even saying that they shouldn't be prosecuted but that we don't see the crime.

When the majority of my fellow citizens are criminals in one way or another what is your grand jury?

I don't know Stephanie McIlvain. Is she Bond's girlfriend? Mule?

No, LBM, I'm asking you for what now must be the fifth time: what is this justice you're talking about? Enforcement of the law? To what particular end?

Please don't resort to big colored font. I can read you just fine as it is.
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
aphronesis said:
Hmm. No. But since I take you to represent a good majority, maybe that's why I bother arguing. First, I can't speak for Stevens. (Although maybe I should.) I think we're not even saying that they shouldn't be prosecuted but that we don't see the crime.

When the majority of my fellow citizens are criminals in one way or another what is your grand jury?

I don't know Stephanie McIlvain. Is she Bond's girlfriend? Mule?

No, LBM, I'm asking you for what now must be the fifth time: what is this justice you're talking about? Enforcement of the law? To what particular end?

Please don't resort to big colored font. I can read you just fine as it is.
Dude, take a civics class, an ethics class, maybe a legal theory class.....That may be a good start for you.;)
 
LarryBudMelman said:
Dude, take a civics class, an ethics class, maybe a legal theory class.....That may be a good start for you.;)
pretty sure i've taken them. must have missed something.

maybe you can enlighten me "dude."

and go beyond the big red font to explain what the "example" is of not being allowed to skirt perjury?

come on. you cite three classes and you still can't answer this question.
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
aphronesis said:
pretty sure i've taken them. must have missed something.

maybe you can enlighten me "dude."

and go beyond the big red font to explain what the "example" is of not being allowed to skirt perjury?

come on. you cite three classes and you still can't answer this question.
aphronesis said:
I think we're not even saying that they shouldn't be prosecuted but that we don't see the crime..
We might as well be coming from two different planets so I'll just leave your above quote up.

As an aside, I think I saw that you support OWS so maybe we have some common ground. Just not here and I'm not going to spoon feed you the philosophical background why civil society has judged it to be criminal to lie to grand juries, and why there should be sanctions like prison for perjury and obstruction of justice..
 
LarryBudMelman said:
We might as well be coming from two different planets so I'll just leave your above quote up.

As an aside, I think I saw that you support OWS so maybe we have some common ground. Just not here and I'm not going to spoon feed you the philosophical background why civil society has judged it to be criminal to lie to grand juries, and why there should be sanctions like prison for perjury and obstruction of justice..
Not asking you for the spoon brother L. I'm all good on the civics background: I know the law, its premises and stated objectives. (Let's not take a nod to OWS as common ground, hey?) This is so simple: several hours and multiple posts you still refuse to answer it: I'm not asking you for the societal foundations of the laws you invoke, I am asking you "who?" in the present is the putative beneficiary of the example you point to in exercising the law against any rational or useful cost?

Why is this so difficult to answer? And really, skip the middle school civics platitudes. Let me break this down for you since you keep invoking simplistic conditions for me: I am not asking you to restate the law that any child (or immigrant will likely encounter), I am asking you: a free thinker with time and a wifi connection to burn to tell me who is served by that law being exercised in this present, 2011? Is this clearer? Can you answer this without denigrating my intellectual formation?
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
LarryBudMelman said:
I am not one of the people who are questioning these prosecutions based on what they cost. People like Stephens and you evidently are saying these people shouldn't be prosecuted based on some kind of cost/benefit analysis.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Bonds specifically shouldn't have been prosecuted because he's wealthy enough to be able to defend himself and that will make the tax payers' costs go up. I was questioning the cost-benefit of this whole line of investigation and the way the government has chosen to prosecute it.

I see PED usage as an issue for sporting bodies, not federal governments. I also object to asking people personal questions and then prosecuting them for not answering those questions. No one should ever be under any obligation to give the government evidence against himself, regardless of any immunity deal.

I also object to charging people with perjury about things that have not first been proven in court. If the government wants to charge an athlete with lying about their own drug usage, then first convict them of the drug usage! If they can't do that, how can we justify perjury charges?

I also object to black and white dogmatic thinking. The suggestion that every lie is worthy of prosecution because it's the principal that matters just sounds like a shortcut for lazy people. The rest of us are willing and able to analyze each situation individually and differentiate between a lie that keeps a killer on the streets and one that keeps the public from knowing who gave who a blow job in the oval office or what substances an athlete puts into his own body.

"But if Bonds goes free, people will feel free to lie to grand juries!" Maybe. Then show the grand jury some actual evidence. Solve crimes using police work. Physical evidence. Science. Video and audio surveillance. Something other than asking people to rat themselves and their friends out. If the government can't do this, then to me it just shows that there isn't much of a crime here to worry about. Real crimes have real evidence. Use that.
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
aphronesis said:
Not asking you for the spoon brother L. I'm all good on the civics background: I know the law, its premises and stated objectives. (Let's not take a nod to OWS as common ground, hey?) This is so simple: several hours and multiple posts you still refuse to answer it: I'm not asking you for the societal foundations of the laws you invoke, I am asking you "who?" in the present is the putative beneficiary of the example you point to in exercising the law against any rational or useful cost?

Why is this so difficult to answer? And really, skip the middle school civics platitudes. Let me break this down for you since you keep invoking simplistic conditions for me: I am not asking you to restate the law that any child (or immigrant will likely encounter), I am asking you: a free thinker with time and a wifi connection to burn to tell me who is served by that law being exercised in this present, 2011? Is this clearer? Can you answer this without denigrating my intellectual formation?
Clarence Darrow said that "there is no justice in or out of a court of law." He was obviously an incredible counselor.

On one level I agree with him, that as a matter of fact it doesn't exist. On another level the desire for justice is aspirational as is much of the US Constitution.

The 'establishment of justice' is a Constitutional imperative. How is the "cost" of justice ascertained? You apparently want to put a dollar figure on it.

What does the existence of justice or quest for it achieve? You seem to want to measure it in a "two dimensional" way.

Honesty and the Truth are the foundations of Justice. It comes down to what kind of world we want to live in. A world where we pragmatically survive like cockroaches, or a world where we try to transcend the primal forces of nature though a noble existence.

Where do you ever take a stand with your constantly shifting moral relativism? Is it true that Bonds is not even close to being the worst person in the world? Of course. By that standard does everybody then have no responsibility to do the right thing as it's been generally understood and codified into law?

As an aside, I'm watching Face the Nation right now. Gingrich is the most confident arrogant jackass I've ever seen.....
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
stephens said:
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Bonds specifically shouldn't have been prosecuted because he's wealthy enough to be able to defend himself and that will make the tax payers' costs go up. I was questioning the cost-benefit of this whole line of investigation and the way the government has chosen to prosecute it.

I see PED usage as an issue for sporting bodies, not federal governments. I also object to asking people personal questions and then prosecuting them for not answering those questions. No one should ever be under any obligation to give the government evidence against himself, regardless of any immunity deal.

I also object to charging people with perjury about things that have not first been proven in court. If the government wants to charge an athlete with lying about their own drug usage, then first convict them of the drug usage! If they can't do that, how can we justify perjury charges?

I also object to black and white dogmatic thinking. The suggestion that every lie is worthy of prosecution because it's the principal that matters just sounds like a shortcut for lazy people. The rest of us are willing and able to analyze each situation individually and differentiate between a lie that keeps a killer on the streets and one that keeps the public from knowing who gave who a blow job in the oval office or what substances an athlete puts into his own body.
"But if Bonds goes free, people will feel free to lie to grand juries!" Maybe. Then show the grand jury some actual evidence. Solve crimes using police work. Physical evidence. Science. Video and audio surveillance. Something other than asking people to rat themselves and their friends out. If the government can't do this, then to me it just shows that there isn't much of a crime here to worry about. Real crimes have real evidence. Use that.

You're very confused and mixing up issues. PED's are regulated drugs with tons of statutory provisions governing their use and distribution. There are good reasons for this.

The Clinton issue is completely different. There is no law concerning marital infidelity, therefore any questions regarding this are improper, irrelevant and immaterial.

A little nuance in your life wouldn't kill you.

You also have an apparently "chronological" basis for telling the truth which thankful the legislatures don't recognize. I can see why your morality is all tied up by these cases.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
LarryBudMelman said:
PED's are regulated drugs with tons of statutory provisions governing their use and distribution.
While I believe that the line between legal and illegal is often quite arbitrarily drawn when it comes to "drugs", in general I'm fine with prosecuting those who sell and use illegal drugs. But they ought to do it like any other drug prosecution. Use real police work to catch someone actually using or possessing the drug. If the government wants someone higher up the food chain, without having to put in the effort to actually catch them, then offer the guy they caught a choice between being prosecuted for that crime, or a free pass if he testifies against whomever he bought it from. (this differs wildly from what was asked of Bonds since they were unable to prove he had committed any crime in the first place: they didn't offer him a deal, they threatened him. He didn't blink!).

These high profile sports cases become about lying more than about the PED usage. And somehow, the lying carries higher penalties! That's crazy. Lying about a crime should never receive harsher punishment than actually committing that crime would receive.
 
LarryBudMelman said:
Clarence Darrow said that "there is no justice in or out of a court of law." He was obviously an incredible counselor.

On one level I agree with him, that as a matter of fact it doesn't exist. On another level the desire for justice is aspirational as is much of the US Constitution.

The 'establishment of justice' is a Constitutional imperative. How is the "cost" of justice ascertained? You apparently want to put a dollar figure on it.

What does the existence of justice or quest for it achieve? You seem to want to measure it in a "two dimensional" way.

Honesty and the Truth are the foundations of Justice. It comes down to what kind of world we want to live in. A world where we pragmatically survive like cockroaches, or a world where we try to transcend the primal forces of nature though a noble existence.

Where do you ever take a stand with your constantly shifting moral relativism? Is it true that Bonds is not even close to being the worst person in the world? Of course. By that standard does everybody then have no responsibility to do the right thing as it's been generally understood and codified into law?

As an aside, I'm watching Face the Nation right now. Gingrich is the most confident arrogant jackass I've ever seen.....
No, I don't want to put a dollar figure on it. I want to put a direction on it. Justice is not much of a recognizable word to me in the past two decades. And certainly not as defined through media cases.

A stand? How many people are doing the "right thing"? And is simply "following the law" adequate to that goal--let alone justice.

Such complacency seems its own form of moral relativism. Worse, an arbitrary one.

Sharing an opinion that Bonds should be punished because he broke the law and examples must be made doesn't seem that difficult or noble a stance.

Gingrich is only Clinton's charmless other come back again.
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
aphronesis said:
No, I don't want to put a dollar figure on it. I want to put a direction on it. Justice is not much of a recognizable word to me in the past two decades. And certainly not as defined through media cases.

A stand? How many people are doing the "right thing"? And is simply "following the law" adequate to that goal--let alone justice.

Such complacency seems its own form of moral relativism. Worse, an arbitrary one.

Sharing an opinion that Bonds should be punished because he broke the law and examples must be made doesn't seem that difficult or noble a stance.

Gingrich is only Clinton's charmless other come back again.
You're creating strawmen here and doing a good job of destroying them motivated by your own confusion about what justice constitutes?

People like Bonds and Armstrong receive gigantic monetary compensation based on what definable contribution to society?

This is not to say that they shouldn't be hugely compensated, but doesn't their monetary compensation require that their accomplishments which justify this reward, be genuine and not fraudulent?

Isn't it a rather amorphous contribution? Yet you want to define their crimes in a clearly delineated manner. I think it's unfortunate that the much larger frauds of people like Bonds and Armstrong; that they profit by their fraudulent promotion of themselves as role models, whether directly or implicitly, isn't criminal, but that would be impossible to legislate.

In your world view these guys should get the objective and subjective rewards of their labors but carry none of the responsibilities that go along with them?
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
LarryBudMelman said:
In your world view these guys should get the objective and subjective rewards of their labors but carry none of the responsibilities that go along with them.
I think your issue is that you want to place more importance on sports than is necessary. We're not talking about people paid to save lives or manage pension funds or anything like that. Bonds and Armstrong are, at the end of the day, entertainers. They needn't be saddled with the expectations you wish to throw on them.
 
LarryBudMelman said:
You're creating strawmen here and doing a good job of destroying them motivated by your own confusion about what justice constitutes?

People like Bonds and Armstrong receive gigantic monetary compensation based on what definable contribution to society?

This is not to say that they shouldn't be hugely compensated, but doesn't their monetary compensation require that their accomplishments which justify this reward be genuine and not fraudulent?

Isn't it a rather amorphous contribution? Yet you want to define their crimes in a clearly delineated manner.

In your world view these guys should get the objective and subjective rewards of their labors but carry none of the responsibilities that go along with them.
Motivated by. Can you elaborate that for me. I'm not confused about what Justice constitutes, it's not an ideal I'm concerned with as realized by the law. If you think clarity is achieved just by referring to the Constitution then you're right: we are on different planets and have nothing to talk about.

Wow, objective and subjective. I don't do Hegel and Kant, sorry. As to your question: why should Armstrong and Bonds be held to standards which don't apply to many businesses and corporations. They profit--hugely so--often with deleterious consequences for society. What, for example, do many businesses contribute to society? Making things that people buy? Do those things hold up over time? Are they even beneficial? Mostly not. Are they punished for living a daily lie about the value of what they do? Not often.

What do I care about about how people hit baseballs and recover in three-week stage races.
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
Missing the point again.

stephens said:
I think your issue is that you want to place more importance on sports than is necessary. We're not talking about people paid to save lives or manage pension funds or anything like that. Bonds and Armstrong are, at the end of the day, entertainers. They needn't be saddled with the expectations you wish to throw on them.
btw, I added a question mark to my quoted post.

100% wrong. I don't place any importance on the athletic feats of Armstrong or Bonds. I'm not invested in the compensation of sportmen or any entertainers to any degree whatsoever. You're laying the huge business and promotion of professional sports at my feet?

I'm just responding to the way the world is right now.

The fact, which you conveniently ignore, is that Armstrong and Bonds make much greater incomes than just about everybody who saves lives.

I'm not the one making absurd arguments that they should be exempt from the clearly codified laws which everyone must follow.

It's not me who decided that these guys should be making fortunes riding a bike or playing a game and I have zero involvement in the business side of sports.
 
"I'm not the one making absurd arguments that they should be exempt from the clearly codified laws which everyone must follow."

No one is making that argument. The argument seems to be that the prosecution and application of those laws as seen in the Bonds case are not serving clear purposes--other than their own perpetuation.
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
More strawmen!

aphronesis said:
Motivated by. Can you elaborate that for me. I'm not confused about what Justice constitutes, it's not an ideal I'm concerned with as realized by the law. If you think clarity is achieved just by referring to the Constitution then you're right: we are on different planets and have nothing to talk about.

Wow, objective and subjective. I don't do Hegel and Kant, sorry. As to your question: why should Armstrong and Bonds be held to standards which don't apply to many businesses and corporations. They profit--hugely so--often with deleterious consequences for society. What, for example, do many businesses contribute to society? Making things that people buy? Do those things hold up over time? Are they even beneficial? Mostly not. Are they punished for living a daily lie about the value of what they do? Not often.

What do I care about about how people hit baseballs and recover in three-week stage races.
That wasn't my question at all and I don't get where you're coming from.

Obviously the law should apply the same to everyone. Isn't there a 14th Amendment?

What does the prosecution of Armstrong and Bonds have to do with dropping the ball on other criminals, ie corporations?

Focus on what we're talking about in the doping forum rather than some kind of, "look at what these guys are getting away with and my crime is much smaller" kind of rationalization.

Hey, I'm done, you get the last word because I see where this has gone and will continue to go.:cool:
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
And the fact that the only crime Bonds was accused of was lying, and only convicted of telling a rambling story instead of directly answering a particular question. If they wanted to prosecute him for taking illegal drugs, go right ahead. But what they've done instead is make a circus out of it.
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
aphronesis said:
"I'm not the one making absurd arguments that they should be exempt from the clearly codified laws which everyone must follow."

No one is making that argument. The argument seems to be that the prosecution and application of those laws as seen in the Bonds case are not serving clear purposes--other than their own perpetuation.
You're not making any argument.

What is the clear purpose of paying any entertainer millions of dollars to hit a ball, ride a bike, or hit a dimpled rock with a stick into a hole?

You're completely missing one side of the equation. Again, I'm done because I think you're trolling and being intentionally obtuse. You keep playing...
 
"People like Bonds and Armstrong receive gigantic monetary compensation based on what definable contribution to society?

This is not to say that they shouldn't be hugely compensated, but doesn't their monetary compensation require that their accomplishments which justify this reward, be genuine and not fraudulent?"

This seems to have been your question. Am I wrong? There's a question mark there.

If your basis for their being denied monetary reward and facing legal consequences is that their achievements and social contributions not be fraudulent, then shouldn't these standards be actively applied across society?

Or is that impractical and they should simply be examples for everyone else?

Yes, this is where it's going and has been since the first post questioning yours.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
aphro...where has that style been lately? It's nice to see you can dust off the old arguments and clog the fat arteries of the forum again.
 
Aug 31, 2011
329
0
0
aphronesis said:
"People like Bonds and Armstrong receive gigantic monetary compensation based on what definable contribution to society?

This is not to say that they shouldn't be hugely compensated, but doesn't their monetary compensation require that their accomplishments which justify this reward, be genuine and not fraudulent?"

This seems to have been your question. Am I wrong? There's a question mark there.

If your basis for their being denied monetary reward and facing legal consequences is that their achievements and social contributions not be fraudulent, then shouldn't these standards be actively applied across society?

Or is that impractical and they should simply be examples for everyone else?

Yes, this is where it's going and has been since the first post questioning yours.
Who is saying that these standards shouldn't be applied across society?

Don't assume because it makes an a...............

By your logic, someone getting a speeding ticket for going 20mph over the
limit should be able to argue that there are many people going 50mph over the limit who are not getting tickets, therefore the lesser speeding ticket is invalid.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS