Is Barry Bonds' Trial The Hold Up?

[flicker]

Be that as it may, a perjury charge relies upon proof that Bonds knowingly lied to the grand jury when he stated that, among other things, he did not know that "the cream" and "the clear" were steroids.

While Jeff Novitzky may have evidence that Bonds knew what the stuff was, he doesn't have firsthand knowledge as he wasn't there. He may have come to know this through interviews with other witnesses, but it remains anecdotal and heresay (none of the interviews conducted by Novitsky would have been under any sort of oath).

Ultimately, witnesses will have to be produced who have firsthand knowledge of what Bonds knew and when he knew it. THOSE will be the key witnesses without whom the case could not go forward, not Novitzky.

P.S., if Notvitzky is in it for the money, where is that money coming from and why is he still laboring away as an investigator for the FDA. Bonds testified over six years ago. Jeff must be on a very slow plan. Oh yeah, and for about the 1,000th time, Novitsky is not a lawyer.

Novitzky is an accountant and as intelligent as any attorney. In my eyes a good accountant is an attorney, a good attorney is an accountant, and the best accountant is a judge. IMO, the difference is probably Jeff never took the California State bar, although I am sure he could pass it considering his intelligence. Plus his Dad a a college basketball coach and Jeff is/was an athlete, he understands sports.
IMO the only people who can nail Bonds are the baseball players who Bonds may have shared his secrets with.
Other than that anyone who has followed baseball in the last 20 years knows Bonds. How on earth can an impartial jury be found, even as good as Jeff Novitzky is.
No matter what Novitzky will do well from this case. Look at those photos, Jeff is pinning the home-run record holder in Federal Court. Pretty big deal, high profile case.

 

[fatandfast]

I for 1 thought the reduction from 11 to 5 counts was important. I have since read that often so many charges is too large a challenge on the jurors. The jury pool is a krap shoot. I like the judges style so far but Bonds is very unlikable because of his every word and action, 8 women on the jury has to give him an uneasy feeling.

As far as all the pro/con Novitzky stuff, If Darden and Marsha Clarke can write books and get paid after their courtroom antics, and Mark Furhman can all be post career millionaires . I think win or lose Novitzky has little to worry about

 

[MacRoadie]

IMO, the difference is probably Jeff never took the California State bar, although I am sure he could pass it considering his intelligence. Plus his Dad a a college basketball coach and Jeff is/was an athlete, he understands sports.

You left out the fact that he once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. That would have given you the inane trifecta...

 

[MacRoadie]

How on earth can an impartial jury be found, even as good as Jeff Novitzky is.

Repeat after me: "Jeff Novitzky isn't an attorney".

 

[flicker]

You left out the fact that he once stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. That would have given you the inane trifecta...

Just what I would expect from a Dodger fan Grrrr! Go Manny !

 

[flicker]

Looking at Jeff Novitzky, he is reminding me more and more of G. Gordon Liddy(Watergate Ringleader) I wonder if he will
write a book also, maybe he could call it WILL 2.

 

[MacRoadie]

Looking at Jeff Novitzky, he is reminding me more and more of G. Gordon Liddy(Watergate Ringleader) I wonder if he will
write a book also, maybe he could call it WILL 2.

Maybe he can call it "No matter what you say about me, I'm still not the loser who's on trial for multiple felonies".

 

[flicker]

Maybe he can call it "No matter what you say about me, I'm still not the loser who's on trial for multiple felonies".

Novitzky looks sick, as if he is on trial. I would think he would have a little twinkle in his eye, like Santa Claus or Mark Furman.....

 

[Polish]

Maybe he can call it "No matter what you say about me, I'm still not the loser who's on trial for multiple felonies".

Yikes, that is NOT a very catchy title pu.

How about:

"Its Not About the Dumpster: My Journey Back to the Curb"

 

[flicker]

Here is a top quality MLB player, positive for steroids during the season with Dodgers, in 2009 ,50 game suspension(1/3) year, and allowed to train with coaches and team during his suspension. Note the 160 Million dollar contract.
Manny Ramirez.

 

[flicker]

Here is a top quality MLB player, positive for steroids during the season with Dodgers, in 2009 ,50 game suspension(1/3) year, and allowed to train with coaches and team during his suspension. Note the 160 Million dollar contract.
Manny Ramirez.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manny_Ramirez

 

[Berzin]

I like how Greg Anderson decided on jail for the duration of the trial as opposed to testifying.

He is the North American version of Edita Rumsas-"Stand by your man!!!"

 

[veganrob]

I like how Greg Anderson decided on jail for the duration of the trial as opposed to testifying.

He is the North American version of Edita Rumsas-"Stand by your man!!!"

His refusal to testify pretty much says it all.

 

[stephens]

Says what? That he's a guy who doesn't feel it's his responsibility to reveal details about another person's life? We could use a lot more people like him in society.

Athletes are already required to submit to a variety of methods that intrude upon their private lives and bodies - whereabouts notifications, and of course all the urine and blood testing. The "authorities" ought to be able to do without having to drag ex-girlfriends and friends/trainers and hat makers and team equipment manager shoe experts in to testify. They ought to have actual science on their side and not need witnesses.

 

[lean mean &green]

Says what? That he's a guy who doesn't feel it's his responsibility to reveal details about another person's life? We could use a lot more people like him in society.

Athletes are already required to submit to a variety of methods that intrude upon their private lives and bodies - whereabouts notifications, and of course all the urine and blood testing. The "authorities" ought to be able to do without having to drag ex-girlfriends and friends/trainers and hat makers and team equipment manager shoe experts in to testify. They ought to have actual science on their side and not need witnesses.

bonds may have had to provide a few samples in his career, and special emphasis on few. the MLB player's union was notoriously and embarrasingly anti drug testing prior to the mitchell report and congressional hearings and honestly haven't changed their stance much since then either. also, bonds didn't participate in the whereabouts reporting system and i don't think MLB even participates in it to this day. last i checked MLB has not adopted WADA code.

anderson's decision not to testify has nothing to do with principle. bonds is enormously wealthy (for now) and has most certainly promised to take care of anderson for the foreseeable future - maybe even a quasi-legitimate promise to help him open a gym somewhere - sound familiar? the authorities use whatever means they have to establish character and that's a lot harder to do when you're buying off key witnesses. the actual lesson going forward is that you shouldn't build a fortune based upon a fraud and then lie to Congress and the entire world about it while TV cameras roll. that's probably a bad idea.

or maybe you're right. maybe bonds is a victim being persecuted by a corrupt establishment. lucky for him greg anderson and his well compensated lawyers are there to rescue him.

 

[jimmypop]

Says what? That he's a guy who doesn't feel it's his responsibility to reveal details about another person's life? We could use a lot more people like him in society.

Athletes are already required to submit to a variety of methods that intrude upon their private lives and bodies - whereabouts notifications, and of course all the urine and blood testing. The "authorities" ought to be able to do without having to drag ex-girlfriends and friends/trainers and hat makers and team equipment manager shoe experts in to testify. They ought to have actual science on their side and not need witnesses.

Good stuff! Do you have dates for your comedy tour? Greg Anderson, a man of integrity, not just a cheap gym rat pushing steroids from his workout bag!

I'm confused as to why you use "authorities" in quotes, since Bonds is indicted on federal charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Yeah, I think it's fine and dandy to refuse to testify in a federal probe. Also, our courts should never convict unless all twelve members of the jury (or the judge) saw the defendant commit the crime in person.

 

[Merckx index]

I live in the Bay Area, where Bonds is still very popular. I’ve never understood why the Feds went after him except that a) he was a major star, so the case gets lots of media attention; and b) he is detested by many fans outside of the Bay Area, so there won’t be too much public sympathy for him. Sure he lied, but so did McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, Giambi, Tejada, Ramirez, Ortiz, etc.. If they didn’t all lie under oath, it was only because they weren’t asked to take an oath in the first place. And more to the point, if every MLB player who ever took steroids was asked to testify under oath, we would have hundreds of liars.

Clemens I can see, because he basically brought it on himself. He couldn’t leave well enough alone. But Bonds was put in a position where any other player would have said the same thing. Is lying under oath really that sacrosanct? Clinton did it, and got away with it. The Feds don’t have to pursue cases like this. The general rule, I think, is that you don’t do it unless it serves some larger purpose. What exactly is that purpose? I could understand their doing it if it helped clean up baseball, but I don’t think it will.

If you want to compare it to the LA investigation, there are some very significant differences. First, the Bonds case is all about perjury. Period. No one is suggesting he distributed drugs, or persuaded his teammates to use them, let alone bribed MLB officials to let him know when he would be tested. There are in fact some MLB players who may be guilty of some of these crimes, but not Bonds AFAIK.

Second, Bonds, for all his remarkable accomplishments, is not the icon that Armstrong is. LA, as the saying goes, transcended the sport, bringing in many fans who never followed it before. So you can argue that if he committed fraud, the ramifications of that fraud are far greater. As has been discussed extensively in this forum, there are also serious questions revolving around LA’s charity. This is not true for Bonds. What he did on the field is admired by many sports fans, but he’s not an inspiration the way LA has been. No baseball fan at this point is in the least bit shocked or disillusioned at this news. The outcome, whatever it is, will really not much affect anyone other than Bonds himself.

Third, baseball is far less serious about anti-doping than cycling is. UCI, for all its apparent corruption, is at least saying some of the right things in public. It’s developing and applying new tests, and when riders get busted, they lose a major part of their careers. Given this, one can argue that revealing exactly what LA did could bring some closure. There are still people out there denying that the sports biggest star could have doped, and this investigation could convincingly demonstrate, once and for all, just how deep the doping culture is. Anyone who cares knows how deep the doping culture in MLB is. No major revelations are going to come out of this trial.

 

[uspostal]

Lets not forget that " the clear" wasn't concidered a steroid at the time. And in this article it seems that Jeff Novitzky knew that the clear wasn't a steroid. Along with a 55 million dollar price tag.

Not only was the performance-enhancing drug tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) not specifically banned when athletes squirted “The Clear” under their tongues to gain an edge, the testimony also indicates that the drug wasn’t categorized by the Justice Department as a steroid until January 2005, long after the drug laboratory had been shuttered.


Yahoo! Sports has examined sealed grand jury testimony given by drug-testing expert Dr. Donald Catlin in 2003 and BALCO lead investigator Jeff Novitzky in 2004. Both men testified that THG was not a steroid according to the federal criminal code. Furthermore, Novitzky testified that “there’s never been any studies to show whether or not THG does, in fact, enhance muscle growth.”

Not only was the performance-enhancing drug tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) not specifically banned when athletes squirted “The Clear” under their tongues to gain an edge, the testimony also indicates that the drug wasn’t categorized by the Justice Department as a steroid until January 2005, long after the drug laboratory had been shuttered.


http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-clear011409

 

[Race Radio]

Lets not forget that " the clear" wasn't concidered a steroid at the time. And in this article it seems that Jeff Novitzky knew that the clear wasn't a steroid. Along with a 55 million dollar price tag.

Not only was the performance-enhancing drug tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) not specifically banned when athletes squirted “The Clear” under their tongues to gain an edge, the testimony also indicates that the drug wasn’t categorized by the Justice Department as a steroid until January 2005, long after the drug laboratory had been shuttered.


Yahoo! Sports has examined sealed grand jury testimony given by drug-testing expert Dr. Donald Catlin in 2003 and BALCO lead investigator Jeff Novitzky in 2004. Both men testified that THG was not a steroid according to the federal criminal code. Furthermore, Novitzky testified that “there’s never been any studies to show whether or not THG does, in fact, enhance muscle growth.”

Not only was the performance-enhancing drug tetrahydrogestrinone (THG) not specifically banned when athletes squirted “The Clear” under their tongues to gain an edge, the testimony also indicates that the drug wasn’t categorized by the Justice Department as a steroid until January 2005, long after the drug laboratory had been shuttered.


http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-clear011409

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

THG is a steroid and was banned at the time. A drug does not have to be named to be banned, It was banned under class of substance. Same as CERA.

The author of the article, Littman, is obsessed with Novitzky. He has been pumping out missinformation as fast as he can. Occasionally somebody will fall for his garbage, but most do not.

Catlin says there is no question about it -- THG is a steroid

 

[fatandfast]

I like how Greg Anderson decided on jail for the duration of the trial as opposed to testifying.

He is the North American version of Edita Rumsas-"Stand by your man!!!"

when a legal team says they can show drug use through emails and voice messages. It's probably best to be in jail with other criminals were it's safe. When the top cops start with that not talking to them at all is way f-in safer.

I can see testing 8 or 10 year old peepee for PED's but testing 7 year old voicemails for PED's ?. These guys are government employees through and through. Don't be surprised if a couple of voice,emails or text come out of the feds office saying..I don't care it's not my money. These guys should play Chinese Democracy as their theme music

 

[Race Radio]

when a legal team says they can show drug use through emails and voice messages. It's probably best to be in jail with other criminals were it's safe. When the top cops start with that not talking to them at all is way f-in safer.

I can see testing 8 or 10 year old peepee for PED's but testing 7 year old voicemails for PED's ?. These guys are government employees through and through. Don't be surprised if a couple of voice,emails or text come out of the feds office saying..I don't care it's not my money. These guys should play Chinese Democracy as their theme music

The assumption that the emails and voice mails are the only evidence is comical. They are used to add context to the wide variety of evidence that Bonds was a knowing and willing doper, and lied to the Feds about it.

It appears some think that rich and famous people should get a pass on their crimes. Why should we even have laws if we do not enforce them? Should we add a caveat to the legal code that says that it does not apply to people with an income over $X or a Q score over Y?

 

[Benotti69]

The assumption that the emails and voice mails are the only evidence is comical. They are used to add context to the wide variety of evidence that Bonds was a knowing and willing doper, and lied to the Feds about it.

It appears some think that rich and famous people should get a pass on their crimes. Why should we even have laws if we do not enforce them? Should we add a caveat to the legal code that says that it does not apply to people with an income over $X or a Q score over Y?

a caveat to those who do so much good, like OJ for instance

The fanboys are trying to portray the feds as the keystone cops and if it were true wonderboy wouldn' be shaking is his drafty undies trying desperately to get politicians to throw the whole thing in the trash can.

 

[lean mean &green]

I live in the Bay Area, where Bonds is still very popular. I’ve never understood why the Feds went after him except that a) he was a major star, so the case gets lots of media attention; and b) he is detested by many fans outside of the Bay Area, so there won’t be too much public sympathy for him. Sure he lied, but so did McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, Giambi, Tejada, Ramirez, Ortiz, etc.. If they didn’t all lie under oath, it was only because they weren’t asked to take an oath in the first place. And more to the point, if every MLB player who ever took steroids was asked to testify under oath, we would have hundreds of liars.

Clemens I can see, because he basically brought it on himself. He couldn’t leave well enough alone. But Bonds was put in a position where any other player would have said the same thing. Is lying under oath really that sacrosanct? Clinton did it, and got away with it. The Feds don’t have to pursue cases like this. The general rule, I think, is that you don’t do it unless it serves some larger purpose. What exactly is that purpose? I could understand their doing it if it helped clean up baseball, but I don’t think it will.

If you want to compare it to the LA investigation, there are some very significant differences. First, the Bonds case is all about perjury. Period. No one is suggesting he distributed drugs, or persuaded his teammates to use them, let alone bribed MLB officials to let him know when he would be tested. There are in fact some MLB players who may be guilty of some of these crimes, but not Bonds AFAIK.

Second, Bonds, for all his remarkable accomplishments, is not the icon that Armstrong is. LA, as the saying goes, transcended the sport, bringing in many fans who never followed it before. So you can argue that if he committed fraud, the ramifications of that fraud are far greater. As has been discussed extensively in this forum, there are also serious questions revolving around LA’s charity. This is not true for Bonds. What he did on the field is admired by many sports fans, but he’s not an inspiration the way LA has been. No baseball fan at this point is in the least bit shocked or disillusioned at this news. The outcome, whatever it is, will really not much affect anyone other than Bonds himself.

Third, baseball is far less serious about anti-doping than cycling is. UCI, for all its apparent corruption, is at least saying some of the right things in public. It’s developing and applying new tests, and when riders get busted, they lose a major part of their careers. Given this, one can argue that revealing exactly what LA did could bring some closure. There are still people out there denying that the sports biggest star could have doped, and this investigation could convincingly demonstrate, once and for all, just how deep the doping culture is. Anyone who cares knows how deep the doping culture in MLB is. No major revelations are going to come out of this trial.

this has been going on so long i've forgotten many of the nuances and why charges seem to stick to Bonds like fly paper. i think the perjury charges stem from the BALCO investigation as much if not more than from the congressional hearings. in that regard Bonds is not the only athlete being singled out or made an example of. a few MLB athletes were clearly dishonest during the hearings but most ducked and dodged direct questioning about their own use or openly exercised their 5th ammendment rights. as you suggest, the consequences of that dishonesty or elusiveness were fairly inconsequential. BALCO was another matter. i believe that athletes' responses to questioning during the BALCO investigation seriously derailed the case and angered law enforcement. otherwise, i don't think MJ or BB would have been pursued so vigorously. it also seems to me that authorities are justified in seeking perjury charges in those cases and will actually benefit from establishing such a precedent for future steroid/PED distribution cases.

 

[flicker]

Why is Bonds on trial? I think because he was a high profile ball player, and a record breaker. Looking at this: (from WIKIPEDIA) ' On July 21, Ramirez hit his 537th career home run, passing Mickey Mantle for 15th place on the all-time home run list.[32]

On July 30, The New York Times reported that Ramirez tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs during Major League Baseball's 2003 survey testing.[1] Ramirez, a member of the Boston Red Sox at the time, was among 104 major league players to test positive.[1]'
Ramirez as well as 103 other players who tested positive for steroids,continued to play without any of the ramifications for testing positive for steroids.
In the USA PED use in the two major sports (baseball, football) go on unhindered. I heard yesterday that an NHL (hockey) player just received a 10 game suspension for purposely injuring another player and testing positive for PEDs, at the same time.
There is absolutely no parity with PED use in cycling and the other sports as far as testing and penalties.
Getting back to Bonds, seeing the sluggers he was competing with, such as Sammy Sosa, Manny Ramirez, Jason Giambi I think this trial is a farce, a distraction, maliciously based, and a waste of our US taxpayers resources.

 

[jimmypop]

It appears some think that rich and famous people should get a pass on their crimes. Why should we even have laws if we do not enforce them? Should we add a caveat to the legal code that says that it does not apply to people with an income over $X or a Q score over Y?

Even worse than the dopers are the sycophants.