[quote]malonetd wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Fact: Rules state no steroids.
You do realize there was no rule or policy regarding steroid use in MLB before 2003, don’t you? I don’t see how it can be considered cheating when there’s no rule in place.[/quote]
MLB policy did not specifically state steroids were prohibited but they were covered under the blanket illegal drug policy as well as a code of conduct policy.
The timing of this is indeed very odd. A 4-year investigation? How many tax dollars did they spend for that? Like others have asked, what new evidence did they all of a sudden receive that they didn’t have before to bring this indictment forth?
I wonder if the Mitchell Investigation doesn’t have anything to do with this, seeing as how that wraps up today?
I’m not a fan of Bonds, going all the way back to his days in Pitt. But, I will say that it definitely appears he’s been singled out.
Granted, if he did indeed lie under oath then that is a crime. I just want to know why it took the government 4 years to prove it.
The facts (at least what we know now) is that Bonds never tested positive for steroids. Make all the claims you want, but without a positive test, it’s going to be awfully hard to prove he did indeed take steroids.
If he’s been indicted for allegedly lying about knowingly taking 'roids, how do they prove he lied without a positive test?
[quote]Djwlfpack wrote:
The timing of this is indeed very odd. A 4-year investigation? How many tax dollars did they spend for that? Like others have asked, what new evidence did they all of a sudden receive that they didn’t have before to bring this indictment forth?
I wonder if the Mitchell Investigation doesn’t have anything to do with this, seeing as how that wraps up today?
I’m not a fan of Bonds, going all the way back to his days in Pitt. But, I will say that it definitely appears he’s been singled out.
Granted, if he did indeed lie under oath then that is a crime. I just want to know why it took the government 4 years to prove it.
The facts (at least what we know now) is that Bonds never tested positive for steroids. Make all the claims you want, but without a positive test, it’s going to be awfully hard to prove he did indeed take steroids.
If he’s been indicted for allegedly lying about knowingly taking 'roids, how do they prove he lied without a positive test?[/quote]
Good post.
The common thinking is that someone rolled. But why now? They let his trainer out of prison, and his lawyer swears he did not flip on Bonds.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Names? You threw out a few players names whom you believe to be on steroids.
You continue to prove your inability to understand the written word. Palmiero and McGuire have both admitted to either taking steroids, or taking pro-hormones. I don’t suspect them to have taken them - they are on the record as having admitted to taking them. A simple read back through the posts will show you that.
Taking “pro hormones” does not equate to lying under oath now does it?
And to my knowledge neither admitted to actually taking steroids. If you have documentation that refutes this please post it. (Note, here is your opportunity to actually present facts to bolster your case, don’t blow it)
[/quote]
My bad - I have been writing Palmeiro, and was thinking Jason Giambi.
He admits to taking steroids to the Grand Jury, and nothing happened to him.
McGuire admits to taking pro-hormones, which are now banned - and illegal.
http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/collins/prohormones-and-legal-issues.htm
No one is equating anything with anything. I am saying that Bonds has been singled out - you would know this had you actually read my posts - others admit to using with no penalty.
Anything else?
I notice you have yet to even attempt to prove your side. But that’s fine - I don’t think anyone here expects you to actually step up and prove anything. You haven’t yet.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
…
My bad - I have been writing Palmeiro, and was thinking Jason Giambi.
He admits to taking steroids to the Grand Jury, and nothing happened to him.
…
[/quote]
Because he and Bonds were granted immunity from prosecution as long as they told the truth to the grand jury. Apparently Giambi did tell the truth and Bonds lied.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
…
My bad - I have been writing Palmeiro, and was thinking Jason Giambi.
He admits to taking steroids to the Grand Jury, and nothing happened to him.
…
Because he and Bonds were granted immunity from prosecution as long as they told the truth to the grand jury. Apparently Giambi did tell the truth and Bonds lied.[/quote]
No proof Bonds lied. Legal immunity - but baseball turned a blind eye to Giambi. Goes to the heart of the idea that Bonds is being singled out, tried, and convicted in the press without a shred of proof that he has done anything illegal.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
rainjack wrote:
…
My bad - I have been writing Palmeiro, and was thinking Jason Giambi.
He admits to taking steroids to the Grand Jury, and nothing happened to him.
…
Because he and Bonds were granted immunity from prosecution as long as they told the truth to the grand jury. Apparently Giambi did tell the truth and Bonds lied.
No proof Bonds lied. Legal immunity - but baseball turned a blind eye to Giambi. Goes to the heart of the idea that Bonds is being singled out, tried, and convicted in the press without a shred of proof that he has done anything illegal.
[/quote]
That is the heart of the question. What proof do they have Bonds lied? If they have no proof, then he is indeed being singled out. If they have proof they haven’t revealed it yet. The doping calender with his initials on it is suspicious but it is hardly proof.
They may be trying to bully him into a plea bargain but unless they have video tape of him shooting up with Ronnie Coleman I don’t see them proving it in court.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
And, like Giambi he never lied under oath.
[/quote]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43422-2005Mar17.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/17/steroids.baseball/index.html
Maybe he didn’t lie in the biblical sense, but even with a modicum of common sense, you should have McGuire on the hot seat every bit as much as Bonds.
Where is the search for McGuire’s “truth”?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Fact: Rules state no steroids.
You do realize there was no rule or policy regarding steroid use in MLB before 2003, don’t you? I don’t see how it can be considered cheating when there’s no rule in place.
MLB policy did not specifically state steroids were prohibited but they were covered under the blanket illegal drug policy as well as a code of conduct policy.[/quote]
You’re right. But when companies have these “catch-all” policies, and no one at the time was ever punished for steroid use, then it seems as if baseball is allowing steroids.
Faulty logic? Sure, I guess, but what do you expect from young millionaires playing a kid’s game for a living?
Since Palmiero has been brought up several times, am I the only one who thinks he has slipped through the cracks on this one?
He’s the one player who denied–strongly denied-- using steroids under oath, and later tested positive.
Why has he gotten off so easily? Is it because he wasn’t chasing any hallowed records? Is it because he’s not near the arrogant asshole that Bonds is?
For the record, I can’t stand Bonds, but make no mistake, this is a witch hunt.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
For the record, I can’t stand Bonds, but make no mistake, this is a witch hunt.
For what purpose?[/quote]
To make him the face of the steroid era in baseball and then tear down that face. To make an example out of him. And I don’t even think it’s a stretch to say this may be used to “clean up” the record book. And baseball can get away with it because Bonds is strongly disliked across America and steroids are such a hot topic.
Look, I don’t think people are so much in support of Bonds as they are upset at the way this all went down and the way he is being singled out. Four years later he gets indicted? Several others have lied and tested positive, at least one of them (Palmiero) lying under oath. Hell, the government didn’t even need to get involved in this. No other sport went running to the government for help.
It’s a witch hunt when one person is going to take the fall for an entire era that MLB allowed to happen. I’ve really tried to like Selig, and I do like some of the stuff he has done, but he has made some questionable to downright awful calls as commissioner.
[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
No no no he’s not. He’s expected to do what it takes to win the game. [/quote]
Within the rules of the game, yes he is.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
No proof Bonds lied. Legal immunity - but baseball turned a blind eye to Giambi. Goes to the heart of the idea that Bonds is being singled out, tried, and convicted in the press without a shred of proof that he has done anything illegal.
[/quote]
Without a shred of proof that we know of. Of course, I don’t get emails or phone calls from the AG keeping me up to date on the Bonds/Steroids in MLB case. Do you?
Hey Mick28, I thought you were doing a little better with your last post, including adding that early poll number (85%) about the public wanting Bonds to go down for this.
However, you brought up the "bullshit Starr investigation into Clinton." Wait a minute. Clinton did a wrong deed, and lied to the government and America about it. Isn't that exactly what Bonds did? Yet for Clinton it was a "bullshit investigation?"
Sorry, even though I think Bonds should suffer some consequences for his wrongdoings, I think even you must see the potential of the government to misuse its power in witch hunting issues they deem crucial in their opinion. If you don't believe that, you need to read the story of Joe McCarthy. Doc
wtf is with the feds waiting so long ?
and WTF is with them holding anderson for a YEAR and now LETTING HIM GO !!???
i mean the very idea that they can hold him presumes that they think he can provide important testimony doesn’t it ? but now letting him go pretty much says we just took a year from you for no real reason… what the fuck ? this stinks !
i can’t believe anyone who’s not a communist would support the feds on this one. jeeeeez-s christ man i mean even if barry bonds fucked your mother you should be thumbs down on the feds for this shit !