Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

stick a fork in bonds, he's done

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • stick a fork in bonds, he's done

    the man is going to jail.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330742,00.html

  • #2
    So there is a baseball God.

    With any luck, Bonds and Clemens will be sharing a cell.
    "I think about baseball when I wake up in the morning. I think about it all day and I dream about it at night. The only time I don't think about it is when I'm playing it."
    Carl Yastrzemski

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by runningshoes View Post
      So there is a baseball God.

      With any luck, Bonds and Clemens will be sharing a cell.
      ....

      Comment


      • #4
        Since he will go to prison he is, indeed, done.

        --J.D.

        Comment


        • #5
          Did Bonds ever deny under oath having failed a steroids test (or knowledge of failing)? If not, this doesn't prove much that he perjured. He'll stick to his story that he used the cream and whatever without knowing the substances contained steroids. Bonds' story is that he never knowingly used steroids, so they'll have to prove that he did knowingly use steroids. The failed drug test doesn't by itself prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly did steroids, and it is still possible, although unlikely, but possible enough to raise a reasonable doubt, that the failed test was the result of using substances which he did not know had steroids.

          Comment


          • #6
            Why is this just now being released if he failed a test six years ago? That's what I don't understand.
            46 wins to match last year's total

            Comment


            • #7
              So he must have unknowingly failed the test and continued to unknowingly use the steroids.

              Is that what you're driving at?

              If so, you had better get a good grip on that steering wheel, unless, of course, you're unknowingly headed towards that cliff.
              "I think about baseball when I wake up in the morning. I think about it all day and I dream about it at night. The only time I don't think about it is when I'm playing it."
              Carl Yastrzemski

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by runningshoes View Post
                So he must have unknowingly failed the test and continued to unknowingly use the steroids.

                Is that what you're driving at?

                If so, you had better get a good grip on that steering wheel, unless, of course, you're unknowingly headed towards that cliff.
                I don't know the specifics of what's going on with Bonds because I lost interest a while ago. But from my memory, the issue here is whether Bonds lied during his BALCO Grand Jury testimony, right? Didn't he say then that he used the substances but didn't know they had steroids when he used them, or was that only Gary Sheffield? If Bonds is on trial for denying for stating he never knowingly took steroids, the government will have to prove that he did knowingly take steroids. A failed test by itself does not prove that he did know (even though you and I and most everyone else believes he did know).

                I guess I need to know what sworn statement by Bonds does the government claim was a lie? If it's simply, "I never used steroids" then yes, a failed test would go a long way to proving he lied. However, if it's something like "I never knowingly used steroids," which my admittedly flawed memory remembers, then a failed test wouldn't do much by itself.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by runningshoes View Post
                  So he must have unknowingly failed the test and continued to unknowingly use the steroids.

                  Is that what you're driving at?

                  If so, you had better get a good grip on that steering wheel, unless, of course, you're unknowingly headed towards that cliff.
                  FLAWLESS VICTORY!!

                  Indeed.

                  --J.D.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
                    I don't know the specifics of what's going on with Bonds because I lost interest a while ago. But from my memory, the issue here is whether Bonds lied during his BALCO Grand Jury testimony, right? Didn't he say then that he used the substances but didn't know they had steroids when he used them, or was that only Gary Sheffield? If Bonds is on trial for denying for stating he never knowingly took steroids, the government will have to prove that he did knowingly take steroids. A failed test by itself does not prove that he did know (even though you and I and most everyone else believes he did know).

                    I guess I need to know what sworn statement by Bonds does the government claim was a lie? If it's simply, "I never used steroids" then yes, a failed test would go a long way to proving he lied. However, if it's something like "I never knowingly used steroids," which my admittedly flawed memory remembers, then a failed test wouldn't do much by itself.
                    I'm assuming BALCO performed the test and if so, I can't imagine a scenario where he wouldn't have been informed of the failure.

                    Now, If MLB performed the test, that's a different ball game altogether.
                    "I think about baseball when I wake up in the morning. I think about it all day and I dream about it at night. The only time I don't think about it is when I'm playing it."
                    Carl Yastrzemski

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What was reported was a mistake.

                      SAN FRANCISCO -- Federal prosecutors mistakenly filed court papers Thursday that incorrectly stated that Barry Bonds failed a steroids test in November of 2001 -- one month after breaking the single-season home run mark.

                      U.S. attorney spokesman Josh Eaton now says that the reference in Thursday's government court filing regarding Bonds testing positive was actually referring to a November 2000 test that was previously disclosed in the indictment of Bonds and had already been reported.

                      In December, Bonds pleaded not guilty to lying to a federal grand jury in 2003 when he denied using performance-enhancing drugs.

                      The mistake prompted a flurry of reports on television and Web sites -- including ESPN.com -- around the country.

                      The filing amounted to federal prosecutors defending their questioning of Bonds before a grand jury, and urging a judge to keep the slugger's perjury prosecution on track.

                      Bonds had argued that the questions posed to him by prosecutors were ambiguous and confusing. He demanded that the five-count indictment charging him with lying to a grand jury be tossed out. Bonds has pleaded not guilty.

                      In the filing, prosecutors said Bonds was specifically told before he began testifying in 2003 that he could consult with his lawyers or ask for a question rephrased if he ever got confused.

                      "Bonds never said he was confused or asked the prosecutor to rephrase a question," the government's filing stated.

                      Instead, they said their questions left no doubt that they were asking Bonds about his drug use and his relationship with personal trainer Greg Anderson.

                      Prosecutors said "as the evidence at trial will show, each count charges that Bonds repeatedly lied in answering the same question or questions on the same subject matter."

                      The matter will be the subject of a court hearing Feb. 29.
                      http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3246675

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This is just an out & out fiasco. Is there any truth to any side now? What an utter mess... Train wreck!
                        WAR? Prove it!

                        Trusted Traders: ttmman21, Dalkowski110, BoofBonser26, Kearns643, HudsonHarden, Extra Innings, MadHatter, Mike D., J.P., SShifflett

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
                          Did Bonds ever deny under oath having failed a steroids test (or knowledge of failing)? If not, this doesn't prove much that he perjured. He'll stick to his story that he used the cream and whatever without knowing the substances contained steroids. Bonds' story is that he never knowingly used steroids, so they'll have to prove that he did knowingly use steroids. The failed drug test doesn't by itself prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly did steroids, and it is still possible, although unlikely, but possible enough to raise a reasonable doubt, that the failed test was the result of using substances which he did not know had steroids.
                          Your 100% correct...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Skin & Bones View Post


                            You can quit dong cartwheels in jubilation now Fenrir.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              How does this become a "win" for Bonds?

                              --J.D.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X