Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

stick a fork in bonds, he's done

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

  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    doctor x: Your assumption is that they did not.
    come again?
    you stated, "given a positive test in 2000, the defense of "unknowing" rather evaporates," while i have not made any claims one way or the other.


    Your quotation of his testimony above helps demonstrate why the Feds know the test is important.
    agreed. but i do not yet have a conclusion, as do you.

    Leave a comment:


  • whoisonit
    replied
    Originally posted by KCGHOST View Post
    The Bonds threads are exactly like the old Pete Rose threads before he came clean. His defenders, abandoning any concept of common sense and decency, would grasp at any straw, twist any fact, and attack the veracity of the accusers to maintain the innocence of their guy.

    And just like Rose's defenders when Bonds finally comes clean they will mutter how they were betrayed. And a few years later they will take up the cause again.
    You can replace 'Bonds' with 'Clemens' and it makes this observation twice as correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • KCGHOST
    replied
    The Bonds threads are exactly like the old Pete Rose threads before he came clean. His defenders, abandoning any concept of common sense and decency, would grasp at any straw, twist any fact, and attack the veracity of the accusers to maintain the innocence of their guy.

    And just like Rose's defenders when Bonds finally comes clean they will mutter how they were betrayed. And a few years later they will take up the cause again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    I'm only going to say this once. Threads of this nature, where someone says so and so is going to jail, is going to have this happen to them is going to have that happen to them, are out. Until there is a conviction and sentencing then you can post like this. But speculation of this nature is not going to happen. You want to use this site and forum as your own player-hating speculation rant, get your own blog. Not in this forum!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mattingly
    replied
    Originally posted by west coast orange and black View Post
    doctor x: Given a positive test in 2000, the defense of "unknowing" rather evaporates.

    the assumption here is that balco told bonds of the results from quest lab.
    I'm curious, can you fill me in on the details, please? Was this 2000 test performed by BALCO? At MLB's insistence (or scheduling)? Did Barry Bonds in fact fail this test (testing "positive")? Who was BALCO expected to report the findings of the test to? Was the player (Bonds) expected to be told the test results?

    Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doctor X
    replied
    Your assumption is that they did not.

    Your quotation of his testimony above helps demonstrate why the Feds know the test is important.

    --J.D.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    doctor x: Given a positive test in 2000, the defense of "unknowing" rather evaporates.

    the assumption here is that balco told bonds of the results from quest lab.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    runningshoes: I'm assuming BALCO performed the test...

    uh-uh. quest laboratories did.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    xx: the issue here is whether Bonds lied during his BALCO Grand Jury testimony, right?

    correct.

    .. .. .. .. ..


    Didn't he say then that he used the substances but didn't know they had steroids when he used them?

    bonds has not ever stated that he used either "the cream" or "clear" / "the clear." the feds believe hat he did but have not been able to determine the contents of the substances that bonds actualy used.

    .. .. .. .. ..

    I guess I need to know what sworn statement by Bonds does the government claim was a lie?

    q: "well, when you say you don't think [anderson] would [give steroids to you], to your knowledge, i mean, did you ever take any steroids that he gave to you?"

    a: "not that i know of."

    q: "in the weeks and months leading up to november 2000 were you taking steroids--"

    a: "no."

    q: "--or anything like that?"

    a: "no, i wasn't at all."

    q: were you obtaining testosterone from mr, anderson during [december 2001]?"

    a: "not at all."

    q: an were you taking any other steroids?"

    a: "no."

    then there are questions concerning human growth hormone and injections, and a few more directly about steroids.

    it has already been posed by the bonds camp that bonds' initial "not that i know of" holds for the questions asked of him after that. that is, that all of bonds' answers include an unspoken "unknowingly."

    .. .. .. .. ..

    the november 2007 indictment includes that investigators had possession of "positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing substances for bonds." so what's the news here?
    Last edited by west coast orange and black; 02-15-2008, 01:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doctor X
    replied
    Did Bonds ever deny under oath using steroids?

    Given a positive test in 2000, the defense of "unknowing" rather evaporates.

    --J.D.

    Leave a comment:


  • west coast orange and black
    replied
    xx: Did Bonds ever deny under oath having failed a steroids test (or knowledge of failing)?

    nope.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doctor X
    replied
    How does this become a "win" for Bonds?

    --J.D.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Sweater
    replied
    Originally posted by Skin & Bones View Post


    You can quit dong cartwheels in jubilation now Fenrir.

    Leave a comment:


  • Go Cardinals
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Zito75
    replied
    This is just an out & out fiasco. Is there any truth to any side now? What an utter mess... Train wreck!

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X