Barroid, er, Barry Bonds indicted [Archive]

View Full Version : Barroid, er, Barry Bonds indicted

Archive

11-16-2007, 03:01 PM

Posted By: Steve ParmentierJust posted over the news - Barry Bonds indicted. Hope they at least put an asterisk. steve

Archive

11-16-2007, 03:06 PM

Posted By: pasUnless the trainer testifies it may not be an easy case to prove.

Archive

11-16-2007, 03:24 PM

Posted By: E, DanielBarry who? In my mind, that's all he's going to be if the charges are in fact proved. Long live Hank Aaron, long live 755! Daniel Edited to add qualifier.

Archive

11-16-2007, 03:25 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackThe worst was when I was about to eat lunch and they indicted my ham sandwich. I knew I should have ordered the soup.

Archive

11-16-2007, 03:30 PM

Posted By: peter chaoBarry has done a lot of dumb things in his life, but taunting the Feds back in Spring Training might have been the dumbest. I still can't believe that he told the Feds to "bring it(the indictment) on." Peter C.

Archive

11-16-2007, 03:32 PM

Posted By: Bob CMaybe he and OJ can be cellmates! They could give each other foot massages after after a a long day of making license plates and a scrumptous dinner of green baloney and moldy bread. Yum. Sorry, I usually do not comment on these types of posts but I have no respect for these two err...gentlemen.

Archive

11-16-2007, 04:15 PM

Posted By: John KalafarskiTo your point Peter, the indictment references positive tests for the presence of anabolic steroids. I'm guessing these are tests that Barry himself had done to monitor his health. A Federal judge just ordered Anderson released from prison. I'm guessing he's going to sing.

Archive

11-16-2007, 04:33 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackThat's what I was thinking, John. An athlete and trainer would regularly take blood levels when using even legal drugs. You want the drug level to be between useless and toxic, making blood monitoring essential.

Archive

11-16-2007, 04:35 PM

Posted By: Ed IveyCan felons* make it to Cooperstown? *All suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Archive

11-16-2007, 04:47 PM

Posted By: anthonythe feds have 5 years from barry's retirement year to convict him...apparently, sheffield dropped his name bigtime as well. money must be running low for anderson to sing, which is probably whats going to happen. didnt they have money laundering charges on anderson as well? that should carry some time.

Archive

11-16-2007, 04:47 PM

Posted By: peter chaoEd, Both Ferguson Jenkins and Orlando Cepeda were arrested for drug-related offenses and they still got into the HOF. Peter C.

Archive

11-16-2007, 04:56 PM

Posted By: davidcycleAnderson already served a brief sentence for steroid and money laundering related convictions. It was legally required that Anderson be released once the Grand Jury was finished, as he was being held in contempt for refusing to testify to this Grand Jury. He would have been released when the Grand Jury finished whether or not he said anything. My guess is that Anderson did not testify or agree to testify, as he likely would have been released earlier if he had. If he was testifying or cooperating with the Grand Jury he couldn't have been held in jail (assuming no other charges), as he was being held for not testifying.

Archive

11-16-2007, 04:58 PM

Posted By: D. C. MarkelPurgury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes - clearly worthy of prison time. What kills me about all of this is the fixation with Bonds and nobody else who has abused steriods. By federal law, anyone who takes steriods which are not prescribed by a physician for legitimate health reasons has broken the law. With that being said, there are easily hundreds of current and former MLB players who have illegally taken steriods and also need to be prosecuted.

Archive

11-16-2007, 05:39 PM

Posted By: john/z28jd Theyre obviously spending alot of money and time to get someone who used steroids and it really has to make you wonder where their priorities are.They could go to any gym in america and find a steroid user but taking them down doesnt help the problem.Not only is it a huge waste,but this is going for a former user,its not like he was caught with it,so whats the final verdict going to do for all that time and money? They obviously have it out for him in particular otherwise other players who got caught would be in the same predicament. Rafeal Betantcourt for instance was cheered like a hero and all you heard was how good he was for the Indians bullpen this year and im sure he will get a substancial raise this year thru arbitration. Yet he was caught for steroids and suspended....hmm never heard anything about that this year when they said how good he was and you wont because no one cares about him. Its amazing how everyone else just flies under the radar,you get caught and its no worse than charging the mound for a fight,you get a slap on the wrist and we forgive you. My favorite instance was at a Phillies game when fans were unmerciful towards Bonds the whole game and then Ryan "10 game suspension for steroids" Franklin comes out and they cheered him! I got up and said why arent we booing him,we actually have proof Franklin did something wrong,hes been suspended for steroids. No one cared tho which basically proves no one cares about steroids unless someone they dont like does it,then its a big deal

Archive

11-16-2007, 08:06 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Anyone taking bets on whether the millions spent on this investigation will yield a prison sentence? Look at the punishment of the others convicted. What a waste.

Archive

11-16-2007, 08:51 PM

Posted By: PaulI don't think the release of Anderson is an indication that he will sing. He was being held in jail for refusing to testify before the grand jury that investigated Bonds. The point was to try to force him to testify. Now that the grand jury's work is done, he gets released.

Archive

11-16-2007, 09:18 PM

Posted By: peter ullmanIsn't it ironic ARod "signs" with the yanks...the same day Bonds is indicted...out with the old...in with the new! pete ullman

Archive

11-17-2007, 12:47 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI don't see Bonds doing much if any jail time from this case. The point of the prosecution is simply to show others who might commit perjury or obstruct justice that the feds are not to be trifled with -- even Bonds is not above the law. Barry deserves what he gets but I agree that our law enforcement priorities should be elsewhere.

Archive

11-17-2007, 04:28 AM

Posted By: Mike HCan felons* make it to Cooperstown? *All suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The HOF isn't a court of law. It's the court of public oppinion that matters here.

Archive

11-17-2007, 08:44 AM

Posted By: pasBonds certainly makes the HOF, regardless of the outcome of this case.

Archive

11-17-2007, 08:45 AM

Posted By: peter ullmanif bonds is convicted...does not plead guilty...he will never get in to the hall. pete ullman

Archive

11-17-2007, 09:15 AM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusDoesn't the HOF list a player's character as one of the criteria for admission? If so and if Bonds is subsequently convicted or via a plea bargain pleads guilty to a felony offense involving the use of performance enhancing substances, then not only is his charcter materially impugned, but also are his most noteworthy achievements. Yes, I know people will say he was a HOF-caliber player before he went on the juice, so therefore he deserves admission anyway. And in the end he very well might be elected. But should that happen, it would be nice if the HOF would stop the hypocrisy and eliminate good character as one of its criteria.

Archive

11-17-2007, 09:41 AM

Posted By: leonThey let Ty Cobb in......some how I feel this thread is deja vu all over again <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> (Yogi-ism)

Archive

11-17-2007, 09:59 AM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusI was waiting for that! You're quite correct. Many of the inductees are hardly what we could call Boy Scout poster boys. But when now you're possibly talking about a convicted felon, whose offenses involve not only perjury and the fraudulent attainment of some of baseball's most hallowed records, but, worse, the contribution to the belief among America's youth that it is okay to take performance enhancing drugs, that to me lowers the character bar to somewhere below the floor. A number of high school athletes who took the stuff are now dead as a result, and I for one can't overstate my disdain for people such as Bonds whose actions contributed to this national tragedy.

Archive

11-17-2007, 09:59 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI agree that the HOF has allowed in many people of dubious character, including Cobb, King Kelly and Anson. So, one could reasonably argue that character itself shouldn't be an determining factor. This does not mean that steroid use, or betting on games for that matter, is only a character flaw.

Archive

11-17-2007, 10:23 AM

Posted By: leonI understand your point and it's a good one. It does remind me of the joke about a guy asking a girl if she would do him sexual favors for a dollar. She said "No Way!!". Then he asked her if she would for a million dollars. She said "sure". He said ...ok, we have established what you are, now we just need to negotiate... I am not sure we can call one form of moral character worse than another with respect to these 2 players. Some would say the way Cobby acted was worse than what Bonds has done.....It's very debatable. I really haven't given it a whole lot of thought yet.....

Archive

11-17-2007, 10:40 AM

Posted By: steveWhat specific thing/s did Cobb do to rank up with the Bonds ordeal? I do know he intentionally spiked players - today would get large suspension I am sure. Other than that about Cobb,just keep out of his way, don't provoke him, hustle your ass off, and all is good. steve

Archive

11-17-2007, 10:51 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI am a fan of Ty Cobb, and like him as a historical character precisely because he was no Donny Osmond. However, amongst other things, Cobb did beat up a crippled fan.

Archive

11-17-2007, 10:54 AM

Posted By: leonCobby was a huge racist among other things.....Other members will know more of his antics... I think they are widely known...I am not talking about "on the field" stuff....

Archive

11-17-2007, 10:59 AM

Posted By: David Atkatz"I am a fan of Ty Cobb, and like him as a historical character precisely because he was no Donny Osmond. However, amongst other things, Cobb did beat up a crippled fan." The fan--who had no hands--had a voice. He did call Cobb names. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

11-17-2007, 11:06 AM

Posted By: Tom RussoJeff is right about this one. Barry won't do a lot of time. It is the Feds saying "we can't let you get away with lying to us. It would set a bad example." So Barry will get a Martha Stewart type sentence, if anything.

Archive

11-17-2007, 11:26 AM

Posted By: David AtkatzIt's about Bonds. A mean-spirited SOB, who took no discernible pleasure from the game, and gave none to others. Who thought he was sooo special that the normal rules of behavior--social, legal, sporting, etc.--did not apply. Good riddance to him, and, hopefully, to his "legacy."

Archive

11-17-2007, 03:09 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanBonds was indicted because if it were you or I who lied to the Grand Jury we'd go to jail. Bonds is not above the law. Regardless of the outcome of the case, he's already toast in the court of public opinion. If he escapes conviction it will be because his lie was either not material or that he was unaware about his positive steroids test (both lame defenses in my opinion but that's all he has). Regardless, he tested positive for steroids during his playing career and is forever tarnished. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Archive

11-17-2007, 04:51 PM

Posted By: Ed IveyI love how the media is fed maximum sentences, run consecutively, to exacerbate headlines. Sentencing is based on a balance of aggravating vs. mitigating circumstances. Whether you like Baroid or not - I find his demeanor repulsive - the whole underlying issue - lying about alleged cheating in a game, pales in comparison to aggravating factors that imprison hardcore criminals. Mitigation wins here, folks. Prosecutors are politicians. Politicians love favorable media. They relish the opportunity to personify pillars of moral excellence. This is show business, regardless of guilt or innocence. I predict a plea with zero jail time, and may the radio personalities shut their traps about "facing 30 years" or whatever. Understand, I am far from a fan of Barry Bonds. I think he squandered incredible talent on a maniacal ego (allegedly). He was a hall of famer in my book, until jealousy of "won't talk about the past" Mcguire and "is that a cork in my bat?" Sosa got the best of him. I despise perjury. But I equally despise decisions only to prosecute if it grabs headlines. Paula Jones? Cigars? Stains on dresses?

Archive

11-17-2007, 04:52 PM

Posted By: davidcycleOf course, if his defense is "I didn't know," that doesn't mean a jury will buy it. Countless convicted bank robbers have denied robbing the bank. A thread that connects all trials is that the defendant denies the charges. That's why there is a trial.

Archive

11-17-2007, 05:09 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanThe whole world thinks Bonds is guilty -- except for the people of San Francisco, many of whom revere him despite the obvious. Keep in mind that the jurybox will be filled with those people.

Archive

11-18-2007, 11:21 AM

Posted By: peter chaoI went to a small card show in the SF-Bay Area today. As you can imagine there was quite a bit of buzz surrounding the news about Barry. Among the dealers I spoke with, it seems like the consensus is that the only thing Barry is really guilty of doing, is having a huge chip on his shoulder. If Barry becomes more remorseful and contrite, minimal jail time if any. If he continues being himself, he could be locked up for a long time. IMO. Peter C.

Archive

11-18-2007, 11:28 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanPeter, your understanding of how the criminal justice system works is impressive. Unfortunately, the "consensus" of a bunch of dealers on sentencing issues is usually not dispositive. I haven't yet found that factor within either the US Sentencing Guidelines or the United States Code but I'm sure I'm just looking in the wrong place. As for your dealers' opinion on the "only thing Barry is really guilty of" -- First Degree Having A Huge Chip on His Shoulder -- again, this is not a federal crime. Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, however, are offenses contained within the USC. Good thing you're not a lawyer or I might chide you for misleading members of the forum on legal issues.

Archive

11-18-2007, 11:43 AM

Posted By: davidcycleThough, if found guilty, his attitude, including remorsefulness or lack thereof, would be reflected in the sentence. The problem for Barry if found guilty is that perjury before a Grand Jury is a cool and calculated act, not a heat of the moment thing like bar fight, and suddenly changing your tune and saying your sorry just before sentencing may have little effect. As the conviction would specifically be for lying in a legal setting (or at least obstruction of justice while under oath), the judge may have no reason to believe Bonds's sincerity anyway. Of course history and present would suggest that Bonds would remain dismissive and unrepentant, so the question may be moot. Peter's San Francisco take is a curiosity: Bonds didn't anything and if he shows remorse he'll get a short sentence.

Archive

11-18-2007, 11:56 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanYes, acceptance of responsibility for one's criminal actions is a factor at sentencing. However, if he fought this case and lost at trial, it is almost impossible to imagine a situation that would net Bonds a "long" sentence.

Archive

11-18-2007, 12:10 PM

Posted By: David SmithTo Ed and others who think Bonds will cop a plea agreement; In my opinion, Barry Bonds is a Sociopath (so is George Bush) and because of this, he thinks he has done nothing wrong. That is why he can sit and look you in the face and lie. This idea of entitlement is what spurred Bonds on to cheat. He was well on his way to being a Hall of Famer but seeing the attention that McGwire and Sosa were getting, two "lesser" players than himself, his ego couldn't take it. So, no matter how much evidence the Government has against him and no matter what his Attornies say, Bonds will NOT take a plea bargain. he will go to trial and even if he loses there, he will say that the jury is wrong and that people are after him. The following are traits of a Sociopath according to a website about them. See if these traits don't match Bonds and Bush's behaviour: Glibness and Superficial Charm Manipulative and Conning They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims. Grandiose Sense of Self Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Pathological Lying Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. Shallow Emotions When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises. Incapacity for Love Need for Stimulation Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common. Callousness/Lack of Empathy Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc. Irresponsibility/Unreliability Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively. Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily. David

Archive

11-18-2007, 12:16 PM

Posted By: peter chaoJeff, I'm not a criminal attorney, so I probably lack your insight in this matter. But the rumor in the Bay Area is that Barry is likely to testify on his behalf. So if that happens, BB's testimony and attitude on the stand is going to be critical. If Barry is his normal arrogant self, the jury could come down on him hard. Peter C.

Archive

11-18-2007, 12:31 PM

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman"Probably" being the operative word. Also, juries don't sentence, judges do.

Archive

11-18-2007, 12:53 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzHe'll be acquitted if it goes to trial at all. Since anyone can have an opinion, and we are even being enlightened with psychological diagnoses through references to websites, here's my take. 1. The buffoonery that took these fed prosecutors multiple grand juries to even get an indictment (wait, their star witness wouldn't talk, needed him to make the case, I know, let's sit his a$$ in jail, wait, still won't talk, oh well, we have enough anyway, let's proceed)will look like high-grade legal work compared to the "case" you'll see develop. 2. Bonds' lawyers snack on the government's lawyers. 2. Bonds is acquitted. 3. Everyone, all together now, "Barry is a bad man, he must be made to suffer". Chants will be loud--what's new? 4. Selig tries to F with Barry, suspending him, giving his records asterisks or better yet, trying to take away his records altogether, all "for the good of baseball". 5. Barry sues MLB. The crap hits the fan like never before. Stuff is uncovered through discovery that even MLB can't bury. Folks is nervous. 6. MLB, in its infinite arrogance, falls back on its anti-trust exemption and old Judge Landis rulings to place itself above or outside what the law would expect and hold of others. 7. The judiciary sees through this ruse, and won't play. Early rulings in the Bonds v. MLB case go against Dud Selig and his sycophants, causing panic among the ranks. Congress hints at really meaning it this time--your exemption is gone. Let's see all there is to see about this steroid thing. 8. MLB backs down, grumbling all the way. 9. All lose, but Barry is still villified as the core of baseball's problems some more. There, an advance peek at my screenplay.

Archive

11-18-2007, 01:02 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanTodd, you have an active imagination -- and we thought you were spending all of your free time on baseball cards! I don't disagree that the feds should be ashamed for jerking this thing along as they did; however, they have a 5 year statute of limitations in which to act and they did indict within that period. I suspect the case was delayed because the feds were terrified to indict until they had the strongest case possible. Federal prosecutors are usually terrified to lose especially in a high profile case like this. They held out as long as possible for Anderson to come around. When he didn't, they indicted. They have enough to convict, whether they do is a different story. Plus who knows if tax charges are eventually brought? Weaker cases are indicted and won; stronger cases are indicted and lost. As for Bonds, I can't imagine any team would sign him now.

Archive

11-18-2007, 01:10 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzWith the economy the way it is down here, that's all I have to spend on baseball cards-- my free time. While you may be right, I still think they're horribly embarrassed by wasting sooooooooooo much time and money on what they apparently thought was a sure thing and that they're simply too proud to let it go. So I hope they get their noses rubbed in it.

Archive

11-18-2007, 01:20 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanTodd, I think you overestimate federal prosecutors' ability to be embarrassed. You'd be shocked at their arrogance even after they lose a case. One thing that I found interesting was this: what made Jason Giambi tell the truth and Barry lie in the grand jury? Both coddled athletes their whole lives. I don't think Giambi got enough credit for coming clean.

Archive

11-18-2007, 02:32 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusI agree that getting a conviction with a sympathetic jury will be a challenge. OJ Simpson is Exhibit A of this principle. What I'm curious to know (and in asking this I'm not challenging your view but merely inquiring inasmuch as I am no criminal attorney) is why you feel that, even if convicted, Bonds would get a light sentence? From what's been reported the maximum sentence if convicted on all counts is 30 years. Given that it is questionable Bonds will exhibit some of those factors which could lessen the sentence (contrition, remorse, humility, etc.), why do you feel so confident he could not spend some real time (e.g., 5 years or more) behind bars? EDITED for grammar

Archive

11-18-2007, 03:10 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJust to clarify: perjury convictions are probably the hardest to achieve in the federal system. Convicting a San Francisco icon before a San Francisco jury will be especially hard. Corey, the statutory maximums are simply run consecutively when you hear about a 30 year max. The federal sentencing guidelines, while just advisory now and not mandatory anymore, would suggest a much, much lesser sentence, closer to a year in prison than even five years. Plus, it's not like he obstructed justice in a grand jury which was investigating a terrorist plot. Finally, while a sentencing judge will want to make an example to some degree of Bonds, he or she will probably also consider that a convicted Bonds will already have received a sort of punishment not received by regular citizens who have been convicted of the same crimes. If I had to guess, should Bonds be convicted of all charges he'd likely face anywhere from no time to 18 months in prison, tops.

Archive

11-18-2007, 04:07 PM

Posted By: davidcycleback<< Bonds' lawyers snack on the government's lawyers. >> How come Todd's theories always involve cannibalism?

Archive

11-18-2007, 05:03 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellWell, I will leave the legal debate to Peter and Jeff. Peter--just curious--what is your legal specialty? To get back to Dan's comment, there will be well over 100 players ultimately implicated in this and probably well i9nto the hundreds. I await the Mitchell report with anticipation

Archive

11-18-2007, 06:10 PM

Posted By: peter chaoJim, I do plaintiff's side real estate litigation in the Bay Area. You can't make a fortune practicing in this area but it is virtually recession-proof. Actually, when money is tight more real estate partnerships fall apart and there's more litigation. Jeff, Maybe I just don't like the idea of being in jail...but BB going to prison for a year sounds like a long time to me. Peter C.

Archive

11-18-2007, 07:07 PM

Posted By: James GalloI have been out of town so I haven't had any time to get on here, however I felt I needed to voice an opinion on this. First off I can't imagine how anyone could compare the "crimes" of ty cobb vs bonds. Cobb was a mean SOB who obviously acted in a way that would not be acceptable today, however he doesn't live in todays' world. The fact of the matter is that 75+ years ago the world was very different, the laws were very different, and how people viewed things like racism, aggressiveness and all the other crap Cobb was known for has GREATLY changed. I really don't think people thought of Cobb in the same negative way we think about Bonds, Sosa, McGwire and the rest even when he was elected into the hall of fame. As such there is just no way to compare the two. Just because cobb got in doesn't mean Bonds will. The fact of the matter is believe it or not the writers made a statement by not putting McGwire in on the first ballot. If Bonds is found guilty he will not make it into the hall at all. As is even if he gets off it will be tough IMO. If we had a commissioner with even a tiny set he would have taken action of this years ago but all we have is a weak figure head, which is a shame. Also if bonds is found guilty and then let into that hall you would be forced to let in the likes of rose, the black sox and plenty of other dead ball era guys that are being kept out for "legal" reasons. If your not going to compare players stats from different era's then I think it is equally unfair to try and compare their crimes. As for the legal end of things, I don't have a clue, but if the federal government has another OJ it could be a huge problem and iI don't think they would have gone forward if they didn't really think they had an overwhelming amount of information that even a local jury would convict him. Personally when going threw jurors I would just eliminate any that know of barry and baseball. Believe it or not there are people that don't know or care about barry or baseball and might not have an opinion either way, yes even in SF. James Gallo Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

Archive

11-18-2007, 07:24 PM

Posted By: peter chaoJames, McGwire and Bonds are not comparable players. Bonds had 7 MVPs to McGwire's none. Even without the steroid allegations McGwire was not a first round Hall of Famer. Although Rafael Palmeiro isn't a player that's really comparable to Bonds, his success or failure with Hall of Fame voters will say more about what happens to Bonds when his turn comes up. Peter C.

Archive

11-18-2007, 07:35 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackBond's denial of knowledge is silly on its face. If you thought you were using only flaxseed and baby powder, wouldn't you wonder why your head doubled in size? You don't have to be a biochemist to figure out that rubbing flaxseed oil to your arm isn't supposed the enlarge your head.

Archive

11-18-2007, 08:58 PM

Posted By: peter chaoDavid, And I thought Barry's head was getting bigger because he was approaching the HR record. LOL. But seriously, I don't like the idea of Barry being singled out for exclusion from the Hall. If all ballplayers who were strongly suspected of steroid use were barred from the Hall, I would go for that standard. But then that rule would include people like Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmeiro, and a couple of others. Peter C.

Archive

11-19-2007, 04:50 PM

Posted By: BillI read in recent news apparently, they have drugs tests they found with the name Barry B on them (found it on mlb.com i think). they were positive. so if guilty, this will be a very very big time in baseball history.... no to mention all the ppl who have spent thousands on barry bonds items to be worth nothing after lol

Archive

11-19-2007, 05:06 PM

Posted By: peter chaoBill, No big deal, BB would simply be in the same boat as Palmeiro. Prices of BB's cards have already dropped about 25% here in the Bay Area. Could be time to buy if you have a little extra cash lying around. Peter C.