Busted for sure this time... ?

[Balta1701]

Im not arguing Bonds ever did steriods, I really could care less. Im just saying that this is hype, and the book wont unconver some great conspiracy or get anything done. All it will do is sell a million or so copies and not even provide as good of a reas as Canseco's book, which the media immediately discredited and called him a liar.

And despite all the little factual errors in that book...who do you think wound up with the most credibility out of that one?

[Soxbadger]

SS2K,

 

The fact people actually believe that the owners and baseball were naive to the use of steriods is what is laughable.

 

If anything ever happened the whole thing comes down like a house of cards, Canseco alleged that GWB knew that the team was using roids back when he owned the Rangers.

 

This is nothing more than selling newspapers, books, and magazines.

[Soxbadger]

Balta,

 

I do not consider any book to be true, I believe it to be "based on true stories" because authors are always going to take liberty with the stories they tell.

 

History is not what actually happened, it is what people said happened.

 

So when Canseco says he went 1 for 100 and really went like 2-100 who cares, its artistic license.

[ZoomSlowik]

How is he supposed to quote exact passages in the book when it isn't out yet? All that is available is a couple of sections in SI.

[Soxbadger]

Slowik,

 

Exactly.

 

How can some one come in here and say that this book for sure will have information of him doing anything.

 

No one has read the damn book yet they are going to jump down my throat when I post a viewpoint that is contrary to theirs.

[Balta1701]

This is nothing more than selling newspapers, books, and magazines.

That really depends on their sources. They're not just using anonymous sources here, they're not telling us that Iraq had WMD's. They're citing specific testimony, specific documents, interviewees who are willing to go on the record. There is more here than just making up tales to sell books. Just based on the reports we've already seen that's the case. The book contains interviews with the people who sold them, cross-checking of as many of those interviews as possible with court documents, and so forth.

 

At some point, when all the evidence points to something, you either have to give reasons why all of the evidence is wrong or accept it. You're arguing not that the evidence is wrong, but that we can't trust the people providing it. Yet you're giving no reason as to why we can't trust them other than "The book will make them money". That alone is not a reason to disbelieve something.

[Soxbadger]

No actually I am arguing:

 

I can not make a good argument on the evidence unless I actually can see the evidence myself.

 

How anyone in here can claim anything is beyond me.

 

But in my experience I doubt that any criminal charges will come from it.

 

That is just my gut feeling.

[Balta1701]

No actually I am arguing:

 

I can not make a good argument on the evidence unless I actually can see the evidence myself.

 

How anyone in here can claim anything is beyond me.

 

But in my experience I doubt that any criminal charges will come from it.

 

That is just my gut feeling.

I would also doubt that any criminal charges will wind up coming from it, simply because most of the evidence presented in the book comes from things dug up by prosecutors, and because Victor Conte's plea deal meant that none of the accused ever had to testify in court about their full involvement with him. That basically meant they would need to have turned either Conte or Anderson in order to have someone to testify against Bonds, and both of them struck plea deals which made it so that they didn't have to do so.

 

I believe that in the links early in this thread however, a significant enough portion of their sourcing was presented so as to allow for a full case to be made. As much of stenographers as the press are these days...there's no reason to assume that whoever wrote those articles outlining the accusations and the sources included evidence which wasn't presented in the book.

[Soxbadger]

Balta,

 

Im just taking this argument as if I have to accept everything in the book as true. Im even giving the book the benefit of the doubt that they will have found some compelling evidence that Bonds knew he was doing roids, or even as much as went out of his way to do roids.

 

Even then I say its nothing. The league wont do anything, its a past crime, people dont like to go digging through old closests.

 

I guess I just dont see the outrage. Players in baseball have been cheating since the day it began, players will be cheating until the end of time. Some players are cheaters, some players are good guys, and some players are some where in between.

 

I mean we all have played games, and I would venture to say most of us have tried to get the "edge" in a way that was "technically" against the rules. But so what, its just a game. No one lives or dies, in fact the only argument against steriods is that the player himself may get injured. The argument "Oh its something the old players didnt have" could be said for a million things modern athletes have. The game is not played in a vacuum.

 

Anyways, I just think some of the reactions are pretty outrageous. The only bans of note in baseball have been for gambling and in both cases the argument was that people were "throwing games". Im sorry but to the game of baseball its much worse to have players who are willing throw the game for money, then players who are willing to go to the extreme to win.

 

I dont condone what he did, but I certainly can not say that in much lesser circumstances I have chosen not to always play by the rules.

[Gregory Pratt]

My argument was never that he broke any laws, nor was it that he should go to jail, and it wasn't that a Prosecutor should or Will prosecute him for violating the Law. On a personal note, I do believe he could be hit for Perjury, but I don't think any Prosecutor would be willing to take such a difficult case on. OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson and the Recent Rapist in Chicago are clear examples of Why Prosecutors would be selective. As to that -- the issue of Criminal or Civil Prosecution -- that is all I have to add as I was not and am not urging for him to be Prosecuted.

 

I will say, however, in response to the post by Soxbadger, where he stated:

 

That is the reality of the situation, you want to believe the media, go ahead, they dont know jack about the law. You honestly think 2 reporters have more information that the prosecutor who was handling BALCO, they used the grand jury testimony for god sakes.

 

Do you even know how a Grand Jury is different from a petit jury (normal one)?

 

Yes, having a mind substantially more advanced than that of a Goldfish-Third Grader Hybrid, I do know the difference. That's rather irrelevant however, but I will say that in defense of the Evidence in the Book, there is apparently substantial Grand Jury Testimony and Evidence in the Book that backs up the case that Barry Bonds did a wide range of things wrong.

 

Now, to the rest of your tirade. And, frankly, it was a tirade and an angry one at that -- with an anger that I perceived as unwarranted and unfairly directed at me, as I'm not sure what I said that would provoke such an outrage from the man who doesn't consider it an outrage that a baseball player might have broken a ton of records by using steroids.

 

Why do I think you were furious, undeservedly so, and at me? Because of this:

 

And god damn now you go and compare Bonds to Rose and the Black Sox.

 

I was, I believe, the only one to mention Rose and the Black Sox. AND GOD DAMN, I WAS SO OFFENSIVE AND RUDE ABOUT IT TOO. LET'S SHOVE IT UP MY ASS JUST TO STICK IT TO THE MAN!

 

1) The Black Sox were caught throwing the World Series. That is cheating to lose. The White Sox were destroyed by their Comiskey, and the first Baseball Commisioner Landis. Baseball did not care how a court proceeding went, as in a court proceeding it was going to be almost impossible to convict any of them. They even admitted doing it, and still they were unconvictable (now tell me how they are going to convict Bonds haha). To make a lesson of the players Landis suspended them for life to make sure that baseball had legitimacy and at the urging of the owners et all. Bonds will have plenty of support within the MLB community, no one is going to want to see Bonds kicked out and next thing you know the Giants are pissed and want Big Mac gone, then next thing you know every team is attacking every team. That makes a whole lot of sense.

 

I will say, first, that I consider it so incredibly patronizing that you'd go and give me the History of the Black Sox as if I haven't got an inkling of what happened. But you have indirectly bolstered my point. I will ignore your ridiculous demand that I "tell" you "how they are going to convict Bonds" because I never pushed for such a thing.

 

However, the Black Sox confessed and the confessions disappeared, but they were still enough to warrant a Lifetime Ban. The story behind them, the claim that they had thrown the game. Besides, Shoeless Joe went to his Grave insisting upon his innocenece and lamenting the confession that he'd made, claiming it to have been false. Whether or not he was guilty was irrelevant: the currents strongly pointed to his being guilty, and so he and the others were banned. Why were they banned? Because they broke the rules, disgraced the game, and set an example that doing such a thing and getting caught will get you into trouble, no matter who you are.

 

I believe that the same should, and will, happen to Bonds. Go ahead and crucify me for daring to argue that similar evidence against Jackson and a similar status and similar circumstance might lead to Selig making an example out of Bonds.

 

2) Pete Rose, if you look at the history of the original Pete Rose ban, it was not supposed to be a life time ban. Reports are that Giammati and Rose had a deal that he was going to be readmitted, but unfortuantely that same season Giammati died of a heart attack. Fay Vincent took over who was a complete dick and makes the ban stick. He also tried to make Steinbrenner resign and a whole list of s***,

 

This is all rather irrelevant. My point was that the Charge, without the Smoking Gun "necessary" but regardlessly strongly smelling of accuracy, was enough to provoke a ban on him and that a similar fate could befall Barry Bonds.

 

Oh! What audacity! Maybe you should start getting the nails now, Badger.

 

Now you want to come in and argue with me, fine, but here are the parameters.

 

No thanks. I'm not taking your advice on how to argue with you.

 

In order for you to refer to the book, you need to actually bring the words from the book. Quote the passage that has the grand jury testimony and then post the fact that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that bonds was actually lieing.

 

No. We're not talking about a Court of Law and I'm not a Prosecutor. We're in the Courtroom of World Opinion, and the MLB doesn't need "reasonable doubt" to ban him. But I will say that the testimony of all those involved that the Excerpt, and by extension the Book, cite, are enough to prove "reasonable doubt" to the Commissioner's Office.

 

Im not arguing Bonds ever did steriods, I really could care less. Im just saying that this is hype, and the book wont unconver some great conspiracy or get anything done. All it will do is sell a million or so copies and not even provide as good of a read as Canseco's book, which the media immediately discredited and called him a liar.

 

I'm going to ignore the Canseco reference as it's not relevant. The book, however, of Shadows, has uncovered a great deal of things. Apparently it's got a confession from Bonds' ex-girlfriend/mistress that he was doping and told her. And also, the public knowledge, that he'd assailed her several times.

 

I enjoy debates too, its my job.

 

What is your job?

 

I do not consider any book to be true, I believe it to be "based on true stories" because authors are always going to take liberty with the stories they tell.

 

History is not what actually happened, it is what people said happened.

 

So when Canseco says he went 1 for 100 and really went like 2-100 who cares, its artistic license.

 

Well, no. What you're talking about with stories that are "based on true stories" are "novelizations" and "screenplays based on" other stories. True stories are true stories as in "they occurred and this is my view." It isn't as though someone writes their autobiography and says, "Well, one day, I picked an apple from a tree. So, let's make a story based off of that where I pick an apple from a tree and the apple then comes to life and we fight to the apple's death!"

 

History is not what actually happened, it is what people said happened.

 

That's just a saying. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

 

If Bonds won't dispute the book, it speaks volumes about the tome's accuracy. Maybe not in a Court of Law, but that's not where we are and that's not who is going to be handling this entire affair.

 

Exactly.

 

How can some one come in here and say that this book for sure will have information of him doing anything.

 

No one has read the damn book yet they are going to jump down my throat when I post a viewpoint that is contrary to theirs.

 

I will point out how snotty it is to whine that nobody has read the book and are then "jumping down" your throat when you turned around and took an angry and unnecessary tone with me for no reason aside from some silly desire to make your point in as rude and classless manner as possible, perhaps? GOD DAMN HIM FOR MENTIONING HISTORICAL BASEBALL PRECEDENTS THAT HE BELIEVES BOLSTERS HIS OPINION!

 

Im just taking this argument as if I have to accept everything in the book as true. Im even giving the book the benefit of the doubt that they will have found some compelling evidence that Bonds knew he was doing roids, or even as much as went out of his way to do roids.

 

Even then I say its nothing. The league wont do anything, its a past crime, people dont like to go digging through old closests.

 

I guess I just dont see the outrage. Players in baseball have been cheating since the day it began, players will be cheating until the end of time. Some players are cheaters, some players are good guys, and some players are some where in between.

 

I mean we all have played games, and I would venture to say most of us have tried to get the "edge" in a way that was "technically" against the rules. But so what, its just a game. No one lives or dies, in fact the only argument against steriods is that the player himself may get injured. The argument "Oh its something the old players didnt have" could be said for a million things modern athletes have. The game is not played in a vacuum.

 

Anyways, I just think some of the reactions are pretty outrageous. The only bans of note in baseball have been for gambling and in both cases the argument was that people were "throwing games". Im sorry but to the game of baseball its much worse to have players who are willing throw the game for money, then players who are willing to go to the extreme to win.

 

I dont condone what he did, but I certainly can not say that in much lesser circumstances I have chosen not to always play by the rules.

 

"We all break the rules, it's okay, Bonds won't have anything done because it's in the past. It's nothing. Everything's fine, fellas. The book has no proof that Bonds knew he was doing roids -- why, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and consider that perhaps he thought a growth spurt was responsible for the enlargement of his cranial cavity!"

 

Seriously. All I said was that Bonds should get banned, that I'd pull that trigger if I were Selig, and that I think Selig is going to do that once the WBC is over. Don't jump down my throat and then claim that you're the one being abused or persecuted or whatever. I was perfectly fine and civil and, frankly, I have remained so despite some sharp and pronounced sarcasm.

[Balta1701]

C: "I approached Mr. Bonds about these latest allegations."

J: "How did that go?"

C: "Not well Jon. He ripped a phone book in half and tried to f*** a Coke machine."

 

Jon Stewart and Rob Corddry

[Gregory Pratt]

C: "I approached Mr. Bonds about these latest allegations."

J:  "How did that go?"

C: "Not well Jon.  He ripped a phone book in half and tried to f*** a Coke machine."

 

Jon Stewart and Rob Corddry

 

It's eery how well they know their subjects!

[Jordan4life_2007]

Barry Bonds isn't going anywhere unless he chooses to retire. You would have to ban half the league if you were to ban Bonds.

[YASNY]

To what extent, I don't know, but I believe Selig will slap Bonds pretty hard.

 

 

Suspension in works for Bonds?

 

According to highly placed Major League Baseball sources, Selig extended a vague offer of leniency to Bonds if he had anything he wished to admit, including possible acts of perjury in his testimony to the BALCO grand jury. He told Bonds the consequences would be "much worse" if he professed innocence and later was revealed as a steroid user.

[Gregory Pratt]

Barry Bonds isn't going anywhere unless he chooses to retire.  You would have to ban half the league if you were to ban Bonds.

 

No you wouldn't.

 

To what extent, I don't know, but I believe Selig will slap Bonds pretty hard.

Suspension in works for Bonds?

 

I think that a Suspension is the Path of Least Resistance for Selig, and I think he might be pansied into it because so many people would shriek that Bonds is no different than anyone else because they're all on steroids, or that it's in the past and doesn't matter, or that Bonds was great BEFORE he juiced up and it's UNFAIR!! to punish him severely with a ban. That said, I hope he doesn't slap Bonds but knocks him out. As an example. And to illustrate that baseball is serious about not letting s*** like this go on.

[southsider2k5]

SS2K,

 

The fact people actually believe that the owners and baseball were naive to the use of steriods is what is laughable.

 

If anything ever happened the whole thing comes down like a house of cards, Canseco alleged that GWB knew that the team was using roids back when he owned the Rangers.

 

This is nothing more than selling newspapers, books, and magazines.

 

Don't take my reply the wrong way... I have no doubt EVERYONE knew. To think otherwise is well... bliss.

[soxhawks]

To what extent, I don't know, but I believe Selig will slap Bonds pretty hard.

Suspension in works for Bonds?

 

There is no chance Bud Selig will do anything, and if he does he will just make a complete fool of himself just like he always does.

[Jordan4life_2007]

No you wouldn't.

 

Yes, you would. I realize everybody hates Barry. But it would be complete and total bulls*** to punish only him for something many others have done.

[Gregory Pratt]

Yes,  you would.  I realize everybody hates Barry.  But it would be complete and total bulls*** to punish only him for something many others have done.

 

I just think that no one else has this level of evidence against them nor has anyone else achieved as much as Bonds. McGuire and Sosa might come close, but not in regard to the Former, and so it'd be okay for Bonds to be hung, methinks.

[soxhawks]

I just think that no one else has this level of evidence against them nor has anyone else achieved as much as Bonds. McGuire and Sosa might come close, but not in regard to the Former, and so it'd be okay for Bonds to be hung, methinks.

 

I am sure if someone wanted to go on as big of a witch hunt against those two as they did Bonds, you would find the same s***

[Gregory Pratt]

I am sure if someone wanted to go on as big of a witch hunt against those two as they did Bonds, you would find the same s***

 

When the charges are true, it's not a Witch Hint. It's only a Witch Hunt when there's no "There" there.

[rventura23]

On the more humerous side, the Onion reported on Bonds, pretty funny:

 

 

Barry Bonds Took Steroids, Reports Everyone Who Has Ever Watched Baseball

[Gregory Pratt]

On the more humerous side, the Onion reported on Bonds, pretty funny:

 

 

Barry Bonds Took Steroids, Reports Everyone Who Has Ever Watched Baseball

 

My friend's daughter works on the Onion, and so does her husband. I love them.

[southsider2k5]

Yes,  you would.  I realize everybody hates Barry.  But it would be complete and total bulls*** to punish only him for something many others have done.

 

Exactly. If we could have someone interview a couple hundred people surrounding just about everyone in baseball that would be one thing, but with this focusing on just one player, it is BS.

 

Again, this is MLBs fault for acting like the problem didn't exsist for decades. If they take a stand initially like football did, this problem would not have gotten to the point where people are writing books about it, and feel the need to investigate it.

[Balta1701]

Again, this is MLBs fault for acting like the problem didn't exsist for decades.  If they take a stand initially like football did, this problem would not have gotten to the point where people are writing books about it, and feel the need to investigate it.

Yeah, because the NFL did such a great job of making sure people weren't on the juice. Bill Romanowski and the 2003 Carolina Panthers certainly appreciate the effort.