Bonds indicted for perjury and obstruction

[mothershipconnection]

I don't think you are getting it. They wouldn't be sending him to jail because he took steroids. They would be sending him to jail for perjury and obstruction. Those are major offenses. It wouldn't matter if they had asked him what he ate for breakfast that day. If they can prove he lied in front of a grand jury he goes to jail, just like anyone would. It's not a small matter.

 

Exactly. He actually had an arrangement whereby he would not be punished as long as he told the truth. Thus, he could have said "Yep, I shot up every steroid I could get my hands on", and the current indictment never would have happened. It's not just that he did steroids, it's the cover-up of a drug ring that makes this criminal. I'm sure many have gone to jail for perjury during a street drug ring investigation.

[TooLiveBrew]

who knows how many more would not have told the truth.

 

My guess is right around 100%. Good post, jlau. But as mentioned, he's not on trial (now) for PEDs - directly. He's there because his ego is massive and he couldn't admit using PEDs.

[jlau20]

who knows how many more would not have told the truth.

 

My guess is right around 100%. Good post, jlau. But as mentioned, he's not on trial (now) for PEDs - directly. He's there because his ego is massive and he couldn't admit using PEDs.

I know...it's too bad, I think if he would have told the truth then he would have saved more face in the long run but definitely would have been hated on a lot for the short term. I heard that in addition to the counts of perjury, they also wanted to charge him with 82 counts of being a jerk.

 

[brewizard]

I don't think you are getting it. They wouldn't be sending him to jail because he took steroids. They would be sending him to jail for perjury and obstruction. Those are major offenses.

 

I certainly DO get it. Of course, the grand jury thing happened due to political pressure. As it drags on, it feels to me like Bonds got snared in a witch hunt.

 

I'm trying not to get political about this, but this seems like such a distraction issue. President/Governor/Senator/Congressman/Ambassador/CEO/Mayor/Assemblyman [insert name here] lies and cheats about [insert scandal here], fills his pockets with dirty money, sends young people to their deaths, and gets -AT MOST- some public censure and a slap on the wrist. And these are the people who should be held accountable for their actions.

 

Barry Bonds lies about what he did to hit some home runs, and he goes to prison? Gimme a break! Why are we tearing down a sports entertainer? He's the one who will have to live inside his drug-ravaged body.

 

Anybody ever heard of the McCarthyism? Anybody know about the purging and public shaming of Hollywood entertainers who had been to meetings of the Communist Party? Same thing going on here, but with a different bent. The fear angle isn't commie invaders, but drugs.

 

Drugs and drug use are the heart of this, and I think we are in danger of being extremely hypocritical about it. Ask your doctor about Super-Pumpo-Relaxa-Fin if you don't believe me.

[Thurston Fluff]

This is terrible for baseball. Simply terrible. I can't believe how pleased some of you are

 

I don't think this is terrible for baseball at all. What was terrible for baseball was to have a steroid era to begin with. What this does is go some way towards cleaning up the mess. It makes the next generation of players think harder about the choices they make. It gives baseball an way to correct the records that have been tarnished by it. Although if the record for most homeruns in a season goes to either McGuire or Sosa I don't think it's any better. Except it will be easier for someone to legitimately break it than if it stays at the number it is now.

The best arguement I've read was other entertainers have done other perfromance enhancing drugs that aided them in their genre and we don't get all that riled up about it. While true that doesn't mean what Bonds did was any less wrong. By that rationell since OJ got away with murder then no one should have to go to prison for murder.

There is another significant point that makes the two fundamentally differant. One action potentially took jobs away from others the other didn't. There are no limits to how many artists get album deals. They simply have to be good enough. Someone else getting artificially better doesn't have a direct impact on clean artists like cheating for a finite number of jobs does.

Yes the Beatles did smoke pot and Hendrix was on heroin and it may have helped them in their music, though that is debateable. No one else was going to make the White album. No one was directly competeing with Hendrix to play Purple Haze. Others may have been in the same field but none of them lost thier job because of the Beatles pot usage. Two people may have played the guitar for a living and one may have climbed to a higher (no pun intended) level by illicit drug use but since they were not in direct competition for the same limited number of jobs it is very differant than athletes juicing. Janice Joplin may have made more money because her drug induced music sold better but she didn't take a job away from someone else in the process. In fact Jimi Hendrix probably created more jobs in his field by his pioneering guitar playing. The Beatles certainly helped young aspiring musicians with the musical explosion they created.

So while there is truth to that arguement it's essentially apples and oranges when it comes to how it effects other people's livelyhoods.

[Brian the Automator]

I certainly DO get it. Of course, the grand jury thing happened due to political pressure. As it drags on, it feels to me like Bonds got snared in a witch hunt.

 

I'm trying not to get political about this, but this seems like such a distraction issue. President/Governor/Senator/Congressman/Ambassador/CEO/Mayor/Assemblyman [insert name here] lies and cheats about [insert scandal here], fills his pockets with dirty money, sends young people to their deaths, and gets -AT MOST- some public censure and a slap on the wrist. And these are the people who should be held accountable for their actions.

 

Barry Bonds lies about what he did to hit some home runs, and he goes to prison? Gimme a break! Why are we tearing down a sports entertainer? He's the one who will have to live inside his drug-ravaged body.

 

Anybody ever heard of the McCarthyism? Anybody know about the purging and public shaming of Hollywood entertainers who had been to meetings of the Communist Party? Same thing going on here, but with a different bent. The fear angle isn't commie invaders, but drugs.

 

Drugs and drug use are the heart of this, and I think we are in danger of being extremely hypocritical about it. Ask your doctor about Super-Pumpo-Relaxa-Fin if you don't believe me.

I really don't think there's some secret agenda here to distract people from more important thing. The fact of the matter is that perjury and obstruction charges happen all the time. The only reason it seems like it only happens to famous people, is because that's all you see in the media. You don't see some gangbanger get charged for perjury when lying about a drug-related murder case, simply because it's just not that interesting to the average person.

[Patrick425]

As it drags on, it feels to me like Bonds got snared in a witch hunt.

Whether it's a witch hunt or not, who's fault is it that he got caught up in that situation in the first place? I have very little sympathy for people who get themselves into situations like this regardless of whether or not the punishment fits the crime. Especially, when they are bent on trying to cover up and deny their actions. If I get pulled over for going 5 miles over the limit and get fined $200 it may seem a little outrageous. However, if I really wanted to avoid getting a ticket I would have been going the speed limit. Sometimes you take chances in life and sometimes you get caught. He has no one to blame but himself.

 

Barry Bonds lies about what he did to hit some home runs, and he goes to prison? Gimme a break! Why are we tearing down a sports entertainer? He's the one who will have to live inside his drug-ravaged body.

One more time for clarity. It has nothing to do with what he lied about. As someone else mentioned, it's not just lying, it's perjury. Big difference. One is just wrong, the other is against the law. Also, as has been mentioned, he really had no reason to lie. Telling the truth would have probably been the smartest thing he could have done. Again, all the blame for the situation he finds himself in lies squarely on his shoulders.

[brewizard]

Certainly no 'secret agenda'. It's very plain to see. This is a media/politics driven trial, taking place in a culture with a love/hate relationship with drugs.

 

I know the rules. If they can prove Barry lied in court, he's done for.

 

I don't like Barry Bonds. I've never particularly liked him. But he's a heck of a ballplayer, and that's not an easy or average thing to be. In fact, it is super extraordinary. Some say suspiciously so. (We all know he took steroids. So did Big Mac, Slamming Sammy, Giambi, Palmiero, etc... and those are just the hitters.)

 

Yes the Beatles did smoke pot and Hendrix was on heroin and it may have helped them in their music, though that is debateable. No one else was going to make the White album.

 

And, likewise, no one else was going to hit 73 home runs in one season, or 762 total, drugged or not.

 

In fact Jimi Hendrix probably created more jobs in his field by his pioneering guitar playing.

 

As for the economic argument:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/MLB_attendance.png

[Patrick425]

As for the economic argument:

Of course, there are 25% more teams than there were 37 years ago and 87% more teams than there were 47 years ago. In addition, there is a lot more disposable income out there than there was 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago.

[brewizard]

Of course, there are 25% more teams than there were 37 years ago and 87% more teams than there were 47 years ago. In addition, there is a lot more disposable income out there than there was 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago.

 

Ha! http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

Agreed.

 

But look at the spike in the 1990s. How did baseball regain it's projected growth after the strike?

[Tbadder]

This is neither good nor bad. It is what it is. Avoid and pursue; it's what humans do. Each side will have its day. The forces of righteousness have won out--hooray. Tomorrow the forces of undermining will win out--hooray.

 

The reason it is wonderful is that it gives us something to feel about and talk about. "I feel vindicated" or "I feel put upon." Or we can take a far uglier tack "my values are vindicated, and because you don't believe what I believe I'm better or you're worse."

 

What is it called when someone relishes the pain of others? I'm not sure, but I know it's something the forces of goodness totally get off on. And the pathetic trying to hide the glee behind "oh this is awful, etc." It's so dishonest. Revel in your glory I say--you deserve it. We all deserve to be vindicated at times.

 

On to the pragmatic. You can't wipe Barry from the record book, because the record book isn't about the best or worst. It's a historical account of what happened. If you alter it--baseball becomes a work of fiction--a lie if you will. To say the player who hit more home runs than anyone else didn't exist statistically is innaccurate.

 

Now if you demand the asterisk, and reveal his steroid use, and talk about how hated he was, and what a pathetic excuse of a human he was--that's something else. I can get behind that kinda thing because it shows just how just and noble we are--by all means lets get it out of our systems; it could be quite cathartic.

[Tbadder]

And that's really the point isn't it Brewizard. That while guys like Big Mac and Sosa and Bonds were bailing out baseball financially--everyone was ignoring the problem because the almighty dollar was there to be made. Everyone's guilty, but you can only pick some for punishment. Let the picking thru the rubble begin.

[Brian the Automator]

But look at the spike in the 1990s. How did baseball regain it's projected growth after the strike?

Doesn't the growth return after all work stoppages?... and doesn't natural population growth combined with expansion account for most of the attendance growth?

I'm not saying the home run chase didn't have an effect on attendance, but that line graph is pretty misleading.

 

[Thurston Fluff]

And, likewise, no one else was going to hit 73 home runs in one season, or 762 total, drugged or not.

 

That's a pretty large assumption to make. I'd like to also point out artistic abilities don't translate from personm to person like athletic abilities do. For these two things to equate there would have to have been someone saying I want this specific album to be made and the one who does it the best wins the job.

 

As for the economic argument:

 

Not sure what that chart has to do with Bonds and steroid use. I don't see where the coorelation is made in that chart to his usage and I am not one that subscribes to the belief the Mac/Sosa homerun chase "saved" baseball. It was already on it's way back just like it came back after every other work stoppage. The fact that baseball had attendance increases isn't at all surprising since the population is larger. It also might have something to do with a better product through increased revenue sharing and the inroads made in competetive balance. Maybe the fact that there are more teams now than in 1980 has something to do with it. Might also be the explosion of new stadiums. How about better marketing or the increase of coverage via pay tv and the internet thingy? Does that play a role in it somehow or was the attendance increase based solely on Barry Bonds taking steroids?

[Fatter than Joey]

I'm not saying the home run chase didn't have an effect on attendance,

 

I wonder if it didn't though. I suspect that overall enthusiasm for the game increased, because of the HR chase

however I am not sure that the Royals sold more tickets because Mac and Sosa were hitting lots of HRs, but

I bet a lot of people in KC turned on the TV, watched ESPN etc.

[Tbadder]

Another question: are we so naive to believe that insiders, journalists, managers, owners, scouts, coaches, league office people, the comissioner, etc. didn't know?

 

What's funny is that none of those people had the guts to stand up--it took Jose Canseco of all people. Jose Canseco, savior of our beloved game. I say we put him in the HOF. A larger than life picture stamping out the evils of Clemens, Big Mac, Curt, Raffey. How could that not be a reason to drive to Cooperstown.

[Tbadder]

One of the arguments about signing A-Rod is that his home run chase is going to be such a boon to the Yankees, that it'll pay for a large portion of the contract.

[Thurston Fluff]

One of the arguments about signing A-Rod is that his home run chase is going to be such a boon to the Yankees, that it'll pay for a large portion of the contract.

 

I never heard anyone say it was going to pay for a large portion of his contract. It may help the year he's going to break it but I don't see how his possible breaking of the record in 2015 is going to sell more tickets in 2008. Either way it may be a boon to the Yankees but as FTJ pointed out it probalby won't get anyone in KC to go to more games.

 

Another question: are we so naive to believe that insiders, journalists, managers, owners, scouts, coaches, league office people, the comissioner, etc. didn't know?

 

That's sort of a loaded question. knowing and being able to do anything about it are two differant things. There was no way anyone could have said I think this particular person is using without specific information wihtout being sued for slander or lible. Did they know there was steroid abuse going on? I'm sure they did. That doesn't mean there was anything that could have been done about it since there was no specific allegation backed up with actual evidence against anyone. We just saw how long it took the federal government to put a case together against Bonds. How was Bud, the media, fans ect supposed to take concrete actions against it back in the 90's? Especially when the union back then was so strong that it made doing anything about it nearly impossible. So it may be true they knew of it but that is not he same as saying they wanted it to continue or that they turned the other way because of it's benefit for them. I don't know if anyone did know specifics and turned a blind eye to it mind you. It's just I don't think you know for sure they did either.

Jose Conseco being someone who allegedly used them with others he named had that information. SO unless you're saying Bud or a journalist or a fan was present at the time of the useage this is a red herring.

[patrickgpe]

i haven't really read through this whole thread, but i am going to guess everyone is on the side that if he is convicted he should be out of the hall and his record taken from the books. I think a conviction should end his career and his HOF bid. I am not really for removing his name and record from the record book. In this era, you really don't know who really used or not. There has been rumors about a certain brewer for years that he was on the juice. The fact that he was better than anyone else that cheated shouldn't cause him to be singled out. Id rather let bonds story be told down from generation to generation, like the shoeless joe jackson has been told for 100 years. I don't like Bonds at all, i just don't see it feasible to permanently delete the single and career homerun record form the books.

[MJLiverock]

So if the BB that tested positive for steroids is Bonds (which I think it probably is) what does it prove that is new? Everybody already suspected him of taking the juice. From what I remember he just told the grand jury he didn't know the cream or the clear was steroids he thought it was flaxseed or something. The Feds already knew the clear was juice so it stands to reason that Bonds would test positive for steroids. He admitted he used the stuff, he claims he didn't know what it was. The positve test adds nothing to this argument. Seems to me the Feds will have to prove Bonds knew it was steroids prior to using it and then claimed he didn't know to the grand jury. The positive test is completely meaningless.

 

As far as the fan who says Bonds cheated the fans I disagree. I know I enjoyed watching Bonds put the fear of God in opposing pitchers. Most of whom were probably just as juiced as he was. I still believe he was the best player of his generation (Griffey would be right there if he wasn't injured and probably Clemens who is most likely a juicer too) and he competed on a level field because they are all a bunch of juicers. I was completely entertained by baseball for the last 25 years of juicers.

[TooLiveBrew]

And we continue to be entertained by them!

 

The positve test adds nothing to this argument. Seems to me the Feds will have to prove Bonds knew it was steroids prior to using it and then claimed he didn't know to the grand jury. The positive test is completely meaningless.

This is a good point. But as previously mentioned, when a Grand Jury sends something to trial, it almost always gets a conviction.

[billyhallfan]

This is a good point. But as previously mentioned, when a Grand Jury sends something to trial, it almost always gets a conviction.

 

i don't know if anyone said this or not, but I believe it is 4 out of 5 times

[Fatter than Joey]

i don't know if anyone said this or not, but I believe it is 4 out of 5 times

 

I think it is more like 19 out of 20

[brewizard]

And, likewise, no one else was going to hit 73 home runs in one season, or 762 total, drugged or not.

 

That's a pretty large assumption to make.

 

I don't think it is a large assumption. I'd just say: look at the stats. HAS anyone else hit 73 homers in one season or 762 total homers before?

 

Answer: No.

 

Nobody else was going to hit 73 home runs in one season, or 762 total, drugged or not, simply because nobody else did.

[billyhallfan]

I think it is more like 19 out of 20

 

Not according to PTIhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif