Dan Gould

One man's "blunt" is another man's ignorance.

Being too young to have watched it in prime time, I only saw the TV show in syndication in the early 70s, with no knowledge of the fights between the band and their overseers. Later I heard or read about how they chafed at it .... but while its somewhat interesting to see these clips, in the end it just doesn't mean anything to me. I guess in this case you really had to have been there.

As were the Red Sox - to return to their established level of incompetence. Now they get David Price tonight who is tougher on them than Lester is on the Rays and with such an inability to get going with the bats, I foresee another 1-0 or 2-1 loss for Lester. A couple of more weeks and they will have dug their hole deep enough ...

Only if they start to build on this by keeping the Rays down for three, starting tonight. Yes but then again there is the saying that you don't win a pennant in April, but you can lose it. If you end up needing to play over .600 ball the rest of the way to get to 95 wins that's a tall order no matter what kind of roster you have. One surprisingly good start won't do it, there are a lot of players who need to show some life soon.

Hope you had a

I just can't ignore this shit any longer. The trial began with speculation that he took steroids then "morphed" into a trial about whether he lied about taking steroids? In the words of the immortal John McEnroe YOU CANNOT BE FUCKING SERIOUS! Once again you betray an appalling lack of understanding of basic facts of the evidence, both that which was allowed into evidence by the judge and that which was disallowed. Here are the facts: Testimony was given that the 2003 "survey" results for Bonds blood sample were initially negative for steroids then when they knew what they were looking for (remember, BALCO's pitch was "undetectable" steroids) ... POSITIVE for the CLEAR and the CREAM. The test results are 100% legitimate and they show that Bonds used what BALCO and Greg Anderson were selling: Performance Enhancing Drugs. "Doping schedules" were not even mentioned in the indictment, because Greg Anderson refused to testify against his friend. Greg Anderson could have stood before the jury and said "I never told Barry that what I was giving him were steroids" but he has refused to do that and by his willful obstruction of justice took a hacksaw to the case the Feds could have presented, including: The positive steroid test results found in BALCO's records; That "Doping CALENDAR" with Barry Lamar Bonds' initials on it, which followed the Giants' baseball schedule to the T and showed Bonds receiving regular injections of various steroids. The fact that the jury spent all of Friday discussing the charges and asking to see or hear some of the evidence again is a very bad sign for Bonds, in my opinion. The defense presented no case - a signal to the jury that there is nothing to see here, they should return a not-guilty verdict in no time. If indeed "the feds got no case" then why would it take them more than a day to return a verdict? Why would they ask to hear the court reporter repeat the testimony of "Barry's girl" about watching Anderson inject Bonds? The fact that they didn't pull an OJ and take 90 minutes to acquit tells me that there are at least some people on the jury who are taking their obligation seriously. At this point Bonds may be hoping for a hung jury.

Maybe he was practicing for the real thing.

I think the better comparison is Palmiero, sans the finger-wagging denial. Similar kind of purely offensive claim on the Hall too - until ....

I used to see the CD box at Blue Note Records in Miami, was tempted but the lack of info on the box kept me from buying it. Now that I know what was on it I am glad I didn't ever pull the trigger. I might have wanted if it was some sort of comp of rare cuts or something but six full CDs that had domestic reissues? Nothing to see here.

Or they couldn't possibly risk putting Bonds on the stand and have the prosecution go after him.

At this point I am rooting for the worst to happen. I want to see this pathetic group of assholes be the first "World Series favorite" to be booed off the field on their own home opener. And then by Sunday I want Papelbon to be on the field in the ninth inning trying to nail down the first win only to blow it up. I need something different to do in the summer, might as well experience a baseball-free one.

Peter Crawford is the US distributor and I get regular emails with new releases by Steeplechase (and other) labels he carries. stateside@prodigy.net

I agree with Allen and in fact, I wonder how many of those emails are legit Facebook messages and how many are much more nefarious ways to hook you into something (F*ckbook anyone?)

I'd say you definitely want to avoid Norah and Diana to keep jazz cred in a conversation - if you're faking it. Avoiding Ella and Louis because of some perception of cross-over appeal is ludicrous. We're talking about two of the greatest singers of the 20th century and the vast majority of their music was without question jazz.

I'l try and read this later once I forget that he says Has anyone here ever heard Armstrong or Ella criticized for crossover appeal? Even if it happened back in the day, it never happens now which is the whole point of the article - how to keep up in a jazz conversation today.

(where's the second set of the Blues compilation?)

Of course its something batted around too many times in the past but Aggie nails it. Yes, Bonds was as uniquely talented as any outstanding major leaguer in squaring up a round ball with a cylindrical bat. But he never hit home runs with the frequency that he achieved so late in his career, until he started working with Greg Anderson and BALCO, and after his body became cartoonish. What's funny to me is this: Let's say there was no evidence that Bonds used steroids to bulk up. Let's say that for all anyone knows he simply worked hard and packed on muscle. Would Goodie give any credit to the idea that Bonds' added muscle was behind his home run frequency increase? Or would he still deny the connection? I think that if home runs weren't inextricably linked with physical strength, and Bonds wasn't linked to steroids, Tim would be able to admit the simple truth: stronger players hit the ball further, and the stronger you are the more likely that a hit will reach the bleachers than be caught at the warning track.

Its the only thing that's keeping me from seeking out the nearest bridge to fling myself from - if you believe the Rays will end of the third best non-division winner, then getting off to the same pathetic start keeps me on a somewhat even keel. But Jesus Christ the way they are playing, the Indians will do their best "'1927 Yankees" imitation starting Tuesday and by the time the Yankees leave Fenway Sunday night they'll be six games off the pace. And then you will see people lined up at bridges all over New England.

Convict him of lying about a material fact in testimony before a Grand Jury. That is perjury, its a felony, and he lied in so many ways in his testimony that they have two charges that don't relate in any way to whether he knowingly took HGH or steroids. So congratulations on finally learning and accepting that there are perjury charges that don't specify that he had knowingly taken steroids or HGH. When your hero is convicted, you can celebrate that he wasn't found guilty of knowingly using steroids or HGH. The rest of the rational world has already figured out what he took and that he knowingly took them, regardless of what a jury may find when they are being denied the testimony of Greg Anderson, and as a result, an enormous amount of other evidence that was excluded as a result of Anderson's actions to obstruct justice.

In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever of Anderson being yanked around by the prosecution. Since when does a plea agreement say "you are required to provide truthful testimony in any related matter with the sole exception of any criminal case involving Barry Bonds"? In fact, plea agreements that require truthful testimony by a conspirator or co-conspirator always include an obligation to provide testimony in any matter related to the crime or the criminal enterprise. What is ridiculous is that the defense gets all the benefit by his actions and no penalties. The judge should be allowed to make a statement that Anderson has refused to testify in this matter and the jury may draw any conclusion it wishes to. So what if it might be a conclusion not supported by the evidence that's been entered in the case - Anderson is the one refusing to provide evidence. Instead the judge is obligated to say some BS about Anderson being "unavailable" and that the jury should draw no conclusion about that. Fortunately, counts 2 and 4 of the indictment don't require Anderson's testimony anyway. And Ms Hoskins + the tape that was played with Anderson talking about the different places he injects Bonds provide more than enough evidence to convict. If the jury is serious about their oath and no Bonds fans snuck on by lying about their allegiance, I predict at least two guilty verdicts.

Its actually good to read through the entire amended indictment. Count Four refers to when Anderson had Bonds take anything other than vitamins - prior to 2003. Bonds is clear in stating that he did not. Again, no reference to what he might have given him, but Bonds denies anything prior to the 2003 season. Looks like another winnable charge even without Anderson's testimony on what he gave him. And again, nothing about what was given, only that it wasn't vitamins, and whether it happened before the 2003 season. I can't find any reporting that specifically states when Ms. Hoskins witnessed the injection but I am sure that the prosecution had to lay the foundation by soliciting testimony about a time frame for what she witnessed. If that time frame was before the 2003 season, boom - her testimony convicts him on two of the four perjury charges - with nothing ever said about specifically what he was given.

I quote: "This is Katie, she's my girl, she won't say anything." I further quote: The ballplayer called it a "little somethin', somethin'" he took before heading out on road trips. Source: San Jose Mercury News What, one might posit, would the term "she's my girl" denote? I am making an assumption based on very little proof. Just like the prosecution is. What, one might further posit, would this "somethin'" be? Yet another assumption, no proof. More demonstration of your continued ignorance of the facts and the law. Count #2 in the indictment refers to Bonds grand jury testimony that only his doctor has ever injected him. THERE IS NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER IN COUNT TWO AS TO WHAT GREG ANDERSON WAS INJECTING HIM WITH.

Factual observation cannot be insulting. You are ignorant of the facts, as I have laid out several examples and you cannot contradict them. There is absolutely no reporting anywhere that Ms Hoskins ever had a romantic relationship, with Bonds, she was his employee. Like her brother, she knew him since childhood. If anything "she's my girl" shows how he treats employees - as children or servants.

Your ignorance is appalling. And mods, you should in no way consider that a personal attack. It is a factual observation. Timmy knows nothing about this case and he demonstrates his ignorance with every post he makes. Today alone he has called Steve Hoskins the "brother of Bonds' ex-girlfriend" when Kimberley Bell is the ex-girlfriend, and Steve Hoskins' sister is the person who personally witnessed Anderson inject Bonds. That personal observation is by definition not hearsay evidence, which he has stated is "all the prosecution has". And on top of that, he continues to assert that the charges relate exclusively to Bonds lying about his knowingly taking steroids, when I have pointed out several times that one of the five perjury charges regards Bonds' statement that no one but his doctor has ever given him an injection.

Casey Stengal platooned. So did Earl Weaver. And many others. Nothing new about it. Just good old fashioned winning* managing. *Winning in the non-Charlie Sheen sense. I think... Not only it is it winning managing, but the fact that a couple of lefties had hits doesn't say a damn thing about whether lefties should play or sit against a starter like CJ Wilson. Like I pointed out above, he allowed an OPS (On-Base Plus Slugging) of four-freaking hundred against lefties. Shitty hitters OPS .600. Papi OPS'd .599 against lefties last year, he was appalling, and he was 50% better than what Wilson allowed to lefties. When/if Wilson plows through the lefty-heavy Red Sox lineup in October to put his team up 1-0 in the ALCS, you'll be whining about why all those lefties were in the lineup.