Dan Gould

I haven't a clue why you bring up Dubya and couldn't care less. The simple point is that if there was the slightest flicker of an intelligent argument from you, there would be people here backing you up. The fact that there aren't any says everything about your knowledge (you continue to assert factual inaccuracies about what Bonds admitted to) and your intelligence (your laughable assertions about steroids and a batter's power and proclivity to hit home runs - rejected by every single person who has bothered to offer an opinion). You are a lonely, sad, pathetic man, railing at the "injustice" of it all. Sound like someone who was just indicted by a Grand Jury?

I can only imagine what jury selection was like in this case and I would propose that any retrial should require that a jury be impaneled of dog lovers. No cat people, no birders. Dog people only. Then you might have a shot at getting a verdict.

Palmiero is the only person who said under oath (before Congress) that he has never used steroids. His positive test came after his testimony, and therefore does nothing to disprove his statement under oath. The only thing that would prove perjury is a failed drug test taken prior to his testimony. Giambi testified truthfully under oath about the steroids he received from BALCO and Greg Anderson. No one else has been called upon to testify under oath. Here's a wild guess: because he was given a grant of immunity from prosecution with the sole proviso that he would be held criminally liable if he did not tell the truth under oath. He chose to give knowingly false, perjured testimony. He is being targeted for violating the immunity agreement and the law. It truly staggers the mind that someone who has found ZERO support for every single one of his assertions and arguments in this matter is complaining about a lack of intelligent discourse.

You cannot honestly believe any of this. The San Francisco office of the Justice Department is simply doing this to "tarnish his career"? They only wish to "embarass" the man. Even worse, you honestly believe that this indictment is meant to "divert attention away from Iraq, gas prices, and the piss poor economy"?? So, the President just waited and waited til things were at their worst, then he said "INDICT BONDS! I gotta get a break from these bad headlines!!!!" You have gone completely insane. Seriously, you're a fucking moron if that is what you believe. Let me give you an alternative reason why Barry finds himself in the position he is now in. Once upon a time, Justice Department officials became aware of a criminal organization called BALCO. It was an illegal distributor of steroids and used money laundering techniques to hide its income. Search warrants were issued, and mountains of evidence were obtained that demonstrated the illegal acts of BALCO owners and employees. The evidence also demonstrated that many world class athletes were BALCO clients and that they received and used illegal steroids. In the course of the investigation, these athletes were granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony before the Grand Jury which was impaneled to issue indictments of BALCO owners and employees. The only possible legal jeapordy these athletes were in was if they failed to tell the truth under oath. Jason Giambi told the truth. His reputation ultimately took a hit but he is in no legal jeapordy. Marion Jones lied before the grand jury. She is now going to jail on perjury charges, among others. Barry Bonds, because of his monumental ego and belief that the laws do not apply to him (or else out of fear that his use of steroids would destroy his reputation) lied to the Grand Jury. He is now indicted for perjury. In short, the Justice Department in San Francisco had a criminal organization in its cross hairs. It investigated, and has pursued all illegal acts committed by any party related to the criminal organization.

Well, in defense of the quoted baseball players, professional ball players as a group might not be considered the sharpest knives in the drawer... Very true, and I think Boston Herald columnist Tony Massarotti got it exactly right:

Important news flash for Goodie: From Foxsports.com: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7452894

That is what I think too, but I just read an incredibly stupid AP piece that basically said it does nothing to stop him from playing next year, on the basis that baseball can't act to suspend based on an indictment, and that other players have been "caught" and given second chances. The idiot even claims that the Union could charge "collusion" if he doesn't get signed by someone. It is unbelievable to me that an AP editor would not hand it back and say, "yes, but what about the fact that its been widely reported that few teams were going to be interested in Bonds and the circus atmosphere he brings even before the indictment, plus the fact that if he goes to trial, he could very well have to leave his team for three weeks in the middle of the season? Your column completely ignores these issues!" See for yourself: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti...onds_off_field/

He has already admitted to using the "Clear" when it wasn't illeagal to do so. I'll bet you dollars to donut holes that is the positive tests the feds are presenting. You still have no grasp of the facts. That isn't surprising, nor is it that you have no grasp of spelling. Bonds has never acknowledged using the "Clear" or any steroid whatsoever. The illegality of it has nothing to do with a charge of perjury. Interesting section from the ESPN legal expert: Are there any surprises in the indictment? Most of the material in the indictment is familiar to anyone who has followed the BALCO investigation, but there is one surprise. The surprise is that, according to the indictment, during the criminal investigation evidence was obtained, including positive tests for steroids and other performance-enhancing substances for Bonds and other professional athletes. When asked about it in front of the grand jury, Bonds denied a positive test. It will be one of the most difficult charges for Bonds to deny. He will be scientifically connected to a positive test with DNA and other techniques. It doesn't look good for Bonds at the moment... Its also interesting about the perjury charge based on a denial of using anything that involved an injection. Do they have evidence of steroid use for injectables specifically? Or do they actually have syringes with DNA material? I love how his lawyers are bitching about leaks and "unethical misconduct" (as opposed to the ethical kind!). None of that has any legal significance at trial (beyond the fact that it was Conti's own defense lawyer who fessed up to being the source for the grand jury testimony, not the prosecutor's office). They can talk all they want but at trial they are going to have to deal with mountains of evidence siezed at BALCO and elsewhere. The crap about "misconduct" amounts to an attempt to poison the jury pool and their only hope (and I have to admit, its always a possibility) is Jury Nullification or a hung jury because they make sure they get some moronic Giants fans who don't care what the evidence is, he's "our Barry". I am still waiting to hear something definitive about the tax evasion charges. Did the Grand Jury refuse to indict? Did the prosecutors only ask for a vote on the perjury charges? I'd say if it turns out that the Grand Jury has been dismissed, then they didn't come up with the goods on the tax charges, which is a big positive for Bonds. If they are still impaneled, then the possibility of a superseding indictment has to be considered.

And hearing the same stage patter. Maybe he likes fusion and is not confused by it.

I really can't believe I am reading this. First, are you offering surprise that Boras is drafting the contract, or only surprise at the fact that an agreement in principle has been reached? Because if it is about Boras, you should know that by the terms of the Player's Agreement, no club can mandate that a player not use a particular agent, or be denied representation during the drafting a contract. Had the reports been true that A-Rod was told "no Boras in the room" then the Yankees would have been subject to penalty once the Player's Union raised a stink. Second, there can be no provision for steroid testing or penalties for positive tests. These are covered in the PA and no individual player's contract can supersede what the player's union has agreed to when it comes to testing for PEDs and amphetamines and the penalties that will result from a positive test.

He has already admitted to using the "Clear" when it wasn't illeagal to do so. I'll bet you dollars to donut holes that is the positive tests the feds are presenting. You still have no grasp of the facts. That isn't surprising, nor is it that you have no grasp of spelling. Bonds has never acknowledged using the "Clear" or any steroid whatsoever. The illegality of it has nothing to do with a charge of perjury.

Do not expect to see You Tube video of this. Dream on, Goodie Good point. Work on your reading comprehension, Goodie. He's not saying there won't be youtube video of me taking it in the shorts - he's saying there won't be any video of Bonds getting exonerated cause he'll be getting convicted. See that's why he said "dream on". No. I think he means you won't actually admit when you are WRONG, big boy. Deal with it. Well if Chuck doesn't come back to clarify (and who could blame him), try and use your mind and think about it. You said I hope you're ready to take it in the shorts when Bonds is exonerated. Do not expect to see You Tube video of this. Dream on, Goodie Why would YouTube video exist of me "taking it in the shorts"? Whereas, obviously, there would be YouTube video of a jury of his peers saying "GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!" You are imagining his exoneration like you imagine that he didn't use steroids and they don't help anyway.

I would like to someday read the real story behind what happened to ARod in the past month. Thinking about it, the Yankees took a huge financial hit because before, Texas was paying a lot of ARod's salary, now the Yankees are on the hook for the whole amount. The whole saga strikes me as strange -- I have a strange feeling that at the winter meeting, when the GM's "shared" their visions of what their teams needed, that somehow it was communicated that no one was going after ARod, so the Yankees had a smooth path to resign ARod. Still, I see trouble for ARod in New York, and I do not expect to see ARod in a Yankee uniform in five years, much less ten. If the word out of Tampa is to be believed, the Yankees were prepared to pay about 295 million over ten years, and when they chopped off the 20 million or so that Alex was responsible for them losing from Texas, you get the 275 million. I now wonder what the incentives are (they are supposedly related to breaking the all-time home run record (would be interesting if by the time he is in striking distance, the target is 755 again). But what is clear to me is that without receiving a single offer from anywhere else, Alex got an enormous payday, bigger than the original contract. Did the Yankees communicate to him that if he came and made amends, they'd still take care of him? Why wouldn't they play at least a little hard ball, and offer him ten years and two hundred million, or ten years and 225? No one was going to beat that. It really looks to me like Boras found his idiot owner to offer that much cash for a guy who will be 39 when the deal is only 70% done. I honestly don't think anyone was going near ten years or going to touch 25 million in average yearly value, so why did the Yanks go ten and 275? Its really nuts. On the other hand, while I agree that it is likely that he'll continue to have trouble in New York, I believe he will be there for the duration. No one can take on that salary. Most teams max out with one player around 1/2 of A-Rod's salary. How much would the Yankees have to pay if they wanted to get rid of him, and why would you think that he won't insist on a no-trade clause again?

Do not expect to see You Tube video of this. Dream on, Goodie Good point. Work on your reading comprehension, Goodie. He's not saying there won't be youtube video of me taking it in the shorts - he's saying there won't be any video of Bonds getting exonerated cause he'll be getting convicted. See that's why he said "dream on".

Looks like A-Rod and the Yanks have an agreement in principle on a ten year/275 million dollar contract. I still can't believe that anyone would give him 27.5 million a year til he is 42 - there's just no way this contract isn't an albatross with at least three years to go - but now A-Rod gets to stay a Yankee and exceed his previous record-breaking contract by about 20 million, Boras gets his 30% or whatever, and the Yankees aren't looking at a gigantic hole in their offense. They'll just be looking at a gigantic hole in their budget by the time A-Rod finishes.

Indictment, inschmitement....you still gotta prove it. Good luck with that. And now, you're going to see all of the evidence that he used steroids and then lied about it. I hope you're prepared, and also prepared to eat crow to all of the people here that you annoyed to no end with your nonsensical assertions. I hope you're ready to take it in the shorts when Bonds is exhonerated. Besides, I have always maintained that if Barry Bonds was proven guilty of taking steroids then I would be the first to admit it. And, even if he did, they do not make you see the ball better and they do not cause you to hit HRs. Further, if found guilty, I want a full scale investigation of any baseball player who holds a record or a place in the HOF. Otherwise, it is and was and ever will be a media lynching and federal witch hunt. And you remain a joke and a fool. We've gone over it before. EVERYONE on the board who has expressed an opinion believes that steroids DO help you hit home runs. Only you continue to insist otherwise. And to say that it "is and was and ever will be a media lynching and federal witch hunt" after he is indicted and convicted is beyond laughable. You are like Stephen A. Smith, who was blathering on ESPN about how its all because Bonds is black and chasing the home run record, and McGuire practically took the Fifth in front of Congress and nothing happened to him. Excuse me. Something did happen to McGuire: His testimony destroyed his chance to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. And this idea that others have to be investigated, or else. Sorry. Bonds chose to involve himself in a criminal organization - BALCO - and to knowingly use their illegal products. Because of his involvement with BALCO, he became subject to the Grand Jury investigation of BALCO and its owners and employees. He chose to commit perjury and now he is indicted for that offense. Show me someone else who knowingly lies in a federal court proceeding, and I'll show you someone who deserves a "full scale investigation". And how pathetic that you are a teacher who can't spell exonerated.

Indictment, inschmitement....you still gotta prove it. Good luck with that. And now, you're going to see all of the evidence that he used steroids and then lied about it. I hope you're prepared, and also prepared to eat crow to all of the people here that you annoyed to no end with your nonsensical assertions.

Or a George Costanza model La-Z-Ass chair with the fridge built into the side.

Read the indictment and weep here, Goodie!

An early Christmas gift to every baseball fan who doesn't live in San Francisco.

And hearing the same stage patter.

I think we need to re-post this in the Barry Bonds thread. But in the meantime ... calling Goodspeak! Our long national nightmare is over!

Good - hopefully he'll get a "Columbian Necktie". The problem is that celebrities get special treatment to protect them from any inmate trying to get some notoriety and he will never live in the general population. Maybe, maybe not. At a state prison I would not be surprised if he was in the general population after being isolated for just a short period. As to whether or not something would happen to him, that odds are probably against that. Considering the way many African Americans on the street believe OJ was innocent or at least were happy to see him get off, he will probably be very popular in prison. You may be right about how the general population views him, but I seriously doubt that any prison - state, federal, local, doesn't take a person's notoriety into account. Ex-cops aren't left in the general population, and neither are celebrities.

Good - hopefully he'll get a "Columbian Necktie". The problem is that celebrities get special treatment to protect them from any inmate trying to get some notoriety and he will never live in the general population.

Aggie - your memory isn't failing, I believe the law in California says that pensions are protected from any civil judgments. I wouldn't call his lawyers Dream Team II, because that pension is something like $400,000 a year - depending on whether or not his lifestyle allows him to save any of that money, I don't think he is close to having the assets to pay for a true "Dream Team". On the other hand, this case doesn't require hiring a lot of people to handle DNA evidence, blood spatter evidence, etc., etc. I don't think we'll be hearing "How about THAT, Mr. Fung?" this time. Basically his lawyers are going to attack the credibility of all of the witnesses who got pretty sweet deals and in the preliminary hearing, they didn't exactly tell a completely cohesive story without contradicting each other. I watched for a time while I was eating lunch and couldn't believe how OJ's attorney was going after one of them, calling him a pimp over and over again with virtually no basis for the accusation. And that was in the prelim - I can only imagine how he'll go after him with a jury in the room! Speaking of the jury, I really wish I lived in Vegas and were called to serve. I'd relish the opportunity to be asked if I had formed an opinion about OJ and tell him to his face that he's a murderer and anyone with a brain knows it. It will be real interesting to see how many jurors have to go through voir dire to find a panel that doesn't have an opinion, or can convince his attorney that he can set it aside and judge based on the facts of the case. I actually do think that OJ has a shot and its quite possible that a jury will acquit on some of the worst charges like kidnapping. But I do think he will go down on some of the charges.