-
Posts
5,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Donations
0.00 USD
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Everything posted by Tim McG
-
Not so fast, Dan. I read in the paper this morning that the all important damning evidence is a tainted urine sample taken from Conte during a raid on his place in 2003. If that's all they have, this witch hunt is over. To wit: [Read it and weep, Dan] Bonds' lawyers to question steroid test By PAUL ELIAS11/16/07 16:48:18 AP sports analyst Ben Walker says many players are hypocritical about steroid use. "I've never seen these documents," Barry Bonds said. He was testifying before a federal grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, or BALCO, and had just been shown what prosecutors say was a positive steroid test conducted on a player named Barry B. "I've never seen these papers," Bonds repeated, according to Thursday's indictment charging Bonds with perjury and obstruction of justice. Those test results may now be the vital linchpin to proving he lied under oath. Bonds' lawyers are expected to fiercely attack their reliability, much the way O.J. Simpson's legal team undermined the football star's murder case by questioning the handling of his blood samples. Bonds' attorney, Michael Rains, declined to comment. But BALCO founder Victor Conte offered some insight Friday into how the slugger's legal team might cast doubt on the evidence. It was November 2000, and Bonds was preparing for the season in which he would shatter Mark McGwire's single-season home run record. According to Conte, himself a convicted steroids dealer, Bonds would visit the lab on Saturdays and after normal business hours with an entourage that included his trainer, Greg Anderson, and his personal physician, Dr. Arthur Ting. Anderson had convinced Bonds to use BALCO to develop a dietary and supplement regimen, which Conte designed based on the results of the blood and urine samples. Conte said Bonds was put through the same tests as other elite athlete clients, including tests to detect the use of 30 different steroids. Conte hired Quest Diagnostics to do a "quick and dirty" analysis of the samples, to save money. The lab charged Conte $80 per test, rather than its usual $120, after Conte agreed to cut out much of the paperwork and elaborate protocol that typically accompany drug tests. For instance, Conte said a licensed lab technician never watched Bonds urinate in the bottle. Nor were the samples ever formally sealed, dated and signed by an independent collector. There was also no formal process for who handled the samples at Quest, Conte said. The indictment does not explain where prosecutors obtained the results, but Conte said they were seized when federal agents raided his lab in September 2003. "If that's the smoking gun," Conte said, "it doesn't have any bullets." The U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco declined to comment. Criminal defense attorneys not affiliated with the case say the reliability of blood and urine tests are always open to second-guessing even when the forensic handling is done flawlessly. "There is always an opportunity to attack that kind of forensic evidence through its chain of custody," said attorney William Sullivan, who recently won an acquittal for former federal prosecutor Richard Convertino on an obstruction charge alleging he withheld evidence in a terrorism trial in Detroit. "You look at how the evidence was preserved, who handled it," Sullivan said. "You can even attack the analysis itself." Similar chain-of-custody problems exploited by Simpson's lawyers helped derail the prosecution's murder case against him. Los Angeles County prosecutors argued that DNA testing on blood, hair and fibers collected at the murder scene proved Simpson's blood and the blood of the two victims were present. But Simpson's defense team was able to cast doubt on whether the evidence tested was the same as that collected at the scene by showing that each piece of DNA evidence was handled by at least three people before it was tested. The problems with the Simpson evidence prompted law enforcement agencies to adopt more stringent protocols. Few of those protocols were followed in collecting and analyzing Bonds' blood and urine, Conte said. "I don't think you can prove those were Barry's samples," he said. Another vulnerable spot in the government's case is Anderson's steadfast refusal to testify against Bonds. Because federal prosecutors were so adamant that the trainer should go to prison for refusing to testify, the trainer's lawyers - and most other observers - believed Anderson's testimony was necessary to indict Bonds. But Anderson was released from prison Thursday and, according to his lawyers, he never cooperated with the investigation. He could land back in prison, however, if prosecutors decide to call him as a witness during the trial and he refuses to testify. Criminal defense attorneys said other parts of the government's case against Bonds are ripe for attack - none bigger than the testimony of his former mistress, Kimberly Bell. In 2005, Bell told a grand jury investigating Bonds for perjury that the slugger told her he used steroids. But Bell is open to withering cross-examination, lawyers said. Rains said she was miffed that Bonds didn't pay her the nearly $200,000 she demanded when their 10-year relationship ended in 2003. Bell said she was asking Bonds to keep a promise to buy her house in Arizona, but Rains said the demand amounted to extortion. The indictment cited 19 instances in which Bonds lied during his grand jury testimony, including several denials that he took performance enhancing drugs. Little other evidence is presented in the indictment, but that doesn't mean prosecutors don't have something else up their sleeve, legal experts said. "He testified four years ago and they indicted him Thursday," said New York criminal defense attorney Brad Simon, a former federal prosecutor. That tells me they have a new witness or some new evidence we don't know about that seals the deal."
-
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? Yeah, yeah, yap, yap, yap. Maybe we see how the trial turns out, eh? Then we see who had it right and who had it wrong, eh? Perjury is a helluva hard provable point here and you know it, Dan. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so damned smug and abusive. Berate me, abuse me, but when it all comes down to it....you don't know shit from Shinola relative to how the trial will turn out. I don't pretend to know how it will turn out...why do you?
-
Whatever, Dan. You have convinced yourself that anyone who disagrees with the Jazz enthusiasts of this BBS has to be a complete idiot. You told me so on a previous post about what you percieve they think about Bonds' alledged guilt. That makes just about as much sense as saying Gee Dumbya was actually elected to office. He was assigned to office and by the right wing leaning Supreme Court. You know it, I know it. Pretending it isn't so just shows your ignorance. Bonds, conversely, is being judged by a tabloid seeking media with has obviously tainted the GJ with all of the unsubstatiated kiss-and-tell bullshit. Why all the anger? Why all the vitriol? Why all the insult? Is it because what I have said all along that people have a problem with a Black man doing well and breaking a time hnored HR record? Is it because you're afraid I just might be right? Look in the mirror, Dan....do you see honesty looking back at you? I predict the GJ trial will turn up more of the same and will not be able to prove perjury. Bonds walks...but because of simple minds like yours...his career will be forever tainted. Satisfied now?
-
That may be true, but we see people lying to Congress on almost a daily basis with little or no consequence (to them). Are you sure only the record-holders are targeted? That may well be the case. I'm just not so sure. And if it is the case, isn't it common for federal prosecutors to go after the big fish? You're not going to crack open substance abuse in baseball by prosecuting some AAA call-up. I'm not sure I see a problem with the tactic, really. As an aside, the Mitchell report should break things open even further, with reportedly more than 100 names. We'll see. Selig will have his hands full. Well, if the lesser players are getting their heads handed to them by the feds...I'm not seeing it. As to the Mitchell report, we will see if anything else comes of this. Bottom line, it is a game and I fail to understand why the feds are so fired up interested. I sense a smoke screen.
-
Nah. Paper wads at 20 paces.
-
But this all tracks back to Balco. Marion Jones was tied up in Balco as well, and apparently lied to a grand jury, then eventually came clean. She'll likely do time for the same offense Bonds is charged with. So, to extend your argument, what you seem to be saying is that unless the feds go after every track athlete, they are unfairly targeting Jones? ... I don't quite buy that. Lying to Congress and lying to a federal grand jury are two different things (as has been well demonstrated on a daily basis.) Unless there's sufficient evidence to prosecute those others for lying to a grand jury, your argument seems to be a non-starter. I don't buy that and neither should you. Lying to Congress has brought retribution to numerous people dating back to the Rosenburgs [sic] commie scare days. The feds are playing selective rerasoning only because Bonds is a record holder. It makes a splashier headline and diverts attention away from Iraq, gas prices and the piss poor economy. No more, no less. As to prosecuting every track athlete, the only ones targeted have been, again, the record holders. So, yes, I believe this stuff is selectively and unfairly applied and only to nail the stars. I am certain you cannot believe only the top athletes have used steriods....so it only follows that this is the case relative to prosecution.
-
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. Once again for clarity, I never said Bonds didn't use steroids. What I did say was there is no substantiated or physical proof that he had. Proving perjury is a smoke screen to the real issues at hand. The feds had no choice but to indict Bonds....how else do they justify the wasted tax dollars on this sham investigation? Obviously, the goal here is [as it was with Clinton] is to tie an albatross around Bonds' neck in an effort to tarnish his career. They have an uphill battle to prove perjury and they know it, but the feds can embarrass the guy and they will. Just like they did with President Clinton. That makes this a witch hunt and of the shoddiest kind.
-
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/ I simply cannot believe these complete, utter, stupid comments I'm reading in this article: So, according to these guys, Bonds has done nothing but be a great player, and because of this, the government is after him to put him in jail. Un-freeking-believable. Basically, that's it. Unless the feds go after Sosa, McGuire, Palmerio, Gagne, Canseco, Giambi or whomever, this nothing more than a witch hunt. Pure and simple. Why, you have to ask, is Bonds targeted and nobody else? IMO, the complete lack of intelligent discourse here on this point is astounding.
-
Marion Barry...the cokehead of DC?
-
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.
-
He has already admitted to using the "Clear" when it wasn't illegal to do so. I'll bet you dollars to donut holes that is the positive tests the feds are presenting.
-
12 Angry Mothers-in-Law
-
Dead Parrot Society
-
Steel Mag Wheels
-
The Rusting
-
Rooster Cogwheel
-
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! National nightmare....wha-? Is Gee Dumbya stealing another election?
-
Do not expect to see You Tube video of this. Dream on, Goodie Good point.
-
BTW...Rafael Palmeiro lied under oath, too. I'll be looking forward to seing his GJ trial real soon. Tell me.... If everyone on this BBS told you to walk West until your hat floats...would you do it? Yer killin' me, Dan.
-
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 exonerated. 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. As someone else has already pointed out...here we go again. Proving perjury is going to be one helluva a hard sell, Dan. BTW, sorry about the misspelled word....I'll shoot for perfection in my next lifetime, OK?
-
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 exonerated. 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.
-
Indictment, inschmitement....you still gotta prove it. Good luck with that.
-
have you heard the latest out of New York? Multiple New York media outlets are reporting that A-Rod - all by his lonesome - has approached the Yankees about coming back, that he realizes he made a mistake in opting out, and what can he do to make it right ... if the reports are to be believed, if A-Rod is willing to negotiate (without Boras' assistance or even his presence in the room) a below market deal, the Yankees would take him back. Which only makes sense given how much his offense means to their rapidly aging lineup. The question now is, will A-Rod really agree to take less money - far less money than Boras promised him - to go back to New York? Will he really swallow his pride, and go back and grovel in front of the Steinbrenners to get back in their good graces? I guess there are two things to look for to know whether that may happen: Does he announce that he and Scott Boras have had a parting of the ways, and do the Yankees make a strong move for Mike Lowell or do they sit back to see whether A-Rod follows through? Yeah, I read about this in today's paper. Personally, I think Boras blew his client's deal by coming out with that crazy money bottomline. I sincerely hope this ends Boras' influence in the market.
-
Any guesses on how much A-Rod will get next season? I hear the Yankees refuse to bargain with A-Rod if Boras is in the room. I wonder if this might be the beginning of the end of Boras' stranglehold on baseball saleries? If all else fails, think Boras will get Texas to take him back?
-
Rebel Without a Clue