ShysterBall has an in-depth look at the Bonds indictment:
…. To understand why I think this indictment is weak, you have to understand one simple thing: this is not a case about whether Barry Bonds took steroids. He did. That he did is pretty painstakingly documented. Indeed, to the extent you hear someone talking about Barry Bonds as likely to be convicted because, yes, he did take steroids, feel free to ignore that person because they don’t know what they’re talking about. For purposes of this perjury case the fact of his actually taking steroids is irrelevant. This is a case about whether Barry Bonds knew he was taking steroids prior to December 4, 2003. Or, more to the point, a case about whether the government can prove that he knew he was taking steroids prior to December 4, 2003.
As to that: Bonds says multiple times that he had no idea he was taking steroids. Greg Anderson didn’t tell him, and he didn’t ask. He had no idea what his BALCO blood and urine tests said because no one told him and he didn’t ask. You can choose to believe him on these points or not, but in order to convict Barry Bonds of perjury, the government cannot simply admit Game of Shadows into evidence or establish that the cream and the clear are steroids. Rather, they need someone to come in and testify about what Barry Bonds knew and when he knew it. Based on the indictment they went with, his knowledge is all that matters.
There is a lot of examination of the exchanges between Bonds and the prosecutors, but one thing stands out, convicting Bonds is gonna be tough based on what he said. If they have a bombshell, which we still don’t know about, ok, but without that, their case looks like a loser.
Hat tip to David Pinto, (as usual).
UPDATE: Meanwhile, Bruce Jenkins finds a few things the Giants can be pleased about in spring training:
…. With Rich Aurilia’s hamstring acting up, Eugenio Velez has seen a lot of time at third base in the exhibition games, and his exceptional speed has impressed everyone in camp. If what we’re seeing is for real, he eventually could be the disruptive leadoff man the Giants so badly need.
When the position players first reported, Travis Denker was little more than the player acquired from the Dodgers for Mark Sweeney - pretty much a low-rent deal. He arrived in time to be a huge factor in San Jose’s run to the California League (Class A) title last year, hitting .480 with three homers in seven postseason games, but he figured to be one of those in-and-out guys on the Cactus League scene.
Denker might not make the Giants’ roster, but few of their young players look as solid at the plate as this 5-foot-9, 163-pound second baseman. Denker, who had a 2-for-4 game against Seattle on Friday, stepped up against right-handed reliever Shingo Takatsu in the seventh inning Sunday and crushed a two-run homer, a highlight of the Giants’ 8-6 win.
11 Backtalkers
ummm….didnt velez play during last st, and didnt he get a sept callup? the team already knows about his speed, the question remains whether he can consistently get on base to use it…..i think he can, but he is most likely headed to fresno for a bit.
denker has a good stick and should be headed to norwich….im still amazed that the bums buried him in a ball for 3 years
as for barry, the indictment remains a joke….but that wont stop this corrupt justice dept from doing its job…..get the darkie
“Denker might not make the Giants’ roster…”
we should all hope that Denker isn’t on the roster at the end of ST. He still needs a season or two in the minors, and there’s already a logjam of bad contracts, err, older infielders, plus the guys without options.
I’m more impressed by the Rangers batting around without a hit today. Must be them new baseballs.
anyway, yes, good comments about Bonds - intent is the hardest thing to prove in law, and how in hell can they prove he “knew”? Outside of a video camera or phone conversation (which would probably be disallowed as Bonds wouldn’t have known about it, thus not giving permission), there’s just no way. And the clock ticks away - by the time this gets to trial, a 5 year old conversation will seem pretty shaky.
I just want Cal Ripken to be outted as a meth freak, so the media will be forced to sanctify a great white american hero, and Bonds will get a break.
so the media will be forced to sanctify a great white american hero
Google Clemens, Roger
How is he getting a ‘break’?
did you see one sports reporter taking bonds’ side?
did you see any politicians questioning the evidence against him?
Exactly… the evidence against Roger Clemens is staggering compared to Bonds, yet some reporters are still trying to side-step the fact that he’s just a bold-faced liar. At this point, anyone who thinks Bonds is dirty and Clemens is clean is either one of two things…
1. Seriously misinformed and out of the loop with recent events.
2. Racist.
The difference is, to me (in addition to what others posted) is that Clemens didn’t really have that great a reputation in the first place. He’s always been seen as a primadonna and not a team player. Kind of a horses-a$$, really.
I’m talking about a “gleaming example for the youth of America”, as ballplayers are apparently supposed to be. A real scandal of the same ilk, where the media will have to face their lack of unbiased coverage.
I also see Clemens on the roster of the Astros, whereas I have a feeling no-one will even return Bonds’ phone calls.
He’s always been seen as a primadonna and not a team player. Kind of a horses-a$$, really.
Barry in a phrase.
the evidence against Roger Clemens is staggering compared to Bonds
Bullshit.
Read the testimony.
care to explain why Clemens missed the first third of the last two seasons?
“Evidence” is not something you will find in a newspaper or on ESPN. In Bonds’ testimony, the prosecutors refer to piles of stuff we never “see.” Evaluating the “evidence” against either of these guys is speculation at best.
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]