Bye Bye Mr. ARod [Archive] - Sean Hannity Discussion

NascarGirl2448

February 9th, 2009, 10:53 am

Well yeah. I would MUCH rather have Congress 'wasting its time' on steroids than having them spend a trillion dollars on 'fixing' the economy.

Well you just admitted you like wasting other people's money. Politics would be a good career move ;)

Anything to keep Congress busy and not screwing us all over is a good thing.

Even if its something MLB should be handling? If there is problem in the league, let the league handle it!!

And BTW, you have your history confused if you think everyone being upset with athletes using steroids started with Congress. This has nothing to do with Congress. This has to do with cheating in sports. Most of us care enough about sports to be upset when someone wins by cheating.

Yet, no one gave a flip before Congress started sticking their nose into this "problem" that it was up to MLB to handle anyway. When Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were chasing Roger Maris' record, people were cheering them on, not worrying about if they used anything or not.

All of sudden Barry Bonds comes along and goes for the all time home run record. People can't villify him fast enough!! Granted he is a jerk, and acted like a jerk over this whole thing, but come on. Why didn't people start questioning McGwire and Sosa?? Or is it because they are more "likeable" guys??

Then you have Congress getting involved and then all we're hearing is guys pointing fingers and "outing" each other over this whole mess. The irrefutable fact that Barry Bonds is the ONLY player who is being prosecuted for something half the league does (supposedly) is nothing short of a witch hunt, although you can deny it till the cows come home if that's what gets you through your day.

Dr. Funkenstein

February 9th, 2009, 11:04 am

Well yeah. I would MUCH rather have Congress 'wasting its time' on steroids than having them spend a trillion dollars on 'fixing' the economy.

Anything to keep Congress busy and not screwing us all over is a good thing.

The CORRECT answer is "they shouldn't be dealing with EITHER". Steroids ARE illegal, and if you want to go at it that way...shouldn't it really be up to the local authorities to deal with it?

And BTW, you have your history confused if you think everyone being upset with athletes using steroids started with Congress. This has nothing to do with Congress. This has to do with cheating in sports. Most of us care enough about sports to be upset when someone wins by cheating.

Don't rules need to be violated to be "cheating"? I could be wrong here, but in 2003 they were attempting to determine whether they needed a testing program in MLB (which they ultimately decided to install). Therefore, anyone taking steroids prior to 2003 may have been in violation of the law (and I'd have no problem attempting to prosecute them, even if the case would probably get thrown out for lack of evidence, since a positive test for steroids can be explained away if you have the right doctor to testify), but they were NOT in violation of MLB rules, because there were no MLB rules on steroid use.

Dr. Funkenstein

February 9th, 2009, 11:06 am

<snip>
Yet, no one gave a flip before Congress started sticking their nose into this "problem" that it was up to MLB to handle anyway. When Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were chasing Roger Maris' record, people were cheering them on, not worrying about if they used anything or not.

All of sudden Barry Bonds comes along and goes for the all time home run record. People can't villify him fast enough!! Granted he is a jerk, and acted like a jerk over this whole thing, but come on. Why didn't people start questioning McGwire and Sosa?? Or is it because they are more "likeable" guys??

To be fair...in '98 no one really knew what was going on. There were whispers, but nothing substantive being said. By the time Bonds was chasing 755, it was everywhere, there was a new drug policy in place, and there had been two separate Congressional hearings on the subject.

So comparing the "chase for 61" to Bonds's chase for 755 is really an apples/oranges comparison.

snagswolf

February 9th, 2009, 11:14 am

Well you just admitted you like wasting other people's money. Politics would be a good career move
Learn to read with comprehension.

Even if its something MLB should be handling? If there is problem in the league, let the league handle it!!
Yes. Anything to stop Congress from wasting trillions of dollars.

Yet, no one gave a flip before Congress started sticking their nose into this "problem" that it was up to MLB to handle anyway. When Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were chasing Roger Maris' record, people were cheering them on, not worrying about if they used anything or not.
Simply lies.

It's obvious you can't back up your opinions with facts, so you have to make up lies.

Congrees held it's steroid hearings in 2005. In your little dream world, no one was concerned about steroids in sports until them.

You and reality aren't on speaking terms, are you?

All of sudden Barry Bonds comes along and goes for the all time home run record. People can't villify him fast enough!! Granted he is a jerk, and acted like a jerk over this whole thing, but come on. Why didn't people start questioning McGwire and Sosa?? Or is it because they are more "likeable" guys??
People didn't question McGwire and Sosa?

What planet do you live on?

Then you have Congress getting involved and then all we're hearing is guys pointing fingers and "outing" each other over this whole mess. The irrefutable fact that Barry Bonds is the ONLY player who is being prosecuted for something half the league does (supposedly) is nothing short of a witch hunt, although you can deny it till the cows come home if that's what gets you through your day.
Actually, Bonds is being prosecuted for committing perjury, not for taking steroids.

Just more proof that your position on this issue is based upon ignorance.

NascarGirl2448

February 9th, 2009, 11:25 am

Why do I even bother?? :rolleyes: Its obvious some people love to make mountains out of molehills regardless of what actually matters. And when Rafael Palmiero is indicted for perjury after wagging his finger at Congress and swearing up and down that he had not done steroids, and it later came out that he lied like a danged dog, under oath no less, then you MIGHT have a point. Until then, keep your witch hunt denials.

snagswolf

February 9th, 2009, 11:27 am

The CORRECT answer is "they shouldn't be dealing with EITHER". Steroids ARE illegal, and if you want to go at it that way...shouldn't it really be up to the local authorities to deal with it?
It is within Congress' powers to have investigations. Some problems are more national in scope, and are better dealt with on a national level.

Don't rules need to be violated to be "cheating"? I could be wrong here, but in 2003 they were attempting to determine whether they needed a testing program in MLB (which they ultimately decided to install). Therefore, anyone taking steroids prior to 2003 may have been in violation of the law (and I'd have no problem attempting to prosecute them, even if the case would probably get thrown out for lack of evidence, since a positive test for steroids can be explained away if you have the right doctor to testify), but they were NOT in violation of MLB rules, because there were no MLB rules on steroid use.
Wrong. Steroids have been banned in baseball since 1991. They just started testing for them in 2003.

So yes, they were cheating.

snagswolf

February 9th, 2009, 11:32 am

Why do I even bother??
True. If you're this ignorant on the issues, why DO you even try?

Its obvious some people love to make mountains out of molehills regardless of what actually matters. And when Rafael Palmiero is indicted for perjury after wagging his finger at Congress and swearing up and down that he had not done steroids, and it later came out that he lied like a danged dog, under oath no less, then you MIGHT have a point. Until then, keep your witch hunt denials.
Well, when you can give examples of other people being charged with perjury for lying to Congress, YOU may have a point.

People are charged with perjury for lying in court every day in this country, and many people are in jail for being convicted of this crime. This is no witch hunt with Bonds. He lied under oath during a federal investigation. That's a crime. Period. A crime that other people are in jail for committing. You cluelessly think that Bonds should get away with it because he's a star.

NascarGirl2448

February 9th, 2009, 1:00 pm

True. If you're this ignorant on the issues, why DO you even try?

Hmmmm if knowing a witch hunt when I see one makes me "ignorant" then I take it as a compliment.

Well, when you can give examples of other people being charged with perjury for lying to Congress, YOU may have a point.

Lying under oath is a crime regardless of whether its in a Congressional hearing or a courtroom.

People are charged with perjury for lying in court every day in this country, and many people are in jail for being convicted of this crime. This is no witch hunt with Bonds. He lied under oath during a federal investigation. That's a crime. Period. A crime that other people are in jail for committing. You cluelessly think that Bonds should get away with it because he's a star.

Yet Rafael Palmiero was put under the oath, and it carried the same penalty of perjury, and yet sits there, wags his finger at Congress, lies like a danged dog, and yet, where the HELL is the indictment??? I don't see it here.

NascarGirl2448

February 9th, 2009, 1:03 pm

To be fair...in '98 no one really knew what was going on. There were whispers, but nothing substantive being said. By the time Bonds was chasing 755, it was everywhere, there was a new drug policy in place, and there had been two separate Congressional hearings on the subject.

So comparing the "chase for 61" to Bonds's chase for 755 is really an apples/oranges comparison.

Yet when two guys are more "likable" and the other is an obnoxious jerk, then those who really want to expose a supposed problem are going to go after an obnoxious jerk any day.

Dr. Funkenstein

February 9th, 2009, 1:03 pm

It is within Congress' powers to have investigations. Some problems are more national in scope, and are better dealt with on a national level.

Congress has more important things to worry about.

Wrong. Steroids have been banned in baseball since 1991. They just started testing for them in 2003.

So yes, they were cheating.

I assume you have a link to show that?

Dr. Funkenstein

February 9th, 2009, 1:04 pm

Yet when two guys are more "likable" and the other is an obnoxious jerk, then those who really want to expose a supposed problem are going to go after an obnoxious jerk any day.

People have been going after McGwire and Sosa since the hearings where they wouldn't talk. Bonds just had the misfortune of having his chase occur after those hearings.

Dr. Funkenstein

February 9th, 2009, 1:06 pm

Actually, Bonds is being prosecuted for committing perjury, not for taking steroids.

Just more proof that your position on this issue is based upon ignorance.

Technically...he's being prosecuted for committing perjury ABOUT taking steroids. It's not like the details are inseparable.

NascarGirl2448

February 9th, 2009, 1:12 pm

People have been going after McGwire and Sosa since the hearings where they wouldn't talk. Bonds just had the misfortune of having his chase occur after those hearings.

Being an obnoxious jerk didn't help matters. McGwire and Sosa just had the sense to say so what??

Dr. Funkenstein

February 9th, 2009, 1:15 pm

Being an obnoxious jerk didn't help matters. McGwire and Sosa just had the sense to say so what??

I just don't buy that Bonds is being worked over specifically because he's an obnoxious jerk. The media loved Pete Rose, and he still got nailed.

snagswolf

February 9th, 2009, 1:23 pm

Hmmmm if knowing a witch hunt when I see one makes me "ignorant" then I take it as a compliment.
No, 'knowing' it's a witch hunt when there's no evidence there's a witch hunt, makes you ignorant.

Lying under oath is a crime regardless of whether its in a Congressional hearing or a courtroom.

Yet Rafael Palmiero was put under the oath, and it carried the same penalty of perjury, and yet sits there, wags his finger at Congress, lies like a danged dog, and yet, where the HELL is the indictment??? I don't see it here.
You just don't let any facts get in the way of your opinions, do you?

Palmeiro tested positive for steroids AFTER his testimony before Congress. There is no proof he took steroids before he claimed under oath that he didn't.

And I love it how you just ignore the fact that other people are in prison for committing perjury.

Just snip it from my posts, and you don't have to reply to it.

Ignorance is bliss.

snagswolf

February 9th, 2009, 1:27 pm

Congress has more important things to worry about.
And my point is I'd rather have them 'worrying about' steroids in sports than 'worring about' spending trillions of our tax dollars on programs that won't help the economy.

Which has been my point all along. Reading is fundamental.

I assume you have a link to show that?
Is your Googler broken?

Here's a headstart with some keywords: "Baseball" "Steroids" "Banned" "1991"

DaGooseMon

February 9th, 2009, 1:29 pm

Come on, do you really think that all that time wasted on Congressional hearings over this crap could not have been better spent on something that matters?? You realize this is where this hoopla started, right?? No wonder no one is able to get anything done to actually help this country if they're wasting time with this crap. But I guess some people care more about who's using steroids and who's not than the important things that really DO matter.

You do realize it's not the entire Congress that holds these hearings, right?

In a way, I actually agree with you because I personally do not care if people who are paid to perform actually do stuff to enhance that performance. I couldn't care less.

However, when you state unequivocally, that it's unimportant and we're wasting time on this instead of solving actual problems, I take issue with that because you are factually incorrect. These hearings and this investigation are not taking away from other issues of importance. If you think they are, you have no idea how big this gooberment really is.

And there, is the matter of anti-trust to consider. But I don't have time to get into that.

snagswolf

February 9th, 2009, 1:33 pm

Technically...he's being prosecuted for committing perjury ABOUT taking steroids. It's not like the details are inseparable.
Try to keep up with the conversation, which was this:

Then you have Congress getting involved and then all we're hearing is guys pointing fingers and "outing" each other over this whole mess. The irrefutable fact that Barry Bonds is the ONLY player who is being prosecuted for something half the league does (supposedly) is nothing short of a witch hunt, although you can deny it till the cows come home if that's what gets you through your day.
Actually, Bonds is being prosecuted for committing perjury, not for taking steroids.

Just more proof that your position on this issue is based upon ignorance.
I was responding to her point that Bonds is 'being prosecuted for something half the league does'.

And no, half the league hasn't committed perjury.

And I never claimed the perjury wasn't about steroids, or that the 'details were inseparable'.

This actually reminds me of how liberals just can't let the fact sink in that Clinton was impeached for committing perjury, not for getting a BJ.

uncledoom

February 9th, 2009, 5:10 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3894847

A-Rod comes clean....

Mountain Soldier

February 9th, 2009, 7:39 pm

You misspelled his name.

You mean A-Roid, don't you?

SUVRon

February 9th, 2009, 11:02 pm

Canseco really doesn't have a motive to lie. To make false accusations would mean lawsuits. I also believe Ken Caminiti when he said half the league did them.

I agree with that too. I've never liked A-Rod (like he cares) but I do give credit for him standing up like a man and admitting it although I don't buy his reason at all. Bonds can't stand up and be a man now because if he does he proves the feds case in one sentence. I see a plea agreement coming soon for Bonds.

ImNewHere

February 9th, 2009, 11:05 pm

Do the words MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING mean anything to you?? That's all this whole thing is. Like it or not, that's all this is.

Does the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 mean anything to you? Probably not, because you're ignorant of a great number of things. Federal Law being just one of them.

Like it or not, his actions and the actions of those around him are violations of that act, therefore, a crime. And in the real world, crimes or suspected crimes are investigated.

I don't expect you to understand. You always side with the criminals and cheaters. Says a lot about you.

Pudge

February 9th, 2009, 11:53 pm

First of all, Phelps shouldn't be included in with Bonds and A-Rod. While what Phelps did may be considered wrong and/or illegal, he wasn't doing it in an attempt to cheat at his sport.

Agreed, if anything, marijuana works against his ability to perform as an athlete.

It's the integrity of the sport that's at issue here. Sports are meaningful to people because they are tests of human skill. We look up to athletes because they have enhanced their natural skills through hard work and commitment. When they cheat by using steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, they are no longer worthy of our respect and admiration.

And just because you can't seem to grasp this nuance of sports, while at the same time being aware of the 'real' problems, doesn't mean we can't.

Do you think that the government has an interest in policing the integrity of sporting organizations?

While I am not a fan of anyone who uses steroids to give themselves an advantage over another athlete, I don't think we need hearings in Congress over it.

NascarGirl2448

February 10th, 2009, 1:15 am

Does the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 mean anything to you? Probably not, because you're ignorant of a great number of things. Federal Law being just one of them.

Like it or not, his actions and the actions of those around him are violations of that act, therefore, a crime. And in the real world, crimes or suspected crimes are investigated.

I don't expect you to understand. You always side with the criminals and cheaters. Says a lot about you.

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) Can you ever post without resorting to craziness??

NascarGirl2448

February 10th, 2009, 1:23 am

No, 'knowing' it's a witch hunt when there's no evidence there's a witch hunt, makes you ignorant.

There's plenty of glaring evidence that SCREAMS witch hunt. For starters, of ALL the MLB players suspected of doing steroids, the one who acted like the biggest jerk about the whole thing (Barry Bonds) is the ONLY guy under indictment!! Think about that, would you, please??

You just don't let any facts get in the way of your opinions, do you?
Palmeiro tested positive for steroids AFTER his testimony before Congress. There is no proof he took steroids before he claimed under oath that he didn't.
And I love it how you just ignore the fact that other people are in prison for committing perjury.
Just snip it from my posts, and you don't have to reply to it.
Ignorance is bliss.

Yet when Palmeiro is indicted for perjury, because its obvious he lied like a danged dog, UNDER OATH no less, then you may have a point about the whole thing not being a stupid witch hunt. When Clemens and the other players who use (that we know about) are taken down for using steroids, then you may have a point about it not being a witch hunt.

When MLB starts taking steroids seriously, and Congress apologizes to us, the American people, for wasting time and money on something that was not their business anyway, then maybe, just maybe, more people will realize it is nothing more than a stupid witch hunt. Either that or most people I know are "ignorant" because they all have the same opinion I do on this whole thing: SO WHAT?

NascarGirl2448

February 10th, 2009, 1:29 am

I just don't buy that Bonds is being worked over specifically because he's an obnoxious jerk. The media loved Pete Rose, and he still got nailed.

Although wasn't betting on baseball (especially on your own team!) already against MLB rules? That whole Pete Rose thing was really a black and white rule issue, wasn't it?

This steroid thing has been such a gray area its ridiculous. Either take all of the users down, or none. But don't go after one guy who just happens to be the most obnoxious about it and then act like its not a witch hunt. I don't see any other guys who were using steroids, or even suspected of it, being investigated, much less indicted.

NascarGirl2448

February 10th, 2009, 1:36 am

You do realize it's not the entire Congress that holds these hearings, right?

Of course I do. I forget which committee it was that was wasting their time and our money with this, but I do know that it wasn't the entire Congress. However, considering that bills typically start in committee, who knows what important legislation that actually mattered got derailed for this case of Congress sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

In a way, I actually agree with you because I personally do not care if people who are paid to perform actually do stuff to enhance that performance. I couldn't care less.

I guess we're in the minority then, because someone obviously cares enough to waste time and our money on it.

However, when you state unequivocally, that it's unimportant and we're wasting time on this instead of solving actual problems, I take issue with that because you are factually incorrect. These hearings and this investigation are not taking away from other issues of importance. If you think they are, you have no idea how big this gooberment really is.

The government is obviously too big if they're wasting time on such silly things as who's using what and who's not taking whatever else.

And there, is the matter of anti-trust to consider. But I don't have time to get into that.

Why couldn't Congress just let MLB handle their own affairs? It would have saved us ALL a lot of time and trouble.

scmarcos

February 10th, 2009, 1:42 am

Then Congress should lose their anti-trust exemptions. If they want to shirk the laws of this country they should be under the scrutiny of the government when rampant illegal activities are involved in the day to day operations of the league.

snagswolf

February 10th, 2009, 9:39 am

There's plenty of glaring evidence that SCREAMS witch hunt. For starters, of ALL the MLB players suspected of doing steroids, the one who acted like the biggest jerk about the whole thing (Barry Bonds) is the ONLY guy under indictment!! Think about that, would you, please??
Once again, Bonds is under indictment for perjury, not steroid use.

How many times do I have to repeat it before it sinks into your thick skull?

Yet when Palmeiro is indicted for perjury, because its obvious he lied like a danged dog, UNDER OATH no less, then you may have a point about the whole thing not being a stupid witch hunt.
And once again, they can't accuse Palmeiro of perjury because he didn't test positive for steroids until AFTER he testified.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp? If I ask you if you robbed a bank, and you say no, and THEN you go rob a bank, were you lying when you answered no?

Please tell me you understand. At least give me some kind of sign that you're at least capable of grasping such a simple concept.

When Clemens and the other players who use (that we know about) are taken down for using steroids, then you may have a point about it not being a witch hunt.
Once again, Bonds is not being taken down for using steroids. He is being taken down because he lied during a federal investigation and trial.

If I drew it in crayon, would that help you get it?

When MLB starts taking steroids seriously, and Congress apologizes to us, the American people, for wasting time and money on something that was not their business anyway, then maybe, just maybe, more people will realize it is nothing more than a stupid witch hunt. Either that or most people I know are "ignorant" because they all have the same opinion I do on this whole thing: SO WHAT?
With every post you continue to prove how ignorant you are of the facts in this case.

NascarGirl2448

February 10th, 2009, 9:48 am

Once again, Bonds is under indictment for perjury, not steroid use.
How many times do I have to repeat it before it sinks into your thick skull?

How many times do I have to tell YOU that the whole "perjury" crap STARTED from the WITCH HUNT over supposed steroid use???

And once again, they can't accuse Palmeiro of perjury because he didn't test positive for steroids until AFTER he testified.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp? If I ask you if you robbed a bank, and you say no, and THEN you go rob a bank, were you lying when you answered no?
Please tell me you understand. At least give me some kind of sign that you're at least capable of grasping such a simple concept.

Please tell me you don't condone the government witch hunt.

Once again, Bonds is not being taken down for using steroids. He is being taken down because he lied during a federal investigation and trial.
If I drew it in crayon, would that help you get it?

I guess its gonna take me drawing it out in crayon for you to realize that this whole thing started over steroids. The whole cotton picking mess started over people suspecting MLB players were using steroids. That is FACT. Then Congress goes and sticks their big noses where they do not belong, and now we're in this mess. Barry Bonds became the fall guy for the whole thing because he's the only one who acted like a jerk about it. Everyone else said "so what?" and went on. Deal with it.

With every post you continue to prove how ignorant you are of the facts in this case.

More like my ability to know a witch hunt when I see one. But I guess you would rather bring down all of MLB before acknowledging this whole thing was none of Congress' business and they should never have gotten involved. And FYI, I am not the only one who realizes this whole thing is nothing more than a witch hunt. I know plenty of other people who are smart enough to see that too.

ImNewHere

February 10th, 2009, 12:22 pm

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) Can you ever post without resorting to craziness??

It's only crazy to you. Nobody else. And the only reason you think it's crazy is that you are not capable of understanding reason and logic.... and the law.

You post about "court of law" only when it supports your own twisted position - when it supports your law-breaking friends.

So put your laughing smilies up there all you like, but your buddy OJ is finally in prison and your other boyfriends, A-Roid and Beroid Bonds are going to have to face the music for their illegal possession and use of Federally controlled substances.

snagswolf

February 10th, 2009, 2:14 pm

How many times do I have to tell YOU that the whole "perjury" crap STARTED from the WITCH HUNT over supposed steroid use???
Once again, you prove your ignorance of the issue at hand.

The BALCO investigation originally had nothing to do with Bonds. A U.S. sprint coach started the investigation by anonymously accusing several athletes of doping, who were supplied by BALCO. The investigation grew, and many athletes were added to the list of potential dopers, including MLBers Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Benito Santiago, Jeremy Giambi, Bobby Estalella, and Armando Rios, Olympians John McEwen, Kevin Toth, C.J. Hunter, Dwain Chambers, Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Raymond J. Smith and Kelli White, middle-distance runner Regina Jacobs, boxer Shane Mosley, Cycling's Tammy Thomas, NFLers Bill Romanowski, Tyrone Wheatley, Barrett Robbins, Chris Cooper and Dana Stubblefield.

Most of them were brought in to testify. All they had to do was tell the truth, and they would walk. It was BALCO the Feds were after. Bonds, among others decided to lie.

And Bonds isn't the only one to face legal problems for lying. Tammy Thomas was convicted by a federal jury on three counts of making false statements to a federal grand jury, and on one count of obstructing justice. She was sentenced to six months house arrest and five years probation. Trevor Graham was convicted by a federal jury on one count of lying to federal investigators, and sentenced to one year of house arrest.

For you to claim that after all of this, this whole thing is just a witch hunt against Bond, just proves how incredibly ignorant you are of the facts.

Please tell me you don't condone the government witch hunt.
I made specific points in my post, and you ignore them all and just make this stupid statement.

Do you have ADD?

I guess its gonna take me drawing it out in crayon for you to realize that this whole thing started over steroids. The whole cotton picking mess started over people suspecting MLB players were using steroids. That is FACT. Then Congress goes and sticks their big noses where they do not belong, and now we're in this mess. Barry Bonds became the fall guy for the whole thing because he's the only one who acted like a jerk about it. Everyone else said "so what?" and went on. Deal with it.
You're wrong, as usual. It had nothing to do with baseball at first.

But don't let any facts get in the way of your inane ranting.

More like my ability to know a witch hunt when I see one. But I guess you would rather bring down all of MLB before acknowledging this whole thing was none of Congress' business and they should never have gotten involved. And FYI, I am not the only one who realizes this whole thing is nothing more than a witch hunt. I know plenty of other people who are smart enough to see that too.
Actually, Bond's involvement had nothing to do with Congress' investigation. The Feds were going after an illegal drug dealer.

NascarGirl2448

February 10th, 2009, 4:21 pm

It's only crazy to you. Nobody else. And the only reason you think it's crazy is that you are not capable of understanding reason and logic.... and the law.

You post about "court of law" only when it supports your own twisted position - when it supports your law-breaking friends.

So put your laughing smilies up there all you like, but your buddy OJ is finally in prison and your other boyfriends, A-Roid and Beroid Bonds are going to have to face the music for their illegal possession and use of Federally controlled substances.

Actually I'm NOT the only one who sees this witch hunt for what it is, but I guess some people need to believe that witch hunts don't happen, despite the clear evidence to the contrary.

NascarGirl2448

February 10th, 2009, 4:41 pm

Once again, you prove your ignorance of the issue at hand.

Hmmm realization of the witch hunt makes me "ignorant." Whatever.

The BALCO investigation originally had nothing to do with Bonds. A U.S. sprint coach started the investigation by anonymously accusing several athletes of doping, who were supplied by BALCO. The investigation grew, and many athletes were added to the list of potential dopers, including MLBers Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, Benito Santiago, Jeremy Giambi, Bobby Estalella, and Armando Rios, Olympians John McEwen, Kevin Toth, C.J. Hunter, Dwain Chambers, Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Raymond J. Smith and Kelli White, middle-distance runner Regina Jacobs, boxer Shane Mosley, Cycling's Tammy Thomas, NFLers Bill Romanowski, Tyrone Wheatley, Barrett Robbins, Chris Cooper and Dana Stubblefield.

Yet Barry Bonds is the ONLY MLB player facing ANY charges from this whole fiasco. If they were so sure all those other guys were involved, why aren't they under indictment also??? Think about that.

Most of them were brought in to testify. All they had to do was tell the truth, and they would walk. It was BALCO the Feds were after. Bonds, among others decided to lie.

Yet of all the MLB players suspected in this mess, he's the only one indicted over it. If they were using also, why didn't the feds nail the others?? Do you really think they aren't just trying to make an example of Barry? Come on.

And Bonds isn't the only one to face legal problems for lying. Tammy Thomas was convicted by a federal jury on three counts of making false statements to a federal grand jury, and on one count of obstructing justice. She was sentenced to six months house arrest and five years probation. Trevor Graham was convicted by a federal jury on one count of lying to federal investigators, and sentenced to one year of house arrest.

Yet no other baseball players were indicted or otherwise prosecuted. In fact the only other people prosecuted were track stars for cripes sake!!

For you to claim that after all of this, this whole thing is just a witch hunt against Bond, just proves how incredibly ignorant you are of the facts.

I'm not the only one who realizes this whole thing is nothing short of a witch hunt. If they have all these other people implicated in this mess, and only go after one, that reeks of a witch hunt. Indict a few more baseball players, or football players for that matter, and then maybe the government won't look like fools going after one guy.

I made specific points in my post, and you ignore them all and just make this stupid statement.
Do you have ADD?
You're wrong, as usual. It had nothing to do with baseball at first.
But don't let any facts get in the way of your inane ranting.

No I do not have ADD, thank you. Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am NOT the only one who knows this is a witch hunt. Anyone who has kept up with this whole fiasco, heard the names being tossed around, and realize that no one else is even coming close to being indicted, could see it. How many other players were truthful with the authorities?? I doubt very many, if any. Yet when only one guy goes down, red flags are raised, big time.

Actually, Bond's involvement had nothing to do with Congress' investigation. The Feds were going after an illegal drug dealer.

And Barry Bonds and other MLB players were implicated in the whole mess, and Barry is the ONLY guy in MLB under indictment. Of course acting like a jerk didn't help matters, but to be the ONLY player under indictment, if the feds were really going after BALCO or anyone else, they should have prosecuted everyone and let the system sort it out. Instead they go after the all time home run leader in MLB and a few track runners. Go figure.

snagswolf

February 10th, 2009, 6:02 pm

Hmmm realization of the witch hunt makes me "ignorant." Whatever.
Of course it does. You've demonstrated repeatedly here that you are clueless about the details of this case.

Yet Barry Bonds is the ONLY MLB player facing ANY charges from this whole fiasco. If they were so sure all those other guys were involved, why aren't they under indictment also??? Think about that.
Do you have any proof that any of these other baseball players lied in court?

If so, please present it.

Yet of all the MLB players suspected in this mess, he's the only one indicted over it. If they were using also, why didn't the feds nail the others?? Do you really think they aren't just trying to make an example of Barry? Come on.
Any proof these other players lied in court?

BTW, you ARE aware that Bonds is being charged with perjury, not steroid use, right? I mean, I've pointed it out countless times here, but you just ignore it and want to include all the players who used steroids, ignoring the fact that isn't what Bonds is being charged with.

Yet no other baseball players were indicted or otherwise prosecuted. In fact the only other people prosecuted were track stars for cripes sake!!
The other people prosecuted were the ones who lied in court.

Is it sinking in yet?

Hello?

I'm not the only one who realizes this whole thing is nothing short of a witch hunt. If they have all these other people implicated in this mess, and only go after one, that reeks of a witch hunt. Indict a few more baseball players, or football players for that matter, and then maybe the government won't look like fools going after one guy.
When they get evidence of others committing perjury, they'll indict them.

BTW, you are aware that Bonds is being charged with perjury, not steroid use, right?

Do I sound like I'm repeating myself?

No I do not have ADD, thank you. Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am NOT the only one who knows this is a witch hunt. Anyone who has kept up with this whole fiasco, heard the names being tossed around, and realize that no one else is even coming close to being indicted, could see it. How many other players were truthful with the authorities?? I doubt very many, if any. Yet when only one guy goes down, red flags are raised, big time.
You obviously have some kind of mental problem, because you continue to ignore the fact that Bonds isn't being charged with the crime of steroid abuse.

If you can provide proof of other players committing perjury, and not being indicted, THEN you would have evidence of a witch hunt against Bonds. Until then, you're just demonstrating your lack of intelligent thought.

And Barry Bonds and other MLB players were implicated in the whole mess, and Barry is the ONLY guy in MLB under indictment. Of course acting like a jerk didn't help matters, but to be the ONLY player under indictment, if the feds were really going after BALCO or anyone else, they should have prosecuted everyone and let the system sort it out. Instead they go after the all time home run leader in MLB and a few track runners. Go figure.
Your denseness is staggering.

snagswolf

February 10th, 2009, 6:10 pm

More proof that NascarGirls' dumbass 'witch hunt against Bonds' theory is wrong:

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/29123151/

Tejada charged with lying about steroids
All-Star shortstop expected to plead guilty Wednesday for lying to Congress

WASHINGTON - All-Star shortstop Miguel Tejada has been charged with lying to Congress about steroids, with the baseball player scheduled to appear in court Wednesday where he is expected to plead guilty.

The charges against Tejada, who currently plays for the Houston Astros, were outlined in documents filed in Washington federal court on Tuesday.

The documents indicate that a plea agreement has been reached with Tejada, who won the 2002 American League Most Valuable Player award while playing for the Oakland Athletics and is a five-time All-Star.

Tejada faces as much as a year in jail if convicted on the misdemeanor charge of making misrepresentations to Congress. Under federal guidelines, he would probably receive a lighter sentence.

The charge came in a legal document called a 'criminal information,' which only can be filed with the defendant’s consent and typically signals a plea deal. A hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m. EST Wednesday in Washington, and Tejada and his lawyer plan to hold a news conference later in the day in Houston.

Messages left for his attorney, Mark Tuohey, were not immediately returned.

The documents were filed a day after superstar Alex Rodriguez acknowledged past use of performance-enhancing drugs. Rodriguez does not face charges.

The FBI also is investigating whether Roger Clemens, a seven-time Cy Young winner, lied to Congress last year when he denied using steroids or human growth hormone.

In the documents filed Tuesday, Tejada is charged with lying to investigators for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in 2005 when he denied knowledge of an ex-teammate’s use of performance-enhancing drugs.

The teammate is not identified in court documents, but is referred to as having played with Tejada on the Athletics.

Tejada "unlawfully withheld pertinent information from the committee because defendant Tejada, before and during his interview with the committee staff, then and there well knew that player No.1, one of his teammates on the Oakland Athletics, had used steroids and HGH," the papers state.

Former Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican who chaired the committee in 2005, said he believed Tejada lied.

"It just shows that when you do something illegal like this, that you pay a price," Davis said in an interview with The Associated Press.

The court papers filed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Durham charge that during spring training in 2003, Tejada had purchased a substance believed to be HGH from the player, giving him payments of $3,100 and $3,200.

In the Mitchell Report, which examined steroid use in baseball, Oakland outfielder Adam Piatt is cited saying he discussed steroid use with Tejada and having provided Tejada with testosterone and human growth hormone.

The Mitchell Report, issued in December 2007, also included copies of checks allegedly written by Tejada to Piatt in March 2003 for $3,100 and $3,200 - the same payment amounts in Tuesday’s court filing.

Tejada came under scrutiny after another ex-teammate, Baltimore Orioles’ Rafael Palmeiro, testified before the House committee.

In January 2008, the House panel asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Tejada lied to committee investigators when he was interviewed in connection with the Palmeiro steroids case.

When that same House panel held a hearing in March 2005, Palmeiro jabbed a finger at lawmakers and declared: "I have never used steroids, period." Palmeiro was suspended by baseball later that year after testing positive for a steroid.

The committee looked into whether Palmeiro should face perjury charges but eventually dropped the matter.

Palmeiro said his positive test must have resulted from a B-12 vitamin injection given to him by Tejada.

That prompted Congress to talk to Tejada.
Oh no! Now it's a witch hunt against Tejeda!

:)):)):))

ImNewHere

February 10th, 2009, 6:47 pm

Actually I'm NOT the only one who sees this witch hunt for what it is, but I guess some people need to believe that witch hunts don't happen, despite the clear evidence to the contrary.

So every criminal investigation is a witch hunt now? Oh yeah, except for those that result in the prosecution of law enforcement officers like the NYPD.

But celebrities are above the law, according to you. Celebrities can do no wrong.

You've been feeding those people lines that they are heroes no matter what they do and the normal rules that apply to the rest of us do not apply to them. When they are caught beating or murdering their wives, dealing drugs, using drugs, you just sweep it under the carpet and blame everyone else for their criminal activity.

You're part of the problem, NG. You've been encouraging these guys to get away with murder (literally).

SUVRon

February 10th, 2009, 11:30 pm

NascarGirl2448

February 10th, 2009, 11:37 pm

So every criminal investigation is a witch hunt now? Oh yeah, except for those that result in the prosecution of law enforcement officers like the NYPD.

But celebrities are above the law, according to you. Celebrities can do no wrong.

You've been feeding those people lines that they are heroes no matter what they do and the normal rules that apply to the rest of us do not apply to them. When they are caught beating or murdering their wives, dealing drugs, using drugs, you just sweep it under the carpet and blame everyone else for their criminal activity.

You're part of the problem, NG. You've been encouraging these guys to get away with murder (literally).

:wall: :wall: :wall: I don't know why I even bother. I present completely TRUE and irrefutable fact and all I get is a feeling like I'm talking to a brick wall!!

NascarGirl2448

February 10th, 2009, 11:38 pm

Give it time it's coming

You're funny.

NascarGirl2448

February 10th, 2009, 11:40 pm

More proof that NascarGirls' dumbass 'witch hunt against Bonds' theory is wrong:

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/29123151/

Oh no! Now it's a witch hunt against Tejeda!

:)):)):))

I guess the feds realized people were on to them about only going after Barry Bonds, so now they go after someone else just to prove they weren't engaging in witch hunt tactics. All I can say is, its about danged time!!! Now maybe if they go after a few other players then maybe the government won't look ridiculous.

NascarGirl2448

February 10th, 2009, 11:49 pm

Of course it does. You've demonstrated repeatedly here that you are clueless about the details of this case.
Do you have any proof that any of these other baseball players lied in court?
If so, please present it.
Any proof these other players lied in court?
BTW, you ARE aware that Bonds is being charged with perjury, not steroid use, right? I mean, I've pointed it out countless times here, but you just ignore it and want to include all the players who used steroids, ignoring the fact that isn't what Bonds is being charged with.
The other people prosecuted were the ones who lied in court.
Is it sinking in yet?
Hello?
When they get evidence of others committing perjury, they'll indict them.
BTW, you are aware that Bonds is being charged with perjury, not steroid use, right?
Do I sound like I'm repeating myself?
You obviously have some kind of mental problem, because you continue to ignore the fact that Bonds isn't being charged with the crime of steroid abuse.
If you can provide proof of other players committing perjury, and not being indicted, THEN you would have evidence of a witch hunt against Bonds. Until then, you're just demonstrating your lack of intelligent thought.
Your denseness is staggering.

If the feds weren't going after Barry Bonds, or any Olympic track stars for that matter, then they should have been looking at EVERYONE on their "list." When you go after one person and not the whole list of people, and its the one person who has the arrogant, obnoxious attitude, then I think a LOT of people are going to question this whole thing. Of course there are some who just like to see athletes brought down, which is just sad. The next superstar they go after, I think a lot of people's reaction is going to be "ITS ABOUT TIME!!!" Especially after this fiasco.

ImNewHere

February 11th, 2009, 12:01 am

:wall: :wall: :wall: I don't know why I even bother. I present completely TRUE and irrefutable fact and all I get is a feeling like I'm talking to a brick wall!!

I'm not sure why you do, either. Why would anyone who is clearly wrong keep defending such and indefensible position?

You feel that celebrities should get preferential treatment and any investigation of any wrongdoing whatsoever is labeled.... by you.... as a "witch hunt." Thereby dismissing any possible crime they have admitted to and forgiving them of all sins (that you still won't admit they committed, even after they do admit it).

It's easy to figure out where you're coming from when you staunchly defended John Edwards' faithfulness to his wife, even AFTER he admitted an affair. :)) And you claim you only post the "truth." Well, sister, it might be the truth in your eyes, but in the heads of rational people and in the eyes of the law, it's a lie.

ImNewHere

February 11th, 2009, 12:02 am

You're funny.

He's also a cop. Maybe you'd feel more comfortable with him behind bars instead of your beloved drug abusers and wife murderers.

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 12:03 am

He's also a cop. Maybe you'd feel more comfortable with him behind bars instead of your beloved drug abusers and wife murderers.

:rolleyes: Houston, we have a dense one here.

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 12:04 am

I'm not sure why you do, either. Why would anyone who is clearly wrong keep defending such and indefensible position?

You feel that celebrities should get preferential treatment and any investigation of any wrongdoing whatsoever is labeled.... by you.... as a "witch hunt." Thereby dismissing any possible crime they have admitted to and forgiving them of all sins (that you still won't admit they committed, even after they do admit it).

It's easy to figure out where you're coming from when you staunchly defended John Edwards' faithfulness to his wife, even AFTER he admitted an affair. :)) And you claim you only post the "truth." Well, sister, it might be the truth in your eyes, but in the heads of rational people and in the eyes of the law, it's a lie.

:wall: It figures that a person who has nothing constructive to add would bring up something else that is completely irrelevant. But I shouldn't be surprised :rolleyes:

ImNewHere

February 11th, 2009, 12:15 am

:wall: It figures that a person who has nothing constructive to add would bring up something else that is completely irrelevant. But I shouldn't be surprised :rolleyes:

Pointing out other times where you've had serious lapses in judgment are not irrelevant. It's merely proving there's a pattern of errant thinking in your posts.

ImNewHere

February 11th, 2009, 12:16 am

:rolleyes: Houston, we have a dense one here.

Neither of us is in Houston. Again, you are wrong. This time it's geography.

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 12:29 am

Neither of us is in Houston. Again, you are wrong. This time it's geography.

Obviously you missed the little "play on words" there. Remember Tom Hanks' line in Apollo 13 "Houston we have a problem" or if you never saw the movie, watch it.

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 12:30 am

Pointing out other times where you've had serious lapses in judgment are not irrelevant. It's merely proving there's a pattern of errant thinking in your posts.

Only according to you.

ImNewHere

February 11th, 2009, 12:35 am

Only according to you.

In your world, left is right, up is down, in is out. And most frighteningly, wrong is right and right is wrong. That's how things play out in your little misguided world.

ImNewHere

February 11th, 2009, 12:37 am

Obviously you missed the little "play on words" there. Remember Tom Hanks' line in Apollo 13 "Houston we have a problem" or if you never saw the movie, watch it.

You do know that was an actual line from the actual Apollo 13, right? It wasn't just some made up thing for a movie. But in your world, I guess Apollo 13 never really happened, it was just some really cool movie with Tom Hanks.

snagswolf

February 11th, 2009, 12:45 am

I guess the feds realized people were on to them about only going after Barry Bonds, so now they go after someone else just to prove they weren't engaging in witch hunt tactics. All I can say is, its about danged time!!! Now maybe if they go after a few other players then maybe the government won't look ridiculous.
I've already pointed out that they've 'gone after' other people than Bonds.

But don't let any facts get in your way.

snagswolf

February 11th, 2009, 12:48 am

If the feds weren't going after Barry Bonds, or any Olympic track stars for that matter, then they should have been looking at EVERYONE on their "list." When you go after one person and not the whole list of people, and its the one person who has the arrogant, obnoxious attitude, then I think a LOT of people are going to question this whole thing. Of course there are some who just like to see athletes brought down, which is just sad. The next superstar they go after, I think a lot of people's reaction is going to be "ITS ABOUT TIME!!!" Especially after this fiasco.
I asked you to present some evidence that shows someone lied under oath and the feds aren't going after them.

Obviously you can't, so you just keep on blathering on and on.

ImNewHere

February 11th, 2009, 12:48 am

But don't let any facts get in your way.

Don't worry. She hasn't yet. No reason for her to start now.

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 9:19 am

In your world, left is right, up is down, in is out. And most frighteningly, wrong is right and right is wrong. That's how things play out in your little misguided world.

Boy reality sure is twisted, by your logic.

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 9:20 am

You do know that was an actual line from the actual Apollo 13, right? It wasn't just some made up thing for a movie. But in your world, I guess Apollo 13 never really happened, it was just some really cool movie with Tom Hanks.

I am well aware thank you. But don't let reality stop you.

ImNewHere

February 11th, 2009, 9:22 am

I am well aware thank you. But don't let reality stop you.

Yeah, you're well aware now, but you took the entire night searching the imdb.com database to see if the movie was based on an actual event before posting this morning.

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 9:22 am

Don't worry. She hasn't yet. No reason for her to start now.

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) boy every time you start I get my best laugh of the day. FYI, I have more important things to worry about than the government wasting time and money on something that MLB should be handling anyway. But why let reality get in the way? Also if you want to know anything, Google is your friend.

snagswolf

February 11th, 2009, 9:51 am

FYI, I have more important things to worry about than the government wasting time and money on something that MLB should be handling anyway.
Really? From your postings here, it seems like that's a primary concern of yours.

snagswolf

February 11th, 2009, 9:55 am

Yeah, you're well aware now, but you took the entire night searching the imdb.com database to see if the movie was based on an actual event before posting this morning.
http://home.comcast.net/~sdwolf/WeLandedOnTheMoonT_s.jpg

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 11:55 am

Yeah, you're well aware now, but you took the entire night searching the imdb.com database to see if the movie was based on an actual event before posting this morning.

Wrong again. I saw the movie when it came out in the theater, then bought it on DVD and watched it several times. I have also been to not only Cape Canveral, but the National Air & Space Museum in Washington DC. But don't be confused with facts.

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 11:57 am

Really? From your postings here, it seems like that's a primary concern of yours.

And unlike you, I'm not the only one who knows this whole thing is a giant witch hunt.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3896888&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines

Apparently the founder of the MLB players union can see it also. But don't let that fact get in your way.

scmarcos

February 11th, 2009, 12:11 pm

And unlike you, I'm not the only one who knows this whole thing is a giant witch hunt.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3896888&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines

Apparently the founder of the MLB players union can see it also. But don't let that fact get in your way.

Of course the guy who founded the group that protects players is going to stick up for the players.

The Player's Union has been complicit and have done nothing to stop steroids. In fact they have disrupted the implementation of tougher policies.

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 12:19 pm

Of course the guy who founded the group that protects players is going to stick up for the players.

The Player's Union has been complicit and have done nothing to stop steroids. In fact they have disrupted the implementation of tougher policies.

Or they're smart enough to realize that this whole thing is nothing more than a stupid witch hunt also.

SUVRon

February 11th, 2009, 12:31 pm

And unlike you, I'm not the only one who knows this whole thing is a giant witch hunt.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3896888&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines

Apparently the founder of the MLB players union can see it also. But don't let that fact get in your way.

You do know the players union is there to back the players no matter what? Might be a little bias there, just a little

super cool ski instructor

February 11th, 2009, 12:37 pm

Am I the only one who is tired of hearing the words "witch hunt"?

SUVRon

February 11th, 2009, 12:43 pm

You're funny.

Being funny is better than being clueless. I'd love to see you as his lawyer in court.
"Your honor it's a witch hunt I tell you, I rest my case" As it's been stated by several people here, Bonds is charged with perjury for lying about using steroids. He's not charged in ANY way with using them. Tejada was charged and is pleading guilty today for lying under oath to congress. Roger Clemens is in the thick of an investigation now for lying to congress and will be charged soon, I'm sure. If you see a pattern here let me know. None are being charged for the use of steroids. They are being investigated and charged for lying about using them under oath.

DaGooseMon

February 11th, 2009, 12:45 pm

Or they're smart enough to realize that this whole thing is nothing more than a stupid witch hunt also.

Ok, by saying "witch hunt," that implies you believe there is no steroid use in baseball. Because the term "witch hunt" means there actually no guilty parties.

To be clear, is that your contention? Steroids are not being used in Professional Baseball?

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 12:53 pm

Am I the only one who is tired of hearing the words "witch hunt"?

Tired of hearing the truth then? Or would you rather every player even suspected of using anything be nailed?

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 12:54 pm

Being funny is better than being clueless. I'd love to see you as his lawyer in court.
"Your honor it's a witch hunt I tell you, I rest my case" As it's been stated by several people here, Bonds is charged with perjury for lying about using steroids. He's not charged in ANY way with using them. Tejada was charged and is pleading guilty today for lying under oath to congress. Roger Clemens is in the thick of an investigation now for lying to congress and will be charged soon, I'm sure. If you see a pattern here let me know. None are being charged for the use of steroids. They are being investigated and charged for lying about using them under oath.

I guess you didn't notice that I am not the only one who thinks this whole thing is a witch hunt. But maybe people just want to bring Barry Bonds down because he's been an obnoxious jerk over the whole thing when everyone else said so what?

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 12:55 pm

Ok, by saying "witch hunt," that implies you believe there is no steroid use in baseball. Because the term "witch hunt" means there actually no guilty parties.

To be clear, is that your contention? Steroids are not being used in Professional Baseball?

No I simply contend that if there is steroid use, Barry Bonds should not be taking the fall for everyone.

NascarGirl2448

February 11th, 2009, 12:56 pm

You do know the players union is there to back the players no matter what? Might be a little bias there, just a little

Or maybe someone else has enough sense to see that one guy is having to take the fall for the whole bunch. But I guess some people don't recognize that.

DaGooseMon

February 11th, 2009, 12:59 pm

No I simply contend that if there is steroid use, Barry Bonds should not be taking the fall for everyone.

Then stop using the term "witch hunt" because you're using it wrong.

And it's completely legit for Baseball to be going after players that are breaking the rules. Congress has an interest in this because of anti-trust exemptions. I'm not going to get into anti-trust with you, but you should probably google it...

Dr. Funkenstein

February 11th, 2009, 1:10 pm

I want to know who the other 103 people who tested positive are and what they tested positive for.

I also want to know which ****ing idiot in the union decided it'd be a good idea to HANG ON TO THE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO TESTED POSITIVE WHEN THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DESTROY IT!!!!!

scmarcos

February 11th, 2009, 2:07 pm

No I simply contend that if there is steroid use, Barry Bonds should not be taking the fall for everyone.

He isn't taking the fall for everyone. Clemens will probably get nailed and Tejada has.

SUVRon

February 11th, 2009, 8:22 pm

I guess you didn't notice that I am not the only one who thinks this whole thing is a witch hunt. But maybe people just want to bring Barry Bonds down because he's been an obnoxious jerk over the whole thing when everyone else said so what?

Wow this will be harder than I ever imagined...................

SUVRon

February 11th, 2009, 8:26 pm

Tired of hearing the truth then? Or would you rather every player even suspected of using anything be nailed?

Stop saying he's being nailed for using steroids because he's NOT. He's being nailed because he LIED under oath. How hard is that to understand? Tejada plead guilty today for lying under oath, not using steroids. Roger Clemens will be indicted soon, not for using but for lying.

ImNewHere

February 11th, 2009, 10:28 pm

I'd love to see you as his lawyer in court.
"Your honor it's a witch hunt I tell you, I rest my case"

:))

That made my day!

:))

NascarGirl2448

February 12th, 2009, 8:50 am

:))

That made my day!

:))

Figures something ridiculous would make your day. Its not my fault some people don't know a witch hunt when they see one. You want to prove to me this isn't a witch hunt?? Start bringing down some other people besides just a few track runners, most of whom people don't even notice except when the Olympics roll around anyway.

snagswolf

February 12th, 2009, 9:24 am

http://home.comcast.net/~sdwolf/SeeNoEvils.jpg

Prove to me it isn't a witch hunt!

ImNewHere

February 12th, 2009, 9:37 am

http://home.comcast.net/~sdwolf/SeeNoEvils.jpg

Prove to me it isn't a witch hunt!

This has turned out to be one of the funniest thread I've seen in a long time!! :)) LMAO, snags!!

DaGooseMon

February 12th, 2009, 10:18 am

Figures something ridiculous would make your day. Its not my fault some people don't know a witch hunt when they see one. You want to prove to me this isn't a witch hunt?? Start bringing down some other people besides just a few track runners, most of whom people don't even notice except when the Olympics roll around anyway.

Wow. Just wow...

Did you miss the part where I defined what a "witch hunt" is?

super cool ski instructor

February 12th, 2009, 10:26 am

This has turned out to be one of the funniest thread I've seen in a long time!! :)) LMAO, snags!!

I concur!!!

I would love to contribute...but everyone is doing such a bang up job that all I can do is sit and smile. :D

scmarcos

February 12th, 2009, 2:37 pm

Grendel IV

February 12th, 2009, 3:11 pm

With the Bonds issue; I think Bonds claims he didnt know that his trainers were giving him steriods.

As far as everything else. <shrug> Baseball hasnt ever been a 'fair' game. Spitballs, corked bats, distracting runners/batters. Looks like it finally moved from equipment to the players themselves.

NascarGirl2448

February 12th, 2009, 3:54 pm

Wow. Just wow...

Did you miss the part where I defined what a "witch hunt" is?

Prove its not. Are any other baseball players facing charges? No. Its just Barry Bonds. Bringing down a few track stars that no one thinks about except when the Olympics roll around isn't a whole lot of "proof."

Also speaking of the completely ridiculous attitudes of the government, this sheriff down in SC sure seems to be wanting to make a name for himself by trying to take down the greatest Olympian of all time. Why else would they be badgering the people they arrested who were supposedly at the party where the infamous photo was taken with questions about Michael Phelps instead of focusing on the people themselves?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/more/02/12/phelps.arrests.ap/index.html?eref=si_topstories

NascarGirl2448

February 12th, 2009, 3:56 pm

How can you prove something doesn't exist?

Why don't you prove to me there are no aliens. Prove to me that Barry Bonds didn't lie under oath.

This isn't just a few track runners, Tejada (who was MVP of the MLB) is probably going to jail after pleading guilty to the same charges yesterday.

Well its about danged time someone else got brought down also!!! Then again maybe the feds realize that most people knew it was a witch hunt in the first place and decided to bring another player (albeit not a superstar) down also. Now bring down A-Rod and a few others who have admitted to using also.

NascarGirl2448

February 12th, 2009, 3:57 pm

http://home.comcast.net/~sdwolf/SeeNoEvils.jpg

Prove to me it isn't a witch hunt!

:)) :)) :)) I don't know what your point is, but you are pretty hilarious.

NascarGirl2448

February 12th, 2009, 3:59 pm

He isn't taking the fall for everyone. Clemens will probably get nailed and Tejada has.

If Clemens gets charged, then A-Rod and others deserve to be also. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening.

snagswolf

February 12th, 2009, 7:01 pm

Now bring down A-Rod and a few others who have admitted to using also.
For about the 100th time, no one is being 'brought down' for admitting using. They are being 'brought down' for lying under oath.

I'm curious. Are you intentionally ignoring this fact as a way to not admit that you're wrong here, or are you really not grasping it?

dannyg79

February 12th, 2009, 7:03 pm

If Clemens gets charged, then A-Rod and others deserve to be also. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening.

They are getting charged for perjury, not for actually taking steroids. A-Rod has not lied to congress or any courts.

scmarcos

February 12th, 2009, 7:29 pm

Well its about danged time someone else got brought down also!!! Then again maybe the feds realize that most people knew it was a witch hunt in the first place and decided to bring another player (albeit not a superstar) down also. Now bring down A-Rod and a few others who have admitted to using also.

Do you watch baseball? Miguel Tejada is a Superstar.

So is Clemens.

scmarcos

February 12th, 2009, 7:31 pm

if clemens gets charged, then a-rod and others deserve to be also. Unfortunately, i don't see it happening.

arod didn't testify and lie to congress under oath!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can you not understand this?

They weren't charged for using steroids, they were charged for lying under oath!!!!!

Perjury! Perjury! Perjury!

NascarGirl2448

February 12th, 2009, 8:26 pm

For about the 100th time, no one is being 'brought down' for admitting using. They are being 'brought down' for lying under oath.

I'm curious. Are you intentionally ignoring this fact as a way to not admit that you're wrong here, or are you really not grasping it?

No I am grasping this situation perfectly. They had a list of players they suspected, they went after ONE. Now for the 1000th time, do you have any proof whatsoever that the feds didn't go on a witch hunt??? Geez even my uncle knows its a witch hunt, and he can't stand Barry Bonds!!!

NascarGirl2448

February 12th, 2009, 8:27 pm

arod didn't testify and lie to congress under oath!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can you not understand this?

They weren't charged for using steroids, they were charged for lying under oath!!!!!

Perjury! Perjury! Perjury!

If you're gonna bring down one guy, go after them all. If steroids are really as big a problem as the feds claim, then why on earth aren't they going after these guys for using the things??? :wall:

NascarGirl2448

February 12th, 2009, 8:30 pm

Do you watch baseball? Miguel Tejada is a Superstar.

Well then how come no one ever mentions the guy? He never makes my local news highlights. Bonds, A-Rod, Clemens et al make it regularly.

So is Clemens.

I know he is. Yet I seem to remember him denying he ever used either. In fact most of these guys lied like dogs (except A-Rod) when they were found out. I guess they lied to the right people for them to not be facing charges from the government.

DaGooseMon

February 12th, 2009, 10:37 pm

Prove its not. Are any other baseball players facing charges? No. Its just Barry Bonds. Bringing down a few track stars that no one thinks about except when the Olympics roll around isn't a whole lot of "proof."
snip...

Prove it's not? You're just trying to irritate people aren't you?

Come, be honest. You're just being this stubborn because you get a kick out making people insane.

scmarcos

February 12th, 2009, 10:58 pm

Well then how come no one ever mentions the guy? He never makes my local news highlights. Bonds, A-Rod, Clemens et al make it regularly.

I know he is. Yet I seem to remember him denying he ever used either. In fact most of these guys lied like dogs (except A-Rod) when they were found out. I guess they lied to the right people for them to not be facing charges from the government.

Exactly! They lied to people like Katie Couric, who believe it or not can't press charges. Bonds, Tejada, and Clemens all lied to Congress! That is illegal. That is not a witch hunt.

NascarGirl2448

February 12th, 2009, 11:14 pm

Prove it's not? You're just trying to irritate people aren't you?

Come, be honest. You're just being this stubborn because you get a kick out making people insane.

No if you're going to claim something, prove it. You claim Barry Bonds has not been singled out, out of all the baseball players the government could have gone after. You want to convince me of something, show proof. Or do you not know any more about this whole mess than the next guy?

NascarGirl2448

February 12th, 2009, 11:16 pm

Exactly! They lied to people like Katie Couric, who believe it or not can't press charges. Bonds, Tejada, and Clemens all lied to Congress! That is illegal. That is not a witch hunt.

Palmiero lied to Congress also. It doesn't get any more obvious that wagging your finger at Congress and denying something only to be found out later. Ooops. Charge him along with Bonds, Clemens, and Tejada. Unfortunately I don't think its gonna happen.

scmarcos

February 12th, 2009, 11:39 pm

Palmiero lied to Congress also. It doesn't get any more obvious that wagging your finger at Congress and denying something only to be found out later. Ooops. Charge him along with Bonds, Clemens, and Tejada. Unfortunately I don't think its gonna happen.

He said he never took them. Up until the time of the hearing he had never been caught doing them. He never tested positive BEFORE the hearing.

You can't charge him with perjury for getting caught after the hearing doing them. He said up until that time he never used them. Anything after the hearing isn't perjury.

You really have no concept of the law in this case.

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 8:29 am

He said he never took them. Up until the time of the hearing he had never been caught doing them. He never tested positive BEFORE the hearing.

You can't charge him with perjury for getting caught after the hearing doing them. He said up until that time he never used them. Anything after the hearing isn't perjury.

You really have no concept of the law in this case.

Why because I know for a fact a guy lies and is getting off scot free?? PUHLEAZE!

ImNewHere

February 13th, 2009, 8:48 am

Why because I know for a fact a guy lies and is getting off scot free?? PUHLEAZE!

OJ Simpson lied. And he walked.

John Edwards lied, too.

But that doesn't matter to you. It's OK for them to lie in your eyes. You will believe them no matter what! And that's your story and you're sticking to it!!

snagswolf

February 13th, 2009, 8:48 am

Why because I know for a fact a guy lies and is getting off scot free?? PUHLEAZE!
How do you know that for a fact, Carnac?

ImNewHere

February 13th, 2009, 8:49 am

How do you know that for a fact, Carnac?

Because of the witch hunt, silly! Even her uncle knows this is a witch hunt!

DaGooseMon

February 13th, 2009, 10:10 am

No if you're going to claim something, prove it. You claim Barry Bonds has not been singled out, out of all the baseball players the government could have gone after. You want to convince me of something, show proof. Or do you not know any more about this whole mess than the next guy?

You ever heard the phrase, "You can't prove a negative?"

You want me to prove it's "NOT" a witch hunt. I can't prove a negative. You are using the term incorrectly.

Again, a "which hunt" is a term used to describe a process in which innocent people are accused of something. Like many of the women in the Salem Witch Trials. I'm sure you've heard that those women were not actually witches.

Your calling this a witch hunt is silly because these guys were actually caught. They are not innocent.

Understand now?

snagswolf

February 13th, 2009, 10:34 am

Understand now?
My money is on 'no'.

super cool ski instructor

February 13th, 2009, 10:36 am

My head hurts :))

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 11:20 am

OJ Simpson lied. And he walked.

John Edwards lied, too.

But that doesn't matter to you. It's OK for them to lie in your eyes. You will believe them no matter what! And that's your story and you're sticking to it!!

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) Do you have any concrete proof whatsoever that OJ lied about anything??? PUHLEAZE!!!!! If anyone lied in that whole fiasco of a murder trial, it was Mark Furhman. That fact is irrefutable.

And how many times does anyone have to tell you that if the trashloids "break" a story, 99.99999999999999% of the time its crap anyway?? So once in a blue moon they get something right. Doesn't help their credibility.

But I guess reality really doesn't matter if its someone you don't like, huh?

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 11:22 am

You ever heard the phrase, "You can't prove a negative?"

You want me to prove it's "NOT" a witch hunt. I can't prove a negative. You are using the term incorrectly.

Again, a "which hunt" is a term used to describe a process in which innocent people are accused of something. Like many of the women in the Salem Witch Trials. I'm sure you've heard that those women were not actually witches.

Your calling this a witch hunt is silly because these guys were actually caught. They are not innocent.

Understand now?

People are wrongly accused all the time. That's why in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. Barry Bonds or anyone else has not been convicted of anything, therefore, he and anyone else who may have been "caught" are innocent under the law. Get it? The only truly guilty parties in this whole fiasco are the ones who have admitted it.

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 11:24 am

My money is on 'no'.

Pay up, because I get it just fine. Even my uncle, who can't stand Barry Bonds and thinks he's the most obnoxious jerk on the face of the earth realizes this whole fiasco is much ado about nothing. I would be willing to bet that even if Barry hadn't denied anything, but simply said SO WHAT? that no one would even care. McGwire and Sosa were the focus of this whole thing in the early stages, and both of them just said SO WHAT? Anyone going after them now? Nope, not that I can see.

DaGooseMon

February 13th, 2009, 12:11 pm

People are wrongly accused all the time. That's why in this country we are innocent until proven guilty. Barry Bonds or anyone else has not been convicted of anything, therefore, he and anyone else who may have been "caught" are innocent under the law. Get it? The only truly guilty parties in this whole fiasco are the ones who have admitted it.

So, you still think you can prove a negative? I noticed you ignored that.

And by your logic, we should never investigate anyone if they haven't been convicted.

People are guilty of using steroids if they used steroids. Not if they admitted it. Duh. That's why it's not a witch hunt because there are people that actually took the steroids. And there are others that lied to Congress about using steroids, and that's why they are being prosecuted or investigated for Perjury. Get it? It's called a legal system. It's kinda how it works.

But according to your arguments, our entire justice system is one big witch hunt because if they haven't been convicted, they couldn't possibly be guilty... :rolleyes:

snagswolf

February 13th, 2009, 12:14 pm

Pay up, because I get it just fine. Even my uncle, who can't stand Barry Bonds and thinks he's the most obnoxious jerk on the face of the earth realizes this whole fiasco is much ado about nothing. I would be willing to bet that even if Barry hadn't denied anything, but simply said SO WHAT? that no one would even care. McGwire and Sosa were the focus of this whole thing in the early stages, and both of them just said SO WHAT? Anyone going after them now? Nope, not that I can see.
And I win the bet!

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 12:59 pm

So, you still think you can prove a negative? I noticed you ignored that.

And by your logic, we should never investigate anyone if they haven't been convicted.

People are guilty of using steroids if they used steroids. Not if they admitted it. Duh. That's why it's not a witch hunt because there are people that actually took the steroids. And there are others that lied to Congress about using steroids, and that's why they are being prosecuted or investigated for Perjury. Get it? It's called a legal system. It's kinda how it works.

But according to your arguments, our entire justice system is one big witch hunt because if they haven't been convicted, they couldn't possibly be guilty... :rolleyes:

How many athletes in this fiasco who have been investigated have even been SUSPECTED of anything? Aside from Barry Bonds, a few track stars, and Tejada or whatever his name is, who else has been indicted or even disciplined by MLB or anyone else? A-Rod admitted he used, yet MLB is not planning to punish him at all according to latest reports, even though steroids are supposedly banned in MLB. What kind of message do you think that sends? Admit you broke the rules but get off scot-free if you're a superstar?? :rolleyes:

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 1:00 pm

And I win the bet!

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) Very funny. You only think you win, or do you not get what is happening here any more than you accuse me of not "getting it?"

snagswolf

February 13th, 2009, 3:15 pm

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) Very funny. You only think you win, or do you not get what is happening here any more than you accuse me of not "getting it?"
This thread is proof of you 'not getting it'.

The only one who doesn't realize that is you.

scmarcos

February 13th, 2009, 3:22 pm

How many athletes in this fiasco who have been investigated have even been SUSPECTED of anything? Aside from Barry Bonds, a few track stars, and Tejada or whatever his name is, who else has been indicted or even disciplined by MLB or anyone else? A-Rod admitted he used, yet MLB is not planning to punish him at all according to latest reports, even though steroids are supposedly banned in MLB. What kind of message do you think that sends? Admit you broke the rules but get off scot-free if you're a superstar?? :rolleyes:

Ummmmmm,

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/steroids_baseball.shtml

Barry Bonds has never been disciplined by the league.

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 3:51 pm

Ummmmmm,

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/legendary/steroids_baseball.shtml

Barry Bonds has never been disciplined by the league.

Proves my point. Barry Bonds is a superstar just like A-Rod. Yet for all the fuss made over steroids by MLB, these guys are getting off scot-free. Well except for the fact that Barry Bonds' only real mistake in this whole fiasco was not saying "so what?" when the whole mess started and acting like a jerk about the whole thing. That's the only reason he was ever nailed for supposedly lying under oath in the first place.

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 3:55 pm

This thread is proof of you 'not getting it'.

The only one who doesn't realize that is you.

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) I get it just fine. Barry Bonds and a few track stars that no one pays attention to except when the Olympics roll around are being prosecuted because they denied ever using anything instead of doing what everyone else has done in this whole thing and just said "so what??" A-Rod is the only one who has admitted to anything. Yet A-Rod isn't even facing any discipline from MLB. Go figure.

snagswolf

February 13th, 2009, 4:28 pm

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) I get it just fine. Barry Bonds and a few track stars that no one pays attention to except when the Olympics roll around are being prosecuted because they denied ever using anything instead of doing what everyone else has done in this whole thing and just said "so what??" A-Rod is the only one who has admitted to anything. Yet A-Rod isn't even facing any discipline from MLB. Go figure.
And yet you ignorantly fail to acknowledge that Bonds is being put on trial for perjury, not steroid use. And other athletes who have lied under oath have been charged and tried just like Bonds is.

There is no witch hunt. If the government has proof that you lied under oath, you're going to be prosecuted.

And there is no double standard. There is the government standard, and there's Baseball's standard. Each one of those standards has been applied equally regardless of who the athlete is. The government has prosecuted EVERYONE who they've had proof of lying under oath. Baseball has punished NO ONE, regardless of whether they've admitted to steroids or not.

Bonds is in the group where the government has proof that he lied under oath, and they're treating him exactly the same as they treated EVERY OTHER athlete who they have proof has lied under oath. As far as Baseball is concerned, they are treating Bonds like every other athlete who has been found to use steroids - they are ignoring it.

For you to claim that Bonds is being treated differently is just ignorance beyond belief.

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 4:33 pm

And yet you stupidly fail to acknowledge that Bonds is being put on trial for perjury, not steroid use. And other athletes who have lied under oath have been charged and tried just like Bonds is.

Any other baseball players? NO. Only a few track runners people only think about every 4 years. What part of that is so hard to comprehend?

There is no witch hunt. If the government has proof that you lied under oath, you're going to be prosecuted.

And when everyone else just says SO WHAT and people leave them alone and one guy acts like a jerk over it all and goes down, that doesn't raise some red flags?

And there is no double standard. There is the government standard, and there's Baseball's standard. Each one of those standards has been applied equally regardless of who the athlete is. The government has prosecuted EVERYONE who they've had proof of lying under oath. Baseball has punished NO ONE, regardless of whether they've admitted to steroids or not.

Its obvious MLB doesn't care about enforcing their own rules.

Bonds is in the group where the government has proof that he lied under oath, and they're treating him exactly the same as they treated EVERY OTHER athlete who they have proof has lied under oath. As far as Baseball is concerned, they are treating Bonds like every other athlete who has been found to use steroids - they are ignoring it.

Yet some people just can't seem to understand that if MLB was serious about ending steroids, they would go after some others who admitted they used. Yet they aren't going after anyone.

For you to claim that Bonds is being treated differently is just stupidity beyond belief.

And for people like you to deny that something is screwy in this whole situation is just plain nuts.

scmarcos

February 13th, 2009, 4:45 pm

Proves my point. Barry Bonds is a superstar just like A-Rod. Yet for all the fuss made over steroids by MLB, these guys are getting off scot-free. Well except for the fact that Barry Bonds' only real mistake in this whole fiasco was not saying "so what?" when the whole mess started and acting like a jerk about the whole thing. That's the only reason he was ever nailed for supposedly lying under oath in the first place.

No. He wasn't the only one to testify. He was the only one (except Tejada) to testify he never used steroids after failing a test for steroids.

A-Rod failed a "survey" before steroids were against the rules, you can't suspend someone for something that is not against the rules.

snagswolf

February 13th, 2009, 4:47 pm

Any other baseball players? NO. Only a few track runners people only think about every 4 years. What part of that is so hard to comprehend?
The part that's hard to comprehend is wondering why you're so ignorant that you think the government should be prosecuting athletes for perjury when they have no evidence of them committing that crime.

Who do you think the government should be prosecuting for perjury like they are with Bonds?

Give me some names, and give me the evidence that they've committed this crime.

And when everyone else just says SO WHAT and people leave them alone and one guy acts like a jerk over it all and goes down, that doesn't raise some red flags?
The fact that he's 'going down' for perjury, makes perfect sense. That's the crime he committed.

The fact that other players aren't 'going down' for perjury makes sense too, since there's no evidence they've committed this crime.

Its obvious MLB doesn't care about enforcing their own rules.
True. And they don't care about enforcing the rules on Bonds either.

So much for your 'witch hunt'.

Yet some people just can't seem to understand that if MLB was serious about ending steroids, they would go after some others who admitted they used. Yet they aren't going after anyone.
Yes, they aren't going after ANYONE. Including Bonds.

Is it sinking in yet?

And for people like you to deny that something is screwy in this whole situation is just plain nuts.
As I said, give me some evidence that others have committed the same crime that Bonds is being prosecuted for, and who aren't being prosecuted like Bonds is, and I'll agree with you.

Until then, you're just ranting like an ignoramus.

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 4:50 pm

No. He wasn't the only one to testify. He was the only one (except Tejada) to testify he never used steroids after failing a test for steroids.

And how about the other guys who are supposedly on the "balco" list? How many of them testified? Or did they just say SO WHAT?

A-Rod failed a "survey" before steroids were against the rules, you can't suspend someone for something that is not against the rules.

Yet I thought someone posted a link in this thread that points out that steroids have been banned since the early 90's? How, if steroids were banned in the early 90's were they not against the rules when A-Rod admitted to using?

scmarcos

February 13th, 2009, 4:55 pm

And how about the other guys who are supposedly on the "balco" list? How many of them testified? Or did they just say SO WHAT?

Yet I thought someone posted a link in this thread that points out that steroids have been banned since the early 90's? How, if steroids were banned in the early 90's were they not against the rules when A-Rod admitted to using?

Who knows? Bonds didn't get suspended, Sosa didn't get suspended, Palmeiro didn't get suspended (until after the hearings and new policies), no one got suspended before all this. The A-Rod test was the decide on a new policy towards steroids, it was taken with the understanding from all players (104 who didn't get suspended as well) that this would not result in punishment.

Just being on the BALCO list isn't why Bonds was charged! Bonds failed three tests before the hearings. He said he never took steroids, under oath. Claiming that under oath is a lie and a crime!

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 5:05 pm

The part that's hard to comprehend is wondering why you're so ignorant that you think the government should be prosecuting athletes for perjury when they have no evidence of them committing that crime.
I'm not ignorant of anything.
Who do you think the government should be prosecuting for perjury like they are with Bonds?
Give me some names, and give me the evidence that they've committed this crime.
The fact that he's 'going down' for perjury, makes perfect sense. That's the crime he committed.
The fact that other players aren't 'going down' for perjury makes sense too, since there's no evidence they've committed this crime.
True. And they don't care about enforcing the rules on Bonds either.
So much for your 'witch hunt'.
Yes, they aren't going after ANYONE. Including Bonds.
Is it sinking in yet?
As I said, give me some evidence that others have committed the same crime that Bonds is being prosecuted for, and who aren't being prosecuted like Bonds is, and I'll agree with you.
Until then, you're just ranting like an ignoramus.

Here's a list of players who have been implicated in this mess. How many of them are facing ANY prosecution, much less discipline by MLB, besides Barry Bonds?

http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com/

Implicated Players (31)

Mark McGwire - Steroids
Manny Alexander - Steroids
Chuck Finley - Steroids
Barry Bonds - Steroids
Marvin Bernard - Steroids and hGH
Randy Velarde - Steroids
Wilson Alvarez - Steroids and hGH
Bret Boone - Steroids
Ozzie Canseco - Steroids
Juan Gonzalez - Steroids and hGH
Dave Martinez - Steroids
Ivan Rodriguez - Steroids and hGH
Tony Saunders - Steroids and hGH
Miguel Tejada - Steroids
Lenny Dykstra - Steroids and hGH
Roger Clemens - "PE Drugs"
Andy Pettitte - "PE Drugs"
Brian Roberts - Steroids
Jay Gibbons - Steroids
Gary Matthews Jr. - hGH
Jerry Hairston Jr. - hGH
David Bell - hCG
Darren Holmes - Steroids and hGH
Rick Ankiel - hGH
Troy Glaus - Steroids
Scott Schoeneweis - Steroids
Matt Williams - Steroids and hGH
Jose Guillen - Steroids and hGH
Ismael Valdez - hGH
Magglio Ordonez - Steroids and hGH
Alex Rodriguez - Steroids

Do a little research. Google is your friend.

scmarcos

February 13th, 2009, 5:10 pm

Most, if not all of those players did it before it was against the rules. Plus they didn't lie to Congress about it.

Your posts are all stupid, not you your posts.

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 5:10 pm

Who knows? Bonds didn't get suspended, Sosa didn't get suspended, Palmeiro didn't get suspended (until after the hearings and new policies), no one got suspended before all this. The A-Rod test was the decide on a new policy towards steroids, it was taken with the understanding from all players (104 who didn't get suspended as well) that this would not result in punishment.

So its obvious MLB isn't interested in enforcing its own policies.

Just being on the BALCO list isn't why Bonds was charged! Bonds failed three tests before the hearings. He said he never took steroids, under oath. Claiming that under oath is a lie and a crime!

Yet for all the players that were implicated in this whole fiasco, only Barry Bonds was indicted or anything else.

scmarcos

February 13th, 2009, 5:15 pm

So its obvious MLB isn't interested in enforcing its own policies.

Yet for all the players that were implicated in this whole fiasco, only Barry Bonds was indicted or anything else.

Because he is the only one who Congress has any proof of lying under oath!

Being on the list and failing three tests are just two of the reasons Bonds is being charged.

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 5:18 pm

Most, if not all of those players did it before it was against the rules. Plus they didn't lie to Congress about it.

Your posts are all stupid, not you your posts.

No they're not. I'm not the only one who feels the way I do. Maybe on here, but not in the rest of the country.

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 5:20 pm

Because he is the only one who Congress has any proof of lying under oath!

Being on the list and failing three tests are just two of the reasons Bonds is being charged.

Or was he just the only one they went after because everyone else said SO WHAT? Oh wait, wasn't Clemens busted for lying about using also? Hmmmm Tejada just copped a sweetheart deal to avoid being prosecuted, even though he's just as guilty as Bonds and others.

scmarcos

February 13th, 2009, 5:25 pm

Or was he just the only one they went after because everyone else said SO WHAT? Oh wait, wasn't Clemens busted for lying about using also? Hmmmm Tejada just copped a sweetheart deal to avoid being prosecuted, even though he's just as guilty as Bonds and others.

Tejada is looking at jail time and/or deportment!

It's been reported that Clemens charges are coming.

This isn't over, and what Bonds did was illegal.

NascarGirl2448

February 13th, 2009, 6:27 pm

Tejada is looking at jail time and/or deportment!

It's been reported that Clemens charges are coming.

This isn't over, and what Bonds did was illegal.

Well if Clemens gets charged, all I can say is its about danged time!! And what's this about deportment? Is Tejada here illegally?

SUVRon

February 13th, 2009, 6:34 pm

Well if Clemens gets charged, all I can say is its about danged time!! And what's this about deportment? Is Tejada here illegally?

Tejada is here legally but stipulations in accordance with his visa in refrence to committing crimes could get he shipped out.

scmarcos

February 13th, 2009, 6:35 pm

Well if Clemens gets charged, all I can say is its about danged time!! And what's this about deportment? Is Tejada here illegally?

No.

Perjury is a crime of "moral turpitude" which is punishable by deportation.

SUVRon

February 13th, 2009, 6:41 pm

Here's a list of players who have been implicated in this mess. How many of them are facing ANY prosecution, much less discipline by MLB, besides Barry Bonds?

http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com/

Do a little research. Google is your friend.

Of the names listed how many lied under oath in a court of law about it? The one name that should be taken off is Brian Roberts. If I'm not mistaken Larry Bigby said he gave Brian Roberts some steroids when cooperating with the Mitchell investigation, but no proof was ever offered and I don't believe he ever failed a drug test. I could be mistaken, but that's how I remembered it.

ImNewHere

February 14th, 2009, 1:46 am

No they're not. I'm not the only one who feels the way I do. Maybe on here, but not in the rest of the country.

No. No, you're not. Your uncle also feels the same way. And that's saying something! If people really knew the guy. I mean, if they really, really knew the guy, everyone would know that's important!!

ImNewHere

February 14th, 2009, 1:49 am

But I guess reality really doesn't matter if its someone you don't like, huh?

Reality is that you defended John Edwards and adamantly said he did not have an affair, based on who broke the story ..... even after John Edwards admitted having an affair. Those are the facts. Reality is that he had an affair. And reality is that you said he didn't.

ImNewHere

February 14th, 2009, 1:51 am

And by your logic, we should never investigate anyone if they haven't been convicted.

Right! If you investigate anyone who has not been convicted, it's a witch hunt.

Warrior4God

February 14th, 2009, 9:20 am

Right! If you investigate anyone who has not been convicted, it's a witch hunt.

Thats a very liberal appraoch.

I guess investigators should be removed from every police force huh?

Many murderers,rapist and child molestors in our country have been convicted because investigations were carried through.

If someone murdered a member of your family would you want a "witch hunt"?

How old are you?

NascarGirl2448

February 14th, 2009, 9:38 am

No. No, you're not. Your uncle also feels the same way. And that's saying something! If people really knew the guy. I mean, if they really, really knew the guy, everyone would know that's important!!

If you knew him you'd realize that even people who can't stand Barry Bonds think this whole thing is much ado about nothing.

Warrior4God

February 14th, 2009, 9:40 am

I am a yankee fan and always have been and I don't think Arod should have ever been given a shirt with pinstipes.

I knew there would be problems in the clubhouse and would distract other players who payed their dues to the team.

But thats not the issue...............

I believe owners have a responsibilty to fans to remove ANYONE who EVER used steroids from baseball FOREVER.

NascarGirl2448

February 14th, 2009, 9:40 am

Reality is that you defended John Edwards and adamantly said he did not have an affair, based on who broke the story ..... even after John Edwards admitted having an affair. Those are the facts. Reality is that he had an affair. And reality is that you said he didn't.

If you're gonna break a story like that, get it from a CREDIBLE source, not a supermarket trashloid. When the same rags spew crap like Patrick Swayze is at death's door, when at the time he was doing just fine, then that ought to be a rather large clue that your "source" may not have gotten their facts straight before blabbing it to the world.

NascarGirl2448

February 14th, 2009, 9:44 am

Right! If you investigate anyone who has not been convicted, it's a witch hunt.

Investigation is one thing. Singling out someone when there's a whole group doing the same thing and getting off scot free is another matter.

NascarGirl2448

February 14th, 2009, 10:31 am

I believe owners have a responsibilty to fans to remove ANYONE who EVER used steroids from baseball FOREVER.

Yet that's obviously not happening. Shows how serious MLB is about the steroid issue, in other words, not at all.

ImNewHere

February 14th, 2009, 10:44 am

Thats a very liberal appraoch.

I guess investigators should be removed from every police force huh?

Many murderers,rapist and child molestors in our country have been convicted because investigations were carried through.

If someone murdered a member of your family would you want a "witch hunt"?

How old are you?

What the hell is the matter with you?

ImNewHere

February 14th, 2009, 10:44 am

I am a yankee fan and always have been

That explains it.

ImNewHere

February 14th, 2009, 10:45 am

If you knew him you'd realize that even people who can't stand Barry Bonds think this whole thing is much ado about nothing.

If people really, really knew him, they'd know. I'm sure everyone will take you at your word on this because you're about as credible as those trashloids you like to condemn.

ImNewHere

February 14th, 2009, 10:48 am

If you're gonna break a story like that, get it from a CREDIBLE source, not a supermarket trashloid. When the same rags spew crap like Patrick Swayze is at death's door, when at the time he was doing just fine, then that ought to be a rather large clue that your "source" may not have gotten their facts straight before blabbing it to the world.

I'd hardly say battling pancreatic cancer is "doing just fine," but you're the doctor. :rolleyes:

And it doesn't matter where the story broke, it was true. But instead of listening to the guy who actually had the affair, you chose not to believe it only because of the first place to report it. It didn't matter whether it was true or not, you chose to believe the story only based on that. Just like you choose to believe things based on other irrelevant factors, not whether it's true or not.

ImNewHere

February 14th, 2009, 10:53 am

Investigation is one thing. Singling out someone when there's a whole group doing the same thing and getting off scot free is another matter.

If someone is accused of a crime, and you like this person, it's a witch hunt.

If a police officer is never accused of anything, that officer is guilty and even if they are accused and are found innocent, they were tried in a kangaroo court.

You try to bring forth opinions, like those of your supposed "uncle" and you think that's a legitimate argument to put forth on this board to support your position. Nobody knows your uncle and nobody cares what he thinks. As a matter of fact, I think if he's really in your family somehow, he's not a credible source of information either.

NascarGirl2448

February 14th, 2009, 11:14 am

If someone is accused of a crime, and you like this person, it's a witch hunt.

You know what they say about assuming don't you? I can't stand Barry Bonds. I think he's an obnoxious jackass. However, when he's the only one facing charges in a supposed investigation which implicates quite a few people, then wake up and smell the coffee, would ya please? Now if a few other people (Clemens, Tejada, et al) get brought down with him, then its about damn time!!

If a police officer is never accused of anything, that officer is guilty and even if they are accused and are found innocent, they were tried in a kangaroo court.

So you think that cops should get away with things that the average person would wind up in jail or on death row over just because they're cops? PUHLEAZE. If even the President of the United States is not above the law, why should a cop be?

You try to bring forth opinions, like those of your supposed "uncle" and you think that's a legitimate argument to put forth on this board to support your position. Nobody knows your uncle and nobody cares what he thinks. As a matter of fact, I think if he's really in your family somehow, he's not a credible source of information either.

Oh I see, you only respect other people (outside this board) opinion when it agrees with you. Real mature :rolleyes:

ImNewHere

February 14th, 2009, 11:43 am

You know what they say about assuming don't you? I can't stand Barry Bonds. I think he's an obnoxious jackass. However, when he's the only one facing charges in a supposed investigation which implicates quite a few people, then wake up and smell the coffee, would ya please? Now if a few other people (Clemens, Tejada, et al) get brought down with him, then its about damn time!!

OK. That proves you haven't even been reading the posts on this thread, let along paying attention to the news. I don't suppose you'd ever consider watching FoxSports or ESPN or pick up a magazine/newspaper, listen to news on the radio or look to anything other than your "uncle" for your information and your opinions. The problem that I, and many others on this thread have, is that you're just too ignorant about what's actually happening. And when the information is presented to you, you overlook it and go back to some worn out cliche about smelling coffee or whatever.

Then spew the same swill that you've been putting on this board for a long time.

So you think that cops should get away with things that the average person would wind up in jail or on death row over just because they're cops? PUHLEAZE. If even the President of the United States is not above the law, why should a cop be?

The NYPD was found innocent in a court of law. But, of course, that goes against your predetermined verdict in your own head, so you can throw your tired "OJ was found innocent" line out the window, too. Because it's hypocritical for you to condemn innocent police while bragging about OJ's acquittal. You only use society's standards when they fit your myopic little opinion. If something happens outside of your little world, things you don't really understand (which is a lot), then you condemn it and use words like "witch hunt" improperly.

Oh I see, you only respect other people (outside this board) opinion when it agrees with you. Real mature :rolleyes:

Maturity has nothing to do with it. It's common sense. Something there's a lot of in this thread, but it's all going way, way over your head.

Why the hell should I or anyone else reading this trust what this supposed "uncle" of yours says (that is if he really exists at all)? I don't know the guy, and based on all of the misrepresentations you've posted on this board during the time you've been here, there's so much room to doubt he even thinks half the stuff you're posting about him.

scmarcos

February 14th, 2009, 4:01 pm

This thread whacked.

NASCAR isn't even reading the responses, hers never make any sense!

ImNewHere

February 14th, 2009, 6:51 pm

This thread whacked.

It's my favorite thread right now.

NascarGirl2448

February 14th, 2009, 10:23 pm

OK. That proves you haven't even been reading the posts on this thread, let along paying attention to the news. I don't suppose you'd ever consider watching FoxSports or ESPN or pick up a magazine/newspaper, listen to news on the radio or look to anything other than your "uncle" for your information and your opinions. The problem that I, and many others on this thread have, is that you're just too ignorant about what's actually happening. And when the information is presented to you, you overlook it and go back to some worn out cliche about smelling coffee or whatever.
Then spew the same swill that you've been putting on this board for a long time.
The NYPD was found innocent in a court of law. But, of course, that goes against your predetermined verdict in your own head, so you can throw your tired "OJ was found innocent" line out the window, too. Because it's hypocritical for you to condemn innocent police while bragging about OJ's acquittal. You only use society's standards when they fit your myopic little opinion. If something happens outside of your little world, things you don't really understand (which is a lot), then you condemn it and use words like "witch hunt" improperly.
Maturity has nothing to do with it. It's common sense. Something there's a lot of in this thread, but it's all going way, way over your head.
Why the hell should I or anyone else reading this trust what this supposed "uncle" of yours says (that is if he really exists at all)? I don't know the guy, and based on all of the misrepresentations you've posted on this board during the time you've been here, there's so much room to doubt he even thinks half the stuff you're posting about him.

:)) :)) :)) :)) Your posts are the funniest thing I have ever read. First of all, I don't watch the sports channels not because of this crap, but because they have trashed Wake Forest one too many times. Although recently they've started to come around and realize we're better than they think. But considering local sportscasters are less biased, I tend to listen to them over national. Not that reality makes any difference to you.

Also, I don't care if you believe my family or not, but considering my uncle (who YES does exist, but you can keep denying it if that's what gets you through your day) lives in the Bay Area and sees the UNbiased LOCAL sportscasters who have no reason to turn people against anyone, I'm more inclined to believe him than you.

NascarGirl2448

February 14th, 2009, 10:24 pm

This thread whacked.

NASCAR isn't even reading the responses, hers never make any sense!

Hello pot, this is the kettle. You're black.

ImNewHere

February 14th, 2009, 10:35 pm

Hello pot, this is the kettle. You're black.

Yes. And you're on the stove making a bunch of useless noise.

NascarGirl2448

February 14th, 2009, 11:37 pm

Yes. And you're on the stove making a bunch of useless noise.

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) And you're making me laugh hysterically!

content

February 15th, 2009, 12:09 am

I say let baseball players take the steroids. Makes for better baseball.

ImNewHere

February 15th, 2009, 2:21 am

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) And you're making me laugh hysterically!

And I imagine you're doing it wearing a straitjacket in the back of a cage sounding like Woody Woodpecker.

SUVRon

February 15th, 2009, 2:24 am

If you knew him you'd realize that even people who can't stand Barry Bonds think this whole thing is much ado about nothing.

So taking an oath in court and then turning around and lying in court is much ado about nothing? You sound ridiculous

scmarcos

February 15th, 2009, 4:19 pm

Hello pot, this is the kettle. You're black.

Are you talking to yourself?

ImNewHere

February 15th, 2009, 6:10 pm

So taking an oath in court and then turning around and lying in court is much ado about nothing? You sound ridiculous

You know, I'm still laughing about the defense attorney post from a couple of days ago, "Your Honor, it's a witch hunt. I rest my case!" :))

snagswolf

February 15th, 2009, 7:04 pm

Here's a list of players who have been implicated in this mess. How many of them are facing ANY prosecution, much less discipline by MLB, besides Barry Bonds?

http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com/

Do a little research. Google is your friend.
I asked you to give me a list of players who committed the crime of perjury and haven't been convicted.

Reading comprehension is your friend. Though obviously not a very close one.

I'm waiting for you to give me evidence that other players have lied under oath like Bonds has, and the government hasn't charged them with a crime.

Waiting...

matt1618

February 16th, 2009, 12:18 am

And yet you ignorantly fail to acknowledge that Bonds is being put on trial for perjury, not steroid use. And other athletes who have lied under oath have been charged and tried just like Bonds is.

There is no witch hunt. If the government has proof that you lied under oath, you're going to be prosecuted.

And there is no double standard. There is the government standard, and there's Baseball's standard. Each one of those standards has been applied equally regardless of who the athlete is. The government has prosecuted EVERYONE who they've had proof of lying under oath. Baseball has punished NO ONE, regardless of whether they've admitted to steroids or not.

Bonds is in the group where the government has proof that he lied under oath, and they're treating him exactly the same as they treated EVERY OTHER athlete who they have proof has lied under oath. As far as Baseball is concerned, they are treating Bonds like every other athlete who has been found to use steroids - they are ignoring it.

For you to claim that Bonds is being treated differently is just ignorance beyond belief.

Ok, as a record of being Bonds defender in the past, I will say a couple of things. There is a certain amount of credence in calling it a witch hunt. Palmeiro lied to Congress under oath, yet no one prosecuted him. Sheffield said about the same thing that Bonds did, in the same court of law, yet he didn't get tried on perjury charges.

They tried to wire Jason Grimsley who took steroid to call Bonds even though he had no contact with Bonds at all and threatened him when he refused to wire him. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3097689

I know of no other baseball player who had the following. Now Greg Anderson's Mother had her house raided. I know of no one else's former baseball trainer's mother having her house raided. http://sportsonmymind.com/2009/01/29/feds-and-espn-take-barry-bonds-manhunt-to-new-level/

The forced tactics above are not legitimate. With that said, if he perjured, he perjured, and if recent legitimtely gathered evidence shows that he lied, so be it. Altough he's never had a record of doing anything illegal in the past, so he probably wouldn't go to jail. He should pay consequences, but I don't think the US should be spending $55 million to find out he lied about using steroids.

With that said, I'll be much less of a Bonds defender, if some of the most recent stuff that has come out is true.

snagswolf

February 16th, 2009, 8:26 am

Ok, as a record of being Bonds defender in the past, I will say a couple of things. There is a certain amount of credence in calling it a witch hunt. Palmeiro lied to Congress under oath, yet no one prosecuted him.
How do you know that Palmeiro lied under oath? He didn't test positive for steroids until after he testified.

Sheffield said about the same thing that Bonds did, in the same court of law, yet he didn't get tried on perjury charges.
That's because they couldn't find any proof that Sheffield was lying.

They tried to wire Jason Grimsley who took steroid to call Bonds even though he had no contact with Bonds at all and threatened him when he refused to wire him.
And? They were trying to prosecute the folks from BALCO, and Bonds was one of their best customers.

I know of no other baseball player who had the following. Now Greg Anderson's Mother had her house raided. I know of no one else's former baseball trainer's mother having her house raided.
Again, they were going after BALCO, and Anderson had connections to BALCO.

The forced tactics above are not legitimate.
Sure they are.

With that said, if he perjured, he perjured, and if recent legitimtely gathered evidence shows that he lied, so be it. Altough he's never had a record of doing anything illegal in the past, so he probably wouldn't go to jail. He should pay consequences, but I don't think the US should be spending $55 million to find out he lied about using steroids.
You mean committed perjury. Which is a crime.

All Bonds had to do was tell the truth, and he wouldn't have been in troulble with either MLB or the government. And other athletes involved in this case have been prosecuted for the same crime that Bonds is.

To call it a witch hunt is ludicrous.

NascarGirl2448

February 16th, 2009, 9:00 am

Ok, as a record of being Bonds defender in the past, I will say a couple of things. There is a certain amount of credence in calling it a witch hunt. Palmeiro lied to Congress under oath, yet no one prosecuted him. Sheffield said about the same thing that Bonds did, in the same court of law, yet he didn't get tried on perjury charges.
They tried to wire Jason Grimsley who took steroid to call Bonds even though he had no contact with Bonds at all and threatened him when he refused to wire him. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3097689
I know of no other baseball player who had the following. Now Greg Anderson's Mother had her house raided. I know of no one else's former baseball trainer's mother having her house raided. http://sportsonmymind.com/2009/01/29/feds-and-espn-take-barry-bonds-manhunt-to-new-level/
The forced tactics above are not legitimate. With that said, if he perjured, he perjured, and if recent legitimtely gathered evidence shows that he lied, so be it. Altough he's never had a record of doing anything illegal in the past, so he probably wouldn't go to jail. He should pay consequences, but I don't think the US should be spending $55 million to find out he lied about using steroids.
With that said, I'll be much less of a Bonds defender, if some of the most recent stuff that has come out is true.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter to most here. Some people are so intent on bringing down Barry Bonds that no facts in the world are going to dissuade them.

NascarGirl2448

February 16th, 2009, 9:02 am

and i imagine you're doing it wearing a straitjacket in the back of a cage sounding like woody woodpecker.

:)) :)) :)) :)) :))

snagswolf

February 16th, 2009, 9:40 am

Still waiting for that list of players who you have evidence of them lying under oath and the government isn't going after them.

And waiting...

matt1618

February 16th, 2009, 10:50 pm

How do you know that Palmeiro lied under oath? He didn't test positive for steroids until after he testified.

Hmm, He was on the Rangers, Canseco said he was on them before. The Rangers were full of acknowledged Roid heads, by the time that those hearings were held, and what he said about not only McGwire & the A's, but also specifically about the Rangers, is part of what brought about those hearings. And yet Palmeiro had the audacity to declare that he never took steroids, wagging his finger, in Bill Clinton 'I didn't have sex' fashion, with penalty of perjury on the line, if they chose to investigate. And two months later or so, he failed a steroid test, at least until that time, the same couldn't be said of Bonds. No one can be serious in saying 'well he started after the wagging of finger'. But no one went after Palmeiro. No going after the Ranger trainers, or distributors.

That's because they couldn't find any proof that Sheffield was lying.

Investigator Novitsky was specifically going after Bonds, there was no effort to even look at Sheffield.

And? They were trying to prosecute the folks from BALCO, and Bonds was one of their best customers.

Hmm, since when do they spend more time & years going after consumers of steroids, even those who lie about it, than the ones who manufactured them. They got very little penalty.

Again, they were going after BALCO, and Anderson had connections to BALCO.

I understand going after Anderson, at least to some extent, as he was Bonds trainer, however, going after his mother?? Is there any evidence his mother was distributing steroids to Bonds? How is going after someone's mother not hunting for witches, even if she's not that bad?

Grimsley had no connections to Balco at all. It is wild hunting to say the least to go after someone who had nothing at all to do with Balco, and try to tie Bonds to him, when there is no evidence that Grimsley had a tie in to Balco, nor Bonds. Yet, he got in trouble only after he didn't wire Bonds. Now if this is not wild, useless use of tax payer dollars, I don't know what is.

You mean committed perjury. Which is a crime.

I agree, if he did so, he committed perjury. That is a crime no doubt & I don't defend Bonds if he did so.

All Bonds had to do was tell the truth, and he wouldn't have been in troulble with either MLB or the government. And other athletes involved in this case have been prosecuted for the same crime that Bonds is.

I agree all he had to do is tell the truth. No one else has had trainer's mothers nor people not associated with them get into troble with the law only after him refusing to do dirty work (Grimsley). Not Sheffield, same case, no effort on him.

To call it a witch hunt is ludicrous.

I will still say if Bonds perjured, it is wrong & I don't defend him for perjuring if he did so, however, the extent that they did, to spend $55 million on going after Bonds is not reasonable. It looks like perhaps they may have some legitimte stuff on Bonds (like failed tests that we had never heard about til recently, and makes me down on Bonds if that is true, and an actual witness, that is perfectly reasonable to use), I just think they went overboard on money & wild goose chases, when perhaps they didn't need to.

snagswolf

February 17th, 2009, 9:26 am

Hmm, He was on the Rangers, Canseco said he was on them before. The Rangers were full of acknowledged Roid heads, by the time that those hearings were held, and what he said about not only McGwire & the A's, but also specifically about the Rangers, is part of what brought about those hearings. And yet Palmeiro had the audacity to declare that he never took steroids, wagging his finger, in Bill Clinton 'I didn't have sex' fashion, with penalty of perjury on the line, if they chose to investigate. And two months later or so, he failed a steroid test, at least until that time, the same couldn't be said of Bonds. No one can be serious in saying 'well he started after the wagging of finger'. But no one went after Palmeiro. No going after the Ranger trainers, or distributors.
That's a long-winded way of admitting you have no proof.

Investigator Novitsky was specifically going after Bonds, there was no effort to even look at Sheffield.
Do you have a link that shows 'there was no effort to even look at Sheffield'?

Hmm, since when do they spend more time & years going after consumers of steroids, even those who lie about it, than the ones who manufactured them. They got very little penalty.
They accepted plea bargains. I'm pretty sure that option is open to Bonds also.

I understand going after Anderson, at least to some extent, as he was Bonds trainer, however, going after his mother?? Is there any evidence his mother was distributing steroids to Bonds? How is going after someone's mother not hunting for witches, even if she's not that bad?
Anderson is considered a witness in a federal perjury case. As has been explained numerous times in this thread, if the Feds have evidence that Bonds lied under oath, this isn't a witch hunt.

Grimsley had no connections to Balco at all. It is wild hunting to say the least to go after someone who had nothing at all to do with Balco, and try to tie Bonds to him, when there is no evidence that Grimsley had a tie in to Balco, nor Bonds. Yet, he got in trouble only after he didn't wire Bonds. Now if this is not wild, useless use of tax payer dollars, I don't know what is.
Do you think people should be allowed to lie under oath and get away scott free?

We have that law for a reason.

And Grimsley's house was raided because he refused to cooperate with the investigation into BALCO, as he had promised to do.

I agree all he had to do is tell the truth. No one else has had trainer's mothers nor people not associated with them get into troble with the law only after him refusing to do dirty work (Grimsley). Not Sheffield, same case, no effort on him.
Can you give me the evidence they have against Sheffield, that should have led them to indict him for perjury?

I will still say if Bonds perjured, it is wrong & I don't defend him for perjuring if he did so, however, the extent that they did, to spend $55 million on going after Bonds is not reasonable. It looks like perhaps they may have some legitimte stuff on Bonds (like failed tests that we had never heard about til recently, and makes me down on Bonds if that is true, and an actual witness, that is perfectly reasonable to use), I just think they went overboard on money & wild goose chases, when perhaps they didn't need to.
The feds take perjury seriously.

super cool ski instructor

February 17th, 2009, 3:54 pm

That explains it.

I'm sorry...but that made me laugh! :))

Marijuana_MyAntiDrug

February 20th, 2009, 2:25 am

SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic -- According to the official in charge of the agency which regulates pharmaceutical drugs in the Dominican Republic, Primobolan was not available for legal purchase, over-the-counter or with a prescription in his country between 2001 and 2003.

Dr. Pia Veras, who oversees the regulatory agency, told ESPNdeportes.com that Primobolan is known as "boli" in the streets of Dominican Republic, and was not legal for purchase during the aforementioned years.

"What Alex Rodriguez (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=3115) stated at the press conference [in Tampa] doesn't make sense," Veras said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3920425

uncledoom

February 20th, 2009, 10:56 am

uncledoom

February 20th, 2009, 11:20 am

My turn to beat the dead horse....

Lying to a grand jury is a crime. Evidence has not been produced to show the Giambi brothers nor Sheffield lied. Evidence has been found to contradict Bonds. That's why he is on trial. Marion Jones was also on that grand jury. She lied, she went to jail.

Lying to Congress is a crime. Mark McGuire said nothing, Sosa no habla english. No evidence has been brought up to contradict whether Schilling or Palmero took steroids BEFORE appearing at Congress. Petitte told the truth. Clemens' fate is still up in the air.

Yes, this is "just baseball"...we all have better things to do. But steroids are illegal in this country...period...just like crack, cocaine, and weed.

matt1618

February 26th, 2009, 9:01 am

I've had littelaccess to the computer the past week.

That's a long-winded way of admitting you have no proof.

Hmm, Canseco is the whole reason the steroid hearings were held. Interesting that Canseco himself, who was the cause of the hearings, was never called himself. He specifically cited Palmeiro as a user, as of many other ranger players, like Juan Gonzalez, as being a user, and other ones. That is why Palmeiro wagged his finger act , because he was cited.. And to imagine, he just started after the hearings means one is not using his brain. Surely he didn’t start after the hearings, he had been using all along, as specifically stated by Canseco. At least it could have taken an investigation of Cansect. It wouldn’t take $55 million to investigate him. But no check at all of that, when Texas Rangers were known to be involved in Steroids..

Hm, a guy who had a failed test, and has a specific player who said that he took them. How is that no proof, or at least a grounds to at leastl look at him.

Do you have a link that shows 'there was no effort to even look at Sheffield'?

No report of anything. No effort to go after him. The fact that Sheffeidl gave the same response, reports released, and included in that effort is no attempt to get evidence on sheffiels, when they used everything to go after Bonds. No check at all. Selecitve persecution.
BTW, Novitsky thttp://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-clear011409&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
BTW, when Bonds was put on the stand, the clear, even as the prosecutors termed it, was not a steroid. If he did take HG, which has not been proven, that was never classified as a steroid until after the hearings.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-clear011409&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Yahoo! Sports has examined sealed grand jury testimony given by drug-testing expert Dr. Donald Catlin in 2003 and BALCO lead investigator Jeff Novitzky in 2004. Both men testified that THG was not a steroid according to the federal criminal code. Furthermore, Novitzky testified that “there’s never been any studies to show whether or not THG does, in fact, enhance muscle growth.”
Hmm, so if Bonds actually took the stuff, which has not been proven at least yer, it was not a steroid and the whole guy who engineered the witch hunt, admits it!!!

I do have a link where Benito Santiago, who also was a Giant linked to Balco, was not gone after, and given many more rights than bonds, and was not gone after:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=As6sGJcg3GVNSRIlEj6pjSlhOJB4?slug=li-santiago021809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=As6sGJcg3GVNSRIlEj6pjSlhOJB4?slug=li-santiago021809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)

Yahoo! Sports has reviewed the never-before-revealed testimony of Santiago, a veteran catcher and Bonds’ former teammate on the San Francisco Giants (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/teams/sfo/;_ylt=AgDI38HIcdJC9JBvXZngvmdhOJB4) for three seasons. More than any other of the 30-odd athletes who testified before the grand jury in the long-running BALCO case, Santiago’s testimony suggests that the government engaged in selective prosecution by filing charges against Bonds, whose trial on 10 counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice begins March 2.

ADVERTISEMENT

Like Bonds, Santiago shaded his responses to the federal prosecutor with evasive denials. Santiago testified that Bonds’ personal trainer, Greg Anderson, never told him what was in designer drugs he took known as the Clear and the Cream, and that he considered everything to be “supplements.”

Bonds spent three hours in front of the grand jury Dec. 4, 2003, and Santiago followed. But unlike Bonds, Santiago’s interrogation was a rushed affair. He testified for only 40 minutes, beginning a scant 11 minutes after Bonds exited the grand jury room at 4:16 p.m.

Santiago, like several other ballplayers who testified, responded to prosecutor Jeff Nedrow’s questions by indicating Anderson didn’t identify the Clear or other drugs, such as testosterone, as steroids.
Nedrow: “Did he tell you that … did he ever tell you that [it] was a steroid, that it was testosterone?”
Santiago: “No.”
Nedrow: “No … so, I’m sorry but I have to ask, you injected these items into your body, but didn’t know exactly what they were. Is that correct?”
Santiago: “Believe it or not.”
Nedrow: “All right. You trusted Mr. Anderson.”

Although Santiago is on the prosecution’s witness list for the Bonds trial, defense attorneys could ask him about documents he was shown before his grand jury testimony. Mike Rains, Bonds’ attorney, and another source said that while Bonds was testifying, Santiago was allowed to review pertinent documents – the very opportunity Bonds was denied. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Santiago arrived nearly 2½ hours before his testimony began at 4:27 p.m.

Rains said he and his client were ambushed before the proceedings began. They arrived shortly after 10 a.m. at the federal building for what Rains believed was an offer to review government evidence outside the grand jury room before Bonds’ 1 p.m. testimony. The same courtesy was given to most other athletes who testified before the grand jury.

But when Bonds and Rains arrived, they were told there was a change of plans. Ross Nadel, the chief prosecutor, informed Rains and Bonds that no documents would be available ahead of time. Rains said he and Bonds were furious. Prosecutors declined to comment.

If that is not a selective persecution of Bonds, what is? Santiago relays exactly as Bonds did, Santiago is given an opportunity to look at what the prosecution has, but they rush through him. They care not about Santiago, but only Bonds. Bonds nor his attorney are given a chance to look at what this is about. 3 hours of grilling of Bonds, so you know that they are putting him in for a trap of perjury. Why rush through Santiago, but they spend 3 hours trying to trip up Bonds??

matt1618

February 26th, 2009, 9:05 am

Anderson is considered a witness in a federal perjury case. As has been explained numerous times in this thread, if the Feds have evidence that Bonds lied under oath, this isn't a witch hunt.

Then why not go after Santiago, who testified to the same thing?
Besides that, Going after Anderson’s mother's house is witch hunting. Searching in places that are not reasonable to expect to get anything is witch hunting.

Do you think people should be allowed to lie under oath and get away scott free?

No, I didnt say so, there should be a penalty for committing perjury. I said he should be held accountable. I though wagging the finger Clinton should have been impeached because of his lying under oath. Obviously he got away with it. However, if this thing was supposedly to get the providers of steroids, why spend all your resources and changing your focus in trying to make a perjury trap. The thing on Jones was easeri as Conteh pointed to her, her former husband testified to her use, and Tim Montgomery pointed to her use. There was an easy trail for that. Very little time interviewing Sheffield. Very little time going to Santiago.

We have that law for a reason.

And Grimsley's house was raided because he refused to cooperate with the investigation into BALCO, as he had promised to do.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/06/09/grimsley-wire.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/06/09/grimsley-wire.html)

U.S. federal authorities wanted Jason Grimsley to wear a wire in an effort to gather information about Barry Bonds' possible drug use, the disgraced pitcher's lawyer told the Arizona Republic.
Edward F. Novak said that because Grimsley refused to co-operate with investigators, an affidavit in which the 38-year-old admitted to using human growth hormone, steroids and amphetamines was leaked to the media.
"It was a specific effort to target Bonds," Novak told the newspaper in a report published Friday. "We were told that Jason's co-operation was necessary to their case.
"They specifically told him, 'Don't call a lawyer.' They let him know that if he didn't co-operate, they basically would terrorize his family and come in with guns drawn and lights flashing," Novak said.

They didn’t care that Grimsley pointed ot his HGH use, and there were tons of other players involved. Hmm, they only wanted to focus on his knowledge of Bonds, when he had no dealings with him at all. ‘Cooperate, according to the Feds, only meant ‘see what we can get on Bonds’. Even though Grimsley had absolutely nothing to do with Bonds.

{quote]
The feds take perjury seriously.[/quote]

But why did they go out f their way to entrap Bonds? And did

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-ilstonnovitzky021008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

The Bonds perjury case began and may end with Novitzky, who three former fellow investigators said has had a longstanding vendetta against the slugger. Mike Rains, Bonds’ attorney, has said Novitzky and others unfairly tried to lead his client into a perjury trap.
And, yes, this is the same Jeff Novitzky that obtained confessions from former New York Mets (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/teams/nym/;_ylt=AtHdFet3kMblOR2okiO6PiZhOJB4) clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski and former New York Yankees (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/teams/nyy/;_ylt=Ana80oKd.5GUorfz.YvTwvthOJB4) trainer Brian McNamee that formed the backbone of the Mitchell Report.
Novitzky was contacted for this article and declined to comment.

Novitzky high-jumped 7 feet in high school and played basketball at San Jose State before an injury. And early in the BALCO investigation he went so far as to join Bonds’ Burlingame gym, an unusual step for an IRS agent. Dr. Don Catlin, the director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory and the man who decoded the mystery BALCO steroid “the clear,” has called Novitzky a hero.

It was Novitzky who several years ago sought out narcotics agent Iran White to go undercover in Bonds’ gym. It was Novitzky who scoured BALCO’s garbage for evidence of steroids. It was Novitzky who filed the affidavits and served the search warrants on BALCO and Bonds’ trainer, Greg Anderson, that turned up alleged evidence of steroid use by Bonds and other athletes.

Nearly every key question asked of Bonds in the grand jury room can be tied to documents (Bonds claimed to have never seen before) obtained by Novitzky. Many of the documents the prosecutors used that day to prod Bonds about alleged drug use originated from the agent’s searches.

Red flags have already been raised on Novitzky in the recent appellate decision. Three district judges and one appellate judge concluded that his conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. Two appellate judges disagreed.
In December 2004, Ilston quashed the subpoenas served on the labs doing the testing for Major League Baseball, ruling that the government’s conduct was unreasonable and constituted harassment.
“I think the government has displayed … a callous disregard for constitutional rights,” she said in open court. “I think it’s a seizure beyond what was authorized by the search warrant, therefore it violates the Fourth Amendment.”
The article quotes a Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement investigator named Iran White of saying the investigation "was inspired or began with the purpose of bringing down Barry Bonds."

So yes, selective persecdution of Bonds. While not even checking Palmerio even though Canseco pointed to him. Other players Caminiti was a steroid user, Canseco was, Juan Gonzalez users from the Rangers, and we know now Alex Rodriguez. That has been documented, but absolutely no one goes after Palmero with him swearing under oath. A personal witch hunt. Rainding trainer’s mother’s houses. Violating constitutional rights. No attempt to go after Sheffield. Not even trying to go after Santiago, giving him and his attorney documents for them to look over before questioning him. Being 30 minutes with him. However, grilling Bonds for 3 hours to try to entrap him into perjursy and spending 455 million to go after him is not right. \Violating constitutional rights. But its is okay, because people don’t like Barry Bonds??
Look, I don’t like if he lied, but this selective persecution of him is a witch hunt!

snagswolf

February 26th, 2009, 10:52 am

Surely he didn’t start after the hearings, he had been using all along, as specifically stated by Canseco.
Surely? I don't think you know the meaning of the word.
Unless you have proof, you have no case. It's as simple as that.

Hm, a guy who had a failed test, and has a specific player who said that he took them. How is that no proof, or at least a grounds to at leastl look at him.
Despite your delusions, that's not proof that he was taking them before he was under oath.
And they did 'look at him':

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/sports/baseball/11steroids.html
Report Finds No Evidence of Perjury by Palmeiro
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 - The House Government Reform Committee concluded in a 44-page report released Thursday that it did not have enough evidence to determine whether Rafael Palmeiro had lied under oath in March when he defiantly testified that he had never taken steroids, even though he tested positive a few weeks later. The committee initiated a perjury investigation of Palmeiro after he was suspended for 10 days in August for testing positive for stanozolol.

No report of anything. No effort to go after him. The fact that Sheffeidl gave the same response, reports released, and included in that effort is no attempt to get evidence on sheffiels, when they used everything to go after Bonds. No check at all. Selecitve persecution.
Once again, to prosecute someone for perjury, you must have proof that they lied under oath. Your inane logic here is that since they have no proof that Sheffield lied, that means they never even investigated whether he lied.

Hmm, so if Bonds actually took the stuff, which has not been proven at least yer, it was not a steroid and the whole guy who engineered the witch hunt, admits it!!!
You're confused. Bonds tested postitive for steroids in 2000.

I do have a link where Benito Santiago, who also was a Giant linked to Balco, was not gone after, and given many more rights than bonds, and was not gone after:
If that is not a selective persecution of Bonds, what is? Santiago relays exactly as Bonds did, Santiago is given an opportunity to look at what the prosecution has, but they rush through him. They care not about Santiago, but only Bonds. Bonds nor his attorney are given a chance to look at what this is about. 3 hours of grilling of Bonds, so you know that they are putting him in for a trap of perjury. Why rush through Santiago, but they spend 3 hours trying to trip up Bonds??
Again, someone can claim that they didn't know they were taking steroids. Unless you have proof that they were lying about knowing (not about taking steroids), you can't charge them with perjury.

It's obvious in Bonds case they have proof that he knew he was taking steroids when he took them.

Then why not go after Santiago, who testified to the same thing?
Well, I would assume they don't have any evidence that Santiago was lying when he claimed that he didn't know he was taking steroids.
They've gone after everyone else who they had proof was lying. You're trying to pretend that Bonds is the only one being prosecuted.

Besides that, Going after Anderson’s mother's house is witch hunting. Searching in places that are not reasonable to expect to get anything is witch hunting.
Why would it be unreasonable to think that Anderson may have hidden evidence at his mother's house?

No, I didnt say so, there should be a penalty for committing perjury. I said he should be held accountable.
But for some reason you don't think the prosecutors should attempt to find evidence of someone committing the crime.

However, if this thing was supposedly to get the providers of steroids, why spend all your resources and changing your focus in trying to make a perjury trap.
It wasn't a perjury trap. Unless, of course, you think every time they swear someone under oath it's a perjury trap.
They were investigating BALCO, and as part of that investigation they interviewed BALCO's customers. If people are allowed to lie under oath without punishment, then it makes sworn testimony meaningless.

Very little time interviewing Sheffield. Very little time going to Santiago.
And you have proof of how much they investigated Sheffield and Santiago to find out if they lied under oath?
Please show it.

They didn’t care that Grimsley pointed ot his HGH use, and there were tons of other players involved. Hmm, they only wanted to focus on his knowledge of Bonds, when he had no dealings with him at all. ‘Cooperate, according to the Feds, only meant ‘see what we can get on Bonds’. Even though Grimsley had absolutely nothing to do with Bonds.
Actually, Grimsley admitted to steroids, not HGH.
And for some reason, even though you say you disapprove of perjury, you seem to have problems with the government trying to collect evidence of perjury.

But why did they go out f their way to entrap Bonds? And did
When you swear to tell the truth, you tell the truth. No one can 'entrap' you if you do that.
So yes, selective persecdution of Bonds. While not even checking Palmerio even though Canseco pointed to him.
I've already shown you're ignorant on Palmeiro.

Other players Caminiti was a steroid user, Canseco was, Juan Gonzalez users from the Rangers, and we know now Alex Rodriguez. That has been documented,
No one is being prosecuted for using steroids, not even Bonds. Try to stick with the facts.

but absolutely no one goes after Palmero with him swearing under oath.
Wrong.

A personal witch hunt.
Delusion.

Rainding trainer’s mother’s houses. Violating constitutional rights.
Your opinion.

No attempt to go after Sheffield. Not even trying to go after Santiago,
Again, I'm waiting for your proof that they made no attempt to prove that Sheffield and Santiago lied under oath.

But its is okay, because people don’t like Barry Bonds??
Yes, it's okay to prosecute those who commit perjury. And Bonds isn't the only one being prosecuted for that in this case. But keep ignoring facts that disprove your 'witchhunt' theory.

Look, I don’t like if he lied, but this selective persecution of him is a witch hunt!
I'll ask the same of you as I asked of Ms. Dumbass in this thread. Show me where the government has proof that someone in this case lied under oath, and they haven't prosecuted them.
Until then, you're just making **** up.

NascarGirl2448

February 27th, 2009, 4:06 pm

Hmmm plenty of evidence being presented and still some people just don't get it. Of course for me not to believe this whole fiasco is a witch hunt, some other guys are gonna have to go down first. If the feds indict Roger Clemens, as has been hinted, then maybe the whole thing WON'T look like a witch hunt after all. Of course, as long as Barry Bonds remains the only one under indictment, then the witch hunt is completely valid. Feds, take some danged action and indict Clemens instead of just whispering about it and making the whole "case" against Bonds look more and more like a witch hunt.

NascarGirl2448

February 28th, 2009, 10:23 pm

SUVRon

March 1st, 2009, 4:30 pm

As if there didn't need to be anymore proof that this whole thing is a huge witch hunt, the government is delaying the trial indefinitely now!! Geez must not be real confident eh?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-bonds-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns

I don't think confidence is the issue at all. I'd lean more towards lawyers trying to come up with a plea agreement somewhere along the way before it's to late.

NascarGirl2448

March 1st, 2009, 5:09 pm

I don't think confidence is the issue at all. I'd lean more towards lawyers trying to come up with a plea agreement somewhere along the way before it's to late.

If they do the government may as well admit that they had nothing the whole time. The judge tosses out some evidence and the government panics. If the government was so sure of their case, they wouldn't be in panic mode now, would they?

dittoheadAZ

March 1st, 2009, 5:36 pm

The heck with A-Rod - we're about three minutes away from some Boogity Boogity Boogity! :mrgreen:

snagswolf

March 1st, 2009, 10:47 pm

If they do the government may as well admit that they had nothing the whole time.
Why would they 'admit they had nothing' after getting a conviction?

matt1618

March 1st, 2009, 11:54 pm

Surely? I don't think you know the meaning of the word.
Unless you have proof, you have no case. It's as simple as that.

Despite your delusions, that's not proof that he was taking them before he was under oath.
And they did 'look at him':

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/sports/baseball/11steroids.html

Hmm, they did a quick check, they didn't spend $55 million going after Palmeiro. However, they gave peripheral look. There is no report of questioning Canseco, who was the guy who wrote the book to start the whole thing. Of course Caminiti on the Ranggers died. ARoid was an admitted user in Texas, as pointed to by Canseco and we know that is true, although at that time it was only Canseco's word. We know Juan Gonzalez was. Unless each of those players were questioned, it was not a legitmate check.

Once again, to prosecute someone for perjury, you must have proof that they lied under oath. Your inane logic here is that since they have no proof that Sheffield lied, that means they never even investigated whether he lied.

Thousands of pages of documents, yet nothing indicating a going after him in any way at all. However, Novitsky who was specifially cited by Iran White as being fixated on Bonds, as he was out of his way to 'prove' that Bonds was a steroids user. Yes, I gave you that citation from White himself. I gave you the citation from two other guys also said that he was fixated on Bonds. That is a witch hunt. He is a guy who the judge saw as violating constitutional rights, in this witch hunt. These are judges and fellow agents say that, but you ignore that, because his victim is Bonds, I guess it is ok.

You're confused. Bonds tested postitive for steroids in 2000.

Hmm, you mean that got thrown out of court since they have no way to show that it actually came from Bonds??? I

Again, someone can claim that they didn't know they were taking steroids. Unless you have proof that they were lying about knowing (not about taking steroids), you can't charge them with perjury.

And yet again, you ignore the contrast. They did a quick run through on Santiago, 40 minutes. Who gave the same answer that Bonds did. They gave Santiago a chance to look at documents that they were going to question him about. However, despite them telling Bonds attorney they were going to give him documents to look over, they did not give him a chance. They then question him on stuff, he never saw before, and they didn't even give him a chance to prepare for. Sprung on him and grilled for 3 hours, in comparison to only 40 minutes of questioning and Santiago getting a chance to look at the stuff they were questioning on.

It's obvious in Bonds case they have proof that he knew he was taking steroids when he took them.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=li-clear011409&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Yahoo! Sports has examined sealed grand jury testimony given by drug-testing expert Dr. Donald Catlin in 2003 and BALCO lead investigator Jeff Novitzky in 2004. Both men testified that THG was not a steroid according to the federal criminal code. Furthermore, Novitzky testified that “there’s never been any studies to show whether or not THG does, in fact, enhance muscle growth.”

They've gone after everyone else who they had proof was lying. You're trying to pretend that Bonds is the only one being prosecuted.

It wasn't a perjury trap. Unless, of course, you think every time they swear someone under oath it's a perjury trap.

With a guy who violated constitutional rights, who scoured through garbage, with a guy who was declared by several agents as fixated on proving Bonds did steroids. With them lying to Bonds lawyer that they would give him the documents to look at beforehand, but springing it on him, yes that is a trap. Oh yea, did you notice that the prosecution refused to comment on that. Why did they spring it on him, but not spring anything on Santiago.

And you have proof of how much they investigated Sheffield and Santiago to find out if they lied under oath?
Please show it.

Well, Documents that Yahoo pulled up, showed that it was focus specifically on Bonds.

Actually, Grimsley admitted to steroids, not HGH.

I know he was involved with HGH. But you ignore the comment of his own lawyer that the reason that they went after him was because he refused wear a wire to entrap Bonds, even though he had no prior contact with him at all. They really didn't care about his admission of using drug use, they only cared that he couldn't be used to implicate Bonds. How in the heck is that not yet another sign of a witch hunt!!!

And for some reason, even though you say you disapprove of perjury, you seem to have problems with the government trying to collect evidence of perjury.

No, I don't have problems of collecting evidence for perjury. However, springing documents he had never seen before (while telling them before hand that they would get a chance to look at tem) him and grilling for 3 hourse while not so grilling Santiago.

The article quotes a Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement investigator named Iran White of saying the investigation "was inspired or began with the purpose of bringing down Barry Bonds."

http://grg51.typepad.com/
A former member of Novitzky's team, Iran White, had raised questions about the Balco investigation in a May 2004 Playboy magazine article. And there had been a series of leaks to the media about confidential details of the investigation. The IRS watchdogs, an independent agency reporting to the Treasury secretary, needed answers.
Novitzky knew White -- they'd worked together years earlier to bust a computer chip smuggling ring run by the Crips gang. For the Balco investigation, Novitzky asked White to get close to Anderson and wear a wire in hopes the trainer would implicate the Giants slugger. But White suffered a stroke after one grueling weightlifting session with the trainer, ending his operation just before the Balco raid. White later told Playboy that Novitzky had a longstanding vendetta against Bonds and that he talked openly during the investigation about cashing in with a book deal.
No one is being prosecuted for using steroids, not even Bonds. Try to stick with the facts.

But the whole vendetta by Novitsky came out with the intention of proving that he did,and the perjury trap was his means.

NascarGirl2448

March 1st, 2009, 11:58 pm

Why would they 'admit they had nothing' after getting a conviction?

NO one has been convicted of anything. If the government tries to plead Bonds out after insisting on going to trial after all this time, it only stands to reason that the government is finally admitting it had no case without supposed "evidence" that the judge threw out.

SUVRon

March 2nd, 2009, 3:28 am

If they do the government may as well admit that they had nothing the whole time. The judge tosses out some evidence and the government panics. If the government was so sure of their case, they wouldn't be in panic mode now, would they?

I think it's Bonds and his attorneys that are in panic mode, not the feds.

snagswolf

March 2nd, 2009, 9:24 am

Hmm, they did a quick check, they didn't spend $55 million going after Palmeiro. However, they gave peripheral look. There is no report of questioning Canseco, who was the guy who wrote the book to start the whole thing. Of course Caminiti on the Ranggers died. ARoid was an admitted user in Texas, as pointed to by Canseco and we know that is true, although at that time it was only Canseco's word. We know Juan Gonzalez was. Unless each of those players were questioned, it was not a legitmate check.
You're still confused. Bonds is being charged with perjury, not taking steroids.

Do you have any evidence at all that the people you mentioned have committed perjury?

Thousands of pages of documents, yet nothing indicating a going after him in any way at all. However, Novitsky who was specifially cited by Iran White as being fixated on Bonds, as he was out of his way to 'prove' that Bonds was a steroids user. Yes, I gave you that citation from White himself. I gave you the citation from two other guys also said that he was fixated on Bonds. That is a witch hunt. He is a guy who the judge saw as violating constitutional rights, in this witch hunt. These are judges and fellow agents say that, but you ignore that, because his victim is Bonds, I guess it is ok.
No, they're attempting to prove that Bonds lied under oath.

You're just not getting it, are you?

Hmm, you mean that got thrown out of court since they have no way to show that it actually came from Bonds???
And is currently being appealed.

And yet again, you ignore the contrast. They did a quick run through on Santiago, 40 minutes. Who gave the same answer that Bonds did. They gave Santiago a chance to look at documents that they were going to question him about. However, despite them telling Bonds attorney they were going to give him documents to look over, they did not give him a chance. They then question him on stuff, he never saw before, and they didn't even give him a chance to prepare for. Sprung on him and grilled for 3 hours, in comparison to only 40 minutes of questioning and Santiago getting a chance to look at the stuff they were questioning on.
You have no idea of the evidence (or lack of) they have on Santiago. You're making judgement based on assumptions which you have no evidence to back up.

Yahoo! Sports has examined sealed grand jury testimony given by drug-testing expert Dr. Donald Catlin in 2003 and BALCO lead investigator Jeff Novitzky in 2004. Both men testified that THG was not a steroid according to the federal criminal code. Furthermore, Novitzky testified that “there’s never been any studies to show whether or not THG does, in fact, enhance muscle growth.”
And how is that proof that they have no evidence that Bonds knew he was taking steroids.

With a guy who violated constitutional rights, who scoured through garbage, with a guy who was declared by several agents as fixated on proving Bonds did steroids. With them lying to Bonds lawyer that they would give him the documents to look at beforehand, but springing it on him, yes that is a trap. Oh yea, did you notice that the prosecution refused to comment on that. Why did they spring it on him, but not spring anything on Santiago.
Well, the logical answer would be that they didn't have any evidence that Santiago knew he was taking steroids, while they did have that evidence on Bonds.

But we know that logic has nothing to do with your opinions.

Well, Documents that Yahoo pulled up, showed that it was focus specifically on Bonds.
No, Yahoo reported about the focus on Bonds. That doesn't mean the Feds didn't look into anyone else.

I know he was involved with HGH. But you ignore the comment of his own lawyer that the reason that they went after him was because he refused wear a wire to entrap Bonds, even though he had no prior contact with him at all. They really didn't care about his admission of using drug use, they only cared that he couldn't be used to implicate Bonds. How in the heck is that not yet another sign of a witch hunt!!!
Yes, I usually do ignore the comments of lawyers, who are paid to spin the facts in favor of their clients.

No, I don't have problems of collecting evidence for perjury. However, springing documents he had never seen before (while telling them before hand that they would get a chance to look at tem) him and grilling for 3 hourse while not so grilling Santiago.
Bonds knew he was lying when he lied, and knew he was under oath and faced the possibility of prosecution if he did lie.

You're trying to blame everyone but him.

The article quotes a Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement investigator named Iran White of saying the investigation "was inspired or began with the purpose of bringing down Barry Bonds."

And you still ignore the fact that other people have been convicted of perjury in this case.

But the whole vendetta by Novitsky came out with the intention of proving that he did,and the perjury trap was his means.
Bonds is the one who chose to lie under oath.

NascarGirl2448

March 2nd, 2009, 9:27 am

I think it's Bonds and his attorneys that are in panic mode, not the feds.

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) I think you're a little confused. Its not Barry Bonds and his lawyers who are in a panic, its the government. Barry and his lawyers aren't the ones appealing the judge's ruling, its the government. The feds are in a panic because they know without whatever the judge tossed, they got nothing. They just don't want to admit that they had nothing the whole time. If they actually had a case, they wouldn't be whining about some supposed evidence a judge threw out.

snagswolf

March 2nd, 2009, 9:29 am

NO one has been convicted of anything.
I was basing my statement on the 'if' in your post.

And yes, IF Bonds accepts a plea bargain, he will be convicted.

If the government tries to plead Bonds out after insisting on going to trial after all this time, it only stands to reason that the government is finally admitting it had no case without supposed "evidence" that the judge threw out.
You obviously have no clue what a plea bargain is. The government attempts to plea bargain when they DO have evidence, and they want to save the People the expense of a trial.

Why in the hell would the person being prosecuted accept a plea bargain if the government has no evidence against them? When you accept a plea bargain, you are admitting guilt, and you are convicted, usually in exchange for a lighter sentence.

NascarGirl2448

March 2nd, 2009, 9:33 am

I was basing my statement on the 'if' in your post.

And yes, IF Bonds accepts a plea bargain, he will be convicted.

If he accepts it, which he may not. Then what will the government do? Go to trial and lose?

You obviously have no clue what a plea bargain is. The government attempts to plea bargain when they DO have evidence, and they want to save the People the expense of a trial.

I know darn well what a plea bargain is thank you very much. I also know that the feds have insisted on going to trial in this "case" and are now in panic mode because a judge tossed out "evidence" that they can't prove came from Barry Bonds in the first place, and might now consider a plea bargain to keep from losing at trial.

Why in the hell would the person being prosecuted accept a plea bargain if the government has no evidence against them? When you accept a plea bargain, you are admitting guilt, and you are convicted, usually in exchange for a lighter sentence.

What makes you think he will?? Do you have a crystal ball and can somehow supposedly see into the future?

snagswolf

March 2nd, 2009, 10:17 am

If he accepts it, which he may not. Then what will the government do? Go to trial and lose?
Huh? If Bonds accepts a plea bargain, there won't be any trial.

And if the government didn't have any evidence, there wouldn't be a plea bargain.

I know darn well what a plea bargain is thank you very much.
Obviously not, if you think that the government accepting a plea bargain proves they had no evidence.

I also know that the feds have insisted on going to trial in this "case"
They have insisted on going to trail because they have the evidence to convict Bonds. I'm sure they would be open to a plea bargain if Bonds wanted to make one.

and are now in panic mode because a judge tossed out "evidence" that they can't prove came from Barry Bonds in the first place, and might now consider a plea bargain to keep from losing at trial.
You make absolutely no sense. If they can't prove that Bonds is guilty, then Bonds has no reason at all to accept a plea bargain.

Prosecutors don't accept plea bargains because they have a weak case. Defendants accept plea bargains because the state has a strong case.

What makes you think he will?? Do you have a crystal ball and can somehow supposedly see into the future?
Huh? Where did I claim that he would?

Try to read with comprehension.

NascarGirl2448

March 2nd, 2009, 11:34 am

Huh? If Bonds accepts a plea bargain, there won't be any trial.

And you don't know if he will or not, unless you have a crystal ball! :wall:

And if the government didn't have any evidence, there wouldn't be a plea bargain.

And if the government had any evidence, they wouldn't be in a panic over a judge tossing "evidence" they can't even prove is from Barry Bonds in the first place.

Obviously not, if you think that the government accepting a plea bargain proves they had no evidence.

Pay attention, would you please?? If the government REALLY had the evidence to nail Barry Bonds, they would NOT be in panic mode right now. I don't know how much more clear that can possibly be.

They have insisted on going to trail because they have the evidence to convict Bonds. I'm sure they would be open to a plea bargain if Bonds wanted to make one.

Yet they obviously DON'T have sufficient evidence if they are panicking over "evidence" that a judge threw out because they couldn't even prove it came from Barry Bonds in the first place. Think, would you?

You make absolutely no sense. If they can't prove that Bonds is guilty, then Bonds has no reason at all to accept a plea bargain.

Pot, meet kettle. You are the one who keeps insisting the government has a case when they are admittedly in panic mode right now, as evidenced by the fact that they are appealing the judge's ruling on tossed "evidence" they can't even prove came from Barry Bonds in the first place.

Prosecutors don't accept plea bargains because they have a weak case. Defendants accept plea bargains because the state has a strong case.

And you're obviously having a hard time realizing that the government is in panic mode right now, after the judge tossed out what was questionable evidence at best. :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Huh? Where did I claim that he would?
Try to read with comprehension.

You sure seemed to insinuate that the government would try and make a deal to bring down Barry Bonds, especially after questionable at best evidence got tossed. Try reading the Yahoo article I linked to earlier, with an open mind.

snagswolf

March 2nd, 2009, 2:23 pm

And you don't know if he will or not, unless you have a crystal ball! :wall:
Good lord are you dense. I never claimed he would. Do you know the meaning of the word 'if'?

And if the government had any evidence, they wouldn't be in a panic over a judge tossing "evidence" they can't even prove is from Barry Bonds in the first place.
I see your fantasy word has switched from 'witch hunt' to 'panic mode'.

:)) :)) :))

It's not panic mode. It's an appeal. Happens all the time.

The one who is in panic mode is Bonds, because until this case is resolved, he has zero chance of playing baseball again, and time is running out for him.

Pay attention, would you please?? If the government REALLY had the evidence to nail Barry Bonds, they would NOT be in panic mode right now. I don't know how much more clear that can possibly be.
'Panic mode' count = 2

Yet they obviously DON'T have sufficient evidence if they are panicking over "evidence" that a judge threw out because they couldn't even prove it came from Barry Bonds in the first place. Think, would you?
'Panic mode' count = 3

Pot, meet kettle. You are the one who keeps insisting the government has a case when they are admittedly in panic mode right now, as evidenced by the fact that they are appealing the judge's ruling on tossed "evidence" they can't even prove came from Barry Bonds in the first place.
'Panic mode' count = 4

And you're obviously having a hard time realizing that the government is in panic mode right now, after the judge tossed out what was questionable evidence at best.
'Panic mode' count = 5

You sure seemed to insinuate that the government would try and make a deal to bring down Barry Bonds, especially after questionable at best evidence got tossed. Try reading the Yahoo article I linked to earlier, with an open mind.
And where did I 'insinuate' this? Provide a link to the direct quote please.

Panic mode!!!!!!!!!!!!

:)) :)) :)) :)) :))

SUVRon

March 2nd, 2009, 3:13 pm

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) I think you're a little confused. Its not Barry Bonds and his lawyers who are in a panic, its the government. Barry and his lawyers aren't the ones appealing the judge's ruling, its the government. The feds are in a panic because they know without whatever the judge tossed, they got nothing. They just don't want to admit that they had nothing the whole time. If they actually had a case, they wouldn't be whining about some supposed evidence a judge threw out.

Yeah I'm the one confused. Pot calling kettle.................. Any good proesecutor worth anything will fight tooth and nail to keep all his evidence. He's doing exactly what he shoud be doing, but you wouldn't know anything about that process, now would you?

NascarGirl2448

March 2nd, 2009, 3:21 pm

Good lord are you dense. I never claimed he would. Do you know the meaning of the word 'if'?
I see your fantasy word has switched from 'witch hunt' to 'panic mode'.
It's not panic mode. It's an appeal. Happens all the time.
The one who is in panic mode is Bonds, because until this case is resolved, he has zero chance of playing baseball again, and time is running out for him.
'Panic mode' count = 2
'Panic mode' count = 3
'Panic mode' count = 4
'Panic mode' count = 5
And where did I 'insinuate' this? Provide a link to the direct quote please.
Panic mode!!!!!!!!!!!!

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: Look, there has been PLENTY of evidence already put in this thread that ought to show anyone who is not biased against Barry Bonds that this whole thing is a huge witch hunt, and that the government went into panic mode when the judge threw out QUESTIONABLE evidence at best that they couldn't prove one way or another had any link to Barry Bonds. Now seriously, how hard is that to understand?? No wonder I keep feeling like I'm talking to a danged brick wall. As for where you insinuated that Barry Bonds might accept a plea deal, go back and re-read your own posts, particularly the ones on this page. :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

NascarGirl2448

March 2nd, 2009, 3:26 pm

Yeah I'm the one confused. Pot calling kettle.................. Any good prosecutor worth anything will fight tooth and nail to keep all his evidence. He's doing exactly what he shoud be doing, but you wouldn't know anything about that process, now would you?

Cheap shot. For one thing, the "evidence" the judge tossed is QUESTIONABLE at best, and without any caroborauting testimony, they aren't gonna be able to prove anything against Barry Bonds one way or another. Now unless they force this Anderson character to testify, they don't have squat, and the judge knew it, hence the tossing of the evidence.

SUVRon

March 2nd, 2009, 3:33 pm

Cheap shot. For one thing, the "evidence" the judge tossed is QUESTIONABLE at best, and without any caroborauting testimony, they aren't gonna be able to prove anything against Barry Bonds one way or another. Now unless they force this Anderson character to testify, they don't have squat, and the judge knew it, hence the tossing of the evidence.

So now you know why the judge tossed the evidence and the evidence tossed was questionable at best? Regardless of weather they ever convict the roid head or not, he's a liar and he has to live with that fact. I actually used to like this fool until it became so obvious he was a liar and thought everyone was so stupid to believe that he went from looking like a pencil into his thirties to looking like a truck naturally. He's one of the greatest baseball talents of all times as well as one of the greatest fools to ever play the game. It's a shame that someone as talented as he is has ruined everything he worked so hard to achieve in the beginning of his career. He will always be known as the guy with the homerun record that cheated to get that record.

snagswolf

March 2nd, 2009, 4:12 pm

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: Look, there has been PLENTY of evidence already put in this thread that ought to show anyone who is not biased against Barry Bonds that this whole thing is a huge witch hunt, and that the government went into panic mode when the judge threw out QUESTIONABLE evidence at best that they couldn't prove one way or another had any link to Barry Bonds. Now seriously, how hard is that to understand?? No wonder I keep feeling like I'm talking to a danged brick wall.
The reason you feel like you're talking to a brick wall, is that you're spouting idiocy that only idiots would agree with.

As for where you insinuated that Barry Bonds might accept a plea deal, go back and re-read your own posts, particularly the ones on this page. :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
Post the specific quote please. I know what I wrote, and I didn't insinuate that in the least.

Prove to us you can comprehend the English language.

NascarGirl2448

March 2nd, 2009, 5:02 pm

So now you know why the judge tossed the evidence and the evidence tossed was questionable at best? Regardless of weather they ever convict the roid head or not, he's a liar and he has to live with that fact. I actually used to like this fool until it became so obvious he was a liar and thought everyone was so stupid to believe that he went from looking like a pencil into his thirties to looking like a truck naturally. He's one of the greatest baseball talents of all times as well as one of the greatest fools to ever play the game. It's a shame that someone as talented as he is has ruined everything he worked so hard to achieve in the beginning of his career. He will always be known as the guy with the homerun record that cheated to get that record.

Obviously you're having a hard time understanding that without corroborating testimony, the government can't prove their case. The judge tosses the QUESTIONABLE "evidence" on those grounds, and the government panics completely because they know without the evidence and Anderson's testimony, they're in big trouble. Its as simple as that.

NascarGirl2448

March 2nd, 2009, 5:12 pm

The reason you feel like you're talking to a brick wall, is that you're spouting idiocy that only idiots would agree with.

NO the reason I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall is because no matter how much evidence I or anyone else put forth here, no one seems to be able to read it WITH AN OPEN MIND and therefore might just realize that this whole case is falling apart.

Post the specific quote please. I know what I wrote, and I didn't insinuate that in the least.

Go back and re-read, would you?? But since you want it, here's the insinuation

Why in the hell would the person being prosecuted accept a plea bargain if the government has no evidence against them?

The government has made no plea offers in this case, yet you seem to insinuate that Barry Bonds would try and work out a deal with the government, even if the government knows they have no case. Remember, just because a grand jury indicted Barry Bonds doesn't mean anything. A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich if it wants to.

Prove to us you can comprehend the English language.

Prove to me that you have the ability to realize that the government's case is falling apart.

Face reality, without Anderson's testimony, if they ever get it, the government's case is falling apart, and the government is panicking because they know they will lose. Even if they subpoena Anderson to testify, he will likely take the 5th anyway. The judge threw out QUESTIONABLE "evidence." That is an irrefutable fact. Anyone with an objective view of the case ought to be able to see this coming 10 miles away.

snagswolf

March 2nd, 2009, 6:04 pm

NO the reason I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall is because no matter how much evidence I or anyone else put forth here, no one seems to be able to read it WITH AN OPEN MIND and therefore might just realize that this whole case is falling apart.
That's because we're all not idiots.

So everyone else is stupid, and you're the only smart one?

Go back and re-read, would you?? But since you want it, here's the insinuation
First of all, why would my asking 'why in the hell would anyone accept a plea bargain?' be an insinuation he would accept a plea bargain.

Seriously, is English your first language?

Let's look at the quote in context:

NO one has been convicted of anything. If the government tries to plead Bonds out after insisting on going to trial after all this time, it only stands to reason that the government is finally admitting it had no case without supposed "evidence" that the judge threw out.
Why in the hell would the person being prosecuted accept a plea bargain if the government has no evidence against them? When you accept a plea bargain, you are admitting guilt, and you are convicted, usually in exchange for a lighter sentence.
It's obvious to anyone with a brain that I was responding to your claim that if the government offers a plea bargain, that proves that they had no case. Who in the hell would plead guilty if there was no case against them?

It's obvious that your entire problem here is based upon your inability to comprehend the written word, as this example clearly shows.

NascarGirl2448

March 2nd, 2009, 8:23 pm

So basically all the evidence that has been presented on this thread is immaterial to you?? WHY am I not surprised? :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

snagswolf

March 3rd, 2009, 7:11 am

WHY am I not surprised?
Because you cluelessly pick and choose what you want to believe, and ignore facts like:

* Bonds is on trial for perjury, not steroid use.
* Others in this case have been convicted of perjury, which makes your claims of a 'witch hunt' against Bonds ludicrous.
* Other baseball players are being and have been investigated for possible perjury charges.
* You can't name one single baseball player who has real evidence against him that he committed perjury, and hasn't been indicted for the crime.

NascarGirl2448

March 3rd, 2009, 9:02 am

Its obvious some people aren't going to be confused with the facts. The evidence has been presented already on this thread, not only by me, but others. :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

snagswolf

March 3rd, 2009, 6:41 pm

Its obvious some people aren't going to be confused with the facts. The evidence has been presented already on this thread, not only by me, but others.
It's a witch hunt in panic mode!!!!!

http://home.comcast.net/~sdwolf/BondsWitchHunt_s.jpg

NascarGirl2448

March 3rd, 2009, 6:48 pm

Read the evidence presented in this thread, not only by me, but others. It MIGHT just finally get through!!! Or is there one certain part of evidence that is particularly hard for you to understand?

snagswolf

March 3rd, 2009, 7:03 pm

Or is there one certain part of evidence that is particularly hard for you to understand?
Well, the one part of the evidence I can't understand is the total lack of evidence that any athlete who hasn't been charged with perjury, actually committed perjury.

If there is actual evidence that athlete X committed perjury, and the government is ignoring them while going after Bonds, then I would agree it was a witch hunt.

I've asked you and the other inbred in this thread multiple times for that evidence, but so far you've yet to produce it.

ImNewHere

March 3rd, 2009, 7:07 pm

Well, the one part of the evidence I can't understand is the total lack of evidence that any athlete who hasn't been charged with perjury, actually committed perjury.

If there is actual evidence that athlete X committed perjury, and the government is ignoring them while going after Bonds, then I would agree it was a witch hunt.

I've asked you and the other inbred in this thread multiple times for that evidence, but so far you've yet to produce it.

You can sum up NascarGirl's position on crime like this:

Celebrities: Above the law. Any felony should not be investigated because it's a witch hunt. Just ask her uncle if you need proof.

Regular People: Really didn't do anything wrong. The cop is the real criminal.

snagswolf

March 3rd, 2009, 8:13 pm

NascarGirl2448

March 3rd, 2009, 9:42 pm

You can sum up NascarGirl's position on crime like this:

Celebrities: Above the law. Any felony should not be investigated because it's a witch hunt. Just ask her uncle if you need proof.

Regular People: Really didn't do anything wrong. The cop is the real criminal.

I can sum up your position like this: :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) The irrefutable facts are that the supposed "key evidence" can't even be linked to Barry Bonds, without this Anderson character's testimony, and if he doesn't testify, or take the 5th, the government's "case" is dead in the water.

NascarGirl2448

March 3rd, 2009, 9:46 pm

Exactly. :))

With plenty of beat-your-head-off-the-wall smilies thrown in for emphasis.

Not my fault that despite the actual evidence that has been presented in this thread, some people have a seemingly hard time realizing that the government's "case" was shoddy to begin with. Remember, indictments mean nothing. A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich if it wants to.

NascarGirl2448

March 3rd, 2009, 9:47 pm

Well, the one part of the evidence I can't understand is the total lack of evidence that any athlete who hasn't been charged with perjury, actually committed perjury.

If there is actual evidence that athlete X committed perjury, and the government is ignoring them while going after Bonds, then I would agree it was a witch hunt.

I've asked you and the other inbred in this thread multiple times for that evidence, but so far you've yet to produce it.

Wrong. There has been plenty of evidence and then some presented here. READ it, with an OPEN MIND. Otherwise, you'll just have to come to your senses with everyone else when Bonds walks.

ImNewHere

March 3rd, 2009, 11:34 pm

Not my fault that despite the actual evidence that has been presented in this thread, some people have a seemingly hard time realizing that the government's "case" was shoddy to begin with. Remember, indictments mean nothing. A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich if it wants to.

Your uncle's opinion is very compelling evidence that has been presented. However, I'm not convinced. I tend to go with the whole catching him lying under oath.

NascarGirl2448

March 4th, 2009, 9:05 am

Your uncle's opinion is very compelling evidence that has been presented. However, I'm not convinced. I tend to go with the whole catching him lying under oath.

Do yourself a favor, go back and READ THROUGH this thread. Or just keep living denial if that's what gets you through your day.

snagswolf

March 4th, 2009, 9:23 am

Do yourself a favor, go back and READ THROUGH this thread. Or just keep living denial if that's what gets you through your day.
We've all READ THROUGH the thread (and with obviously more reading comprehension than you).

Please post the exact evidence that proves that players other than Bonds committed perjury. If it's there, then you should be able to post it.

Giving us another 'just read the thread' post, only proves you're trying to be evasive.

NascarGirl2448

March 4th, 2009, 11:42 am

We've all READ THROUGH the thread (and with obviously more reading comprehension than you).

Please post the exact evidence that proves that players other than Bonds committed perjury. If it's there, then you should be able to post it.

Giving us another 'just read the thread' post, only proves you're trying to be evasive.

You have been GIVEN evidence, and PLENTY of it, not only by me, but by other people here. I refuse to repeat myself. :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: No wonder I feel like I'm getting a headache all the time.

snagswolf

March 4th, 2009, 12:12 pm

You have been GIVEN evidence, and PLENTY of it, not only by me, but by other people here. I refuse to repeat myself. :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: No wonder I feel like I'm getting a headache all the time.
As I said, evasive. If you could post the evidence, you would.

Typical dishonest trolling.

NascarGirl2448

March 4th, 2009, 12:38 pm

As I said, evasive. If you could post the evidence, you would.

Typical dishonest trolling.

"Trolling" because I refuse to repeat myself?? PUHLEAZE!! However since you seem to require MORE evidence than has already been given, here are links to not only Jose Canseco, who started this whole mess, but even OTHER PLAYERS implicated in this whole fiasco, including Mark McGwire's REFUSAL to talk about it to Congress after already having been fingered by Canseco as a steroid user.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150491,00.html

http://www.comcast.net/slideshow/sports-steroids/1/

I'm getting a headache.

snagswolf

March 4th, 2009, 7:35 pm

"Trolling" because I refuse to repeat myself?? PUHLEAZE!! However since you seem to require MORE evidence than has already been given, here are links to not only Jose Canseco, who started this whole mess, but even OTHER PLAYERS implicated in this whole fiasco, including Mark McGwire's REFUSAL to talk about it to Congress after already having been fingered by Canseco as a steroid user.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150491,00.html

http://www.comcast.net/slideshow/sports-steroids/1/

I'm getting a headache.
So, Mark McGwire should be charged with perjury because he refused to talk about steroids to Congress?

Wow. How dense do you have to be to make a dumbass statement like that?

Post the evidence. Still waiting.

NascarGirl2448

March 4th, 2009, 7:59 pm

You've had evidence, and THEN SOME. Stop giving me a headache.

snagswolf

March 4th, 2009, 8:30 pm

You've had evidence, and THEN SOME. Stop giving me a headache.
Evidence? Where?

You mean the evidence that McGwire should be charged with perjury, because he refused to talk about steroids in front of Congress? That evidence?

:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))

And you're getting a headache because your dishonesty is being exposed.

Post the evidence. I'm waiting.

NascarGirl2448

March 4th, 2009, 8:57 pm

Evidence? Where?

You mean the evidence that McGwire should be charged with perjury, because he refused to talk about steroids in front of Congress? That evidence?

What do I have to do, link to every post in this cotton picking thread where evidence that the government has targeted Barry Bonds, even when other guys were clearly implicated in this fiasco?? :wall:

And you're getting a headache because your dishonesty is being exposed.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!! :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) I have not been "dishonest" or anything else, and have given plenty of evidence (along with other people here!!) that you are obviously having a hard time realizing. And yes I am getting exasperated having to repeat myself over and over.

Post the evidence. I'm waiting.

Google is your friend. Since you obviously can't accept the evidence right here in this very thread, do a google search. Or just like the rest of the country, you'll realize how weak the government's case was when Bonds walks on lack of evidence, not to mention lack of corroborating testimony. BTW, where's the indictment against Roger Clemens, or anyone else??? It wasn't too long ago that the government was going after Roger, was it?? Not seeing a whole lot there.

snagswolf

March 4th, 2009, 9:20 pm

What do I have to do, link to every post in this cotton picking thread where evidence that the government has targeted Barry Bonds, even when other guys were clearly implicated in this fiasco??

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!! I have not been "dishonest" or anything else, and have given plenty of evidence (along with other people here!!) that you are obviously having a hard time realizing. And yes I am getting exasperated having to repeat myself over and over.

Google is your friend. Since you obviously can't accept the evidence right here in this very thread, do a google search. Or just like the rest of the country, you'll realize how weak the government's case was when Bonds walks on lack of evidence, not to mention lack of corroborating testimony. BTW, where's the indictment against Roger Clemens, or anyone else??? It wasn't too long ago that the government was going after Roger, was it?? Not seeing a whole lot there.
:)) :)) :)) :)) :))

So now I have to google the evidence that you're claiming proves that there are others who should be charged like Bonds has been?

What a loon you are.

As for Clemens:

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/DOJ/story?id=4361355&page=1
FBI Confirms Clemens Perjury Probe
Inquiry Comes One Day After Lawmakers Requested Look at Pitcher's Testimony

By JASON RYAN, ARIANE de VOGUE, MATTHEW JAFFE and THERESA COOK
Feb. 28, 2008

The FBI has opened an investigation into whether Roger Clemens lied to Congress under oath about his use of performance enhancing drugs, just one day after lawmakers requested the probe.

"The request to open an investigation into the congressional testimony of Roger Clemens has been turned over to the FBI and will receive appropriate investigative action by the FBI's Washington Field Office," a spokesman for the bureau said Thursday.

Clemens has repeatedly denied using the drugs, shooting down claims that his former trainer, Brian McNamee, injected him with human growth hormone.

"I never took steroids or human growth hormone," Clemens defiantly said at a Feb. 13 hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which the star pitcher had requested.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3827421
Grand jury to ponder Clemens testimonyComment Email Print Share By Mike Fish

Federal grand jury has convened to determine whether to indict Roger Clemens for lying under oath to Congress

A federal grand jury has convened in Washington, D.C., to determine whether to indict seven-time Cy Young Award winner Roger Clemens for lying under oath to Congress when he denied taking performance-enhancing drugs, ESPN.com has learned.

Witnesses have been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury as early as this week. The jurors are expected to review evidence presented by assistant U.S. attorney Daniel P. Butler and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment for perjury. Butler was in the news last April for successfully prosecuting a racketeering and money-laundering case against Deborah Jean Palfrey, dubbed "the D.C. Madam."

Those expected to either testify in front of the grand jury or to be interviewed by Butler and FBI agents include Clemens' former personal trainer, Brian McNamee, and admitted drug supplier Kirk Radomski. Charlie Scheeler or other investigators who helped assemble the Mitchell report, Major League Baseball's inquiry into performance-enhancing drug use that first publicly identified Clemens for allegedly taking steroids, could also be called before the grand jury.

Prosecutors are also likely to confer with Food and Drug Administration agent Jeff Novitzky, the government's lead investigator in a series of sports-doping cases over the past five years. Novitzky attended the four-hour hearing last February during which Clemens and McNamee offered conflicting testimony about the pitcher's alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Oh my god!!!

It's a witch hunt against Clemens now!!!!!

:)) :)) :)) :)) :))

Clueless.