Positive Test for Bonds?

by count sutton on Feb 14, 2008 10:16 PM EST Comment 7 comments

I'm not sure how much I care anymore, but I saw this just now on Fox Sports. There isn't much substance to the story yet, but - if true - I could see this getting some serious air time.

I guess this news comes at a good time for Clemens. Maybe people will talk about something else.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7799450/Report:-Bonds-tested-positive-for-steroids-in-'01-

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Just a typo

"A typo in court papers regarding Barry Bonds filed late Thursday by federal prosecutors touched off a brief tempest over the mistaken belief that he failed a drug test in November 2001, one month after breaking the home run record.

In fact, the government meant to reference a previously reported November 2000 failed drug test, U.S. attorney spokesman Josh Eaton said. That drug test was included in the indictment unsealed last year, when prosecutors said the test was for a player they called "Barry B.""

No way to prove he knowingly did it. Once again the main difference between the Clemens and Bond's cases is that Bonds always sais he never knowingly did PED's while Clemens busted out with the blanket "ive never used PED's...."

Batting practice tomorrow you be there....I have Pop, everyday

by laxtonto on Feb 14, 2008 11:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Knowingly

C'mon, these athletes know what they put in their bodies.

by killa on Feb 15, 2008 9:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

There are many ways to prove a defendant did something "knowingly" without obtaining a) an admission or b) a brain scan.

Often, prosecutors rely on a number of different facts, which, seen together, could only give someone the impression that the defendant acted knowingly.

I obviously don't know the prosecution's case here, but I imagine they would put on a witness (Anderson?) who would testify that he injected Bonds. The witness would probably also say he told Bonds what was in the syringe, and that in general Bonds was very particular about what he put into his body.

That would likely be sufficient to establish knowing steroid use beyond a reasonable doubt (which would in turn establish the foundation for the perjury charge).

by Yakker on Feb 15, 2008 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Anderson

Anderson has gone to jail for Bonds twice already...Im fairly sure hes not going to testify. Hes the only one that has direct knowledge that what was being directly injected into Bonds.

Kinda of hard to believe that Anderson would burn Bonds at this point

Batting practice tomorrow you be there....I have Pop, everyday

by laxtonto on Feb 15, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We'll see

At the time the indictment was returned, I wondered if something was in place with Anderson to testify.

IMO, to attempt to prove a perjury/obstruction case without Anderson would be tremendously difficult and potentially foolish. The USAO isn't foolish, so I bet they have Anderson (or another witness) who will testify that they either injected Bonds or saw him being injected.

by Yakker on Feb 15, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

In the court of public opinion hes guilty as hell, but hes actually got case accoding the to letter of the law.....

I wouldnt be suprised if he gets off or pleas out...

I think it boils down to Bonds lawyers telling him what to say diction wise. Bonds knew he would get destroyed in the public eye, but he doesnt care about the public. Clemens was probably told the same thing but couldnt take the fact that it would destroy his public perception

Batting practice tomorrow you be there....I have Pop, everyday

by laxtonto on Feb 15, 2008 11:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs