Given the fact that Mitchell is pretty much playing Judge Dredd here, and given the royal caprice Selig exhibited in connection with the Giambi situation -- only after the fact of his cooperation did Bud decide that Giambi should suffer no disciplinary action -- players are totally justified to avoid Mitchell like the plague.

All that said, it's probably wise to consider the fact that, despite all of the trappings of an investigation, the Mitchell thing is really an exercise in PR that allows Bud to place an endpoint on the steroids saga, even if he is the only one that will consider the matter closed ("we investigated, let's now look forward"). The main part of this PR offensive will be Mitchell's report. The report is going to be informed by interviews with Radomski and whatever Giambi told him. It's going to have a lot of names in it. Mitchell will follow up those names in the report with the sentence "Mr. _____ refused to provide testimony to the commission to rebut these accusations."

Such an approach is B.S., and if I were with the union I wouldn't want any of the players cooperating with Mitchell. That said, understanding how this is truly about PR, and understanding how easily Giambi was let off the hook, if I were a player and I knew my name was going to be in the report due to associations with Radomski, I don't think I'd want it simply hanging out there like that. Maybe I ask up-front for the Giambi deal and let the chips fall where they may.

Mitchell: Judge Dredd
Canseco: Judge Anderson
Bonds: ABC Warrior
Selig: Walter the Wobot

If I'm a player, at this point I wouldn't care anymore. Bonds has basically taken all the heat. Nobody cares about Giambi or Sheffield or Gary Matthews or anybody else who has admitted to, or has been implicated in PEDs. (By nobody, I don't mean literally nobody. Hey kevin!) It's been fascianting to watch the evolution of this. Barry Bonds is, in some ways, the best possible thing baseball could have hoped for. I expect to be immediately flamed for this, but that's how it seems to me. Bonds is the only player who generates any passion anymore about PEDs.

Bonds is the only player who generates any passion anymore about PEDs.

"anymore"?

twas verily always the case



check my post #20

Keep in mind that the union stonewalling is at least as much to blame as Selig is historically.

To me, then, advocating that they continue to do so seems marginal to me. Fact is, if the information is out there on certain players (and it seems clearly to be) it is highly likely to come out eventually, so managing that fact is more relevant to the players than wishing the info wasn't out there, seems to me.

If you were a player wouldn't you take a deal where there was a joint press conference/announcement of involvement for all players named in the Radomski info two weeks after the World Series ended, with agreements on one-day interviews to follow? Effectively, offer the equiv of 'king for a day' plea agreements whereby players who join get a pass from Bud for anything they disclose during their one-day interviews and Mitchell gets to pick the order of interviews. This would be a bad single day for baseball, no question, but for any individual player would pull a lot of the sting.

This is a digression, but this happens to be a steroids thread so I figured I'd throw it out here:

I was able to buy the 1982 Baseball Abstract at the SABR convention. I read it before years ago when a local library still had it in its collection, but I noticed something this time around. Bill's comment on Tony Armas mentioned that Billy Martin had a number of players who had power spikes like Armas with the A's, Nettles with the Yankees, Toby Harrah with the Rangers, and Killebrew with the Twins. BJ didn't have an explanation for it. Today, 25 years later, I thought that Martin might have given his players steroids or something.

I don't know what the likelihood of this is, but Martin seems like the type of manager who would try to get an edge like this. I sent Howard Bryant an email about this but haven't heard back from him. To repeat, I think that this is a possibility, but I have no evidence outside what Bill James wrote. I'm not going to quit my job and traipse around the country trying to investigate this. I feel like enough of a crackpot posting this here.

Barry Bonds is, in some ways, the best possible thing baseball could have hoped for. I expect to be immediately flamed for this, but that's how it seems to me. Bonds is the only player who generates any passion anymore about PEDs.

I agree to some extent. I'd qualify it and say that Bonds is the best thing that could have happened from the POV of PED-hawks. I have said before, as have a zillion others, that I don't think the story would have nearly the legs it has had without him.

From MLB's stadnpoint, and Selig's, Bonds provides a villain, so for a lot of fans and media, that makes PEDs seem like something "bad guys" and "sluggers" do, not regular Joe Ballplayers, and the media add to that by ALMOST NEVER talking about the no-name users.

I have taken some crap, some deserved, probably, about my bleating about Ryan Franklin/Rafael Betancourt/Clay Hensley, et al. But I still say a LITTLE more coverage of those guys and a LITTLE less coverage of Bonds would help. As it stands now, the Bonds-as-victim-martyr position has more traction as does the Bonds-as-villain position. Neither position helps the overall public discussion of the issue, which is, perhaps, what Selig, for his own political reasons, wants.

I feel like enough of a crackpot posting this here

nah--I like your theory; doesn't make you a paranoid crackpot

(watch out for the black helicopters, though)

that I don't think the story would have nearly the legs it has had without him.

wouldn't have ANY legs, if it weren't for 73 and 756

if he had hit 66 in 2001, and retired with 725, we wouldn't be hearing ANYTHING about steroids

To me, then, advocating that they continue to do so seems marginal to me. Fact is, if the information is out there on certain players (and it seems clearly to be) it is highly likely to come out eventually, so managing that fact is more relevant to the players than wishing the info wasn't out there, seems to me.

Seems to me that you're glossing over the difference between uncorroborated gossip and confessions. And even if Selig could grant immunity from punishment -- and he hasn't -- he can't grant immunity from prosecution.

Bill's comment on Tony Armas mentioned that Billy Martin had a number of players who had power spikes like Armas with the A's, Nettles with the Yankees, Toby Harrah with the Rangers, and Killebrew with the Twins. BJ didn't have an explanation for it.

1: Nettles didn't have a power "spike" under Martin or anyone else, his homers tended to track league levels, when the league jumped in 1977 so did his totals

2: Armas was always a power hitter, all Martin did was stick him in the lineup and left him alone.

3; Harrah: ok, he had a spike (which he maintained for basically the rest of his career) also he was 24, also his increasing walks and Ks suggests a change in hitting approach

Armas with the A's, Nettles with the Yankees, Toby Harrah with the Rangers, and Killebrew with the Twins.

Even if you assume that Killer had a spike under Martin (not really accurate given his 1959, 1961-64, and 1967) it came in 1969. Lots of guys had big years in 1969 due to expansion, lowering the mound and redefining the strikezone.

There certainly was an uptick for Nettles that tracked his time with Martin, but it also correspondes to his early 30s, when it isn't uncommon to see peak power numbers. Oveall, inconclusive with him.

Armas' home runs seem to correspond with aging as well in that the numbers rose with his age 26 season. Considering a strike year in the mix, his power seemed more or less constant over the next few years, peaking in Boston in 1984. Harrah's homer spike came a couple of years after Martin left Texas. His best year had him being managed by Frank Lucchesi, Eddie Stanky, Connie Ryan, and Billy Hunter (wow! 4 managers that year).

So, fun talk about, but I can't really see any evidence of it in the power numbers.

Edit: posted before seeing JPWF13's post. Oops.

Bill's comment on Tony Armas mentioned that Billy Martin had a number of players who had power spikes like Armas with the A's, Nettles with the Yankees, Toby Harrah with the Rangers, and Killebrew with the Twins. BJ didn't have an explanation for it.

Yeah, I tend to think this is just a coincidence. Now, if Shooty Babbit had had a power spike...

Bill's comment on Tony Armas mentioned that Billy Martin had a number of players who had power spikes like Armas with the A's, Nettles with the Yankees, Toby Harrah with the Rangers, and Killebrew with the Twins. BJ didn't have an explanation for it. Today, 25 years later, I thought that Martin might have given his players steroids or something.

Ummm ... say what? One of these things is not like the others.

Killebrew hit 49 HRs in '69 under Martin, true, after only 17 in The Year of the Pitcher (when he was pretty seriously injured), but 5 times before that he'd hit 44 or more -- including 46-48-45-49 from '61-'64.

Any sort of Martin-supplied enhancement would have sent him straight to the McGwire-Sosa statistical stratosphere, I'd think.

Edit: Posted before Craig's submission. Still, the point stands.

robinred Posted: September 06, 2007 at 09:39 AM (#2513847)

Barry Bonds is, in some ways, the best possible thing baseball could have hoped for. I expect to be immediately flamed for this, but that's how it seems to me. Bonds is the only player who generates any passion anymore about PEDs.


I agree to some extent. I'd qualify it and say that Bonds is the best thing that could have happened from the POV of PED-hawks. I have said before, as have a zillion others, that I don't think the story would have nearly the legs it has had without him.

From MLB's stadnpoint, and Selig's, Bonds provides a villain, so for a lot of fans and media, that makes PEDs seem like something "bad guys" and "sluggers" do, not regular Joe Ballplayers, and the media add to that by ALMOST NEVER talking about the no-name users.

- correctamundo
seeing all the thousands of articles written about how jc rincon has ruined baseball and should get called in front of congress and thrown in jail. also seeing as how the federal governemnt has spent millons and millions going after matt lawton trying to at least get him convicted so he will always be a felon

- think of it like this
barry bonds is like the person who gets drunk, takes a machine gun and murders a bunch of people. lets get him the electric chair/gas chamber/guantanamo
- all the other guys is like the person who gets drunk and gets in a car and runs over and kills a bunch of people. that's just a tragic mistake and lets give them "community service"



I have taken some crap, some deserved, probably, about my bleating about Ryan Franklin/Rafael Betancourt/Clay Hensley, et al. But I still say a LITTLE more coverage of those guys and a LITTLE less coverage of Bonds would help.

- but they don't hit home runs and they won't go near the hall so honestly why should we even waste a word on them. who cares? it is like extras in a movie screwing on the set. big deal.


As it stands now, the Bonds-as-victim-martyr position has more traction as does the Bonds-as-villain position. Neither position helps the overall public discussion of the issue, which is, perhaps, what Selig, for his own political reasons, wants.

- and this year, the media and selig HAS made bonds look like martyr. i mean the guy is tested out the wazoo and no roids or anything else and he is quick enuf to turn on a 99 MPH fb and send it to deep center. must be the HGH i suppose. yeah surrrrrrrrrrree

Yeah, I suppose Bill failed to account for year to year fluctuations. Armas's mustache, OTOH, still looks suspicious to me.

James also mention Norm Cash having a power surge under Martin, (and he DID go from 15-->32 HRs)

but Norm always had power, of course

I seem to remember James' comment being that, under Martin, players rediscovered their power stroke (and he didn't know why)

And even if Selig could grant immunity from punishment -- and he hasn't -- he can't grant immunity from prosecution.

I think it is highly, highly unlikely that anyone would get prosecuted. But, that is easy to say if it is not you who is taking the risk, however slight it may be.

And, I think the fact that Selig has not promised that anyone who comes forward will not be punished by baseball is telling.

who cares? it is like extras in a movie screwing on the set. big deal.

Well, if the camera is rolling at the time ...

not really clear how they would be able to punish someone who is not in baseball any more except by telling them they would release a statement to the media that mr ballplayer refused to talk to mitchell.

of course the ballplayer could perfectly well get even by having a press conference and telling the media how he talked persoanlly to buddy boy about how he thought it was not right that he was being forced to use steroids like everyone else was doing and bud just told him to shut up

Selig should grant immunity from any punishment by baseball to any player who testifies under oath about past and previously undetected drug use. That should be a given.

But I'll make a standing offer of a $500 bet that says that no player will ever be prosecuted by any government (federal, state, or local) for steroid use. Distribution and / or perjury, maybe, but not for juicing alone. And if you think I'm nuts, $500 says put your money where your mouth is. Money to be posted, and winner to be paid at a mutually agreed upon date. Paranoids and frightmongers cheerfully welcomed.

But I'll make a standing offer of a $500 bet that says that no player will ever be prosecuted by any government (federal, state, or local) for steroid use.

I don't disagree, but, again:

But, that is easy to say if it is not you who is taking the risk, however slight it may be.

Selig should grant immunity from any punishment by baseball to any player who testifies under oath about past and previously undetected drug use. That should be a given.

First, I agree that prosecution are very unlikely, though it seems stupid to take a chance. Just don't say anything. In fact, that's exactly what they should all the players should do. Just STFU and play ball and let the testing do its job. If something becomes public through others' testimony or confessions or tell-all books, just shrug your shoulders, apologize and play ball. If you're not Barry Bonds and you haven't wagged your finger on national tv, the story will have no legs. There is zero incentive for the players to yap.

i mean the guy is tested out the wazoo and no roids or anything else and he is quick enuf to turn on a 99 MPH fb and send it to deep center. must be the HGH i suppose. yeah surrrrrrrrrrree

My only complaint with this is based on my understanding of the testing. They list which drugs they test for and it does not cover all known steroids/enhancers. So if they are smart about it they can avoid these things. Why other players get caught makes me think I don't understand the testing program, but then I see the Olympians getting caught and wonder maybe they are just not smart about what they take.

if he had hit 66 in 2001, and retired with 725, we wouldn't be hearing ANYTHING about steroids

I disagree the Balco thing started with Olympians not Bonds. Big names just hit the papers faster and cause more hype.

Distribution and / or perjury, maybe, but not for juicing alone

Well yeah, obviously. Unless somebody sees the injection, the charge will be not be use, but related crimes like possession, under the influence, distribution, resisting arrest, perjury, tax evasion, etc. Your bet is cautious and safe. If you want to bet that the government will not attempt to prosecute or harass players they think did steroids, you might get takers though.

Andy Posted: September 06, 2007 at 10:20 AM (#2513908)

Selig should grant immunity from any punishment by baseball to any player who testifies under oath about past and previously undetected drug use. That should be a given.

But I'll make a standing offer of a $500 bet that says that no player will ever be prosecuted by any government (federal, state, or local) for steroid use. Distribution and / or perjury, maybe, but not for juicing alone. And if you think I'm nuts, $500 says put your money where your mouth is. Money to be posted, and winner to be paid at a mutually agreed upon date. Paranoids and frightmongers cheerfully welcomed.

- cmon andy you know very well that someone can't be prosecuted for confessing to USING drugs if they didn't get caught with them AND especially because the statue of limit is over after 3 years.

- selig can sure nuff TRY to punish/suspend any ballplayer in MLB right now but there is not a thing he can do to manny alexnader. or lenny dykstra. or saint dale murphy.

- and i will bet you 12 bucks (a ticket to a game cost) that (at least in texas) not a single person has ever said - hi, i used illegal drug X many times last year - and actually been charged and convicted for drug use for just that use - and i mean nothing else that the DA was trying to get them on or get one of their homies on and screwing them because they wouldn't roll over

You put all these comments together, and it appears that the only two things that any player really has to fear are perjury and / or failing a drug test. And to be afraid of that you'd have to be guilty in the first place.

So exactly where does all this "persecution" come in? Even Bonds hasn't lost anything other than a few likely HOF votes, a reputation that he obviously doesn't care about to begin with, and the cost of a good lawyer. I'd say that the reward to risk ratio has played out pretty well for him in his decision to juice.

You put all these comments together, and it appears that the only two things that any player really has to fear are perjury and / or failing a drug test. And to be afraid of that you'd have to be guilty in the first place.

So exactly where does all this "persecution" come in? Even Bonds hasn't lost anything other than a few likely HOF votes, a reputation that he obviously doesn't care about to begin with, and the cost of a good lawyer. I'd say that the reward to risk ratio has played out pretty well for him in his decision to juice.

I'm not following you, I don't think. If you are speaking in general, I don't think players are being "persecuted." But I agree with Shooty that there is no incentive to speak out as things are currently set up WRT Mitchell and Selig.

WRT Bonds, it all depends on how you look at it. But as I have said many times, if the Feds are going far outside of normal procedure to go after him and stay after him, and we have a lot of people, including lawyers here, saying that they are--as a taxpayer, I want them to indict him immediately--like today--or leave him alone.

As a baseball fan, I think he used PEDs and is part of a larger issue that is discussed intelligently here quite often, but is not, IMO, discussed intelligently in the media at large that much.

biscuit

you know how the feds went in and seized the actual urine samples from the supposed to be secret and confidential testing in 03?

do you REALLY think they didn't test barry bonds sample for every single thing that exists??? and do you REALLY think it wouldn't have been INSTANTLY released - i mean leaked - to the media if it wasn't pure and clean? do you REALLY think they are not keeping barry's piss so they can keep testing it for SOMEthing until the end of time?

they have spent - what - 3 or 4 years YEARS trying to pin SOMEthing besides rumors on his ass and they aren't never gonna stop.

whatever else you can say about barry lamar, he ain't a stupid man and he KNOW what they are doing. i would bet about anything that he's been clean since they started collecting piss and KEEPING it and i don't think he was dumb enough to think they would throw his away like they said or keep anything confidential. after all they started the whole testing thing because of him

I'm not following you, I don't think. If you are speaking in general, I don't think players are being "persecuted."

Which is all that I'm saying. But you wouldn't know that with all the hysteria over "steroid McCarthyism" and the like.

As for Bonds, what exactly has the dreaded Federal Government ever done to him? Called him in for questioning, said "have a nice day," and let him go back to his day job. Big f*ck*ng deal. How are they NOT "leaving him alone" today?

And while I agree that the mainstream media doesn't always deal with him in the most dispassionate (or even fair) way, that's far more a result of Bonds's actions (and yes, his personality---which is why I wrote "or even fair") than it is a result of anything that the Feds have done.

As for Bonds, what exactly has the dreaded Federal Government ever done to him?

Well, it's not like they're cattle prodding him everyday, but a year long grand jury and constant investigation into my life might be cumbersome even if I didn't have to go to the courthouse everyday.

Well, it's not like they're cattle prodding him everyday, but a year long grand jury and constant investigation into my life might be cumbersome even if I didn't have to go to the courthouse everyday.

Oh, the poor dear.

do you REALLY think they didn't test barry bonds sample for every single thing that exists??? and do you REALLY think it wouldn't have been INSTANTLY released - i mean leaked - to the media if it wasn't pure and clean? do you REALLY think they are not keeping barry's piss so they can keep testing it for SOMEthing until the end of time?

I have no idea nor do I pretend to know what they have done with the samples. I am not sure if the FEDs would leak what they found. If the FEDs took the samples and ran tests on them I am sure we will eventually find out what they did or didn't find. I think a grand jury testimony leaking and a Federal investigation leak do not have the same likely hood though.

I don't know what the likelihood of this is, but Martin seems like the type of manager who would try to get an edge like this. I sent Howard Bryant an email about this but haven't heard back from him. To repeat, I think that this is a possibility, but I have no evidence outside what Bill James wrote.

I can't see a guy like Martin, with his commitment to fair play and long term health of players, risking everything just to get a short term edge for his teams. :-)

I'd say that the reward to risk ratio has played out pretty well for him in his decision to juice.

If he had juiced, yeah.

But he's as clean as the yellow, er, driven, snow.

His magnificent year at the ripe old age of 42-1/2, posting a 176 OPS+, while being tested on one side and having the Feds play the role of personal proctologist on the other, proves that he is simply a magnificent specimen, not to mention a prince of a person.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Oh, the poor dear.

Spoken like someone who has never had the government up his a$$.

A U.S. Attorney with grand jury subpoena power and a couple of agents at his disposal are a monstrous point of stress and distraction no matter who you are and no matter the nature of the offense. Rarely does a day go by when one of his friends, family members or business associates aren't approached by an FBI or IRS agent and asked questions. They're approached at their homes, they're asked to come in to talk, etc. It all gets back to Bonds and makes his life and the lives of those close to him a major headache.

I don't believe we all need to stay up late nights worrying about Bonds' plight, but no matter what you think of the guy, to suggest that he hasn't been under a microscope, and to suggest that that microscope is anything but a constant point of stress and strain, is ridiculous.

As for Bonds, what exactly has the dreaded Federal Government ever done to him? Called him in for questioning, said "have a nice day," and let him go back to his day job. Big f*ck*ng deal. How are they NOT "leaving him alone" today.

This has been dealt with. If they are not going to indict, I think they should shut the investigation down. It has been 3.5 years. Do you think they should just continue to keep Anderson in jail and leave the investigation open indefinitely? If so, we will have to agree to disagree.

Also, people have suggested that the Feds are still monitoring everything Bonds does. I don't know about that, but to me, leaving the investigation open this long ane extending the Grand Jury again and again is not "leaving him alone."

So which iPod should I choose?

Oh, the poor dear.

Spoken like someone who has never had the government up his a$$.

In my college years I spent a total of several weeks in jail for trying to get served in a whole series of restaurants whose owners didn't like the color of my choice of companions. (No sympathy from Nieporent for that one!) And one day I was walking down the street when a pair of FBI agents whom I wouldn't recognize from Adam called me over to their car and began grilling me about a demonstration that was apparently planned for that evening. Since I hadn't been in that town for over half a year, I wasn't quite sure what to say. I had no idea prior to that day that the FBI was even aware of my existence, but from the drift of their conversation they obviously knew an awful lot about me. I won't bore you with all the details, but similar things happened to thousands of other people in my position at that time.

I was also nearly kicked out of college because I wrote a verboten seven letter word on a postcard to a friend that was intercepted by a postmaster in Raleigh. That one has comic overtones in retrospect, but at the time it was a lot more creepy than comical, especially the memory of the judicial board hearing and all its pious sanctimony.

So yes, I do know a little bit about the capricious and arbitrary powers of government.

Now tell me again what this sort of routine stuff has to do with Barry Bonds, whose entire direct encounters with the law have (as far as I know) been limited to one or two days of being asked to testify, and perhaps (?) a day or so in court regarding a domestic dispute.

He's never lost a day on the field because of any of this. He's never lost a dime in salary in spite of his reported baggage. He's somehow managed to break the all-time home run record in spite of it all, not to mention in spite of injuries.

Somehow I think I'll reserve my sympathy for more worthy causes.

Somehow I think I'll reserve my sympathy for more worthy causes.

Sympathy has nothing do with this. If you replaced barry Bonds with Tommy LaSorda, I'd still think this kind of investigation was wrong, and I LOATHE Tommy LaSorda. Pure evil, that guy.

Sympathy has nothing do with this.

Agreed.

And if you think I'm nuts, $500 says put your money where your mouth is.

What difference does it make if you're nuts, Andy? Or if any of us take your little bet? The question is whether any of these 45 players are willing to risk considerably more than that. Even if the odds are heavily in their favor, it still may be a wager they'd prefer not to make.

I think that if Selig really does want to put an end-point on the steroids era, then blanket amnesty from any MLB sanctions for any player who comes forward is the very least he can do. Unfortunately, that still might not loosen any tongues, since Selig and Mitchell can't tell prosecutors not to bother any players who might testify under oath that they broke federal laws.

Somehow I think I'll reserve my sympathy for more worthy causes.

Sympathy has nothing do with this. If you replaced barry Bonds with Tommy LaSorda, I'd still think this kind of investigation was wrong, and I LOATHE Tommy LaSorda. Pure evil, that guy.

Sympathy has nothing do with this.

Agreed.

OK, strike the word "sympathy." So you two would feel the same sense of injustice if this "persecution" were aimed at Brian Roberts or Jake Peavy as you would in this case?

Yeah, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm perfectly willing to leave it at that, since this has been gone over once or twice before. I doubt if any of us are changing the minds of too many independent voters here.

And if you think I'm nuts, $500 says put your money where your mouth is.

What difference does it make if you're nuts, Andy? Or if any of us take your little bet? The question is whether any of these 45 players are willing to risk considerably more than that. Even if the odds are heavily in their favor, it still may be a wager they'd prefer not to make.

I think that if Selig really does want to put an end-point on the steroids era, then blanket amnesty from any MLB sanctions for any player who comes forward is the very least he can do. Unfortunately, that still might not loosen any tongues, since Selig and Mitchell can't tell prosecutors not to bother any players who might testify under oath that they broke federal laws.

I've already said I believe in an amnesty decree from Selig, and you've just agreed that the odds against anything happening to the players outside of baseball are "heavily in their favor," so where's the big dispute? My offer of a bet had strictly to do with smoking out serious convictions here, not with anything else. I can see why the players might not want to take such a gamble, even if I think their chances of being prosecuted are between 1% and zero, with the over-under much closer to zero.

OK, strike the word "sympathy." So you two would feel the same sense of injustice if this "persecution" were aimed at Brian Roberts or Jake Peavy as you would in this case?

Emotionally, of course I wouldn't feel the same injustice. Intellectually, abuse of power is abuse of power and, as you noted relating your own experiences, one day it could be anyone one of us on the receiving end of goverment intimidation. I think it's best that we consistently condemn shenanigans like this despite what we think of who the government is targeting. The law should be a shield as much as a sword and all that. But yeah, I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree.

FWIW, I like to think of myself as a pretty independent voter, too!

I stand corrected on the relationship of the government as it relates to your posterior.

That said, whether someone is being unfairly hounded (you, from the sound of it) or legitimately investigated (Bonds I would say is a legitimate target of investigation even if the crime is minor), I would hope that everyone could agree that government should be required to sh*t or get off the pot at some point. Not every target of a criminal investigation has the luxuries Bonds does in terms of wealth and, at least so far, secure employment. The fact of an endlessly open investigation can cause tremendous difficulties for anyone seeking employment or simply normal interaction with people who, because they are afraid of being contacted by the feds, may chose to shun those in the crosshairs, rightly or wrongly.

Since we don't (or at least I hope we don't) have separate criminal justice systems for the famous and the not-so-famous, we should be outraged at prosecutorial excess wherever it occurs.

you've just agreed that the odds against anything happening to the players outside of baseball are "heavily in their favor," so where's the big dispute? ... I can see why the players might not want to take such a gamble, even if I think their chances of being prosecuted are between 1% and zero, with the over-under much closer to zero.

Didn't you just answer your own question? What am I missing?

Shooty and Craig,

Agree to disagree about how the merits of this particular case relate to the general point of government persecution. Agree?

you've just agreed that the odds against anything happening to the players outside of baseball are "heavily in their favor," so where's the big dispute? ... I can see why the players might not want to take such a gamble, even if I think their chances of being prosecuted are between 1% and zero, with the over-under much closer to zero.

Didn't you just answer your own question? What am I missing?

One question (my bet) deals with probabilities; the other deals with that <1% lingering uncertainty and the understandable desire not to take any risks at all. I wasn't offering my bet to any of those players, only to those here, as an easy opportunity to pick up 500 bucks. Of course if any of those players thinks that he's going to be prosecuted, I'd be glad to take his bet, too.

So Andy, you think Anderson should be in jail for an indefinite period, even though according to Srul and Nieporent, that is not how it is usually done, and that the Feds should just continue to call back the Grand Jury indefinitely? I am not snarking; I am asking.

Depends on the particulars of the case. Does the judge have any say in whether or not a Grand Jury can just be endlessly reconvened without any show of a likelihood of an indictment? Not snarking; just asking.

I have no idea nor do I pretend to know what they have done with the samples.

Well, after a bottle of Coors Lite I have a couple of suspicions. Even under the tongue that stuff is awful.

Best Regards

John

Does the judge have any say in whether or not a Grand Jury can just be endlessly reconvened without any show of a likelihood of an indictment?

Don't know. Doubt it, though.

Depends on the particulars of the case.

Well, Bonds and Anderson's case(s) as we "understand" them now.