Mine was funnier.

Since it won't apparently be posted (the "spoilers" that ESPN reported earlier), I'll repost it here:

In 1964, Barry Bonds was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

A Douglas Adams reference is always warranted. Thanks Gamingboy.

Barry makes fun of Nedrow on page 6, lines 22 through 24.

More comments as I look through it. I'm really, really, really, bored. Maybe I should just watch last night's LOST again.

If this thread doesn’t reach 500 posts by midnight, steroidmania might be over the hill.

That ought to be the count of posts made by Kevin about said testimony without actually reading it.

If the government is correct, then Barry wasn't listening on page 11, lines 14-24.

Apparently Bonds threw Harvey Shields -- another of his personal trainers -- under the bus. P 33, Lines 16-17.

All this reading is making me hungry, so I'm leaving.


But did anyone else notice that neither ESPN.com or SI.com is making a big deal out of this being released, at all. Not even a link yet.

ESPN's article.

But did anyone else notice that neither ESPN.com or SI.com is making a big deal out of this being released, at all. Not even a link yet.

It would take away from the Semi-Pro release.

During his grand jury appearance in 2003, prosecutors presented Bonds with a drug test showing a positive steroids result for a player they called "Barry B." Bonds said he had never seen those test results.

So, Bonds was framed by this "Barry B." character.

The voice for Barry B. will be provided by Jerry Seinfeld.

So far I'm through page 38, and I haven't seen anything they could possibly prove to be false, unless Anderson takes the stand and contradicts Bonds (*). He says that Anderson gave him stuff and he took it. His testimony is consistent with the stuff being flaxseed oil and arthritis cream; it's also consistent with the stuff being steroids but Anderson not telling him that. The only way it's perjury is if Anderson told him it was steroids.


(*) Other possibility is for Kim Bell to say, "Barry came home and told me that Anderson rubbed steroid cream on his arm today."

At long last, Barry Bonnell has been exposed. Our long national nightmare is over.

Bonds' testimony is also consistent with Conte's public statements that Conte never gave him anything; he says he only went to BALCO a handful of times.

You say you don't love me
Well that's alright with me 'cos I'm in love with you
And I wouldn't want you doing
things you don't want to do
Oh you know I've always wanted
you to be in love with me
And it took so long to realize
the way things have to be
I wanted to live in a dream that couldn't be real
And I'm starting to understand
now the way that you feel

"One, I'm black. And I'm keeping my money. And there's not too many rich black people in this world. And I'm keeping my money. There's more wealthy Asian people and Caucasian and white. There ain't that many rich black people. And I ain't giving my money up. That's why."

This thread will be unreadable shortly but this is my early clubhouse leader for best answer:

Q. Did he ask you why - or, excuse me, did he tell you why urine samples?

A. No, I didn't...we were friends. I didn't ask Greg a bunch of questions. We are friends, we grew up together, you know, we don't do stuff. If he needs something, fine, fine.

I know when I ask my friends for a cup of piss, they're usually pretty cool about it.

#18 - no doubt the same reasoning used by Rockefeller.

I love the way he mocks Benito Santiago and Armando Rios.

I know when I ask my friends for a cup of piss, they're usually pretty cool about it.

I wasn't. But I tricked you; that wasn't my urine.

I love the way he mocks Benito Santiago and Armando Rios.

Eric Young, too.

Armando Rios deserves mockery.

Turns out the whole thing was a false alarm. It's Barry Bond who used steroids.

Jeez, I leave for an hour and a half and we're only up to 25. I am ashamed to call myself a member of this community. Ashamed. I have heard stories and read Wiki entries on the glory days of newsblog discussion... it has been a sad fall.

Jeez, I leave for an hour and a half and we're only up to 25. I am ashamed to call myself a member of this community. Ashamed. I have heard stories and read Wiki entries on the glory days of newsblog discussion... it has been a sad fall

.

It's a Friday night...give it time.

Maybe Baseball Primer has finally hit the point of diminishing returns on the steroids issue.

The steroids/player apologists are drowning in the truth. Looking naive, foolish or just plain stupid. Time after time they are proven wrong. What is the point of fighting with people that have been repeatedly proven to be so wrong? They keep fighting of course as this thread proves. But why fight people that are so full of sh!t. That refuse to accept reality.

Maybe Baseball Primer has finally hit the point of diminishing returns on the steroids issue.

One can hope...

*buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurp*

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Asc_6XzPpAHm6eU1fSzJAkkRvLYF?slug=li-bondsdismissalhearing022908&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Link didn't work. Copy and paste if you like.

In other news, charges against Bonds will have to be re-filed as the prosecutors failed to organize the counts into something legally legible. Your tax dollars at work.

That's not even good trolling in post 28.

Q: Can you tell of any reason why Greg would have written "G" and "test" and things like that on a calendar with your initials on it if he wasn't giving you growth hormone and testosterone?
A: I can't answer that. Maybe he ran out of paper. I don't know.

From #31:

Bonds’ gray-haired attorney Dennis Riordan, author of the motion to dismiss, volunteered to the court that he could redraft the flawed indictment and save the government from having to take the cumbersome step of “dismissal and a superceding indictment.”

Well played.

I read it all - I swear it looks like they can only be going for him and greg going to greg's lawyer together.

Really, though? Are all testimonies this #############? That's some dumbass interviewing. They didn't have copies of stuff?

I also read it all. I see the following possibilities (in order of likelihood):

1. Anderson is going to testify against Bonds.
2. They can find someone other than Teng who took blood samples from Bonds.
3. The government has very little case.
4. Dial's point in #36.
5. They have witness(es) (e.g. Bell, or BALCO employee) who can give credible evidence that Bonds said he was using steroids.

Not that these are mutually exclusive.

Maybe Baseball Primer has finally hit the point of diminishing returns on the steroids issue.

Well the midnight hour has past (EST) and we're nowhere near 500 posts. At this rate we'll be lucky to reach 100.

kevin would've done a much better job nailing Barry's cheating behind during the questioning.

And some people think cameras belong in federal courts. Other than mocking EY, and Rios, the GJ had to be bored senseless. nearly all of the questions that the grand jurors asked had nothing to do with clear/cream, or 'roids.

Alou: was that in order of least to most likely? Because I can't begin to fathom why Anderson would testify against Bonds now. If he was going to do it, why the heck would he sit in jail all that time?

The steroids/player apologists are drowning in the truth.

Which is, what, exactly?

At the end of the day baseball talent is still distributed on a pyramid. That is true whether a player is hitting the ball with steroids floating through his bloodstream or not. The pitcher has to fool the batter, the batter has to make hard contact, etc.

That was most likely to least likely. As for why Anderson would testify now - I agree it's not necessarily particularly logical. But I think that he will, because I have a hard time believing that they would bring a case without his testimony. Maybe I underestimate the prosecutorial zeal involved here.

I finished it (got distracted in the middle); just got back to it and wrapped it up. Despite the website this was pulled from, there wasn't exactly a smoking gun there. Of course, in theory they were after Anderson/Conte at the time, not Bonds. But I can't see where a perjury conviction comes from; they didn't exactly pin Bonds down on details one way or the other. Unless they find someone (more than Bell (*)) to say that Bonds was bragging about using steroids, at most it seems like they could show Bonds used, but not that he knew.




(*) Hey, maybe Brian McNamee can improve his deal with the feds.

Barry loves Benito. It's in sworn testimony.

I finished it too! The testosterone level in November 2001, the one test (page 112 or so) they had that had his actual name and birthdate on it, appears to have been pretty low (if the government's interpretation of the document is correct). BTW, the old articles on ZMA said that BALCO tested trace nutrients to make adjustments in order to maximize testosterone levels, so makes sense they would want testosterone levels. This is pitiful.

Maybe I underestimate the prosecutorial zeal involved here

or our Department of Justice's lack of regard for justice.

The article in #31 is good.

great read ... thanks for sharing ..

#48 .. Here is a little more from Littman. when you have time, you should read his piece, "gunning for the big guy", if you haven't already.

The testimony hinted at something else that has not been revealed previously. The prosecutorial game was played differently for Bonds than for other BALCO targets.

The slugger and his attorney, Mike Rains, were ambushed that morning, even 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 BALCO grand jury.

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

Bonds finally was ushered into the grand jury room at 1:23 p.m. How and why that three-hour gap came about may become an issue at trial. It speaks to fairness – or lack thereof – as to whether the government really was more interested in setting a perjury trap for Bonds than in getting him to tell the truth.

When the grand jury testimony began, Nadel acted as if there had been no controversy about making Bonds cool his heels for hours, as if they had just had a routine meeting in which he, another prosecutor and IRS agent Jeff Novitzky explained the immunity order that would allow Bonds to testify without risk of prosecution – unless he lied.

“Did I explain it during that session?” Nadel asked.

“Yes,” said Bonds, who added cryptically, “We’ve had our disagreements.”

“Yes,” said Bonds, who added cryptically, “We’ve had our disagreements.”

This guy is one of the greatest hitters in the history of baseball. You don't reach that goal unless you're a narcissist to the n-th degree and have an astronomical amount of self-confidence. Did they really think they were going to shake Bonds up?

The deposition makes the gov't prosecutors look like amateurs... hopefully they're paid like it.

The testimony hinted at something else that has not been revealed previously. The prosecutorial game was played differently for Bonds than for other BALCO targets.

Actually, that was revealed previously, because I've read it elsewhere. I was struck too when I was reading the transcript how they seemed just a little too interested in Bonds and not interested enough in the purported targets of the investigation, Conte and Anderson.

Obviously part of establishing that Conte/Anderson were distributing steroids was finding out whether they gave steroids to Bonds, so the questions needed to be asked, but there was absolutely too much focus on Bonds. Why were they going line-by-line with Bonds through documents that Bonds said he had never seen and didn't know anything about, if they were interested in Anderson and Conte? They didn't even do a good job asking the right questions clearly and explicitly; they needed to spend less time asking Bonds what codes meant after he said he didn't know, and more time asking him what Anderson did on the dates in question.

The ability to hit a baseball does you no good when you're on the witness stand.

No, but absolute religious faith that you're right doesn't help when you're a prosecutor, either. You need to actually have evidence. Real evidence.

Interpret all this for me, because I'm not getting the materiality of all the test/calendar details. The questions appeared to be incredibly repetitive and had been answered previously.

Bonds said he received stuff over the years, he assumed from Balco, and he did not know the exact contents. He said members of his family got similar packets and he said he had wanted to bring one to show the grand jury. He said he was still receiving the packets at the time of the testimony.

He said he had tests done and he was told they were for zinc and magnesium and nutrients, and results were used as input to his nutritionist and cook.

He said Harvey Shields took the other substances that he was now suspicious of, and they were taken publicly, so he thought nothing of them until the case publicity.

He said he had never seen any of the paperwork, calendars or test results.

He said he thought all the supplements were free of charge (or bartered for his ad), so notes of costs didn't mean anything to him.

I think he was very concerned with not cursing (the Oops incident).

So, what he was saying, and very clearly, was if he received any controlled substance, he didn't know about it. He was saying that the tests were not under his design and not for his use. I don't see how showing him test results was going to change his recollections or state of knowledge. So, I don't see how test results are material because the perjury case is about establishing his knowledge.

Can't see how it can done without direct testimony proving he took an active interest in the supplementation or testing programs.

Man, they couldn't even trip him up with this one: :-)

Q: How long have you been a professional baseball player?
A: Since 1985

Bonds was drafted and signed in 85; debuted in the majors in 86.

I'm not bored enough to read the whole thing, but in the beginning he seems a well-prepared witness. I particularly like this:

Q: Do you understand you have the right -- if you have a good faith belief that your statements are going to potentially be incriminating or have a concern about those statements to consult with your counsel outside the grand jury room?

A: I understand I can consult my attorney if there's something I do not understand.

Prosecutor tries to paint it as "if I consult my attorney, it's because the answer would be incriminating"; Bonds turns it right back into "if I consult my attorney, it's because I don't understand the legal mumbo-jumbo."

Like 2 separate positive tests for steroids, for instance?

That's irrelevent to a perjury charge because Bonds did not say underoath that he did not ever have steroids in his system. He said he never knowingly took steroids. They can't say "Look, you committed perjury by saying you never knowingly took steroids. We have the positive tests." They have to have (REAL) evidence that Bonds knew he had steroids in his system.

I think they'll be able to do that. Nobody's going to buy that lameass flaxseed oil story by Bonds.

I'm not so sure big guy. The thing I came away with is that Bonds was less concerned about performance enhancement and more about finding non-narcotic means of getting his pain under control. Bonds was at least partially seeking ways to alleviate the fatigue, the pain and speed his physical recovery. He keeps saying “I still felt the pain,” I’m still in pain, I’m still feeling the pain,” “Just take the pain away” and “But I still feel the pain” when discussing Anderson’s potions.

Bonds also stated “…everyone tries to give me everything. You get companies that provide us with more junk to try than anything … I was fatigued, tired, just needed recovery you know. And this guy says: ‘Try this cream, try this cream.’ And Greg came to the ballpark and said, you know: ‘This will help you recover,’ and he rubbed some cream on my arm, like, some lotion type stuff, and like, some lotion type stuff, and like, gave me some flax seed oil, that’s what he called it…”

Also he says that there are all kinds of pills, lotions, drinks etc. ballplayers are exposed to each and every day. Obviously, time wouldn’t allow researching what’s in all this stuff. A buddy tells him to try a lotion that will help him recover--like Ben Gay or Deep Cold or Icy Hot might. The thing is, the average guy wouldn’t think a lotion would be anything more potent than Zostrix Cream--especially if it came from a friend.

When you take into account Andy Pettitte saying "You know, all I can tell you is that I take like a protein drink that -- you know, that I get from our trainers with the Yankees. I don't know what the stuff has in it. They just tell me -- they tell me it's a protein drink ... that's one of my downfalls, I guess. I don't ask a whole lot of questions about stuff" then it becomes plausible.

I mean, c'mon--a lotion or cream isn't going to set off alarm bells for people.

I think Bonds is guilty of PED use but I think the gov't has done a poor job making their case for perjury. If I didn't know better it almost seems the way they went about it is they created an elaborate plausible deniability scenario.

Best Regards

John

The govt. created a plausible deniability scenario for Bonds or for themselves?

Giving someone your piss to be tested isn't taking an active interest?

For several reasons I have to give my urine to my emplyer a couple of times a year. My emotional involvement is closer to active annoyance that the man feels a need to to get his bony hand as far up my a$$ as possible rather than "active interest".

And I doubt Bonds is dumb.

The govt. created a plausible deniability scenario for Bonds or for themselves?

Anderson may have created a plausible deniability scenario for Bonds. A sort of "do you trust me as your friend? If so, then just do the program and don't ask questions."

Best Regards

John

I don't cover much baseball anymore, but I have had a couple of extended social interactions with Bonds. I've spent enough time with him over the last couple of years to know that he's too narcissistic, too smart, too hands-on and too curious to put something into his body without knowing what it is. His body is his temple. Bonds can tell you how many grams of fat are in a 10-ounce filet mignon and how many teaspoons of sugar are in one 16-ounce serving of Coca-Cola, so while he might have thought "the cream" was some kind of miracle salve to help fight arthritis, I'm struggling to believe he wouldn't know every single thing about "the clear" before he put it into his mouth. The only way Bonds didn't know is that he didn't want to know, that he wanted some kind of plausible deniability if it was found out he took the stuff. The notion that he flat-out didn't know what he was doing just strains credulity.

Link

If you can't trust Michael Wilbon's mind-reading, who can you trust?

I'm struggling to believe he wouldn't know every single thing about "the clear" before he put it into his mouth.

Leaving aside the total lack of credibility, he said that he DID know what it was -- it was flax seed oil, which plenty of people take.

Unless Wilbon is suggesting that Bonds has a chemical assay done on everything before he ingests it, Bonds' explanation would be perfectly plausible -- at least, from somebody who did not metamorphose into the Incredible Hulk.

BARRY SMASH!!

GO BARRY!

Like 2 separate positive tests for steroids, for instance?

Well, that would be good evidence of steroid use (but not perjury). But a piece of paper which may say that someone's blood was tested is not a "positive test for steroids."

Man, they couldn't even trip him up with this one: :-)

Q: How long have you been a professional baseball player?
A: Since 1985

Bonds was drafted and signed in 85; debuted in the majors in 86.

What? Getting drafted and paid is professional baseball and minor league baseball is certainly professional baseball.

Man, they couldn't even trip him up with this one: :-)

Q: How long have you been a professional baseball player?
A: Since 1985

Bonds was drafted and signed in 85; debuted in the majors in 86.



What? Getting drafted and paid is professional baseball and minor league baseball is certainly professional baseball.

Impressive reading and reasoning skills Beano. That was the point. They couldn't trip him up.

It's San Francisco. Nobody cares about piss between friends.

Well, that would be good evidence of steroid use (but not perjury). But a piece of paper which may say that someone's blood was tested is not a "positive test for steroids."

If the prosecution had a presentable chain of custody for the sample, they would have presented it it, wouldn't they? Assuming that this grand jury testimony had to do with a steroids case.

If the prosecution had a presentable chain of custody for the sample, they would have presented it it, wouldn't they? Assuming that this grand jury testimony had to do with a steroids case.

They didn't need to present it in order to secure an indictment, particularly of Anderson/Conte. The standard for an indictment is much less than that for a conviction, and evidence need not be authenticated to be admitted.

To convict Bonds, they'll need much more. Yes, such as chain of custody. Which will likely require Anderson to testify.

I don't see the posts to which this most likely ought to be aimed, but I'll say it anyway:

There seems to be a line of thinking that (1) we know that X (Bonds, Clemens, whomever) used steroids/HGH knowingly, (2) X has made statements disavowing knowledge of using steroids/HGH, (3) therefore, any semi-competent lawyer ought to be able to prove that X has perjured himself. But it completely misunderstands the relevance of "The Truth" to logical proof (whether purely mathematical or the impure but still perfectly reasonable kind found in a court of law): The Truth doesn't matter. There was a joke in old math classes of mine that "as any fool can see" was not a sufficient argument to support a claim, even if the unsupported claim was absolutely true. It doesn't matter if the prosecutor is armed with absolutely knowledge of The Truth that X did <insert bad action here>; if the prosecutor cannot sufficiently support a claim of wrong-doing with evidence, his/her being armed with The Truth is no more valid than someone else's claiming that the Moon is made of blue cheese. Truth is only given any consideration in so far as it can be supported. Unsupportable truth carries no more weight than falsehood (by definition, unsupportable (*)). It is not necessarily the fault of prosecutors if they cannot prove what we know to be The Truth; the system places limits on them: they can only claim Truth that is supportable and unsupportable Truth will not earn them a conviction.

(*) Yeah, yeah, I know, a court of law must rely on opinion/testimony to approach answers and weigh truthiness, so falsehood can be supportable. I'm talking more theoretically right here here.

Impressive reading and reasoning skills Beano. That was the point. They couldn't trip him up.

No kidding. But there is nothing to trip him with here. Maybe you had to think 10 min about it AnutBea, but it was a lame attempt to "trip him", if it was an attempt at all.

It was not a reflection on the weakness of the US Attorney at all. You would have to be Pedro Guerrero to fail that question.

Besides this wouldn't have constituted perjury had Bonds answered 86 anyway. This entire point was lame.

Bonds did very well and from what I can tell, did nothing to make it easy for the government to convict him. It was actually quite impressive.

I don't see the posts to which this most likely ought to be aimed

Just look for anything that starts with "Kevin."

Your post is right, with one caveat: in math/science, a claim may be true even if it can't be supported, and you should think, "Well, I can't prove it now, but someday someone will." There's some underlying objective truth that will eventually be determinable. In other words, there's some conception of Truth. In law, there isn't. In theory, there often is; that is, either Bonds knowingly used steroids or he didn't. (Although not always; for instance, some crimes will turn on whether a particular person's actions were "reasonable." That's inherently an opinion.) But in practice, it's not that we can keep on digging, do more experiments or make more observations and eventually get to the Truth. One person says X, one person says not-X. We have to decide which one we believe more, but it's not necessarily susceptible to "proof" at all.

David, I didn't say I wasn't aware of those posts, I merely said I didn't "see" the posts themselves. I'd prefer not to be more explicit.

Also, I totally understand your point and, in fact, had originally tried to include a statement incorporating it, but figured my post was already getting long enough. (Plus, I was having trouble finding a way of wording myself clearly regarding the point you made; once again, it wasn't about what I could argue, but what I could argue well enough to convince). Thank you for making that particular point more clearly than I did in my (aborted) attempts.

Lastly, interestingly enough, I think one could argue that math (overall) has no more absolute truth than any other discipline. Every branch of mathematics starts with its own set of unprovable assumptions and goes on from there (at which point we can argue truth, but only given that set of assumptions). Euclidean Geometry is no more or less true than non-Euclidean Geometry, even if the two start with mutually exclusive assumptions (or so I understand -- I'm no expert). In other words, math is all made up in the first place -- mathematicians still get to make choices about which "truth" to accept (in the sense of which assumptions to make) and work from there.

Anyway, that was just a thought that occurred to me after reading your post (a trivial point -- your point is much more practical and I agree with it. We may have a good sense that Fermat is right but have to wait more than 300 years for someone to prove that he was (about the theorem's being right, not that he could prove it, that is). You make the point better than I would have.

"Man, they couldn't even trip him up with this one: :-)"

No kidding. But there is nothing to trip him with here. Maybe you had to think 10 min about it AnutBea, but it was a lame attempt to "trip him", if it was an attempt at all.

It was not a reflection on the weakness of the US Attorney at all. You would have to be Pedro Guerrero to fail that question.

Besides this wouldn't have constituted perjury had Bonds answered 86 anyway. This entire point was lame.

I'm kinda new to this whole internets stuff, but i'm pretty sure that ":-)" represents that he made a funny.

I was too old for WWI, what's the internets? I want one.

And there will be things which are simply unprovable too.

e.g. Fermat's Last Theorem. Before Andrew Wiles came along, many believed that Fermat's Last Theorem was mathematically unprovable. Were that the case, there would be no set of integers for which the theorem failed - otherwise the theorem would be disprovable. Consequently, we would know that the Theorem was true and unprovable.

The Continuum Hypothesis, though, has been shown to be mathematically unprovable under standard set theory axioms. But it does not follow that the hypothesis is true (or false). People argue about that one.

Anderson: Barry, I need a urine sample, a stool sample and a semen sample.
Bonds: I'm kind of in a hurry. Can I just leave my underwear?