And your definition of troll seems a bit restrictive.

That's why I allowed for the possibility that you were using a different definition than me. Where I come from (rsbb), a troll is a person who comes in with the express purpose of riling people up. Tommy seems to have come here with a genuine interest in discussing the issues, then got his back up and began tossing around insults when things got contentious. To my mind, that's a very different thing.

My larger concern is that I don't want to dissuade people from posting here by dismissing them as trolls when they may just be in a bad mood, or misinformed, or generally obnoxious.

Here is additional proof that David Nopoint is not a lawyer: he points out that Conte has denied making the statement, but does not acknowledge that (i) it's the word of a convicted felon vs. the word of federal investigators

Yeah, it's kind of unforunate that federal investigators can't be trusted more than convicted felons to be honest, but I don't see how you think that helps your argument.

Yeah, it's kind of unforunate that federal investigators can't be trusted more than convicted felons to be honest...

Libertarian hackles raised!

bobm, I still don't understand your argument, so let me back up. As I see it, the thread proceeded in this order:

1. Andy argued that Bonds was better than Mantle, making it express that he was putting aside the PEDs issue in making the argument. Since we all know how Andy opposes PEDs, we were all proceeding on the assumption that this was for the sake of argument only.

2. Mantle can't win an argument on this ground, so his supporters shifted it to Bonds pre-steroids-accusations. IOW, it wasn't that the Bonds side wanted to ignore the effect of steroids (the way you phrased it), but that the Mantle supporters did NOT want to ignore it. To be clear, I'm not blaming them for that; I'm just noting the sequence.

3. The argument on this basis was that Mantle had a better sustained peak (defined as 10 years). The problem with this argument is that Mantle doesn't win this either, all he gets is a draw.

4. At this point -- that is, with steroids irrelevant either way -- Tommy jumped in with his posts. Screaming about steroids was pointless because (a) Bonds career post-98 had been cited with that issue put aside for argument sake; and (b) the other argument in favor of Mantle didn't work even for Bonds through 1998.

Now, as I've said, I think there are other arguments to be made for Mantle, but they've yet to be made and Tommy certainly hasn't made them.

Tommy, i dont think there is a tape that exists saying anderson gave bonds steriods, if there was we would know, it would have been leaked with the other stuff to help convict him in the court of public opinion. and please show me concrete proof that it exists. and just because you left it with elvis and hoffa doesnt count

Here's a link, DFA Silva. It will take you a google page with hundreds of links to various news organizations and media outlets reporting both the existence of the tape in which Anderson makes his admissions and the existence of the test Bonds failed for steroid use: http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMI_enUS358US358&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=bonds+steroids+anderson+secretly+recorded

Here's just a taste: "Barry Bonds was using an "undetectable" performance-enhancing drug during the 2003 baseball season his weight trainer claimed in a conversation that was secretly recorded last year and provided to The Chronicle."

i dont want a google page im lazy, just give me a direct link much easier

i dont want a google page im lazy, just give me a direct link much easier

No need to click at all, DFA. Just wait as other commenters confirm that you're wrong, and that the existence of this tape has been confirmed directly by various news outlets and reported by literally every major news organization in the country.

Don't you read newspapers? Don't you watch the TV?

I've quoted accurately from the article and provided the link to the article, which says:

I acknowledge that you quoted accurately from the article. It is incorrect, however. Surprise! Sometimes the media gets stories wrong. Particularly ones that require understanding of technical issues, such as legal or scientific ones.

Conte told investigators this, and Conte's admission is set forth in court records. The article I've linked to is unequivocal on this and the fact that Conte made these statements to investigators has been widely reported.

Conte's alleged admission is set forth in an affidavit supplied by Jeff Novitzky, which is not actually a "court record." The fact that Novitzky claims this has been widely reported; nobody can "report" that it happened, since nobody was there except Conte and Novitzky.

Here is additional proof that David Nopoint is not a lawyer: he points out that Conte has denied making the statement, but does not acknowledge that (i) it's the word of a convicted felon vs. the word of federal investigators, and (ii) Conte's statement, as a statement against his interests, is inherently more credible than Conte's self-serving denial. If DN were a lawyer, he would have acknowledged this.

Whether it's "more credible" is purely a matter of opinion; I find Conte more credible than Novitzky. Contrary to your claim, it was not "self-serving" for Conte to deny it, because he did so after he had already pleaded guilty; he had no incentive to lie. And he told the truth about other athletes such as Marion Jones; no reason why he'd single out Bonds for protection.

Oh, and then there's the matter of the tape in which Anderson admits that Bonds was using "undetectable" performance enhancing drugs.

I haven't heard any such tape. Neither have you.

Note that David cannot deny that (i) Conte admitted to investigators that Anderson had supplied steroids to Bonds,

Wrong; I can and do deny it. It's Conte's word against Novitzky's, and I find Conte more credible. Conte is not the only person who has accused Novitzky of lying about what he said, and Novitzky's claim is inherently incredible; his description of events is full of procedural irregularities.

if that evidence was so great and all why the #### isnt he conviceted instead of having most of the crap thrown out?

DN: Tommy is either a troll or some variant on a Turing Test. Either way, save your "breath" -- there is no real personality there to convince, and nobody is paying attention to his BS.

I haven't heard any such tape. Neither have you.

True. You and I haven't heard it. But the S.F. Chronicle has heard it:

"Barry Bonds was using an "undetectable" performance-enhancing drug during the 2003 baseball season his weight trainer claimed in a conversation that was secretly recorded last year and provided to The Chronicle."

Here's the link, David: http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-10-16/news/17447847_1_bonds-attorney-michael-rains-trainer-greg-anderson-steroid-testing

David, I think you can still limit the damage to your credibility by forthrightly admitting you were wrong, that the tape does indeed exist, and that it's been heard by the S.F. Chronicle, who has reported that Anderson did indeed claim to have provided Bonds with "undetectable" PEDs.

tommy that report ties into the balco investigation and the whole proving weather or not he knownengly took them. also in other articles it mentions that he had reason to create something to be used as a barginning chip because of his situation at the time....he was forging bonds autograph and selling the items fora a profit

Guys there is in fact an Anderson tape.

It's also worth noting that Judge Alsup, (who had read a transcript of the tape) called it "worthless as evidence".

Story of Anderson's appeal

Note that this tape is perhaps one reason why Anderson won't talk to prosecutors. (It's complicated but basically he appear to feel he was treated unfairly in the initial investigation -- using the tape tape shape their line of questioning. Any number of jadges have disagreed with him -- including the Alsup quote above)

The other (mentioned in the article) is that Anderson seems to have believed he had a deal and didn't have to testify further. Judge Alsup found no such agreement.

Well, we now know two things about DFA Silva: he, like David, is not a lawyer, and (ii) he doesn't really care if he sounds ridiculous or not. DFA claims that someone who may have been forging Bonds' autograph and selling the items, a financial crime that would NEVER result in any jail and likely would not have even constituted a felony, would elect to fabricate a tape, lie to federal investigators and potentially perjure himself in falsely authenticating the tape in a court, thereby subjecting himself to a potential sentence of more than 20 years in prison, in an effort to avoid a non-felony, no-jail conviction on the autograph forgery.

Do you really believe this DFA? Would you subject yourself to 20 years in prison in order to avoid a misdemeanor conviction that would never result in jail?

Actually, having read some of DFA's posts, he probably would! But no one with half a brain EVER would do such a thing.

what he was commit was fraud and was being investigated for it until the whole balco thing came up. but you are right im not a lawyer, never have claimed to be one. however fraud is a felony especially since it could be considered interstate commerce so the feds get in which increases penalty's pus conspiracy to commit fraud and all the other assorted charges that come into play plus monetary damages and what not so yeah no reason not to create something that would be a get out of jail free card for playing nice to the crazy irs agent with a vendetta

happy? i used spell check

Here's what the Barry Melonhead's supporters want you to believe. Ask yourself if it's credible.

They want you to believe that Anderson, though innocent, incurred a contempt of court conviction for refusing to testify and served three months in jail, when all he had to do was truthfully testify that he'd never given Bonds steroids! Ask David why Anderson would do such a thing? Would YOU go to jail when you had the option of truthfully testifying that you hadn't done something illegal?

The also want you to believe that Anderson's taped admission of supplying Bonds with PEDs was fabricated by someone who may have been forging Bonds' autograph, which fabrication would subject this person to more than 20 years in prison, when a guilty plea on the forgery charge would certainly have NOT resulted in prison time. Would YOU risk 20 years in jail in order to avoid a no-jail conviction on a petty autograph forgery scheme?

I've seen first year law school students come up with more credible scenarios. David and DFA should stop playing lawyer and listen to a real lawyer.

i dont know his reasons for not testifying it could be for something else altogether. we dont know, no one does. and really i dont give a #### if i sound like a lawyer or not, im not pretending to be one im just pointing out that if this evidence was so good then why didnt they go to trial last spring or any other time since they have had the magic bullet there all along

i dont know why im trying. there is probly tens of thousands of posts about this whole subject that cover this over and over and over

They want you to believe that Anderson, though innocent, incurred a contempt of court conviction for refusing to testify and served three months in jail, when all he had to do was truthfully testify that he'd never given Bonds steroids! Ask David why Anderson would do such a thing? Would YOU go to jail when you had the option of truthfully testifying that you hadn't done something illegal?

Serious answer. If it were me, I'd start by asking: Who determines "the truth"? Are those people biased in any way? Can I trust that they will be fair and objective?

Just because something is true doesn't mean that others will accept that it is.

for the right price ill testify that i wipe ass with my tounge so what does that tell you

for the right price ill testify that i wipe ass with my tounge so what does that tell you

That you have a lot in common with Brian from Family Guy?

8-)

DB

They want you to believe that Anderson, though innocent, incurred a contempt of court conviction for refusing to testify and served three months in jail, when all he had to do was truthfully testify that he'd never given Bonds steroids! Ask David why Anderson would do such a thing? Would YOU go to jail when you had the option of truthfully testifying that you hadn't done something illegal?

You're confused, again. Anderson is guilty, and already pleaded guilty. (But not to giving steroids to Bonds.) He spent three months in jail for that.

He spent time in jail -- he was not "convicted" -- for contempt for refusing to testify against Bonds. Not three months, but 16. Why would he do that, if Bonds was guilty? All he would have to do is say that he gave steroids to Bonds, and he could go home. But he refused to say that, despite all the pressure the government could put on him, including threatening his family.

Tommy the Cat apparently can't tell the difference between "Anderson said" and "Someboday said this about Anderson."

I find this hysterical, but not particularly surprising.

Not three months, but 16.

Wait, I think he was jailed for contempt twice - once for 16 days and once later in the year for three months.

edit: From what I was able to find, the second time was from Aug 06 to Nov 07, which would be 15 months.

Why would he do that, if Bonds was guilty? All he would have to do is say that he gave steroids to Bonds, and he could go home.

I'm not sure I understand. If Bonds weren't guilty, why in the world would he refuse to testify? At least if Bonds were guilty, there would be a plausible reason to refuse to testify.

The reason to refuse to testify is that if he testifies and doesn't say exactly what the prosecutors want, he is afraid that they will prosecute (persecute) him for perjury. Simply, he doesn't trust them.

Wait, I think he was jailed for contempt twice - once for 16 days and once later in the year for three months.

He was jailed for contempt twice; one for a couple of weeks (and then the grand jury expired), and then once for over a year (for the second grand jury).

I'm not sure I understand. If Bonds weren't guilty, why in the world would he refuse to testify? At least if Bonds were guilty, there would be a plausible reason to refuse to testify.

If Bonds isn't guilty, but the prosecution wanted him to say that Bonds was guilty, he might refuse to testify. What's the "plausible reason" if Bonds were guilty? To protect Bonds? Why would Anderson be willing to go to jail to protect a guilty Bonds? It's one thing to protect an innocent person, but a guilty one?

I'm not sure I understand. If Bonds weren't guilty, why in the world would he refuse to testify? At least if Bonds were guilty, there would be a plausible reason to refuse to testify.

Anderson has three choices:

1. Don't testify and go to jail on contempt;
2. Testify that he gave Bonds steroids and go home;
3. Testify that he did not give Bonds steroids and.....?

Only one of 2 and 3 could be done truthfully, obviously.

If Anderson did give Bonds steroids, 2 would seem to be the logical choice. Those who think Anderson supplied Bonds argue that Anderson is doing 1 instead as a favor to Bonds (perhaps in return for a payout, but that would cause its own set of problems for each of them).

If Anderson didn't give Bonds steroids, doing 3 leaves Anderson vulnerable to a perjury rap, regardless of whether he perjured himself. So doing 1 begins to look more attractive.

The reason to refuse to testify is that if he testifies and doesn't say exactly what the prosecutors want, he is afraid that they will prosecute (persecute) him for perjury. Simply, he doesn't trust them.

So then they falsely prosecute him, and their case fails because he told the truth (that Bonds is innocent). Considering the unlikely odds of a false conviction for perjury, how could this be a worse fate for him than being jailed for contempt?

What's the "plausible reason" if Bonds were guilty? To protect Bonds? Why would Anderson be willing to go to jail to protect a guilty Bonds? It's one thing to protect an innocent person, but a guilty one?

Maybe he has something to gain from Bonds by protecting him.

In any case, the explanations for going to jail to protect a guilty Bonds make a lot more sense than those for protecting an innocent Bonds.

So then they falsely prosecute him, and their case fails because he told the truth (that Bonds is innocent). Considering the unlikely odds of a false conviction for perjury, how could this be a worse fate for him than being jailed for contempt?

I think his risk assessment varies significantly from yours. Being charged is a significant consequence that might be just as bad as being jailed and getting it over with (just like people can plead guilty even if they're not or settle even if they didn't do whatever negligent action they were accused with). And probabilities in this case are totally screwed up. If you read the transcript of Barry Bonds' testimony, would you have thought they could possibly have sought perjury charges? Most legal commentators were shocked the feds appealed Judge Illston's evidence ruling (unless it was some sort of CYA move so they can let the case disappear without further embarrassment). Motives in this case, and Anderson's involvement, has seemed more personal than legal so his perceptions of likelihood of bad things happening to him are going to be far higher than yours.

So then they falsely prosecute him, and their case fails because he told the truth (that Bonds is innocent).

Seems so simple to you, I guess. Ask the three innocent Duke students how that all was working out for them, until the prosecutor finally ended his insane crusade and handed the case over to the North Carolina AG.

The point is not whether misconduct on the incredible scale of what Mike Nifong did is common these days; the point is that when prosecutors are hell bent on proceeding with a criminal case even in the face of evidence of innocence, it may not do much good that the defendant has The Truth on his side. One doesn't want a "day in court" in front of a jury if one doesn't have to have one. The innocent Duke students certainly didn't want to put their lives in the hands of a jury for no reason at all.

I doubt that if you were in Anderson's shoes and had the truth on your side (which is the hypothetical under discussion) that you would want to leave your fate in the hands of prosecutors who didn't believe you, and later a jury. Somehow I don't think you'd be so certain about the outcome under those conditions.

Maybe he has something to gain from Bonds by protecting him.

That's the single riskiest path for either Bonds or Anderson. Both would be looking at obstruction of justice charges.

As to why he won't testify I'm pretty sure it's simply a belief that he had a deal with prosecutors that he didn't have to testify further. People can get weirdly stubborn when they believe the other people have broken their word.

And if I'm right that in no way speaks to what he could testify to.

Motives in this case, and Anderson's involvement, has seemed more personal than legal so his perceptions of likelihood of bad things happening to him are going to be far higher than yours.

This might be true, but unless he's the type of defendant who doesn't listen to his lawyer (which is entirely plausible), I'd think Geragos's assessment of the probabilities in the case are better than anyone else's and he has a reasonable sense of the likely outcomes.

I doubt that if you were in Anderson's shoes and had the truth on your side (the hypothetical under discussion) that you would want to leave your fate in the hands of prosecutors who didn't believe you, and later a jury. Somehow I don't think you'd be so certain about the outcome in that case.

It depends on what's at stake, what the alternative is, the penalty in the court of public opinion, and the odds of a false conviction. The Duke case was certainly not even comparable on the first three of those factors, and the fourth is uncertain, but even there probably not comparable.

I'm no apologist for prosecutors, but I'm skeptical that the US Attorney would be so hellbent on securing Bonds's perjury conviction that it would expend the tremendous time and resources to fabricate a perjury charge against Anderson, considering the unlikelihood of a conviction. In the Duke case, there were completely different factors at play driving the prosecution.

If you read the transcript of Barry Bonds' testimony, would you have thought they could possibly have sought perjury charges?

"I was like, Dude, whatever."

It depends on what's at stake, what the alternative is, the penalty in the court of public opinion, and the odds of a false conviction. The Duke case was certainly not even comparable on the first three of those factors, and the fourth is uncertain, but even there probably not comparable.

Charges, indictments, trials, convictions, and sentences throw upheaval into peoples' lives. Granted so does sitting in jail for contempt, but it's not like he had a host of good options available to him.

I'm no apologist for prosecutors, but I'm skeptical that the US Attorney would be so hellbent on securing Bonds's perjury conviction that it would expend the tremendous time and resources to not only fabricate a perjury charge against Anderson, considering the unlikelihood of a conviction.

I think I read some months ago that the government had, at that time, already spent some $50 million trying to convict Bonds... on perjury and obstruction charges. Either way, it's been six years since he testified and yet they persist. That sounds pretty "hellbent" to me. And the longer they go, the more reason they might have to try to secure some sort of conviction in order to justify the time, resources, and expense.

And the longer they go, the more reason they might have to try to secure some sort of conviction in order to justify the time, resources, and expense.

Wouldn't want it known your prosecutorial goal was career advancement, fame, or "I hate Barry Bonds so I'll defame him, get him out of baseball before his time is up, and cause him general misery" as opposed to justice.

I'm confused as to why someone higher up the chain has not called a stop to this.

Wouldn't want it known your prosecutorial goal was career advancement, fame, or "I hate Barry Bonds so I'll defame him, get him out of baseball before his time is up, and cause him general misery" as opposed to justice.

Look at the Ted Stevens fiasco, for another example of recent misconduct by federal prosecutors. Or, to pick even more recent examples, the Broadcom prosecution or the Blackwater prosecution, both of which were dismissed by federal judges last month because of prosecutorial misconduct.

So then they falsely prosecute him, and their case fails because he told the truth (that Bonds is innocent). Considering the unlikely odds of a false conviction for perjury, how could this be a worse fate for him than being jailed for contempt?

Anderson's side has publicly discussed his resentment at having the prosecutor agree to a deal with him, only to renege on its terms.

Anderson may also be reluctant to bankrupt himself and his family by fighting an openended prosecution that has yet to make its opening statement against the any-fool-knows-he's-guilty-it's-obvious Barry Bonds as of January, 2010.

Both of these things can be true even if the government's version of events is 100% accurate.