User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.0715 seconds
45 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, December 09, 2011
NY Times: Prosecutors Seek 15 Months in Barry Bonds Case
In court documents filed late Thursday, prosecutors objected to a recommendation by a federal probation officer that Bonds get only probation when he’s sentenced for obstruction of justice on Dec. 16.
In the documents, prosecutors asked that Bonds be sentenced to 15 months in prison. ...
Federal sentencing guidelines for conviction on the obstruction charge recommend a prison sentence between 15 and 21 months. But Bonds’ lawyers have cited an investigative report prepared by a federal probation officer for the judge that recommended a sentence of probation.
Defense lawyers said in a previous motion they disagreed, however, with the probation report’s recommendation that Bonds spend an unspecified time under “location monitoring,” a form of house arrest.
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Joey Votto to have season-ending shoulder surgery on torn rotator cuff
(53 - 1:49am, Aug 20)
Last: John Reynard
Newsblog: Braves get an early jump on Dansby Swanson extension talks
(9 - 1:30am, Aug 20)
Last: John Reynard
Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for the week of August 15-22, 2022
(155 - 1:25am, Aug 20)
Last: cardsfanboy
Newsblog: Athletics release Andrus in final year of $120M deal
(22 - 12:03am, Aug 20)
Last: Howie Menckel
Newsblog: Video shows Tony La Russa may have listened to fan in stands before putting pinch runner in
(31 - 11:00pm, Aug 19)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy
Newsblog: Two no-hitters in one game. How?
(8 - 9:52pm, Aug 19)
Last: Cooper Nielson
Newsblog: The Six-Man Rotation May Be Baseball’s Next Evolutionary Step
(10 - 7:57pm, Aug 19)
Last: Doug Jones threw harder than me
Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - European Leages Return
(48 - 7:56pm, Aug 19)
Last: Mefisto
Newsblog: After 19 Years of ‘Managing,’ He Finally Gets to Be a Manager
(4 - 7:18pm, Aug 19)
Last: mathesond
Newsblog: Atlanta Braves player Marcell Ozuna arrested for DUI
(4 - 5:57pm, Aug 19)
Last: Itchy Row
Newsblog: He got a job via LinkedIn -- Major League player
(13 - 5:20pm, Aug 19)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)
Newsblog: Top 100 prospects updated 2022 midseason rankings
(21 - 5:15pm, Aug 19)
Last: BDC
Newsblog: Sources: New York Mets to call up touted 3B prospect Brett Baty
(13 - 2:51pm, Aug 19)
Last: asinwreck
Newsblog: Josh Donaldson delivers for New York Yankees with grand slam walk-off in 10th inning
(6 - 11:01am, Aug 19)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick
Newsblog: Yankees four-time All-Star Dellin Betances retires
(7 - 11:27pm, Aug 18)
Last: mex4173
(53 - 1:49am, Aug 20)
Last: John Reynard
Newsblog: Braves get an early jump on Dansby Swanson extension talks
(9 - 1:30am, Aug 20)
Last: John Reynard
Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for the week of August 15-22, 2022
(155 - 1:25am, Aug 20)
Last: cardsfanboy
Newsblog: Athletics release Andrus in final year of $120M deal
(22 - 12:03am, Aug 20)
Last: Howie Menckel
Newsblog: Video shows Tony La Russa may have listened to fan in stands before putting pinch runner in
(31 - 11:00pm, Aug 19)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy
Newsblog: Two no-hitters in one game. How?
(8 - 9:52pm, Aug 19)
Last: Cooper Nielson
Newsblog: The Six-Man Rotation May Be Baseball’s Next Evolutionary Step
(10 - 7:57pm, Aug 19)
Last: Doug Jones threw harder than me
Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - European Leages Return
(48 - 7:56pm, Aug 19)
Last: Mefisto
Newsblog: After 19 Years of ‘Managing,’ He Finally Gets to Be a Manager
(4 - 7:18pm, Aug 19)
Last: mathesond
Newsblog: Atlanta Braves player Marcell Ozuna arrested for DUI
(4 - 5:57pm, Aug 19)
Last: Itchy Row
Newsblog: He got a job via LinkedIn -- Major League player
(13 - 5:20pm, Aug 19)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)
Newsblog: Top 100 prospects updated 2022 midseason rankings
(21 - 5:15pm, Aug 19)
Last: BDC
Newsblog: Sources: New York Mets to call up touted 3B prospect Brett Baty
(13 - 2:51pm, Aug 19)
Last: asinwreck
Newsblog: Josh Donaldson delivers for New York Yankees with grand slam walk-off in 10th inning
(6 - 11:01am, Aug 19)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick
Newsblog: Yankees four-time All-Star Dellin Betances retires
(7 - 11:27pm, Aug 18)
Last: mex4173
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Bob Tufts Posted: December 09, 2011 at 04:07 PM (#4011385)I feel safer already. Too bad Bonds wasn't running guns or he'd be free today!
So, DoJ is giving Bonds the lowest recommended sentence and you think they're being unfair to him?
Free? Hell, he'd have a management position in the ATF.
Is the ATF the most useless and corrupt Federal Agency, or am I forgetting someone?
Considering the obstruction was rambling for a few minutes before giving an honest answer, yes.
Yes**
Heck, 15 months is almost 3x longer than Victor Conte, the developer and distributor of these "undetectable steroids," received.
**The DOJ isn't "giving" Bonds anything. They are asking the Judge to sentence him to a prison term
Snapper, I asked Rick Perry for his opinion and he's still stuck in a loop after naming two.
Rick Perry makes George W Bush sound like Winston F****** Churchill, and that takes some doing.
EDIT: GODDAMNIT.
The TSA says hi.
This is the guy who called up his mistress and threatened to cut her head off and leave her in a ditch. Yeah, he's a real f*cking prince of a man.
Homeland Security is infinitely worse. Also, the ATF is no worse and possibly better than the DEA, FBI, or CIA.
And fair equal application of the law protects even those of whom among us are a##holes.
Why should Bonds and Clemens be facing jail time for perjury when Rangel, Holder, Breuer and a parade of members of the ruling class get a free pass for lying to Congress? They risked the lives of Americans at the border (say "won't somebody please think of the children" in both English and Spanish) and also used our tax dollars fraudulently.
not an "agency," but yes, Congress.
I agree, and fair and equal application of the law calls for a recommended sentence of 15 to 21 months for the felony of obstruction of justice. And I understand that it's the job of his attorneys to fight on his behalf, but I don't know what the hell this alleged probation officer is supposedly talking about. The idea that Bonds deserves leniency because of his high moral character doesn't pass the laugh test for a second. He's a scumbag, and it's been common knowledge for over twenty years that he's a scumbag.
The fact that members of the ruling class often get away with much worse is true, but not relevant. You don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
Gentlemen, gentlemen, don't argue. There's room in jail for all of them.
I'm still fuming about that speeding ticket I got when all those other drivers were going even faster! The hypocrisy!
Not that Bonds should be doing time, but these irrelevant comparisons don't do much to advance the case.
Lots faster. Hell, I yelled, "Get a horse!" when I passed you.
Messers Holder, Breuer and Rangel (the people that write and enforce the laws) have been allowed to shall we say "revise and extend" their remarks due to some perverse courtesy, while Bonds (who eventually answered the question) is going to jail.
And if the question asked and answered and judge's instructions in the Bonds case were a speeding ticket, I'm certain all of you would have fought it.
Odds on Bonds converting to Islam in jail?
Yeah, they work for the President.
Andy, it's people like you and Joey B. (and Mike Lupica and Murray Chass and...) who whipped up the frenzy about steroids to begin with. So you expressing dismay over the fact that a small issue like steroids use turned into a $50 million criminal investigation and trial is pretty weak. I hope you realize that.
At least Joey isn't pretending that this wasn't the natural outcome of the hysteria.
Ray, the only "frenzy" I ever "whipped up" was to say that random testing should have been agreed to by the players' union, and that juicers should be blackballed from the HoF. I've never accused a single player of steroid use who wasn't either tested positive or credibly named, and you know that.
I agreed with the first set of hearings when I thought that baseball was dragging its feet on the matter, but at no time have I ever thought that a ballplayer's personal drug use should ever be part of the government's criminal concern.
I realize that all you really want to do here is to drag up your old "hypocrisy" charges about steroids vs. amphetamines, blah blah blah blah blah, and start that debate all over again, but some of us realize that criminal trials and Hall of Fame votes are two entirely separate matters of concern. And some of us realize that on this issue there's a lot of territory between you and Murray Chass.
I sense a new Nike "I am not a role model" campaign......
Messers Holder, Breuer and Rangel (the people that write and enforce the laws) have been allowed to shall we say "revise and extend" their remarks due to some perverse courtesy, while Bonds (who eventually answered the question) is going to jail.
Yeah, that's what congressmen do, and in general ignoring the law is what powerful people in all walks of life from finance to movie stars often get away with. Bonds just happens to be among those that didn't get away with it, and while we can (and should) decry his fate on many grounds, he's hardly the only example of this sort of unequal justice that springs to mind. Which is why I say that the "hypocrisy" charge, while true, isn't one that's likely to stick.
You can't separate these things out. Once you support HOF blackballing and Congressional hearings (for the love of god) into the matter, you have contributed to whipping up the frenzy.
What did you think would happen in the criminal arena once Congressional hearings were held (thereby "validating" the criminal inquiries) and once and people were put under oath?
As I said, at least Joey isn't pretending that $50 million investigations and trials weren't the natural outcome of the hysteria.
You know, Bonds could have told the truth under oath.
According to the trial, he did, but his crime was that he was "evasive" about it...which is kind of ironic, because, IIRC, he did answer the question, just a few minutes down the road.
WTH?
Bonds is appealing this travesty, I hope...
I would say a smell test would be applied regarding charitable, foundation, and community work, none of which you seem to be smelling. I don't know what type of that stuff is on his record, but if it is, your smell test is invalid. And yes, he is still probably an ass hole.
Aside from what Ron noted in #35, if you have good evidence that Bonds perjured himself, fine, prosecute him. But to spend $50 million investigating that? W.T.F.
No, there isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Plata
(Just trying to draw attention to the cruel and unusual nature of the U.S. prison system.)
I agreed with the first set of hearings when I thought that baseball was dragging its feet on the matter, but at no time have I ever thought that a ballplayer's personal drug use should ever be part of the government's criminal concern.
You can't separate these things out. Once you support HOF blackballing and Congressional hearings (for the love of god) into the matter, you have contributed to whipping up the frenzy.
As usual, you love to set up a scenario where the only alternatives are your way or the highway, where it's impossible to want known steroid users kept out the Hall of Fame without the eventual spectacle of Barry Bonds behind bars. I could just as absurdly claim that anyone who doesn't favor a HoF blackball is in favor of steroids. In your case, I might be correct in saying that, but there are plenty of others who want steroids out of the game but don't think that a HoF blackball for pre-testing era violators is the proper way to make a statement about that---a wholly legitimate form of disagreement.
What did you think would happen in the criminal arena once Congressional hearings were held (thereby "validating" the criminal inquiries) and once and people were put under oath?
As if every day we don't see prosecutors choose to prosecute some potential cases and not others.
At bottom your position on this is no different from your position on every other subject: You can't bear to have the slightest form of disagreement with your chosen position, unless it comes in the form of an opposition so extreme that it becomes easy to caricature and discredit. You simply can't acknowledge the concept of "agreeing to disagree", because like all ideologues, you demand absolute agreement or a cartoon opposition. I'm sorry I can't accommodate you.
Joey, in the criminal justice world Bonds is not a scumbag. Scumbags actually do kill people, beat women, deal drugs and otherwise exhibit behavior that is frowned on by civilized society. Bonds has been an a$$hole, they are definitely not equivalent.
well there is a continuum from ####### to scumbag...
EQUAL application of the law would seem to call for something between 0 and 5 months...
"fair," ignoring judge not lest though be judged and all that, it wouldn't bother me is Bonds actually does some time... it also wouldn't bother me if the guys who blew several million dollars pursuing this end up working at a collection mill or legal aid society making the lawyer equivalent of minimum wage...
Moreover, juries don't need much of a justification to convict--just a we thought he was lying from the way he looked when he answered the questions is usually plenty sufficient. That's why juries are deferred to--they are there. Algonquin P. Catsmeat DiPerna was not.
And if part of your dream utopia is that prosecutors, judges, juries (legal systems in general and in particular) be uniformly consistent at every level and jurisdiction in every case that falls under the similar designation rubric--well, good luck and may God bless you.
Sure. But this whole thing goes away if Bonds does what Giambi and a bunch of others did.
I'm not saying that Bonds belongs in jail, or that the investigation wasn't a wasteful travesty, but Bonds brought this on himself. You try to BS a grand jury, when they have nothing they can actually convict you on, and you pretty mush deserve what you get.
No, according to ONE juror there wasn't proof he'd lied- he wasn't acquitted- it was a hung jury- and even if he had been acquitted "not guilty" does not necessarily mean "innocent."
This being the court of public opinion I'm quite content to agree with those who believe Bonds lied under oath.
Now of course that wasn't what he was convicted of, what he was convicted of was a bizarre amalgam of the type that can only result from a committee (and what is jury but a committee?)
So in any event, he *could* have told the truth (which is apparently what Giambi did, spilling his guts like a squealing pig) he could have told enough of the truth (like most of the Balco witnesses apparently did) so that you knew what was A and what was B, but no, Bonds got up there and either didn't answer, answered questions not asked, and/or simply lied at times.
I think the blackballing of players for acts that were not against the rules at the time is BS, I think the distinction some try to draw between the PEDs used now versus those used earlier is BS, I think the testing and penalties against PED users and the whole WDA regime is ill-advised and bad policy - I also think Marijuana should be legal (Actually I think some but not all drugs that are currently illegal should be legal).
I also think that when you are sworn in by the judicial system and under oath you should tell the truth.
Free? Hell, he'd have a management position in the ATF.
Or eligible for a big tax deduction if he were a big bidness man.
Or at least a bishop, if not a cardinal, if he were in the church, with access to Penn State's shower facilities. (Yeah, see how unfair that can become when everyone gets dragged down to that level.)
Jeeze, you could at least be timely and go with the college coaches.
Of course he is. But, at this point, he can't do so until the proceedings in the trial court are final.
The chatter may be even more moot than that. No sentence will be served until after the appeal. And Bonds' one conviction stands an actual chance of being overturned on one of two points: if a future court is unimpressed with Bonds' meandering statement qualifying as evasion, and whether the prosecutors' failure to specifically cite the statement in the indictment papers means Bonds' lawyers never received the legally required notice. The second point seems more telling; perhaps our resident lawyers can speculate further. Either way, it's likely that some people's cherished mental image of Barry Bonds breaking rocks in the hot sun while wearing striped pajamas will remain just that.
No, I couldn't. I wanted to make sure it didn't sneak past your eyes and over your head into the asteroid belt.
The CIA will remember you said that.
DB
Considering how much we hear and read about the constant gridlock in the nation's capitol, I think it should warm the hearts of many to see that when it comes to screwing Barry Bonds, the spirit of bipartisanship is alive and well.
DB
Or the bipartisan spirit of political expediency.
Being seen as "soft" on Barry Bonds** doesn't have much more of a political future than being seen as soft on child molesters. I'd personally drop the case, but in truth, from a political POV what would be the upside? A 90-10 margin in San Francisco in 2012 instead of 85-15?
**scatological replies anticipated and preemptively laughed at
So Congressional hearings are legitimate if they help us decide who should be in the Hall of Fame?
You supported the initial Congressional hearings. That means you favored putting people under oath in front of Congress to discuss this. Which is what led to Palmeiro being investigated for perjury, and is what led to the Congressional hearing that had the specific purpose of laying a perjury trap for Clemens, which is what led to Clemens's indictment.
Once you support a crusade, Andy, you can't act all shocked and innocent when the crusade leads to places you personally wouldn't have allowed it to go.
The Murray Chasses of the world write for you, because you lend them your ear.
It was a $50 million investigation, Andy. For a nothing issue.
I don't know what "agree to disagree" even means, or accomplishes. Is the purpose of it so that we can pretend that a farcical position such as yours on this topic is legitimate? If we have disagreement, we know it, and everyone can see it. There is nothing to "agree" about. Agree that we disagree? What is that, like agreeing that Abe Lincoln was once president?
Anyone care to guess what the monthly tab runs when you're defending yourself against this kind of prosecution?
edit: speaking of Brown v. Plata, is it possible Scalia will EVER find himself on the correct side of a case? You'd think, blind squirrel, nut, at some point, right?
I don't know, I call bullshit on that! That's like saying Scott Boras' public asking prices are merely openings to negotatiations from which he eventually comes down a bit.
Once you support a crusade, Andy, you can't act all shocked and innocent when the crusade leads to places you personally wouldn't have allowed it to go.
Well, I also voted for Obama. By your impeccable logic, I suppose that means that my vote "led to" every decision he's made, whether I agree with it or not.
Seriously, Ray, do you even pretend to believe all your sophistry and bullshit?
The Murray Chasses of the world write for you, because you lend them your ear.
Right, Ray, as if you're not the one who spends several hours arguing with Chass every time Repoz posts one of his columns, and as if you're not the one who then gets all huffy when I mock people for paying any attention to it. But then I'm sure that nobody here would have realized by now that Jack Morris shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame if you hadn't been on your toes, vigilantly refuting Chass at every opportunity. What would the Hall of Fame do without guardians like you?
I don't know what "agree to disagree" even means, or accomplishes. Is the purpose of it so that we can pretend that a farcical position such as yours on this topic is legitimate? If we have disagreement, we know it, and everyone can see it. There is nothing to "agree" about. Agree that we disagree? What is that, like agreeing that Abe Lincoln was once president?
Well, on the topic that is the subject of this news article, we agree 100% that there never should have been a prosecution in the first place, a POV I reiterated for the umpteenth time right at the beginning of this thread (#3). This isn't about the Hall of Fame, and it isn't about Murray Chass or Mike Lupica or Joey B, none of whom I've ever paid the slightest bit of attention to in forming my opinions about anything. It's about prosecutorial discretion, a concept you've apparently never heard of.
Not to step into this whole, long-running discussion you two have, but in a general sense I think a better analogy would be you are disagreeing about the "fact" that Lincoln attempted to redefine the values of America as morally set out in the republicanism of the Declaration of Independence rather than the legalism of the Constitution.* Neither side of that argument is a "factual" one. You might not be convinced by the argument, or have a degree of scepticism, but "truth" in a discussion like that is never an absolute. For the record I'd incline to your position in this thread. I think the hearings before congress were a mistake from the get-go, and it certainly influenced subsequent events. But the position that it made the Bonds case inevitable isn't a "fact" in the sense that Lincoln was president of the United States is.
*Note - I know next to nothing about American history, so the details of this example may not be relevant either, but I'm hoping the point is clear anyway.
He also thinks that it's "illogical" and "hypocritical" to want to keep steroid users out of the Hall of Fame unless you also agree to keep out amphetamine users, and he refuses to acknowledge that any view contrary to that is legitimate. To Ray the only possible motivation for such an "inconsistent" stance would be to protect one's "boyhood heroes", a view he repeats every time it comes up on his teleprompter. It's one of the most perfect examples of a completely closed belief system you'll ever see, but he obviously thinks that by repeating it over and over he's going to be able to do a "WOO-HOO!" dance once everyone gets tired and just wants to forget the whole thing.
*I'm also lucky that I switched allegiances from my previous boyhood hero Jeff Pico. I have no idea why I had him selected. He was a pretty unimpressive pitcher on a team that wasn't even in the same league as the one I support. I guess I just liked his baseball card. I have the feeling I'd need to engage in a Stalin-level of evil to get him into the Hall.
You're privy to Boras's negotiating strategy and tactics?
I was aiming for sarcasm.
Though I can hardly blame you. I've yet to learn how to incorporate humour into my sarcasm.
Even here though the issue is that the jurors didn't like the way he answered the questions. He rambled -- and not all that long -- and then answered the questions.
The practical upshot is that they've criminalized a reaction to stress. (I know there are a bunch of trial lawyers here. I'm sure they see this every day) Just one additional thing prosecutors can go after you for now.
Of all of the possible outcomes of the trial this is the worst if allowed to stand. A terrible precedent if allowed to stand.
And I expect it to stand. That is I expect Bonds will lose any appeal, meaning that how much he's sentenced to is terribly important.
Oh, I don't know if it's been for nothing. For one thing, I bet a lot of people--mostly worthless celebrities, true, but still--are a lot more careful about what they say to prosecutors and how they say it. Second, things could easily have turned out a whole lot worse for Bonds, beginning with if they could have gotten certain persons to testify.
That's not your call (or mine). And we don't know for sure if that's the entire and sole predicate for their verdict.
Too, that verdict doesn't change anything when it comes to setting precedent. If this case were retried exactly the same way with a different jury (or, hell, the same jury), they could find him not guilty on that one thing on the exact same (putative) basis and be just as justified in doing so. As long as the fact underlying their assessment doesn't change, the juror's prerogative remains. Now, if in fact, he hadn't testified, or testified in a way that supports that decision, that would be different. Individual jurors incomplete explanations for their decision does not establish precedent. Indeed, the juror, the one in this case or a theoretical new one, could have found him guilty on same other of the charges and that would very likely pass muster, too. And, indeed, that was almost the case, wasn't it?
Juries can't set precedents; they are finders of fact, not law. No jury is bound by what another jury found as to facts.
Only a judge or panel of judges, ruling on a point of law can set a precedent. Moreover, a single trial court ruling is not precedent setting for other judges. Only a higher court confirming a ruling of law can set precedent for other courts in that jurisdiction.
Precedents are also not binding outside of their specific jurisdiction. The finding of the highest CA court is not precedent outside of CA. The findings of the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not binding precedent outside of its jurisdiction.
This is the guy who called up his mistress and threatened to cut her head off and leave her in a ditch. Yeah, he's a real f*cking prince of a man.
And fair equal application of the law protects even those of whom among us are a##holes.
Why should Bonds and Clemens be facing jail time for perjury when Rangel, Holder, Breuer and a parade of members of the ruling class get a free pass for lying to Congress? They risked the lives of Americans at the border (say "won't somebody please think of the children" in both English and Spanish) and also used our tax dollars fraudulently.
- because they are politicians, who are morally exemplary-ish. and that makes it OK
barry lamar, on the other hand, broke The Sacred Home Run Record while using legal substances (except for amps, which don't count) and should therefore get a long term in maximum federal pen
BBC, you should say "substances not banned by baseball". They weren't legal for the purposes he was using them.
Oxycodone is "legal", but not for throwing a party on Saturday night.
And as for politicians always escaping the law, do yourself a favor and google "convicted congressmen" or some such combination of words. And then remember two names: Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
Aren't 3 Illinois Governors in jail right now?
Edit: Only 2 currently in jail (Ryan and Blagojevich). 4 of the last 9 have served jail time.
Aren't 3 Illinois Governors in jail right now?
Edit: Only 2 currently in jail (Ryan and Blagojevich). 4 of the last 9 have served jail time.
Wonder what the Final Four would look like? My guess would be Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland and Louisiana.
Didn't Bonds test positive for amps once?
Well this is certainly going to put a crimp in my plans for this evening.
Fun fact. Cocaine is the best local anesthetic for ENT surgery (constricts the blood vessels in the nose and sinus passages), and is used as such in hospitals.
To pick a nit, technically, Blago is not in jail at this moment. He is scheduled to report to prison to begin his 14-year sentence some time in February.
That does leave the cream. Again, under the law at the time you'd have had to demonstrate that it was performance enhancing. I'm not aware of any evidence that it is.
Yes, there are reports that Bonds was using run of the mill steroids before starting with the cream and the clear. No evidence of this though.
It's not so much that they made it legal, as that it was hard to make something illegal that did not yet exist, and so could not be specified in the law. There are constitutional requirements regarding criminal law that mandate a certain specificity such that you can know that what you are doing is illegal.
This can create a particular problem if you try to criminalize drugs by their effects, because then you have to prove the effect, which might require human trials, which would be hard to conduct legally or ethically under the law because of the need for informed consent and the lack of expected therapeutic benefit.
Over time, the drug laws have been re-drafted to try to cover these issues as much as possible, by referring to similar "salts" or isotopes, so that minor changes can not be used to evade the law. But if some new class of recreational drug were to come out, it would have to be separately criminalized.
No admissible evidence, because Greg Anderson refused to testify about doping calenders, etc.
The only potential gotcha I see is that it doesn't have the phrase "includes but is not limited to" before the list of the compounds. I've heard some people argue that still makes anything not included in the list OK, but I wouldn't want to try arguing that proposition in court.
Actually the only semi-plausible explanation I've heard on this is that they thought he'd make a better witness against Bonds if his testimony wasn't a part of a plea deal.
Well, they were talking about the jurors in Bonds's criminal case.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main