Barry Bonds responds to Bob Costas and Patrick 'The Chemist' Arnold

Ahh, yes. The 'Let's try to make it a "Presumed Guilty Bonds Chooses Not to Respond to Hearsay by Costas, Arnold" discussion' gambit.

Nope. Doesn't work that way, at least not legally, in this country. As I've mentioned before, that only plays into a "When did you stop beating your wife?"-type game. You don't dignify hearsay, or at least not much, from a strategy perspective; you only try to shine light on the hearsay-communicators so as to dissuade the court of public opinion from believing further hearsay from their mouths. 'Boy who cried wolf,' and all.

To repeat: Bonds does not have to prove his innocence. Those who seek to see him indicted have to prove his guilt, at least, currently, to the legal standard of obtaining an indictment.

That hasn't happened. In 3 years. That is, in like 2.9 years less than it took to indict Vick.

Bonds is offering the public his view of what he deems a Napoleon-Complex-suffering, sniveling-wannabe-purist (ok, Barry didn't say that last part, that's my own inference of BB's thoughts) Costas, as well as flatly refuting to know - or even have ever seen - Arnold. If Arnold can prove Bonds has seen him - let alone knows him - he is welcome to do so. I believe that is the type of argument we are attempting to proceed with here, isn't it?

"Presumption of innocence." "Legal standard of guilt." "Burden of the prosecution." All apply here.

Which is why, for now, Barry is in the catbird's seat. And Costas and Arnold are not, notwithstanding any T.J. Quinn article's and/or HBO show's smoke-and-mirrors attempt to dilute that fact from the public.

Bell's decision is an enormous victory for Rains and Bonds. And they know it. Bonds took all of 1 day to respond to Costas and Arnold's hearsay. Not sure how much faster the response could have been.


Advantage: Bonds and Rains

Disadvantage: Federal prosecutors, Bell, Arnold, and Napoleon's apparent
psychological doppelganger

 

Costas at the plate

 

Dan Patrick comments on the picture:

'The Whiff'

 

Rok, you're still missing the point.

Bonds goes after Costas. Why didn't he go after Schilling?

And "presumption of innocence" only applies to legal matters, not the court of public opinion where Bonds was convicted of steroid use long ago.

 

Just a minute ago you were harping on those two to STFU. Now you're doing the same damn thing.

STFU already and get back on topic.

 

Good for young Bob.
My understanding was that Schilling really shot off his mouth back in his days with in Arizona. True? False?

 

As much as I usually hate to agree with Boots, he's right here Simon. You are the one stepping out of line and going off topic. Not that boots doesn't do it all the time, but here it's you. Please get back on subject.

This garbage about members of the media being restricted by their "lack of sports background" barely deserves a response, but what the heck? I'll give it another shot.

Do athletes have the type of inside knowledge and connections that would make for a great reporter? Absolutely. Do they have the skills as writers, communicators and interviewers to properly use that knowledge and those connections to produce consistent quality work as print or broadcast journalists? Occasionally, but usually not. Would they be willing to go into the dark corners of the world, to question their current and former teammates and opponents on the field to find the truth? Yeah, right.

People have different skill sets. That's life. No, Bob Costas was never able to hit a 95-MPH fastball....but most athletes can't do what he does...or what Rick Reilly does ....or Roy Blount, Jr. used to do (a favorite of mine who I believe is at least semi-retired)....or Frank Deford....or hundreds of other damn good reporters who bring a heck of a lot more to the table than some "insider" who doesn't know the difference between a nut graph and those things he scratches for 10 minutes when he gets up in the morning. (man, that mental image...I just grossed myself out).

We're journalists. We don't have to be there on the field taking swings and throwing pitches to be able to tell people what happened. When we don't know something, we find out. If we don't, we end up out of a job.

If he wanted to, Bonds probably could be a good baseball broadcaster if he could somehow learn to get past his own ego. He has a tremendous knowledge of baseball and I've always heard how personable and witty he can be when he feels like it. Would he get to the level Costas attained and maintained years ago? I highly doubt it.

 

Because he doesn't have to, legally ...:

...and he did so, public-relations-wise, with his 'midget' remark and saying he doesn't know Arnold.

Schilling? Who in the hell is Schilling?

Oh, right, he's the guy that lobbied to be included in the congressional steroid hearings and then demurred not unlike a tiny female canine when he had his chance to say something pertinent. Yeah, I'm definitely concerned about his voice being listened to by the public if I'm Bonds.

Hulk Hogan doesn't wrestle little Spike Dudley when Dudley calls him out. "Why elevate Dudley?", thinks Hogan.

Or a more relevant example -- If I spent time on SJ responding to every single "clown-of-the-day's" latest, possibly-under-a-different-username's 'attempt' (that's stretching the definition) to engage me, there wouldn't be any time to come up with analysis which might be appropriated by the Peter King's of the world. Time and money are finite resources, you have to use them wisely. Bonds is trying to break a record, and maybe he doesn't want to spend money and time on frivolous trials against the likes of Red Light. At some point, the marginal utility of such a trial is less than the marginal utility of, say, taking another dump. You have to pick your fights.

Bonds is 43. He's only got so much time left in MLB. He's got to do what he needs to do. The rest - particularly when the rest is hearsay and Red Light call-outs - is a time-sink. That's how I would approach it.

I'm going to bounce for a bit. Peace.

 

I'm really glad the brothers Villarreal let us know when they will be away. If they didn't, I'd be worried.

 

Again, you miss the point.

Yes, Schilling is a little bitch for the STFU move he pulled in front of Congress. But Bonds is also a little punk ass bitch for going after Costas instead of Schilling.

Schilling was the one mouthing off about Bonds, not Costas. So why did Bonds target Costas instead of Schilling?

 

I am fairly sure that, if his testimony before Congress was "hallowed by oath" as they say, Schilling would have been immune from any subsequent lawsuits from people he might name, so his excuse is, as far as I know, well, bullshit.