1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Convict Bonds with Evidence, Not Charges

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by creamora, Nov 25, 2007.

  1. "His general arrogance, nastiness and his defiance by continuing to lie (if the prosecution is correct) as he broke the record, probably contributed a great deal to the fact that he put a target on himself."


    The pursuit of a baseball record -- and the mien of the person pursuing it -- should have fuck-all to do with whether or not the federal authorities prosecute anyone. Jesus, if that's true, what a trivial POS this whole investigation is. However, it is of a piece with the passage in the NYT story about Crusader Jeff and his personal dislike of Barry Bonds.
     
  2. Tom Petty

    Tom Petty Guest

    isn't a small part of being smart about not getting busted and spending a lotta time in the joint? just a thought for you, nancy.
     
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Doesn't change the fact that if he broke the law, they have every right to prosecute. I was being HONEST. This isn't about pigeon-holing everything into my little ideological small-minded world view. Famous, arrogant people who lie under oath when they are given immunity, and then publicly call bullshit when the prosecutors have the goods on them, tend to bring the wrath of those prosecutors down on them. I point that out, and what does it do? It gets you on one of your rants about a government "crusader," which is pure nonsense, and the implication that this poor, innocent guy's civil rights are somehow being violated. Sheesh.

    It was why I mentioned Martha Stewart. Fair or not, it's reality. These are not frame ups. They have to go into court and really prove that the person broke the law. If they prove in court that Bonds perjured himself before a grand jury, they've done that. The fact that lots of people don't get prosecuted for lying under oath doesn't excuse the fact that he did, if he did. It's against the fucking law.

    Mostly, though, this tired Novitsky shit is getting old even by the standards of your transparent agendas. Barry Bonds had immunity when he testified before that grand jury. If ANYTHING that proves that there was no "crusading" or a "personal dislike" dictating what is happening right now. You don't give a guy you are going after immunity. They were going after the suppliers -- the BALCO clowns, headed by Victor Conte. If Bonds had told the truth, there would be no prosecution. So let's admit that this "crusader" characterization is your personal opinion, based on a bias that government is always up to something nefarious. I feel justified characterizing you that way, the way you carried on about a crooked prosecutor when you assumed that the government had leaked grand jury testimony. When you found out that wasn't the source of the leak we know about, not a word of contrition or backing off your same previous kinds of rants about the crusaders and the evil government. Instead, you didn't miss a beat and found other made-up bullshit to make the prosecutors or the investigator the ones in the wrong somehow.

    It is patently obvious to most people that Bonds painted a target on his chest by acting like an asshole and lying and virtually challenged the prosecutor to prove that he was lying. They feel they have the goods (I don't know if they do), and they took him up on the challenge. I bet he's sorry he was such an arrogant prick... or probably not, given that arrogant pricks often aren't capable of being sorry for their behavior. That doesn't put Novitsky at fault in any way. He was going after suppliers, not users, and he has done a remarkable job of ferreting out a couple of major suppliers and sending them to prison. It's also clear that he had no intention of going after the users. They typically want to use their resources for the bigger supplier cases. They gave Bonds immunity and all he had to do was tell the truth. They are now alleging that he didn't tell the truth. That is illegal. If they prove that he lied, at what point, rather than slinging this "crusader" bullshit, will just say that Bonds brought this on himself by lying under oath (a crime) and them acting like a supreme asshole (what pisses off the prosecutor and provokes him to bring charges)?
     
  4. I'm sorry you can't keep two ideas in your head without some of one of them leaking out your ears.
    Bonds deserves what he gets after conviction.
    Novitzky is pretty plainly an obsessive on this issue. The NYT piece says as much.
    That will become something of an issue in Bonds's trial
    Why is this hard to understand?
    Is it that hard to hear through that much straw?
     
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    And you haven't really earned the right to be smug or superior, even though you obviously can't resist. I'll let others decide what to make of what I have posted, its truthfulness and whether the opinion parts are well reasoned. I welcome RESPECTFUL disagreement, if there is any. I may or may not be your intellectual equal, Fenian, but at least I don't act like a condescending ass toward people on here, and at least I can form my opinions without the same transparent agendas making me easier to predict than the sunset, even if it means contradicting myself, or making unjust, unproven, slanderous allegations about people, in order to stick to some cult-like bible of ideology I've latched onto. The ultimate in hypocrisy, actually, is acting like you are so concerned about people's civil rights and your hyperbolic rhetoric about how Bonds is being denied a presumption of innocence, and then using the strong, absolute language you have, to label Jeff Novitsky -- who is not under indictment (unlike Bonds) and has never been proven to have violated anyone's rights -- as crooked, a crusader and an investigator with an agenda motivated by personal dislike. Like hell, you care about ruining people's reputations with false allegations or giving people the presumption of innocence. You're the worst offender of all when you take someone for whom you have no proof of wrongdoing and slander him the way you have.
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    The defense can argue that CIA agents strung Barry Bonds up by his feet and beat him until he promised to lie under oath. It doesn't mean it is true. They'll make Novitsky an issue because that is the tactic these BALCO clowns have latched onto. Of course they want to discredit the guy who caught them. Show me one iota of proof that what they say is true. Victor Conte had every opportunity to claim his rights were violated by illegal tactics used by Novitsky. What did he do? Pled guilty to felony charges.

    Basically we have a bunch of admitted felons, a guy currently under indictment, creamora, cranberry and you labeling this guy a crooked cop--with NO proof to back up their claim. Congrats on the company you're keeping.

    If I slander you on this board, will you agree that what I said is true, just because I alleged it? That's exactly what you just said we should do. Oh, Mike Rains is going to make Novitsky an issue in the trial. What more proof do you need that he's crooked?

    And for the 1,000th time, and this is really the crux of the matter, not these bullshit phantons you insist on harping on ... crooked or not, how could Jeff Novitsky possibly have any bearing on whether Barry Bonds lied or told the truth. Only Bonds could control that.

    That is not a strawman's argument. So lay that bullshit to rest please. You clearly can't answer on point, so you label everything straw and resort to smug condescension. It's a disgusting character trait, but if you are going to do it, at least earn the right first.
     
  7. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    I've been reading this and I'm wondering about two things.

    1) Where did FB call Novitsky "crooked"? I've read this three times and can't find it
    2) Is there any chance Ragu could post something that's less than 500 words? JDV was the epitome of brevity in comparison.
     
  8. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    A low blow, and unnecessary.
     
  9. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Well maybe he could try paragraph breaks.
     
  10. I didn't call him crooked. Ever. At all.
    The straw seems to have caught fire.
     
  11. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Yeah, nobody could ever get the impression that you question the guy's ethics and pursuit of his job by what you have posted. Not ever. ::)
     
  12. creamora

    creamora Member

    Ragu,

    You simply don't know the facts of the case and you act like such a know it all. You say Novitzky busted a copule of "large" steroid suppliers. Do you know that the total of all of the drugs confiscated in the case had a value of about fifteen hundred dollars. Much closer to being consistent with personal use than a supply for "an international steroid distribution ring.". The entire quantity found was quite small. The money laundering charge in the case was for a a TOTAL of one hundred dollars. Those are the facts of the case. Evidence of wrongdoing by Novitzky may be the very reason that there was a plea bargain and only short sentences in a Club Fed. The evidence against Bonds has not been seen and the evidence against Novitzky has not been seen either. Youh have no clue what you are talking about regarding the case most of the time. In short, there may be a perjury case within a perjury case. Do not for a moment think that there is not much more to be learned about the evidence of wrongdoing by Novitzky. Sometimes people makes choices between the lesser of evils and plea bargains are a result. The Bonds case is likely going to reveal some evidence of wrongdoing by Novitzky. Your logic is flawed. You have been jumping to conclusions that cannot be made. Novitzky has skeletons in his closet and members of law enforcement know this to be true. If the case goes to trial, which is likely, it is going to be a war.
    In short, evidence of Novitzky filing affidavits and declarations that contain false information under penalty of perjury may exist.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page