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!

Let's discuss: Jury chosen for Bonds' trial today.

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by The Big Ragu, Mar 21, 2011.

  1. NickMordo

    NickMordo Active Member

    He will never make the Hall of Fame...at this point, it is enough punishment. Baseball has laready said they wouldn't put an asterisk next to his home run totals, correct? So what's the point?
     
  2. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I will bet you five thousand dollars on that right now.
     
  3. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    I'll bet you any amount you want he gets in within the first 2 years he's eligible
     
  4. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    Gotta go with JC on this...

    When he was 34 and younger, and I might be off a little on the totals, but you get the picture.

    2010 hits
    445 HRs
    460 SBs
    1299 RBIs
    3 MVPs
    8 Gold Gloves
    8 All Stars
    .288 Svg
    .403 OBP

    At 35 it looks like he found the needle.
     
  5. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    He won't get in right away but he'll get in eventually.
     
  6. Bet dat!
     
  7. Mark2010

    Mark2010 Active Member

    Bonds is a liar and a cheat who disrespected the game. But he doesn't belong in prison. One reason US prisons are too full right now is the tendency to put people there over nonsense.

    I suspect a lot of baseball people are hoping he gets convicted so they will have grounds for erasing his records and keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. I agree with that part.

    Guess here is he get convicted, serves a few months and does some sort of community service. And then fades into history.
     
  8. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    The District Court of the United States, Northern District of California draws its jury pool from quite a large area, not just people in the immediate SF Bay Area. The local reports are that many of the jurors did not really have an idea about the whole Bonds stuff.

    As a lawyer, I believe we need to prosecute for perjury when available, otherwise the whole judicial system crumbles. I see people fail to testify truthfully all of the time but its mere suspicion and testimony that is self-serving and appears to contradict documents. Here, its so egregious that it should be prosecuted. BTW, one of his lawyers, Cris Arguedes, is the best there is in these parts, maybe in the whole nation, so he's got no excuses.
     
  9. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    From the AP story (Ronald Blum I think):

    "A member of [the Bonds] legal team read the Huffington Post on a laptop."

    Someone is getting fired/reprimanded. If that were my legal team, I'd tell that person to go find another job. Just cannot have that type of publicity and pennypinching Bonds is going to demand a refund of the fees for that person. Of course if it was Cris Arguedas, she stays.
     
  10. BB Bobcat

    BB Bobcat Active Member

    I love Joe P's take on the whole thing...

    http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/03/bonds-trial.html
     
  11. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    The most intriguing part of this, for me, remains the Greg Anderson component.

    Anderson is back in jail for the fourth time, and could eventually face obstruction charges, for refusing to testify. An obstruction conviction would bring a lengthy sentence.

    No doubt the feds are looking for any evidence that Bonds paid Anderson, or promised to pay him--I heard $25 million, I heard $15 million, who knows. Hard to imagine where a guy like Anderson would hide that much dough.

    But I wonder: if Bonds is found guilty anyway, does he still have to pay Anderson? And if Anderson gets hit with an obstruction charge after the Bonds trial concludes, will he still keep his mouth shut instead of doing a possible 10 years?

    Get me some creamora, I need answers.
     
  12. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Trying Greg Anderson for obstruction, after twice sending him to jail in this case, would be an even more ridiculous extension of what has become a ridiculous case. The reports I read today noted that ordering an uncooperative witness to jail is aimed at compelling his testimony, not punishing him; seeing as how Anderson has already gone to jail three times for more than a year, ordering him back there now seems extremely futile if it's supposed to be singularly aimed at persuading him to testify.

    The government has a hard time admitting defeat.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page