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

I can't imagine Greg Anderson has received a penny from Bonds. Novitsky and his pals are all over Anderson, and if even a stick of gum has already been traded, there is a good chance they'd know about it. And if they did, they'd use it.

My better guess -- and these are the theories i have read -- is that one of two things is happening. 1) Anderson has been promised he will be taken care of if he goes omerta. Everyone points out the risk there, though, is that cheap-ass Barry Bonds will stiff him when all is said and done. But what that neglects is that Anderson has leverage on Bonds, and if that happens, he can threaten to come forward with the truth. Not that he still might not. A book deal has to be on his mind as a possibility. 2) Anderson gets portrayed as a childhood friend, and now best buddy of Bonds, but I have read things suggesting that it is as much fanboy stuff as friend stuff. If that is true, it could be a weird psychological thing, in which Anderson who is desperate to be best buddies with his idol is going through this to cement the friendship.

But who knows. Regardless, I genuinely admire the guy. He has a principle. And even if that principle is just to get paid off, he is sticking by that principle and putting up with more grief than 99 percent of people would take without caving in on his principles. And I always admire people who are willing to suffer rather than not be true to their principles. It takes a kind of character. The mob guys in the 60s who would laugh at a couple of months in jail as the tradeoff for keeping quiet were kind of cool, in their own way. But it's why the government added on those obstruction of justice charges to make the potential penalty more severe, and they WILL bring those charges against Anderson when this is done. And then he could be facing serious jail time. It will be interesting to see if he sticks to his guns in the face of that. I can't say either way. He has been so dutiful and faced it all without any emotion.

 

1) They have evidence that Anderson was in on it. Evidence they will introduce at this trial. So they will argue that they do know the truth and he refused to testify. No illogical fallacy if their evidence is what they say it is. They have tape of Anderson admitting it to Steve Hoskins (also a childhood Bonds Friend) who was Bonds' business manager -- according to them -- although I have read the tape is grainy. And they have BALCO records that implicate Anderson. And they have eye witness testimony, in which Hoskins will testify that he was the one who paid Anderson for the drugs. They certainly have grounds to bring obstruction charges. It's almost a certainty that they will, since they are so knee deep in this, and they are going full speed ahead regardless of any arguments against doing it.
2) From what I have read in relation to the Bonds case, those obstruction of justice charges in cases like these, really became more prevalent in the mafia prosecutions in the 50s and 60s. They would have evidence that someone had info, but because of Omerta (and guys prided themselves in not being rats), guys were willing to go to jail rather than testify. They would laugh at a sentence of a few months. So the government came back with obstruction charges which carry greater penalties to discourage not testifying.