Media treatment of Bonds has been foolish

"Caught" being the operative word here.
And, of course, all those things I described: against the rules of baseball at the time.
PEDs: not against the rules of baseball at the time.
Bonds: never caught.

 

then you have no sense of integrity and zero common sense. ... a losing combination.

i'm sure you, much like jvd, believe baseball is entertainment and not a sport.

 

Gwen Knapp's sensible take:

Rains sued over the book last year, but only on the grounds that the authors would profit from illegally leaked material. The case was tossed. He didn't sue for libel.

"I've credited both Mark and Lance as being journalists who are not going to write something that they know to be false and subject themselves to that kind of liability," said Rains, who now is focused exclusively on the criminal investigation into whether Bonds perjured himself in front of the grand jury.

Burris wasn't that generous. He said he didn't accept any reports in a newspaper or book as true. But will he sue? He'd have to overcome the fact that federal prosecutors, as well as Rains, read the stories in The Chronicle and said: "The leak is an outrage" instead of "That's not Bonds' testimony." Another lawyer, Troy Ellerman, pleaded guilty to revealing the documents and took a 30-month prison sentence.
That's pretty solid confirmation. So if there's ever a defamation lawsuit, my colleagues probably won't be invited to the party. Again, I'm in good company.



http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/16/SPNERJ0ED.DTL

 

It does. Thanks Joe. Sorry for the testiness...that's thanks to another poster who will not be named.

 

Ross Rebagliati would argue otherwise.

 

Enough already with the "innocent until proven guilty" stuff. That's the standard of the criminal justice system, not an innate American value. The society and the culture are much closer to the civil threshold of guilt/innocence, namely, the preponderance of evidence thing that properly nailed OJ. The preponderance of evidence against Bonds is just as persuasive, lacking only track marks on his elbow armor.

 

Thank you, Joe. That's a point of distinction that's always necessary when we have cases like this. The court of public opinion doesn't require a conviction.

 

First I read this:

And then I read this:
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/sports/drugs/policy/baseball/index.html
The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club also may take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract.

This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription.

Can someone clear this up? Was it against the rules of baseball or not?

Yes, I know there was no testing, but was it against the rules?

 

It might help to include the date on that particular memo, so no one can come back and say they changed the rules after the fact. May 15, 1997.

 

This is not a "core American value." It's a legal protection that we have adopted in the criminal justice system. Expanding it beyond that context is stupid and dangerous. Is Osama bin Laden entitled to a presumption of innocence? Are we unable to condemn him until he is convicted in a U.S. court? That's ridiculous.

Using the word "innocence" in connection with Barry Bonds is also ridiculous. Bonds admitted, under oath before the Grand Jury, that he used the Clear and Cream provided to him by BALCO. He said that he didn't know what they were at the time, but he admitted using them. That's an admission by Bonds himself that he used the illicit substances. What further proof do you need?

 

They want a needle sticking out of his bum.

 

Guys, can we put to rest the ridiculous argument that steroids were not against baseball rules while Bonds was using them?

Once more, shouting from the mountaintop: STEROIDS HAVE BEEN BANNED BY MLB FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Baseball might not have been testing until recently, but steroids have been against baseball rules for considerably longer. If Bonds started taking in '98, as has been documented, HE WAS BREAKING BASEBALL RULES!!!

Thank you. I'll go take a valium now.