Isn't this what I've been saying? Why of course it is CBOY.

[cboy4]

The US v. Barry Bonds

By Dave Zirin
February 24, 2009

This is a story about garbage. There's the actual garbage overzealous federal investigators examined in their efforts to prosecute a surly sports celebrity. There's the shredding of the Bill of Rights, crudely ignored by the government in the name of obsession and ambition. Finally, there's the thorough trashing of people's reputations, not to mention the game of baseball. Welcome to The US v. Barry Bonds; please disregard the stench.

The case to prove that slugger Barry Bonds perjured himself in the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO) steroid investigation begins March 2. Yet after seven years of investigation, millions of dollars in work hours and countless ruined reputations, the US Attorney's Office will arrive in court with virtually no leg to stand on. Judge Susan Illston struck down most of the prosecution's case, a move ESPN legal expert Lester Munson called a "devastating" setback for prosecutors. The ruling was an indictment of not only the government's case but its entire approach toward Bonds from day one. John Ashcroft's Justice Department always seemed irrationally determined to prosecute Bonds. It was as obsessive as the fisherman Santiago attempting to bring home the great marlin in Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea.

The embodiment of this obsession was IRS agent Jeff Novitzky. He broke open the BALCO case after spending a great deal of time, to the adulation of the press, literally sifting through garbage and sewage.

Novitzky was given the green light by President Bush and Ashcroft to go for the jugular. In 2004, accompanied by eleven agents, he marched into Comprehensive Drug Testing, the nation's largest sports-drug testing company. Armed with a warrant to see the confidential drug tests of ten baseball players, he walked out with 4,000 supposedly sealed medical files, including every baseball player in the major leagues. As Jon Pessah wrote in ESPN magazine, "Three federal judges reviewed the raid. One asked, incredulously, if the Fourth Amendment had been repealed. Another, Susan Illston, who has presided over the BALCO trials, called Novitzky's actions a 'callous disregard' for constitutional rights. All three instructed him to return the records. Instead, Novitzky kept the evidence...."

It was a frightening abuse of power, all aimed at imprisoning a prominent African-American athlete.:applause: Yet despite the landfills of trash, the government's case always rested on a flimsy premise. Bonds's contention under oath was that anything illegal he may have ingested was without prior knowledge. The only person who could contradict Bonds was his trainer and longtime friend Greg Anderson. The government pressed Anderson to give testimony. He refused, citing a promise made by the feds that he wouldn't have to testify after pleading guilty to steroid distribution and money laundering in 2005. The feds stuck him in jail for thirteen months to soften him up, but he didn't crack.

Anderson has remained firm even though in January, twenty FBI and IRS agents raided the home of his mother-in-law and threatened to punish her for tax evasion if Anderson didn't spill. Similar threats have been made against his wife. Mark Geragos, Anderson's attorney, told Yahoo Sports, "It's such a blatant and transparent attempt to intimidate Greg. They're acting like the Gestapo. Even the mafia spares the women and children." Without Anderson, the state's case was always weak. But now it is on serious life support. Illston ruled most of Novitzky and the government's case inadmissible, for good reason.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090309/zirin

Hey, this isn't coming from me. It's coming from another person

But by all means, explain how this writer has it all wrong. :rofl:

SPORTS FORUM:

[TZ]

1. And there are people who don't think Obama is really president either.

Some of whom write in magazines. But that doesn't mean they are right.

[cboy4]

4. Oh he's right alright.

The fact that he's basically repeated verbatim everything I've been saying for months is your first clue he's right on the money.

And you don't know anything about law, so how much water do you think your opinion carries anyway?

[TZ]

12. Tinfoil hatters

Which is what this writer is- ALWAYS have people agree with them. Its much easier intellectually than you know, actually looking at the fucking facts, St. Barry. Your posts are some of the most intellectually lazy I've ever seen. You are right every one else is wrong and everyone is out to get you and poor persecuted Barry. I'm surprised you don't have a crucifix with him on it, honestly.

I think I know more about the law than you do, btw. You show a sad lack of knowledge outside of St. Barry's case when there are PLENTY of cases alot like his, where people went to jail for what he's done...See Martha Stewart.

[cboy4]

15. Ohhhh, I see. Tinfoil. ..... It's silly for you to think you know

more about law that myself.

I'll just leave it at that counselor.

And what a revelation! Martha Stewart is associated with steroids. :wow:

If you really want to be outraged, I suggest you read the story about A-rod in the current edition of Sports Illustrated at a store near you.

[Upton]

22. A simple question

why, in the Bonds case, is government intimidation and abuse of power okay with you?

[trumad]

2. Another member of the "Dumb Motherfucker "cult

His Wikipedia of this guy show's he's about as far up Barry's ass as you are.

[cboy4]

3. Uh huh .. everyone who doesn't agree with trumad is part

of the dumb motherfucker cult.

We all know how much credibility you have.

How about breaking down the writer's points and explain how he's incorrect.

You can even use your crayons if your want.

[Upton]

23. A question for you

why, in the Bonds case, is government intimidation and abuse of power okay with you. I'm sure you don't normally feel such tactics are acceptable but in the Bonds case you've made an exception...why? And isn't that hypocritical?

[trumad]

37. I have a better question for you---

What is your rank in the "Dumb Motherfuckers" cult?

You crack me up with your new meme--- I see you've gotten off the racist meme and have moved to this new one.

Does this have anything to do with whether Bond's is a roid using freak and one of the games biggest cheaters?

Fuck no and you and your cult members know it.

Keep the Straw men coming--- they're quite entertaining.

[PVnRT]

5. RACISM RACISM RACISM

Racism. Racism racism racism racism. Racism racism?

[cboy4]

7. Oh, you think going after Bonds is racist?

Interesting.

The writer insinuates that in the article.

[PVnRT]

10. No, you and the writer do

I'm sure if you keep screaming it, at least a few other people might actually buy it.

[cboy4]

11. I've never said I felt the government's decision to go after

Bonds was racist.

[nickgutierrez]

6. You know...

Before you and your twin went on this Barry Bonds rampage, I didn't much care whether he was found guilty or not. Now, I want him locked up for life, if only because it seems to be the one thing that will actually get you to drop this nonsense.

Thanks.

[cboy4]

8. Well just like you hope you win the Super Lotto, your wish

is sadly not going to come true.

(Well, at least the part about Barry being convicted .. in fact, you have a better shot at picking all of the lotto numbers.)

I'll be satisfied to drop this once Bonds is acquitted .. as long as the usual suspects around here come to grips and admit they were wrong.


on edit.....typo!

[TZ]

13. Nice post, OJ!

He did steroids period. And he lied about it. Whether or not he is found legally guilty is a different matter all together and IF you had any knowledge about law like you claim you did, you would understand that. God knows no ACTUAL guilty person has ever been acquitted in court..:sarcasm:
Just like no innocent person has ever been found guilty...

[cboy4]

16. You're psychic powers of being able to know Bonds did

steroids and lied about it is impressive indeed!!11

[PRETZEL]

9. A question,

the article mentions an agreement between Anderson and the government pertaining to future testimony as part of his guilty plea for steroid distribution and money laundering. Where's the agreemnt? I seriously doubt that this is just a verbal agreement. If there is an agreement, why didn't he produce it at the grand jury when he refused to testify and was held in contempt? All Anderson has had to do since this whole thing began was produce this agreement and he's scot free.

[cboy4]

14. You crack me up with all of your "all Anderson has to do"

scenarios.

We've kind of beaten this to death haven't we, in terms of talking about why Anderson won't be cooperating?

The answer is obvious.

[PRETZEL]

17. No more than the persecution of Bonds scenarios

the government has provided sufficient evidence to indict Bonds on perjury charges. At some point in time during grand jury testimony there was sufficient evidence to hand up an indictment. That doesn't make Bonds guilty. I'm not saying that nor have I ever said that. But, in making their case against him, Greg Anderson is key to corraberating the evidence they have but cannot include because at this point it's heresay. Anderson isn't cooperating for whatever reason. And to be honest being a childhood friend and wanting to help a friend just isn't a valid reason.

Anderson's making these claims. I'm not doing anything other than taking articles you've posted, reading them, and asking questions.

Anderson has been claiming since 2006 that he has a deal with the government that precludes his testimony. His attorney is making the same claim. If he would have produced this back in 2006, this would have been long forgotten about. He hasn't and it's just a simple quetion of why.

http://cbs13.com/sports/Greg.Anderson.Prison.2.484660.html

This is an article from back in 2006. Anderson was making those claims then. They were rejected. Maybe their feeling is that Judge Illston will be a little more sympathetic than the prior judge. We'll see.

I just seem to find it a bit ironic that for someone who could have easily put this whole situation to bed 3 years ago hasn't.

[cboy4]

18. Yes I know you feel that way PRETZEL. And I understand

why you feel that way.

But you're just not thinking from a defense team standpoint.

Everything Gerrigos is having Anderson do is top notch legal smarts action.

It's why he's considered one of the best defense attorneys in California, and perhaps the country.

[PRETZEL]

20. I'll concede that I'm not looking at this from Bonds' viewpoint,

nor am I trying to convict him either. Right now, the issue is whether or not Bonds perjured himself during his previous grand jury testimony.

I'm not debating Geragos' methods. I agree he's damn good. And I agree that he's doing what's best for his client. But, at the same time, what's good for his client hasn't been good for Bonds.

The reality is that it's Barry Bonds who has the most to lose, not Greg Anderson.

[cboy4]

26. Of course it's been good for Bonds. Look at how much suspect

evidence is being thrown out.

That wouldn't be the case if Anderson cooperated with the government's witch hunt.

And obviously Bonds has the most to lose. He faces far more time for charges of lying under oath than Anderson does for being jailed for a couple of weeks for the length of the trial.

You realize Anderson won't spend hardly any time behind bars if he is charged with contempt, right?

The maximum he can spend under the statute is the length of the trial .. as opposed to the term of the federal grand jury/coming down with an indictment.

[PRETZEL]

27. From a legal standpoint, sure it's it hasn't hurt Bonds

but from a baseball standpoint, both historically and currently, this has killed him.

If he wasn't under the legal shroud he's been in for the last couple of years, why did the Giants release him and why has no other team offered to pick him up? I understand his physical condition has gone down but he would have made a great DH somewhere and I'm absolutely positive some American League team would have taken that chance. The greatest home hitter in the game couldn't get a job?

From a baseball standpoint, wouldn't Bonds have been better served to have had this taken care of a couple of years ago when this issue first arose? From that standpoint, had Greg Anderson tesified to Bonds' innocence, Bonds would still be playing and any questions about his alledged use of performance enhancing drugs would have been long laid to rest.

[cboy4]

31. The Giants didn't release him because of steroids ... they

decided not to sign him because there was immense pressure by the San Francisco fan base for the team to start going young.

The Giants were not winning with Bonds any more, and they had one of the oldest teams (if not the oldest) in baseball.

Also, Barry was no longer effective because the Giants has NOBODY to protect him at the plate. They had Bengie Molina as their guy.

What would you do if there were men on base and Bonds was coming up? Right, you pitch to Molina.

It wasn't like the old days when my team had Jeff Kent and others.

There was a ton of pressure to use the enormous salary Bonds was going to demand, and spend it on younger players.

Tragically, my dumb ass GM blew most of it on Barry Zito.

The reason no other team signed Bonds is because he was under indictment. But I'm sure you read that teams like Oakland, the Yankees .. there was even talk St. Louis and the Angels were interested .. but you don't sign someone who could end up going to prison for all the team(s) know.

What sense does that make?

As for your last paragraph, that's a fantasy scenario.

What are you suggesting? That Bonds, who claims he never knowingly took performance enhancing drugs, schedule up a trial?

Who does that in real life?

[PRETZEL]

32. Spot on on why the Giants released Bonds,

makes perfect sense as you put it.

As to my last paragraph, I tend to see what I think happened in your own response,

"The reason no other team signed Bonds is because he was under indictment. But I'm sure you read that teams like Oakland, the Yankees .. there was even talk St. Louis and the Angels were interested .. but you don't sign someone who could end up going to prison for all the team(s) know."

I wanted to make the point that if Anderson had come forward and testified when first called it's quite possible the indictment may never have been handed up. That's the point I was trying to make. I'm not saying that would have been the case, but if the prosecution knew at that time that there was no there there with Anderson, they may not have proceded.

[cboy4]

33. Nah, I have to disagree .. the indictment was coming whether

Anderson cooperated or not because all the government had to do (which they did) was ransack Anderson's home, and later the home of his mother-in-law, to get the evidence they believed was every bit as valuable/damaging as Anderson admitting to Bonds using steroids.

Because in the government's mind, they felt they could proceed and prosecute with that evidence, but little did they know the judge would throw it out.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, but to be honest, I'm sleepy and all of this is kinda blending together.

But I like talking with you.

[PRETZEL]

34. same here,

it's an interesting topic.

We may see it differently, but that's good in and of itself.

[MaineDem]

19. It's The Nation

I don't believe much of what they publish.

[cboy4]

25. We're just happy you're not in the jury pool with your

heavily biased opinions.

[MaineDem]

28. I've been able to put personal biases aside

In professional and legal matters. This is baseball. It's more about passion.

PS. And The Nation is still suspect.

[cboy4]

29. So what are you saying? Because this is baseball, passion

supersedes puting aside "personal biases in professional and legal matters"?

What kind of policy is that?

Please clarify.

[MaineDem]

38. Nah, I'm not submitting to interrogation

And I don't need to state a policy.

I simply started out by saying that anything in The Nation is suspect, as far as I'm concerned. And not only in respect to BB.

Jeez.

[cboy4]

39. Oh what the eff ever....what, are you on the witness stand

MaineDem?

I was simply asking for a clarification so I understood your flip-flop position.

Jeez is right.

[Upton]

21. Excellent post cboy

it's just amazing the way some DU sports forum members have chosen to close there eyes to government abuse of power....what hypocrites.

[cboy4]

24. Thanks bud

Yea, raiding mothers-in-law homes is apparently fine and dandy with the Bonds haters.

[Upton]

30. With the Bonds haters

the ends justify the means....they don't care what has to be done, who has to be hurt, how many rights are violated, as long as they get Barry....they're not only haters, they're hypocrites.

[flvegan]

35. Wouldn't it be nice if this sort of time was spent chasing Bush, Rove, etc?

I've been pretty clear on my Bonds opinion. I don't really care about baseball players using performance enhancers. Until they're all banned or all allowed, it's a pretty dumb rule based on the reasoning for it.

What pisses me off is the time and money spent on a ghost chase. Waste of time and money.

[cboy4]

36. I know, and we're talking millions of dollars.

It's insane.

[Forkboy]

40. Nice of you to include a pic of your mum.