U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 03-31-2011, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Center of the universe
23,933 posts, read 19,793,506 times
Reputation: 11200
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgt04 View Post
I would've loved to watched the really old days when the Babe did it on beer and hot dogs...none of this strength training and conditioning...and he pitched too lol!!
Babe Ruth didn't face the level of pitching that major leaguers face today.

 
Old 03-31-2011, 09:02 PM
 
6,327 posts, read 4,760,142 times
Reputation: 2835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario View Post
Barry Bonds is the greatest combination of power and average ever. Greatest hitter ever. He would have been a Hall of Famer even if he hadn't gotten on the juice. He may not have caught Hank Aaron, but he would have hit 500 HR and stolen many more bases and had more hits and probably may have ended up scoring more runs than Rickey Henderson.

Yes, he is guilty of using performance enhancing drugs. But why has there been a Federal case made of this? My problem with this whole thing is that the gov't (Jeff Novitsky, et al) has wasted so much money and resources on trying to nail this guy.
Yes, they have. Maybe they are simply envious.
 
Old 03-31-2011, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Elizabethton, TN
5,834 posts, read 2,325,334 times
Reputation: 1848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario View Post
Babe Ruth didn't face the level of pitching that major leaguers face today.
There were few relief specialists in those days, but with 22 games played against each of the 7 opposing teams, Ruth had to face the league's best pitchers on a regular basis. This is not necessarily the case today. In 1927 Ruth hit more home runs than any other TEAM in the league. If the pitching was weak, why were there so few power hitters?

Last edited by Ridgerunner; 03-31-2011 at 09:44 PM..
 
Old 03-31-2011, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Center of the universe
23,933 posts, read 19,793,506 times
Reputation: 11200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunner View Post
There were few relief specialists in those days, but with 22 games played against each of the 7 opposing teams, Ruth had to face the league's best pitchers on a regular basis. This is not necessarily the case today.

But there were entire groups of people (African American, Latino) who were kept out of baseball altogether. That would be the equivalent of no Satchel Paige, Martin Dihigo, Bob Gibson, Don Newcombe, Juan Marichal, Ferguson Jenkins, Pedro Martinez, Ubaldo Jimenez......you get the picture.
 
Old 03-31-2011, 10:57 PM
 
6,327 posts, read 4,760,142 times
Reputation: 2835
I get it.

Last edited by AADAD; 03-31-2011 at 11:11 PM..
 
Old 04-01-2011, 07:17 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
11,001 posts, read 6,788,886 times
Reputation: 8093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario View Post
Yes, he is guilty of using performance enhancing drugs. But why has there been a Federal case made of this? My problem with this whole thing is that the gov't (Jeff Novitsky, et al) has wasted so much money and resources on trying to nail this guy.
The Federal government takes a very dim view of granting immunity for someone to testify, and then having that person lie to them.

Ask Martha Stewart.

Bonds was granted immunity because the Feds did not place a high priority on prosecuting steroid users, their goal was the prosecution of steroid distributors and they needed Bonds' help to nail to nail the Balco operators. They were not interested in any sort of prosecution of Bonds...it was Bonds himself that got them interested.

Instead of helping the government, Bonds elected to lie to the grand jury. Of course the Feds are going to prosecute that, if they did not, then no one would be motivated to take a grant of immunity and still tell the truth. Why would they under such conditions? You can lie to the Feds and get away with it.

They are prosecuting Bonds to preserve the integrity of their methods, the same methods which they have used to prosecute organized crime figures. Bonds is small pickings, it is the system which is vital and that is what is behind placing him on trial for perjury.

That you have a problem with the above is not going to mean anything to the Federal government compared to the problems that they would face if the immunity/testimony system isn't maintained.

Now do you understand why they are "picking" on Bonds?
 
Old 04-01-2011, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Elizabethton, TN
5,834 posts, read 2,325,334 times
Reputation: 1848
Default Yogi the Prophet

Learning of Bonds' increased hat size in the later years reminded me of this old Yogi Berra story:

When asked by a spring training reporter what hat size he wore, Yogi replied, "I don't know. I'm not in shape yet."
 
Old 04-01-2011, 10:01 AM
 
6,327 posts, read 4,760,142 times
Reputation: 2835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
The Federal government takes a very dim view of granting immunity for someone to testify, and then having that person lie to them.

Ask Martha Stewart.

Bonds was granted immunity because the Feds did not place a high priority on prosecuting steroid users, their goal was the prosecution of steroid distributors and they needed Bonds' help to nail to nail the Balco operators. They were not interested in any sort of prosecution of Bonds...it was Bonds himself that got them interested.

Instead of helping the government, Bonds elected to lie to the grand jury. Of course the Feds are going to prosecute that, if they did not, then no one would be motivated to take a grant of immunity and still tell the truth. Why would they under such conditions? You can lie to the Feds and get away with it.

They are prosecuting Bonds to preserve the integrity of their methods, the same methods which they have used to prosecute organized crime figures. Bonds is small pickings, it is the system which is vital and that is what is behind placing him on trial for perjury.

That you have a problem with the above is not going to mean anything to the Federal government compared to the problems that they would face if the immunity/testimony system isn't maintained.

Now do you understand why they are "picking" on Bonds?
Your post is sheer fantasy. From the outset of the proceedings Bonds was asked questions which were designed to entrap him. That is the reason that the trial judge excluded most of their "evidence" two years ago. In addition, the trial judge accepted the defense argument that the questions asked (over 200) were designed to create a situation where one response would contradict another response. She found that to be unlawful and again excluded any evidence gained from the testimony. That included calendars, urine samples, and the urine itself. She cited that just saying these samples belonged to Bonds was heresay and scoffed at it from the bench.

Indeed the entire prosecution of Bonds has been the golden target for the prosecution not the opposite (which blames Bonds for his conduct) as the above post would suggest. Bonds was always the target. The lofty "rules of immunity and evidence" were trashed, prosecutors tried to intimate that urine unlabeled belonged to Bonds. Most if not all of the so called methods which were used were thrown out of court. They were in free fall trying to convict Bonds on anything so finally when all else failed they paraded out the testimony to the grand jury (which was compelled).

The Federal Government did not give a rats behind for procedure legal precedent or convention. They wanted Bonds and their pursuing him bears out their desire to hurt him at all costs...even bending the rule of law to suit their needs.

"preserve the integrity of their methods...."

Laughable.
 
Old 04-01-2011, 10:03 AM
 
6,327 posts, read 4,760,142 times
Reputation: 2835
And for those interested in the methods of debate identifying Martha Stewart in the same post to support the argument is considered flawed reasoning.

Just to keep things square.
 
Old 04-01-2011, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
11,001 posts, read 6,788,886 times
Reputation: 8093
AADAD...

You understand so little that it seems an impossible task to educate you.

Since Bonds was testifying under a grant of immunity, it of course was not possible to entrap him in anything other than a lie.

Or perhaps you can explain to us how someone who is immune from prosecution for whatever he may say on the witness stand, is somehow or other being entrapped.

And apparently your absense of knowledge also includes the fact that Marth Stewart's prosecution wasn't for insider trading, it was for perjury. She was charged with lying to Federal investigators.

And of course introducing that fact was to illustrate how the Feds take such matters seriously...that they can..and will...and do...prosecute those who lie to the Federal government.

It is unsurprising that you were unable to comprehend any of this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top