Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
I have not the slightest doubt that Bonds used PEDs, starting in the '98-'99 off season. The standards which apply in a court of law, are far more stringent and constrictive than the ones employed by the public at large. I'm a Giants fan and clearly recall Spring Training of '99 when we were discussing...What happened to Bonds' head? It has inflated. What has happened to his skin? It is grayish. At the time we knew nothing of steroids, and remained in this ignorant state until the SF Chronicle published the series on the Balco labs.
Bonds personal trainer provided steroids to Barry. Bonds admits this, his claim is that he didn't know that the "clear and the cream" were steroids. Given his hyper controlling personality, this is impossible to believe. Then his trainer supposedly did the same thing to Gary Sheffield, tricked him into using PEDs without his knowledge. Then this trainer is arrested as part of an illegal steroid distribution scheme.
We have the testimony of Bonds' girlfriend from 1998 who said that Bonds told her that he was tired of playing second fiddle to these steroid monsters like McGwire and Sosa when he was actually the best hitter in baseball. So he decided to start juicing.
We have the evidence of Bonds physical changes in the ensuing years as he grew bigger and bigger.
We have the evidence of his performance. Starting at age 35, Bonds didn't have the best four seasons of his career, he had the best four year period anyone has ever had.
We have the evidence of the 73 home run season. From 1920 (the start of the home run era) through 1997, two players, Ruth and Maris, managed to hit 60 or more home runs in a season. Then in the space of four seasons, three players, McGwire, Sosa and Bonds went well past 60 six collective times. McGwire has confessed to steroid use, Sosa was one of those who tested positive in the 2003 sample which wasn't supposed to go public. So, the other two guys who accomplished these home run miracles are known to have used steroids. Are we supposed to believe that Bonds was the only one who could do it without PEDs?
And he was damn evasive on the witness stand, constantly changing the subject rather than responding to the actual question.
All of the above may not be considered admissible evidence in a court of law, but c'mon. Bonds girlfriend was a liar, the Balco trainer connection was a coincidence, Bonds didn't know he was taking steroids, his sudden enlargement in head and body was a coincidence, his record breaking performance was exactly what we could expect from a 35 year old ballplayer?
|
And yet, despite all this allegedly damning evidence, they could only convict Bonds on one count of obstruction of justice, which was overturned on appeal. And as for Clemens, they couldn’t convict him of anything at all. If all this was admitted into evidence, it apparently wasn’t persuasive enough to sway a jury or an appeals court. And if it wasn’t admissible, how compelling could the information have been? Things admitted as evidence have to meet a minimum standard to be accepted. It’s not like the state didn’t have their chance to nail Bonds and Clemens — but they just couldn’t do so, and that can’t be changed by what people think should have happened. People think all kinds of things.
Which means the only recourse is to the “court of public opinion,” which bases its “convictions” on innuendo and whispers and guessing and personal observation and the like, is accountable to no one, and in which there’s no chance for an accused to defend themselves or file an appeal. That doesn’t strike me as fair in the least. And if that’s the best one can do, it just doesn’t strike me as good enough, sorry.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
