BARRY BONDS: THE INDICTMENT

Greg Anderson was released from a two week stay in minimum security prison in Dublin, CA.

i was being facetious btw.

New Busch Stadium opens April 9th, 2006

But this is not the end of BARRY BONDS: THE INDICTMENT, no no sirree, no not the end at all.

Regardless of whether Bonds is or is not guilty, it's also a real shame that MLB has stated it may suspend Bonds merely for an indictment, which is much more of a de facto punishment for an active player than the ultimate sentence is likely to be. Anyone can get an indictment for almost anything. It's a terrible overreaction that seems like MLB is trying to scapegoat a prominent player for decades of its own laxity. MLB should stand behind its players until the government is put to its proof. Baseball is setting a terrible civic example for youngsters if it refuses to do even that. Look at Duke -- the accusations againt the lacrosse players are putting the univeristy in a much tougher spot yet the university is doing the right thing until the process plays out.

And where was Donald Fehr for comment? Traveling. It seems very out of character for the players' union, which usually adopts a strong position of "baseball logic" in strong support of any infringement of players' rights, to hide from the question of suspension.

Personally, I hope Bonds gets a great trial lawyer that makes the government look silly and highlights the waste and hubris behind the investigation. I wonder what San Francisco jury will convict Bonds.

These are your tax dollars at works, folks.

so who was in charge of "retesting" BB's suddenly positive sample? Mark Fuhrman?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3881897

Is this a best of five or seven?

So I take it this will never go to court and they're just going to try him via media leaks?

Carroll on the new test:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1166

THERE IS STILL MORE SPACE DUST ON THE COVER

Some Evidence May Be Thrown Out in Bonds Case

By CAROL POGASH and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

SAN FRANCISCO — The judge presiding over Barry Bonds’s perjury trial said on Wednesday that she would likely throw out several pieces of critical evidence that tie Bonds to the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

At a pretrial hearing here, United States District Judge Susan Illston heard arguments from Bonds’s lawyers and the government about the admissibility of several pieces of evidence.

Illston indicated that she would likely not allow the government to present the results from three positive tests for steroids in 2000 and 2001 as evidence at the trial. Those results came from documents seized at the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative in 2003. The judge indicated that the government needed someone to state that the test samples came directly from Bonds.

Although Illston did not say who could authenticate the documents, it is clearly Greg Anderson, Bonds’s longtime trainer, who spent a year in for refusing to testify about substances he allegedly gave Bonds.

Without a person to say that the sample came from Bonds, Illston said, “the documentation is not hooked up to this case.”

She called the claims that the tests were from Bonds “classic hearsay.”

Illston also said she would likely throw out doping calendars and ledgers that prosecutors contend Anderson used to monitor Bonds’s use of performance-enhancing drugs. The trial is scheduled to begin on March 2, and if the evidence is thrown out it would be a significant setback for the government.

Illston said that she would, however, likely allow prosecutors to present a transcript of a conversation between Bonds’s former business trainer Steve Hoskins and Anderson, in which Anderson stated he had injected Bonds with performance-enhancing drugs.

Bonds, dressed in a light brown suit, was present for the hearing.

On Wednesday, the government’s perjury case against Barry Bonds gained vivid detail when more than 200 pages of evidence were unsealed, including the documents indicating the positive tests and the transcript of the taped conversation.

The documents provide a more complete portrait of the evidence that federal prosecutors have gathered on Bonds since the investigation of Balco began in 2002.

Illston said she expected the trial to last three to four weeks.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Looks like another six month delay.

What is the statute of limitations on perjury anyways?

you may have read that there are now only 5 charges, down from 11:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6113545

What to tell the jury about Anderson's vow of silence was brought up during the hearing Friday. Even without his testimony, Anderson is still expected to play a large role in the trial. Prosecutors allege he supplied Bonds with steroids and instructed him on how to use them. Anderson's name and actions will be mentioned by others during the trial, including current Major Leaguer Jason Giambi and several former players the government intends to call to the witness stand. The players are expected to testify that Anderson supplied them with steroids.

not a lawyer but won't all that be dismissed as "hearsay" as none of it has to do with Bonds himself?

Hard to believe this has gone on this long.

It's the War on PED Terror!

Bonds's lawyer: "Steroids are not performance-enhancing drugs, they are not."

maybe he meant sexual performance

Joe Sheehan for the defense

srsly, a bigger waste of govt $ than presidential elections.

Rosenberg_Mike Michael Rosenberg
How long has Barry Bonds' case lasted? Since Bonds allegedly perjured himself, Albert Pujols has hit 294 home runs.

What do we think of the NYer article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/03/28/110328fa_fact_mcgrath

That's an article?

This is better: http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/criminal-case-of-usa-v-steroidusing-liar-barry-bon,19826/

Barry Bonds' ex-mistress testifies he threatened to cut her head off

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/barry-bonds-mistress-testifies-slugger-threatened-to-cut-her-head-off.html

It's an article, but non-subscribers can only get at the abstract online.

So this case is gonna to be dismissed?

so i'm going to have to be the first to mention the shrinkage?!

Well, Dr. Arthur Ting dropped a huge bomb on the prosecution (and he's their witness) saying that all of the side effects discussed are common with the LEGAL meds he was prescribing Bonds at the time, and there are full documentation of the prescriptions to back him up.

That is such awful lawyering. I read the DOJ didn't even talk with Ting before he was on the stand yesterday and only went off his previous testimony in front of the grand jury. This sort of thing will always give ammo to a juror who's looking for an excuse to acquit.

haaaaaaaaaaa

is Selig just going to have one hand in his pocket when A-Roid beaks Bonds' HR record?

lets wait until he passes 700 before we start talking about that

Looks like this will be ending soon in an acquittal. Sloppy, sloppy case by the prosecution that's had 5 (6? 7+?) years to prepare for this. Our tax moneys hard at work. Thanks everyone for coming out.

http://mit.zenfs.com/121/2011/04/giambivangogh11.jpg

All worth it for the Giambi sketch.

Mark Kotsay on the right.

ha!

Did they get a boardwalk caricaturist?

"Isn't $15,000 a lot of cash to keep on hand?"

"I make 17 million."

$15,000/$17,000,000 = <0.09% of annual salary

Annual Salary * 0.09%
$50k = $44
$75k = $66
$100k = $88
$150k = $132

The Feds called 23 witnesses, defense called none.

It shouldn't take this much time to review evidence.

Mistrial or Acquittal?

Mistrial. I heard they asked for testimony/info from that one dudes wife but thats it.. Maybe they agree on whatever count shes associated with but not the others?

4th day... obvs jury is hung... so do feds dare retry after mistrial? pros case was sketchy and sloppy.

i would be surprised if they didn't retry, they've been chasing bonds for years and to give it up would seem "very much out of character" for the feds.

is there a statute of limitations? grand jury trial was almost 10 years ago, pros' big 4 witnesses (Steve Hoskins, Kathy Hoskins, Kim Bell, Arthur Ting) could not recollect anything that represented any sort of consensus to support their case, often contradicing each other... the judge, on the stand!, called it one of the sloppiest cases she's ever seen.

timely revive.. verdict is apparently in.

tease! looks like deadlocked jury.

Barry Bonds jury reaches verdict
EmailPrintComments
23
ESPN.com news services
SAN FRANCISCO -- The jury in the Barry Bonds reached a verdict on one of the four charges the seven-time MVP faces, but the defense and prosecution agreed to a mistrial on the other three remaining counts.

The judge, after speaking to the jury foreman, said she believes the mistrial is the proper decision given that the jury believes it has reached a crossroads.

The jury is being brought back into the courtroom to read the verdict on the one count on which it agreed.

The eight women and four men are returning the verdict after four days of deliberations. The jury has worked behind closed doors since rehearing some testimony early Monday.

Bonds is charged with three counts of lying to a grand jury in 2003 and one count of obstruction.

Prosecutors allege that Bonds lied when he denied knowingly taking steroids and human growth hormone. A third count of making a false statement charges that Bonds lied when he said no one other than his doctor ever injected him with anything.

The fourth count is obstruction of justice, which alleges that MLB's all-time home runs leader hindered the grand jury's sports doping investigation by lying.

Bonds' case is the culmination of a federal investigation that began in 2002 into the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, which distributed performance-enhancing drugs to athletes.

Guilty on Obstruction of Justice.

Mistrial on all other counts.

wait, how can that work

"we think his lying caused an obstruction of justice but we can't agree that he lied"

that espn capsule is really bad, sorry.

is this basically saying "we are convinced he lied about this but no one can agree on exactly what he lied about"?

a stupid ending to a stupid prosecution. we did it, america.

forgot to link this before:

http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/rhoden-barry-bonds-is-the-new-jack-johnson

The perjury counts are as follows:

Count One of the charges against Bonds relates to a question Bonds was asked regarding whether Anderson had given him something he knew to be a steroid, with Bonds saying, "Not that I know of."

Count Two has to do with questions of whether anyone other than a physician had injected him, to which Bonds answered, "No, no."

Count Three was a question of whether he'd ever received human growth hormone from Anderson, to which Bonds answered, "No."

The obstruction of justice charge is based on Bonds' overall testimony being corruptly evasive and misleading. (<-seems like this would have been the hardest to prove from a legal standpoint).

It was a stupid case, handled extremely poorly by the Pros, they are lucky the jury agreed on anything.

On count two, which dealt with injections (of any substance) by anybody other than a Giants trainer or Bonds physicians, the jury voted 11-1 for a guilty verdict. The lone holdout felt that Kathy Hoskins was not sufficiently credible.

On count one the jury was voting 9-3 for acquittal. This count dealt with Bonds saying he wasn’t sure whether what he was taking was any kind of steroid. There’s no word on where the jury was as to count three.

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2011/3/21/2063660/barry-bonds-trial-2011-balco-steroids

did anyone see that headine the guvmint id trying to decide

again: Did anyone see that headine the guvmint is trying to decide WHETHER TO RETRY HIM??? lol

anyway:

Eric (Memphis)

The Bonds litigation was expensive, but people do understand that perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes, right?

Klaw (2:33 PM)

I think if the underlying crime had been something serious, like a violent crime or embezzlement or issuing mortgages to people who could never hope to repay them and then packaging them into securities to be sold to pension funds, then people (myself included) would have viewed the Bonds trial differently.

pow

Well, that was an expensive waste of time.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0901-newswire-20110901,0,5178286.story

Important stuff.

good luck usa