December 8, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Mike Hargrove Interview (13)
Can they be the California Angels again? (9)
Another great moment in mass transit? (7)
Just another ten-percenter (his mind is like an ocean) (7)
Great Moments in Half-Baked Populism (8)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
I hope they have something better than thisFurther evidence that last week's flurry of press releases from the Bonds prosecutors was more flash than substance:
Jason Giambi told a federal grand jury in 2003 that he didn’t know whether Barry Bonds was taking banned substances and that he never gained any information about the home run king’s alleged drug regimen from his contacts at BALCO.
Giambi's name was leaked as a witness because the feds knew it would get headlines. His testimony, however, is largely irrelevant, and if it is not struck as such it will, at the very least, provide little help in moving the prosecution's ball forward. Any wonder why the government is putting the full court press on Anderson and his family in order to get him to testify?
But don't take my word for it. Click through to Jonathan Littman's article to read about many of the problems the prosecution has with its case.
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 9:41am
Juke Early said...
What a mess. BUT if they ever come up w/drugs guaranteed to make us younger, I’m taking them. Unless it ruins my HOF chances. . ..
Posted 02/03 at 12:25 PM
Pete Toms said...
Giambi’s testimony supports what I have thought since this whole brouhaha started. Most of these jocks don’t know what they are/were taking. They don’t care about the details. They care about the results.
Posted 02/03 at 01:13 PM
It’s amazing to me that these people call themselves journalists. They are so clearly biased towards telling a certain story.
Most reports I see blatantly says that Bonds admitted taking the drugs, when he clearly did not.
Most reports says that so-and-so is testifying “against” Bonds, like they have something on him. They are only testifying to what they know, it is the prosecutor’s job to tie that “against” Bonds, but as Craig wonders, if their evidence is so solid, I hope they have something better than this , but if so, why are they going on a witch hunt and going after Bonds’ trainer’s wife’s mother?
Then this release of “so-what” news about Giambi testifying that he doesn’t know anything about Bonds alleged usage.
While it doesn’t look good for Bonds, questions keep popping up. There is the talk of his alleged use of HGH, but according to Professors who work with the Baseball Economist, HGH does nothing good for you in terms of physical improvement for baseball. And if Bonds was taking and benefiting from steroids, why did he still hit so well AFTER the allegations hit the fan and into his mid-40’s? Shouldn’t his performance go down, like I-Rod and Giambi after the news broke? And if there is still good evidence to bring trial (like his ex-girlfriend and those shoe reps), then why are the Federales going after someone who has nothing to do with Bonds, the mother of the wife of Anderson?
It will be very interesting to see how badly the IRS will fall on their face with this witchhunt.
Posted 02/03 at 02:09 PM
James C said...
The NY Times is reporting that the feds got a positive test on a MLB sample from 2003 that showed a negative result in major league testing.
Posted 02/03 at 04:45 PM
With all the over the top stuff the government is pulling, I’m not feeling too confident about any “evidence”, like this alleged re-tested urine that now tests positive. The SJ Mercury had an expose a couple of years ago about the courts in San Jose and when going through hundreds of court cases, found that over a third of them were mishandled in some way, with some of them prosecutors fooling with the evidence in some way to get the results(conviction) that they were pursuing. Some deliberately withheld evidence that would have freed the defendent, if I recall right. And that’s over some no-name offender, the IRS are pulling out all the guns on Bonds.
And with the IRS leading the investigation, I’m not too confident that they are the most experienced in handling urine samples or collecting evidence of that sort, though I’m open to changing my mind with inside information on how this is done.
Heck, they have enough problems with stock options, which should be in their zone, they came after me (and I admit I probably should have hired a professional to do my taxes that year) and after a husband (CPA) of a very kind friend looked it over, not only did he help clear me, but found I had misfiled something else and deserved to get a bunch of money back, which the IRS somehow missed while poring over my return with a fine-tooth comb.
So I hope they either engaged the FBI in the collection of the evidence or really have a crack team of evidence collectors, or Bonds’s lawyers will have a field day with them.
Posted 02/04 at 12:46 PM