Your tax dollars at work

I’ve detailed in the past just how much federal prosecutors have done in an effort to get Greg Anderson to testify, including threatening and raiding the homes of his wife, Nicole Gestas, and mother-in-law. From yesterday’s NYT, however, you get a glimpse of just how desperate — and, quite frankly, inept — they truly are:

Several years ago, it was revealed earlier this week, prosecutors sent an undercover female agent to join the gym where Gestas worked. The authorities hoped that the agent would befriend Gestas and get her to talk about Bonds, but the effort did not prove fruitful.

I’ve seen that tactic used twice before: in the most excellent movie “Zero Effect,” and on “Seinfeld.” It worked like a charm in the former and, while it didn’t go off as planned in the latter, at least the sought-after information was obtained. Here? Bubkis.

If Bonds is acquitted, many-a-steroid hawk is going to blame a star-struck jury. Or race. Or whatever it is people blame when someone that is probably guilty of something walks. Let us remember, however, who has the burden of proof here — the government — and let us not forget who has seemingly bungled this thing from the get-go — again, the government.

(thanks to Pinto for the heads up)

Print Friendly
 Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone
« Previous: So much drama in the WBC
Next: The Sweet Hereafter »


  1. christopher said...

    The same tactic was used in arrested development as well, with hilarious consequences.  I hope the government gets its strategies from tv shows and movies for the rest of this case.

  2. Pete Toms said...

    Made me think of The Sopranos.  An undercover agent befriended Adrianna (sic?) and…well, you either watched it or you didn’t.

  3. Jeff V. said...

    I am wondering what the total bill for this fiasco is going to be when it is all said and done.  I imagine its going to be a lot more then any other perjury charge on record.

    Shame this is baseball and not basketball I can see AI now.

    “Perjury…perjury, they talking about perjury.  Not murder, not kindnapping…perjury.”

  4. Jeff said...

    More evidence that sports teams aren’t the only ones in need of what Simmons calls a “VP of Common Sense”. 

    Wouldn’t it be more effective to pay some consulting firm for common sense decisions instead of wasting public money on things like the Barry Bonds trial, financing of stadiums, giving out government bailout checks, etc?

  5. obsessivegiantscompulsive said...

    They tried to do the same thing with Jason Grimsley, get him to cozy up to Bonds during BP sometime – even though Grimsley didn’t have any real relationship with Bonds – and just start talking about steroids.  That just shows how stupid the investigators have been in running this inquisition.  I lost all respect for them after that and have not expected anything real to come out of the trial, other than the waste of millions of our tax dollars.

    Yahoo Sports news reports that Benito Santiago’s testimony was very much like what Bonds said, and yet they are not pursuing him with the same dogged persistence.  Why they didn’t pursue Santiago first, who could crack sooner as he has less to lose than Bonds, I don’t know, because if they have similar testimony and they convict Santiago and/or get a confession, that would be a good precedence to then go after Bonds. 

    Plus, Anderson might have flipped on Santiago if they had approached him first about Benito, and not go full-bore on Bonds first, then they could have had that as a great precedence to go after Bonds.

  6. Fawkes said...

    Much of the testimony from baseball players (that we’ve been allowed to read) has been similar to Bonds’ and Santiago’s.  Sheffield’s and Giambi’s were similar in that they said at no time were they told they were getting “steroids” from Anderson, by which I think they mean a controlled substance versus a supplement.  Keep in mind many supplements advertise they will build muscle like crazy (a large anabolic effect), especially then.  The fact is there is a real possibility that Bonds was telling the truth.  Really silly indictment here.  And the witnesses the government seems to have come up with so far either (1) don’t have any first-hand information, or (2) have a personal agenda, or (3) are Bobby Estalella, famed for his intelligence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>