Jump to content


Barry Bonds could be indicted as soon as next week


Accord
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bonds Could Be Indicted As Soon As Next Week

 

July 12, 2006 12:58 p.m. EST

 

San Francisco, CA (AHN) - For the second straight year and just the third time since 1992, Barry Bonds, the No.2 ranked home run hitter in baseball history, failed to make the All-Star game. The snub is just one more way baseball is distancing itself from one of their all-time greats. Bonds will turn 42 next week, and the United States government appears to be cooking up another sour gift for the San Francisco slugger. Bonds could be indicted on perjury charges by a grand jury as soon as next week.

 

The U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco is debating whether it will attempt to get an indictment against Bonds, perhaps as soon as next week. Bonds is facing possible indictment for perjury and tax evasion, and the grand jury that has been hearing evidence against him is due to expire within the next couple of weeks.

 

Long Island attorney Rick Collins, the author of "Legal Muscle: Anabolics in America," told the New York Daily News that Kevin Ryan, the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, will be going for the kill if he gets the indictment.

 

"It will be because they believe they have enough to convict, not because they think it will give them leverage or result in a plea or something like that," Collins said.

 

The state couldn't get Bonds' former trainer Greg Anderson to testify against him. Anderson was sent back to jail for ignoring a court-ordered subpoena, and refusing to testify to the grand jury. His attorney filed an appeal on Monday requesting that the decision be over-turned due to the fact that the case involves so much sealed testimony from the BALCO trial.

 

Anderson served three months in prison nearly a year ago for his role in the BALCO steroid distribution ring scandal.

 

Anderson was originally called to testify in the Bonds perjury case in March. The jury is investigating whether Bonds perjured himself in his 2003 testimony during the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO) grand jury hearings. In that testimony, Bonds said he never knowingly took steroids.

 

Bonds claimed he used a 'clear and a cream substance' given to him by Anderson. He said Anderson told him that the substances were the nutritional supplement, flaxseed oil and a rubbing balm.

 

The two supplements Bonds described were similar to the clear and the cream steroids in the middle of the BALCO steroid scandal. The suspicion that Bonds knowingly accepted steroids from Anderson has prompted a new investigation into Bonds' possible perjury.

 

Despite not having Anderson to testify against Bonds, the state does have several important witnesses. Bonds' former physician Arthur Ting; Giants trainer Stan Conte; Bonds' knee surgeon; and Kimberly Bell, Bonds' former mistress.

 

Bell reportedly told the grand jury in 2003 that Bonds gave her about $80,000 in possibly undeclared cash and admitted to her he used anabolic steroids. The $80,000 worth of undeclared cash has prompted the tax evasion charges.

 

Several MLB sources told the New York Daily News they believe Bonds will be indicted, and claimed they have dug up plenty of damaging evidence in their own investigation led by former senate majority leader, George Mitchell.

 

Commissioner Bud Selig ordered the investigation shortly after the book "Game of Shadows" was published. The book, written by San Francisco Chronicle writers, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, talked in detail about Bonds' relationship with Greg Anderson, Victor Conte and BALCO; and his alleged use of steroids, insulin and human growth hormone.

 

If, at a minimum, 12 of the 23 members agree there is "probable cause" that a crime has been committed and Bonds is the one who committed it, they will return a "true bill," otherwise known as an indictment. The grand jury could also return a "not true" bill, meaning it will not indict.

 

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004192860

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, who's actually read Game of Shadows here (I have)?

 

Because it summarizes much better than it reads. The fact that an entire investigation is being based on this is somewhat laughable.

 

Seriously, do a research paper in the same mold as the book and I guarantee your professor fails you.

 

Interesting? Sure.

 

Controversial? Absolutely.

 

Factual? Debateable.

 

Clearly written with a skewed view and a vendetta? Unequivocally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, who's actually read Game of Shadows here (I have)?

 

Because it summarizes much better than it reads. The fact that an entire investigation is being based on this is somewhat laughable.

 

Seriously, do a research paper in the same mold as the book and I guarantee your professor fails you.

 

Interesting? Sure.

 

Controversial? Absolutely.

 

Factual? Debateable.

 

Clearly written with a skewed view and a vendetta? Unequivocally.

 

Yeah the tax evasion charge is going to be based on Game of Shadows. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear:

 

I'm not saying that Bonds is a saint, but at the same time if you notice the diction used by the writers, clearly they have more on the lines than simply reporting the facts and exposing a scandal. I mean, their two biggest "leaks" came from two people who have been substantially vocal about the potential for book deals. You don't think that the prospect of a sizeable payday would turn their eye-balls to dollar signs, do you?

 

As for what was presented in the book, they had smoking guns on Jones and Montgomery but decided to play that down. (Both directly received drugs they ordered knowingly from Balco, left syringes in hotel rooms and in bags at meets).

 

Balco was a legitimate business that produced multi-vitamins designed to regulate mineral deficiencies, such as their super pill ZMA. A bunch of baloney? Sure, but before you get on your soap-box, how many drink vitamin water or smart water or any of that other crap?

 

Bonds never received a package, only Greg Anderson received shipments of ZMA and allegedly the clear and cream. Bonds never placed orders directly (like Jones and Montgomery did) and Anderson never said that he gave Bonds, knowingly, the drugs. Sure you can extrapolate what you want from that, many of you I'm sure have, but the fact remains that the source lists for the most damning chapters for baseball simply cite "sources close to Bonds." No documentation, nothing. Look, I could write something about Bonds based on hearsay, and it's no more creditable (or admissable in a court of law).

 

There's a reason that this has been going on so long: nothing can or will stick.

 

Depending on what side of the fence you're on, Bonds is either the rightful beneficiary of innocent until proven guilty or incredibly adept at throwing smoke-screens.

 

I'm not going to make up your mind for you, but I seriously hope that you're not truly stupid enough to take Game of Shadows or any of the plethora of other reports as Gospel truth.

 

 

Just curious, who's actually read Game of Shadows here (I have)?

 

Because it summarizes much better than it reads. The fact that an entire investigation is being based on this is somewhat laughable.

 

Seriously, do a research paper in the same mold as the book and I guarantee your professor fails you.

 

Interesting? Sure.

 

Controversial? Absolutely.

 

Factual? Debateable.

 

Clearly written with a skewed view and a vendetta? Unequivocally.

 

Yeah the tax evasion charge is going to be based on Game of Shadows. :rolleyes:

 

You and I both know tax evasion is not at issue here, nor will it result in anything more than heavy fines.

 

Two sentences in the whole damn article are directed at the tax evasion issue. And they both use Kimberly Bell as their source, a woman who has vascillated on her story numerous times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn't Anderson come to the aid of Bonds and testify on his behalf if there was nothing to this? Wouldn't that make it easy and help Bonds out tremendously?

 

I've said it so many times but I'll add it. No athelete takes whatever their trainer gives them and doesn't know what it is. Especially not someone of his caliber and who has more to lose then the average athelete or bodybuilder. Flaxseed oil and arthritic cream don't cause your head to balloon or for you at the end years of your career to put astronomical home run numbers that have never been approached before in the history of the game or by this player.

 

I have used flaxseed oil before and most any athelete would know what it is and not be confused or think that it was 'clear' or have to have their trainer tell them what it is.

 

You can't just discount 'sources' because you think they are hearsay. That's what is great about journalism in this country. Sources don't have to be divulged. Thank God we didn't have you overseeing the Watergate scandal. All of Woodward and Bernstein's work would have been thrown out. The trial has been going on so long because that is how the American legal system works. A slow moving behemoth.

 

I hope he gets his day in court as I believe in the American judicial system and if he is found to have done nothing good for him. I'll admit I was wrong and praise him on the '98-'06 portion of his career that he can add to what already was a HOF worthy career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn't Anderson come to the aid of Bonds and testify on his behalf if there was nothing to this? Wouldn't that make it easy and help Bonds out tremendously?

 

I've said it so many times but I'll add it. No athelete takes whatever their trainer gives them and doesn't know what it is. Especially not someone of his caliber and who has more to lose then the average athelete or bodybuilder. Flaxseed oil and arthritic cream don't cause your head to balloon or for you at the end years of your career to put astronomical home run numbers that have never been approached before in the history of the game or by this player.

 

I have used flaxseed oil before and most any athelete would know what it is and not be confused or think that it was 'clear' or have to have their trainer tell them what it is.

 

You can't just discount 'sources' because you think they are hearsay. That's what is great about journalism in this country. Sources don't have to be divulged. Thank God we didn't have you overseeing the Watergate scandal. All of Woodward and Bernstein's work would have been thrown out. The trial has been going on so long because that is how the American legal system works. A slow moving behemoth.

 

I hope he gets his day in court as I believe in the American judicial system and if he is found to have done nothing good for him. I'll admit I was wrong and praise him on the '98-'06 portion of his career that he can add to what already was a HOF worthy career.

 

 

You're a walking contradiction.

 

If the judicial system is to work, the sources are going to have to be divulged. Simple as that.

 

He's innocent until proven guilty, I think many would be served well to remember that.

 

If players throughout baseball hate him, the feds want him and are going to the extent of wiring Jason Grimsley to get dirt to no avail, you have to believe that there is just nothing out there to pin on him.

 

At some point, sources have to be divulged, the media can't run around libeling people (because until it's factually verified, that's exactly what it is).

 

If you've read the book, you'll see that Anderson's account of the administration of the cream and the clear occured only a few times, he was directed by Conte to tell Bonds that they were arthritis cream and flaxseed oil, and the usage was stopped after Bonds complained of vision issues from the use of the clear.

 

Basicly, the big-mamma-jamma is the presumed use of HGH preceding the '99 season and a possible explanation for Bonds serious injury in the '99 season.

 

What's funny is that three different reports vary greatly in both the start time, and the drugs used.

 

Again, to make this anything other than libel and hearsay, sources need to be divulged.

 

 

Sorry, can't extol the virtues of the American Judicial system and the liberties afforded to the press at the same time, they clearly don't work hand in hand here.

 

As for Anderson not testifying, that has a substantial amount due to him not being granted immunity and he stands to lose much more if he's found guilty of trafficking HGH and other drugs to his gym in San Francisco. Spending time in jail for contempt won't nearly be as lengthy as if he were to commit purjury and deny possession of the drugs, or if he were to incriminate himself as a drug runner since there is absolutely no denying that Anderson possessed drugs and did sell them out of his car at the gym which he managed in San Francisco.

 

Same question as before, have you read the book?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sources do not have to be divulged in the novel or in the newspaper. So when you said they are going on hearsay because they didn't name sources that pretty much isn't true.

 

I read 50-60% of it, mostly on the parts about the actual scandal and not about Bonds personally, because I couldn't care less.

 

You seem to be going more on just this book when you have no idea what is going on behind the doors of the court house. I highly doubt a U.S attorney would look to indict someone because of what he/she read in a book.

 

If Bonds is convicted or found guilty of steroid use I'd be curious to see what your reaction would be. Obviously you are a big fan of this guy, I just don't get why you go to such lengths to defend a guy who uses his race as an execuse, is a bigot, and a jerk. I just don't like how you make it so cut and dry that he did nothing wrong when it would have never gotten to this point if there was nothing to it. Who's to say that the testimony that leaked is all there is? Who's to say Grimsley didn't name Bonds? You can't just assume either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I both know tax evasion is not at issue here, nor will it result in anything more than heavy fines.

 

 

There is a huge paper trail of bank records, real estate records, and sports memorabilia sales/activity that can substantiate the tax evasion and money laundering charges. These charges are the easiest to prove, and if there is willful intent, the least likely to afford a plea that does not include jail time. The willful intent would evidenced by structuring the transactions to be under $10,000 so as not to trigger an alert (which is also considered money laundering), and not disclosing the income on his returns. As for his returns, none of us know a thing about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sources do not have to be divulged in the novel or in the newspaper. So when you said they are going on hearsay because they didn't name sources that pretty much isn't true.

 

I read 50-60% of it, mostly on the parts about the actual scandal and not about Bonds personally, because I couldn't care less.

 

You seem to be going more on just this book when you have no idea what is going on behind the doors of the court house. I highly doubt a U.S attorney would look to indict someone because of what he/she read in a book.

 

If Bonds is convicted or found guilty of steroid use I'd be curious to see what your reaction would be. Obviously you are a big fan of this guy, I just don't get why you go to such lengths to defend a guy who uses his race as an execuse, is a bigot, and a jerk. I just don't like how you make it so cut and dry that he did nothing wrong when it would have never gotten to this point if there was nothing to it. Who's to say that the testimony that leaked is all there is? Who's to say Grimsley didn't name Bonds? You can't just assume either way.

 

 

You compared this to the Watergate situation, last I checked, jail time was served for failure to divulge sources, forgive me for extrapolating further on such an obscure reference in an attempt to assail me further, I was clearly wrong in assuming there was a relevant motive in your juxtaposition.

 

I don't understand where you're trying to go with this, and clearly you either don't understand what I'm saying or want to hear it.

 

Go ahead and take the last shot if you want, but the crux of my argument has been hearsay can't be compelling evidence yet you try to bolster your position by dealing in hypotheticals, so to me, simply turning the wheels to see them spin does no good.

 

 

You and I both know tax evasion is not at issue here, nor will it result in anything more than heavy fines.

 

 

There is a huge paper trail of bank records, real estate records, and sports memorabilia sales/activity that can substantiate the tax evasion and money laundering charges. These charges are the easiest to prove, and if there is willful intent, the least likely to afford a plea that does not include jail time. The willful intent would evidenced by structuring the transactions to be under $10,000 so as not to trigger an alert (which is also considered money laundering), and not disclosing the income on his returns. As for his returns, none of us know a thing about them.

 

Did I ever deny that?

 

Go ahead and re-read the article...mmmkay? Money laundering and tax fraud is hardly the impetus for the investigation, or the focus of the article...unless you write forged documents in flaxseed oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's innocent until proven guilty, I think many would be served well to remember that.

 

 

Actually, he's presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence may or may not equal innocence. While legally entitled to the presumption of innocence, that does not necessarily mean he is innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's innocent until proven guilty, I think many would be served well to remember that.

 

 

Actually, he's presumed innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence may or may not equal innocence. While legally entitled to the presumption of innocence, that does not necessarily mean he is innocent.

 

Keep those wheels spinning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I both know tax evasion is not at issue here, nor will it result in anything more than heavy fines.

 

 

There is a huge paper trail of bank records, real estate records, and sports memorabilia sales/activity that can substantiate the tax evasion and money laundering charges. These charges are the easiest to prove, and if there is willful intent, the least likely to afford a plea that does not include jail time. The willful intent would evidenced by structuring the transactions to be under $10,000 so as not to trigger an alert (which is also considered money laundering), and not disclosing the income on his returns. As for his returns, none of us know a thing about them.

 

Did I ever deny that?

 

Go ahead and re-read the article...mmmkay? Money laundering and tax fraud is hardly the impetus for the investigation, or the focus of the article...unless you write forged documents in flaxseed oil.

 

The money laundering and tax evasion charges are much more serious crimes, with more severe penalties, than the perjury charges. While maybe not the focus of this particular article on the potential indictment, they are a more serious focus of the investigation. When the IRS Criminal Invesigation Special Agents, get invovled, as they are in this case, the investigated party has better than a 90% chance of going to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know.. I almost can't wait til Bonds retires. He's one of my favorite players of all time, what he's done for the Giants and baseball is amazing, and I hope he doesn't get indicted.. I've been a Giants fan all my life and he made the past 13/14 years incredible. But I'm waiting for the day where the Giants can just be the Giants again. I'm so tired of all this.

 

And I don't even care if he did or didn't. Nothing was banned in baseball, so as far as MLB goes, whatever. If he lied under oath, put him in jail... simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...