Bonds Indicted [guilty on 1/4] [wrist whacked!]


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:10 am

MJD wrote:Looks to me that they can do whatever they want to BB then based on that(non-racist) precedent.

They've always been able to do what they want. Remember, Jackie Robinson wasn't allowed to join the Brooklyn Dodgers because of some court ruling a la James Meredith. It was strictly a MLB decision.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:12 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF


That's not true.

The Hall Of Fame, NOT Baseball, passed a rule that anyone on the permanently ineligible(banned) list cannot be a candidate for the HOF. It is not specific to gambling, though certainly the Rose situation was the genesis of the rule. Previously, banned players were excluded by a gentlemen's agreement among voters, Shoeless Joe Jackson being the most notable, but with Rose the HOF made it official.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:42 am

guru wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF


That's not true.

The Hall Of Fame, NOT Baseball, passed a rule that anyone on the permanently ineligible(banned) list cannot be a candidate for the HOF. It is not specific to gambling, though certainly the Rose situation was the genesis of the rule. Previously, banned players were excluded by a gentlemen's agreement among voters, Shoeless Joe Jackson being the most notable, but with Rose the HOF made it official.

Does the HOF exist completely independent of MLB? I always thought that it was an extension of MLB. Wasn't the rule passed after the fact? Prior to this rule, there was nothing preventing voters from inducting Shoeless Joe Jackson from being inducted into the HOF despite this so-called gentlemen's agreement. I suspect the powers-that-be passed the rule because of fear that there might be enough voter sympathy for Pete Rose to get him into the HOF.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:16 am

The Baseball Hall Of Fame is completely independent of MLB.

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/about/faq.jsp
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby paulthefan » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:23 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF after the fact, and then made it retroactive so that it could be applied to Pete Rose. Something about that just doesn't seem right to me.


it is absolutely right. I love pete rose (as great a baseball physical talent as there ever was), but I have no problem with retroactive rules like this, they are right and proper and good for society. The HOF is not a democratic institution and should never be one!
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:28 am

paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:24 pm

bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??

But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:25 pm

Daisy wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??

But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?

Well, so are elections in the US. No invites for the under 18s or felons, amongst others.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:38 pm

bad hammy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??

But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?

Well, so are elections in the US. No invites for the under 18s or felons, amongst others.

You make a good point. The constitution gives no one the right to vote. It only stipulates that you can't discriminate with regards to the right to vote on the basis of race (15th amendment) and sex (19th amendment). All other forms of discrimination with respect to the right to vote are perfectly legal.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:23 pm

bad hammy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .

Don't you have to be voted in??

But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?

Well, so are elections in the US. No invites for the under 18s or felons, amongst others.

True, and you can add legal aliens to that list :)
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:54 pm

Bonds tested positive for steroids in 2001 federal prosecutor reveals, the year he hit 73.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23173928/
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby gh » Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:34 pm

They may well have updated the story since you linked it, but it now says it clarifies that he DIDN'T test poostiive in '01, it was '00.
gh
 
Posts: 46322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby RMc » Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:52 pm

Here's the updated story from Reuters:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080215/sp_ ... gvgNjGOrgF
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:16 am

Umm...isn't this a bit of a distinction without a difference?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Daisy » Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:37 pm

I thought Balco were the distributors, not the brains?

edit: this comment was in reference to a now deleted cartoon citing balco as the brains of the steroid scandal.
Last edited by Daisy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Chetanji » Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:29 am

Daisy wrote:I thought Balco were the distributors, not the brains?


Perhaps the cartoonist is making light of Balco. For what they tried to do, they sure got a lot of heat.
Chetanji
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Edappally

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:53 am

jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Chetanji » Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:31 pm

The Hammer on Clemens...02/19/2008 4:25 PM ET

Aaron on Clemens
Chetanji
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Edappally

Postby guru » Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:34 pm

All traces of Bonds being removed from AT&T Park.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3315212
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby tandfman » Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:09 am

Giants not doing so well without him.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1209339 ... b_page_one
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby guru » Tue May 13, 2008 7:14 pm

guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby Half Miler » Tue May 13, 2008 7:41 pm

The Major League Baseball Players Association said last week it was investigating whether to file a collusion grievance against teams for not pursuing Bonds


you've got to be kidding.
Half Miler
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: infinite loupe

Postby tlb747 » Wed May 14, 2008 12:46 pm

Half Miler wrote:
The Major League Baseball Players Association said last week it was investigating whether to file a collusion grievance against teams for not pursuing Bonds


you've got to be kidding.


I do not get it. What does that quote mean? I am not surprised about the lastest events. Go Giants!
tlb747
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Half Miler » Wed May 14, 2008 2:14 pm

My quote, or the article?

Personally, after all that's occurred, I just can't believe the Players Association would actually do this. Aren't teams allowed NOT TO PURSUE anyone they're not interested in?
Half Miler
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: infinite loupe

Postby Law dude » Wed May 14, 2008 3:42 pm

I know nothing at all about the collective bargaining agreement between MLB and its Players Association, so what I'm about to suggest is pure speculation.

There are some legal theories under which Bonds could sue the owners for a concerted action--an illegal boycott. So why hasn't Bonds done this, and why is the Players Association (which doesn't seem much affected by this) making the noise? One possible reason is that there is a provision in the cba that says that players cannot assert certain claims against owners--those claim must be brought by the Players Association under the agreement.

Again, I've no idea if that's what this is all about, but it seems to me that it could explain what would otherwise seem so inexplicable. Absent such a clause, I can't imagine why Bonds wouldn't bring this claim directly, if he felt legitimately aggrieved, and I can't imagine why the Players Association would feel that it has enough skin in the game to make it worthwhile pursuing this.
Law dude
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tlb747 » Thu May 15, 2008 1:12 pm

Half Miler wrote:My quote, or the article?

Personally, after all that's occurred, I just can't believe the Players Association would actually do this. Aren't teams allowed NOT TO PURSUE anyone they're not interested in?


I meant the article.
tlb747
 
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri May 16, 2008 10:18 am

guru wrote:All traces of Bonds being removed from AT&T Park.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3315212

Not exactly true. There is the marker where number 756 landed, as mentioned in the article. Additionally, on the walkway between the ballpark and McCovey cove there are bronze plaques in the ground to commemorate all significant Giants milestones that have occurred since the park opened in 2000. Most of those (75% or so) are related to Bonds. And there are Bonds t-shirts available at the concessions.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:59 am

Will this run as long as Oklahoma on Broadway?

Probe now going after Anderson's wife

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 01&sc=1000
gh
 
Posts: 46322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Master Po » Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:23 am

gh wrote:Will this run as long as Oklahoma on Broadway?



Yes, and at the end, they're all going to join in on a spirited rendition of "Anything You Can Do", led by Barry Bonds...:

"Anything you can do, I can do better.
I can do anything better than you.

No you can't.
Yes, I can.
No, you can't.
Yes, I can.
No, you can't.
Yes, I can, Yes, I can!

Anything you can be, I can be greater.
Sooner or later I'm greater than you."

etc.

Oh, wait, that's from Annie Get Your Gun, not Oklahoma-- still, it could work, in...BALCO -- the Musical! -- someone call Mel Brooks -- I think this might be a smash hit.
Master Po
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re:

Postby bad hammy » Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:43 pm

gh wrote:Will this run as long as Oklahoma on Broadway?

Let's see, this thread was started in 2007. Today around four years later the federal judge told the prosecution and defense to get together and arrange a plea deal - she doesn't want to go to trial with this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Re:

Postby guru » Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:24 pm

bad hammy wrote:Today around four years later the federal judge told the prosecution and defense to get together and arrange a plea deal - she doesn't want to go to trial with this



Bonds will never sign off on a deal that's anything short of a complete fold by Novitzky. And that ain't happening.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Bonds Indicted

Postby gh » Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:56 am

Street chatter is that Novitzky's bosses may just pull the plug rather than pouring more money down a rathole. This has been a fabulously long (and expensive) process, and it's now looking as if even a worst-case-scenario for Bonds has him serving no time.
gh
 
Posts: 46322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Bonds Indicted

Postby no one » Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:37 pm

It must have been mentioned here before but without steroids Bonds was still a superstar. 73? Not sure ... prob not. Desperation to be on top - at any cost. Oh the wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Likely known here is that his father was a Cal state champion in the LJ (25' 3") with very little practice. At home meets that coincided with home baseball games (Riverside Poly) he play the BBall game and during bottom of inning jog over to the LJ pit and take a jump. Track and BBall field were ~ 20yards apart. Likewise with the 100. Story goes that he came over for the 100 in a meet versus Muir HS (for those that know So Cal HS track). He ran 9.7 and got 5th - duel meet.

His uncle was the Cal State 120 and 180 champion in early 60s. And his aunt ran the 80m hurdles in the Olympics. Needless to say they were legends not just in Riverside but So Cal and Cal HS circles - with everyone track, as well as baseball and football.

I'm not sure but I think there was another brother who was equally athletically gifted - name 'Bob' - to complete the Bob - Robert - Bobby trifecta.

Quite a family legacy - more than sad chapter, now perhaps closing. I lived around the corner from Bobby and Barry for about 18 mo. I could out-due Barry in any sport ... of course he was 3 or 4 so it was pretty close.
no one
 
Posts: 1611
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Bonds Indicted

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:09 pm

Besides being one of the greatest hitters of all times, he sure knows how to pick his friends. Susan McDougal ain't got nothin' on Greg Anderson.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Bonds Indicted

Postby bad hammy » Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:56 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Besides being one of the greatest hitters of all times, he sure knows how to pick his friends. Susan McDougal ain't got nothin' on Greg Anderson.

Picked or bought, Anderson has been gold for Bonds.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Bonds Indicted [now on trial]

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:28 pm

The Feds are getting desperate.
At a federal court hearing court in San Francisco, Judge Susan Illston told Greg Anderson, who pleaded guilty to steroid distribution in the BALCO sports doping scandal, that he will return to prison if he refuses to testify at Bonds' trial on charges of lying under oath about using steroids. It's set to begin March 21.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1FPfxdC8p
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Bonds Indicted

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:51 am

bad hammy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Besides being one of the greatest hitters of all times, he sure knows how to pick his friends. Susan McDougal ain't got nothin' on Greg Anderson.

Picked or bought, Anderson has been gold for Bonds.


And likely conversely.

I think that the judge has to take the route she has taken -- requesting the testimony, setting out the implications and putting him jail for contempt during the course of the trial (only).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Bonds Indicted [now on trial]

Postby gh » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:25 am

Part of the Bonds defense: he's always been a jerk! (see story on front page)
gh
 
Posts: 46322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Bonds Indicted [now on trial]

Postby Daisy » Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:33 am

gh wrote:Part of the Bonds defense: he's always been a jerk! (see story on front page)

Well he does have a point there.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Bonds Indicted [now on trial]

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:10 am

The defense has rested without calling a single witness.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6300104
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests