home

Barry Bonds' Conviction Overturned

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Barry Bonds conviction for obstruction of justice during a grand jury appearance.

"During a grand jury proceeding, defendant gave a rambling, non-responsive answer to a simple question.

"Because there is insufficient evidence that (his statement) was material, defendant's conviction for obstruction of justice... is not supported by the record," it said, adding: "Defendant's conviction here must be reversed.

It's a sort ruling, just the above paragraphs and one more saying he can't be retried on the count because it would be double jeopardy. One judge dissented.

< Tsarnaev Cell Video : Where's the Anger? | Supreme Court Limits Use of Dog Sniffs During Traffic Stops >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Barry is just lucky... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 11:49:30 AM EST
    he didn't comment in one of Big Tent Demo's posts.  Talk about your punitive justice.

    One word, Jeralyn: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    Good.

    As a longtime baseball aficionado and former college-level player myself, I'm more than convinced that Barry Bonds was indeed "juicing." One need only look at his career statistics over the course of 21 seasons, and note that he belted nearly 42% of his MLB-record 762 home runs between the ages of 35 and 42. That's a period in baseball careers when such statistics should logically be tapering off significantly, rather than increasing dramatically.

    But it should also be noted that the use of performance-enhancing drugs (aka PEDs) was not fully banned by Major League Baseball until 2003. I've long felt that Barry Bonds and several other players of his era, such as Roger Clemens (who I personally cannot stand), served as rather convenient scapegoats for MLB's own conspicuous failure to deal with the issue of PEDs in baseball for the longest time.

    I'm therefore happy for Bonds. Despite my feeling that his slugging records should probably carry an asterisk next to them, given how they were in part obtained, the statistics he compiled prior to the PED era are clearly worthy of consideration by baseball's Hall of Fame. He probably belongs in Cooperstown, and most certainly not as a criminal defendant in a courtroom docket.

    Aloha.

    I don't have a big problem with the athletes who (none / 0) (#2)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 22, 2015 at 08:25:14 PM EST
    juiced, but I do have a big problem with the ones who continued to lie about it.  Lance Armstrong was the biggest phony.... Bonds and Clemens close behind.

    I don't really care about Bond's legal conviction being overturned but I don't want him in the hall of fame.  Is it fair that other cheaters will be in but not him?... of course not, but I'm a hater and I don't want to see his bad behavior rewarded.

    I have no idea what to do with the record books. It's impossible to tell for sure who was cheating and who wasn't.  All you can really do is compare athletes to others in their era.  You can't compare Bonds with Ruth or even with Aaron.

    After he took PEDs Bonds was the greatest hitter any of us ever saw.  Hard to say exactly when he started juicing but he was probably headed for the hall of fame as 500 homer, .300 with several gold gloves and stolen bases.  Then he took drugs and turned into superman.  

    Parent

    Glad this conviction was overturned (none / 0) (#3)
    by Green26 on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 11:35:01 AM EST
    I thought the conviction was bogus at the time. It is very objectionable to me when prosecutors go after people for little and largely irrelevant things when they can't convict on the main issue they're pursuing. It seems vindictive and heavy-handed.

    I was around Bonds at a 49ers game last fall. He is now much smaller than he used to be (or what I thought was in his playing days).

    Well said... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 11:44:17 AM EST
    it most definitely is an unsavory way for the law to skin a cat.  

    "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime"...a system of justice should be better than that.

    Parent

    Mixed feelings (none / 0) (#5)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 11:48:09 AM EST
     They are Halls of Fame, not Halls of Virtue.

     Sure, being elected is an honor but it doesn't have to mean the person was "honorable."

      I believe Bonds (and Clemens and others) juiced and I believe that taints their accomplishments (even if MANY less famous of their competitors did as well). I guess, as for HOF, I'd just not quarrel with any voter who followed his own convictions on the subject and not be upset with inclusion or exclusion.

      I will say that if juicers are put in, it seriously weakens the argument for keeping Pete Rose out. He broke rules (legitimate rules in my opinion), lied about it for years, and even after fessin' up hasn't seemed overwhelmingly repentant.
    I still see that as less severe. Rues againdt betting are meant to protect against potential harm to the integrity of the game and there is no evidence I have ever seen that potential ever became actuality with Rose. That's not a defense of his conduct but just acknowledging that juicing did very much affect what happened on the field and I don't think his betting did. So if juices are acceptable , he should be too.

      As for dealing with the records, I think all of us put our own mental asterisks on the steroids era stats. Maybe, it's still a good idea so that people 100 years from now far removed from direct knowledge are given a reminder in black and white.

     

    Maybe in a hundred years, (none / 0) (#7)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 12:40:55 PM EST
    there will be "designer babies" genetically engineered to be perfect athletic specimens.
    I hope not, but I could see some parents wanting a baby who would have awesome physical skills.
    Then they can argue about whether having been genetically engineered gives those athletes an unfair advantage over athletes whose parents couldn't afford this.


    Parent
    I hope not, too, Zorba. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 03:46:40 PM EST
    That's a "Blade Runner"-type scenario, which is really too scary to even contemplate.

    Parent
    No kidding, Donald (none / 0) (#10)
    by Zorba on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 05:19:58 PM EST
    It's very scary.
    I was also thinking about Aldous Huxley and "Brave New World."
    And I also am grateful that I won't be alive to see this type of genetic engineering come to fruition.  
    It doesn't make me feel very good about the future, though.


    Parent
    Too late; we're already partway there. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:15:22 AM EST
    Some Chinese scientists have already tried engineering over 80 embryos using the CRISPR technique with the CAS9 enzyme, a technology pioneered by certain bacteria.  Their success was mixed, but given time, and the Chinese freedom, at least in the east, from idiotic fundamentalist hordes, they or someone else will figure it out.

    Personally, I think we need an unlimited juicing league.  Throw out the rulebook and see what happens.

    Parent

    Nonsense. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 23, 2015 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    Recon: "I will say that if juicers are put in, it seriously weakens the argument for keeping Pete Rose out. He broke rules (legitimate rules in my opinion), lied about it for years, and even after fessin' up hasn't seemed overwhelmingly repentant. I still see that as less severe. Rues againdt betting are meant to protect against potential harm to the integrity of the game and there is no evidence I have ever seen that potential ever became actuality with Rose. That's not a defense of his conduct but just acknowledging that juicing did very much affect what happened on the field and I don't think his betting did. So if juices are acceptable , he should be too."

    Pete Rose was beholden to gambling interests. He's been banned from Major League Baseball because as player-manager of the Cincinnati Reds, he not only bet on ball games, but he bet on those games in which his own team was a direct participant. Then, when questioned personally about the allegations by the late MLB Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti, he lied to him.

    For very good reason, MLB has long maintained a healthy institutional paranoia regarding any real or perceived connections of its players and management with gambling interests. It's rooted in the infamous "Black Sox" scandal of 1919, in which key members of the heavily favored Chicago White Sox conspired with known racketeers to throw the 1919 World Series to the Cincinnati Reds.

    Theirs was a collectively foolish and self-indulgent act of greed and spite, which shook to its very foundations the general public's confidence in the basic integrity of the major league product itself. And without that public confidence and corresponding support in terms of ticket sales, there's no Major League Baseball.

    You really can't compare what Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, et al., did by juicing with Rose's transgressions. First of all, MLB did not specifically ban the use of PEDs by players until 2003, so one could offer with some merit -- not very much, in my own personal view, but at least some -- that legally speaking, they weren't really cheating until that ban had been formally enacted.

    Conversely, MLB's ban on any and all ties with gambling had been in its rules and by-laws for over six decades, when Rose got caught betting both on and probably against his own team. And further, he knew that what he was doing constituted a clear violation of those rules and by-laws, and was further warned by people who suspected that he was wagering on ball games, which apparently included a few of his own players and coaches. But he ignored them all, and continued doing it anyway.

    Now, one can legitimately argue whether or not the fact that players were juicing taints their accomplishments, at least to the extent where it's a reasonable rationale for their non-admission to Cooperstown. But we really need to keep in mind during any such discussions that none of these players in question were ever banished outright from the sport of baseball, as was Pete Rose.

    For that reason, it's highly likely that we'll never see Rose in the Hall of Fame, except perhaps as a paying customer. In my honest opinion, he no more belongs there than does the late "Shoeless" Joe Jackson of the 1919 "Black Sox," one of the eight players on that team who accepted a bribe to throw the World Series. For guys who claimed to love the game, neither apparently gave much thought to the fact that they were undermining its very integrity with their selfishness.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I think Rose is on his way back (none / 0) (#11)
    by Green26 on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 12:18:23 AM EST
    to acceptance in the baseball world. The iceberg is thawing. Many are saying it's time to allow him back. I agree with that. It's been plenty long for what he did.

    Parent
    Well, unlike with Rose (none / 0) (#13)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 11:12:01 AM EST
      there is actually grounds for debate over Jackson's guilt. And, since he's long dead and can't profit in any way from being declared eligible for the HOF, I'd actually say Jackson has a better case than Rose.

      I'm not defending Rose's actions or attempting to minimize them. I clearly stated I think the rules against betting on baseball are legitimate. There is no question he broke them. That's extremely serious in my book, but I don't think his punishement needs to include being kept out of the HOF.

      I do believe Rose when he says he only bet on the Reds not against them while managing, and that he never made any decision as a manager not geared toward trying to win. I don't base that so much on his denials, but on my opinion of his extreme competitiveness and desire to win. No doubt it is, and should be still against the rules to bet on your team to win.

     I also believe that he never intentionally  provided inside info to gamblers (although that possibility is obviously another of the very legitimate reasons to prohibit betting). I will grant that because one can assume that he didn't bet on his team to win every game and at least one other person absolutely had to be aware of which games he was betting on the Reds that others could have been "tipped off" to games where the Reds might be a better bet. That is a very serious consideration.

      I'm not out campaigning for Rose getting in and I certainly don't think he should be eligible to ever be employed in any capacity related to MLB.

      I do think that allowing juicers in makes the case for keeping Rose out of the HOF weaker.

    Parent