Bonds trial underway

[waroriole]

Bonds has admitted to using, just not that he knew what he was using. Do I think he's lying? Yes. Do I think this is worth the governments time and money? Absolutely not.

To me, going after athletes who have used steroids is like going after people who recreationally smoke pot. Neither are nearly as bad as they're made out to be and I don't think the government should be going after people who use these things.

So for the person who asked if we should look the other way when people commit crimes. Well I don't think these should be crimes, but since they are, yes I do. Certain crimes are often ignored so lets not act like this would be setting some precedent for looking the other way.

As far as the apology thing, I've always thought that was a weak and somewhat dishonest argument for why Bonds should be vilified but so many others are not. Sure, it would have been nice if he gave an insincere apology like various others, but I think its clear that the reasons for the hate go well beyond that.

Well said...

[JDubs]

I say the government should let it go. The Bonds issue has already served its purpose. It taught MLB that they have to do a better job of hiding their PED use.

This is a decent point. As far as deterrence, the effect is likely already accomplished. I think some folks would argue that the theories of retribution and rehabilitation would come into play here, but I'm not one of them (because I don't believe that in most cases people can be rehabilitated and retribution should only really come into play when the societal harm is severe).

One thing that I will say, is that I suspect some on the State's side see this as an opportunity to make their careers. For that reason, I doubt you will see much mercy on the back end of this saga.

[JDubs]

So for the person who asked if we should look the other way when people commit crimes. Well I don't think these should be crimes, but since they are, yes I do. Certain crimes are often ignored so lets not act like this would be setting some precedent for looking the other way.

I've got nothing but respect for you mweb, but lying to a grand jury is a serious crime. Other than that, tend to agree with what you are saying. I certainly agree that the regulation of steroids should be left to the sport unless trafficking or dealing is involved. If you were referring to steroids, rather than the grand jury stuff, then I completely agree; but don't forget that it is the grand jury testimony that is getting him into trouble here.

I know people are going to perjure themselves no matter what, but the interests in deterring that are great. People should still be prosecuted.

[waroriole]

I've got nothing but respect for you mweb, but lying to a grand jury is a serious crime. Other than that, tend to agree with what you are saying. I certainly agree that the regulation of steroids should be left to the sport unless trafficking or dealing is involved. If you were referring to steroids, rather than the grand jury stuff, then I completely agree; but don't forget that it is the grand jury testimony that is getting him into trouble here.

I know people are going to perjure themselves no matter what, but the interests in deterring that are great. People should still be prosecuted.

Is it? Crimes like murder, rape, agg assault, certain levels of extortion, sexual crimes against minors are serious crimes. The penalty for this might be heavy, but that doesn't mean it is a serious crime, IMO.

Agree that people should be prosecuted and there should be a deterrent in place to prevent that from happening. However, at some point, you have to balance the interests of deterring against the monetary cost to the gov't. In this case, there is no excuse for paying this much money to possibly provide a miniscule deterrent. Priorities are completely out of whack, and the lack of prosecutorial discretion is revolting.

[MikeAD]

If its for Perjury, which it is, then go for it. Its not about steroids, its about whether or not he lied to a grand jury. I could care less what he puts in his body, but if the government feels that it is proper to investigate him for lying under oath, then I guess I am ok with it. I think its a waste of time, but they've done it to other public people in the past.

[mweb]

I've got nothing but respect for you mweb, but lying to a grand jury is a serious crime. Other than that, tend to agree with what you are saying. I certainly agree that the regulation of steroids should be left to the sport unless trafficking or dealing is involved. If you were referring to steroids, rather than the grand jury stuff, then I completely agree; but don't forget that it is the grand jury testimony that is getting him into trouble here.

I know people are going to perjure themselves no matter what, but the interests in deterring that are great. People should still be prosecuted.

My point is he should never have been in the position to lie to the grand jury. So yes, I'm talking about looking the other way on steroid use, not lying to the grand jury.

[MikeAD]

My point is he should never have been in the position to lie to the grand jury. So yes, I'm talking about looking the other way on steroid use, not lying to the grand jury.

This is true.

[scOtt]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GqrPy-Y-UKw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Frobby]

Is it? Crimes like murder, rape, agg assault, certain levels of extortion, sexual crimes against minors are serious crimes. The penalty for this might be heavy, but that doesn't mean it is a serious crime, IMO.

Lying in a grand jury investigation is always treated very seriously. Often, it is treated more seriously than the underlying offense, because testifying truthfully in a criminal proceeding is a fundamental cornerstone of our system of justice. Heck, look what they put President Clinton through for lying in a civil lawsuit about purely private conduct.

It is very important to prosecute people who lie in criminal proceedings. For one thing, it causes lawyers to read their clients the riot act before they testify, warning them that if they lie it is highly likely they will be prosecuted for it. And guess what? That keeps a lot of people from lying who otherwise might.

[waroriole]

Lying in a grand jury investigation is always treated very seriously. Often, it is treated more seriously than the underlying offense, because testifying truthfully in a criminal proceeding is a fundamental cornerstone of our system of justice. Heck, look what they put President Clinton through for lying in a civil lawsuit about purely private conduct.

I understand that it is treated seriously, but should it be, at least to the point it is being treated? Is it really a good idea for the Justice Dept. to put this much money into a case that is nothing but lying to a grand jury? IMO, it's not, but I'm making assumptions on how much is being spent. Also, without getting political, the whole scandal around the Clinton thing was absurd.

[Can_of_corn]

Lying in a grand jury investigation is always treated very seriously. Often, it is treated more seriously than the underlying offense, because testifying truthfully in a criminal proceeding is a fundamental cornerstone of our system of justice. Heck, look what they put President Clinton through for lying in a civil lawsuit about purely private conduct.

It is very important to prosecute people who lie in criminal proceedings. For one thing, it causes lawyers to read their clients the riot act before they testify, warning them that if they lie it is highly likely they will be prosecuted for it. And guess what? That keeps a lot of people from lying who otherwise might.

Then why did they not proceed with charges against Sheffield?

[Moose Milligan]

So, you're telling me that the reason they are being prosecuted is because they didn't mind their manners?

That's exactly what I said.

Anyway, Frobby and others have stated my feelings on the subject better than I can. And let's not act like Bonds is the only one here as Clemens goes on trial later this summer.

They both act like they're bigger than the game. They have both insulted the intelligence of the fans by lying and expecting us to believe them with mountains of evidence to the contrary.

We can argue all day whether they deserve to be here or not or who else deserves to be on trial with them. Whole separate arguments.

I'd love to see the arrogant, smug and *more colorful adjectives withheld* Bonds and Clemens sent upstream. It has nothing to do with the records they broke, especially in the Bonds case. It doesn't matter to me who the single season or all time HR champ is. It could be Jose Bautista for all I care.

[weams]

That's exactly what I said.

Anyway, Frobby and others have stated my feelings on the subject better than I can. And let's not act like Bonds is the only one here as Clemens goes on trial later this summer.

They both act like they're bigger than the game. They have both insulted the intelligence of the fans by lying and expecting us to believe them with mountains of evidence to the contrary.

We can argue all day whether they deserve to be here or not or who else deserves to be on trial with them. Whole separate arguments.

I'd love to see the arrogant, smug and *more colorful adjectives withheld* Bonds and Clemens sent upstream. It has nothing to do with the records they broke, especially in the Bonds case. It doesn't matter to me who the single season or all time HR champ is. It could be Jose Bautista for all I care.

I got crack backed when I mentioned those three in the same sentance...

[JamesI]

Then why did they not proceed with charges against Sheffield?

We don't know what evidence they have against Sheffield. I read somewhere that 8 of the 10 players who testified in the BALCO grand jury had failed the 03 steroid tests. If Sheffield didn't fail, and with no records from BALCO, they might have a hard time proving he used.

There seems to be evidence that Bonds knew the drugs were steroids. Is there evidence (not just the common sense belief that of course he knew) for Sheffield? We don't know.

If they do have evidence of course they should be hitting Sheffield as hard as they are going after Bonds.

[TJ Wrangler]

The government usually comes down hard on people who lie to the government.

Well that may be the most ironic thing I've ever read. :laughlol: