Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hi_im_god
the distinction is bonds isn't being prosecuted for using steroids. he's being prosecuted for lying under oath. i'd agree the treatment is unequal were any of the other steroid user's proven to have done what bonds is being prosecuted for.
i don't see how this prosecution should naturally lead to "resolution of the whole matter". baseball turned a blind eye to chemical cheating because marketing the home run hitters was great for the sport.
it's bonds misfortune that after baseball did nothing for years, the feds got interested while he was still cheating. and then he lied about it to them.
i don't think a reasonable person can call this selective prosecution.
-
-
-
btw: does this lay to rest the whole "live ball" arguement from the 90's? does anyone else remember this? tv news stories about how they were winding the balls together tighter because no one could figure out any other reason home run production was up?
|
A perfect hit.
He may have lied to a Fed. Grand jury.
Thats his big problem. If he had taken
his lumps like Giambi, he might actually
be playing.
Like the other athletes who had testified before him, Bonds had signed a document that said he would give truthful testimony, no matter how damaging, and in return he would be immune from prosecution. After all, he wasn't the target in the investigation, he was only a witness against the men accused of steroid trafficking.
And the live ball arguement, I remember well. I remember they did tests on the balls and there was no diff. on how the ball was wound from the 80's.
So in conclusion, it might have been the players were wound a bit tighter.
Just makes Maris, Ruth, and Aaron look that much better.
The Feds pursue perjury with vigor.
IN ALL KINDS OF CASES.
The system relies heavily on people telling the truth,
thats why you dont lie on the stand unless you are willing
to spend time. There are a great number of business geniuses
in Fed. Institutions for doing exactly what Bonds may have done.
You dont hear about them.