Barry Bonds

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Mrs Z, it isn't a matter of whether he'll go to jail or not, he's still entitled to the same rights. Sure, we are all entitled to our opinion but when those opinions are expressed publically as facts...that's a different story. As you mentioned, in the case of Vick, I have posted here that IF he's guilty of dog fighting, he should be banned from the NFL for life...others may agree or not but the point is that I've made no statement of "fact" about his innocense/guilt. Right now, no charges have been made, no evidence of his involvement...so to me, he remains an innocent man. If you read the posts made in this thread you see that Bonds is being treated differently by many...no qualifying "IF" but "he's guilty" as a statement of fact! Some say it's no big deal...I say it's a huge deal!

Now we get down to how one is found guilty. I must state again in the case of Bonds we are not in a court of law. MLB holds the cards. And in some instances, it is probably more prudent to prove that you did not commit some act, rather than you must be found guilty by a jury of your peers beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not all decisions of guilt or innonence are established by a court of law. If my parents had to resort to the courts when I "was" a little rat and proclaimed I did not eat our dog's food... finding the crumbs of food on my face was enough evidence. I could have said I fell face first into the dog's food and then it all just got caught in my mouth...

In Vick's case he can be tried by court system if enough evidence is even found to present an indictment.
If we had to go through a court system in the public schools about what a kid did or did not do, we would be bogged down forever.
If we have a camera that shows a kid putting graffiti on the wall he/she is sent to alternative school. There is a small hearing if the kid wishes to challenge the school district. If the kid wants to go to the court system then the school district goes through the court system. But in these instances, the standards applied in a court of law are way to cumbersome. It is up to the accused and convicted (by the district) to take it to the court system.

And even the court system is flawed.
I think there are very few people in the US that believe OJ did not kill his wife and is still searching for the killers at Wimbeldon and on golf courses.

I do understand your concern about certain allegations going public as in printed papers. But there are all sorts of levels that can be used to establish what did or did not happen. The court system is not the only method used, as valuable as it is. I happen to believe that Bond's used steroids based on all I have read. (Especially based on what Z put up about Bonds proclaiming that he may have been given steriods but did not know it).
This wont be taken to court unless MLB takes the record Bond's will surely break away from him based on steroid use. Or... if Bonds is found to have lied to a grand jury and other evidence comes to light and MLB nullifies the record at a later date.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Now we get down to how one is found guilty. I must state again in the case of Bonds we are not in a court of law. MLB holds the cards. And in some instances, it is probably more prudent to prove that you did not commit some act, rather than you must be found guilty by a jury of your peers beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not all decisions of guilt or innonence are established by a court of law. If my parents had to resort to the courts when I "was" a little rat and proclaimed I did not eat our dog's food... finding the crumbs of food on my face was enough evidence. I could have said I fell face first into the dog's food and then it all just got caught in my mouth...

In Vick's case he can be tried by court system if enough evidence is even found to present an indictment.
If we had to go through a court system in the public schools about what a kid did or did not do, we would be bogged down forever.
If we have a camera that shows a kid putting graffiti on the wall he/she is sent to alternative school. There is a small hearing if the kid wishes to challenge the school district. If the kid wants to go to the court system then the school district goes through the court system. But in these instances, the standards applied in a court of law are way to cumbersome. It is up to the accused and convicted (by the district) to take it to the court system.

And even the court system is flawed.
I think there are very few people in the US that believe OJ did not kill his wife and is still searching for the killers at Wimbeldon and on golf courses.

I do understand your concern about certain allegations going public as in printed papers. But there are all sorts of levels that can be used to establish what did or did not happen. The court system is not the only method used, as valuable as it is. I happen to believe that Bond's used steroids based on all I have read. (Especially based on what Z put up about Bonds proclaiming that he may have been given steriods but did not know it).
This wont be taken to court unless MLB takes the record Bond's will surely break away from him based on steroid use. Or... if Bonds is found to have lied to a grand jury and other evidence comes to light and MLB nullifies the record at a later date.

Again, stating as you did above, that you think he used roids is different than saying he did for a fact! That's where my problem comes in!

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Again, stating as you did above, that you think he used roids is different than saying he did for a fact! That's where my problem comes in!

I personally could never say he did for a fact. Even if he admitted he used steriods. It could be he just gives in to the pressure. Furthermore if Barry shot up right in front of me and told me he was shooting steriods, I could not say for a fact he was shooting up steroids. So there is a gray area between opinion and fact.

Sounds like a bunch of hooey but I confess to have problems with this being a science guy and understanding the problems of reconstructing events from diff. viewpoints. None of us where eyewitnesses to any of this so its hard to establish when something becomes a fact. And there are clearly diff. types of facts with diff. levels of certainty.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Now we get down to how one is found guilty. I must state again in the case of Bonds we are not in a court of law. MLB holds the cards. And in some instances, it is probably more prudent to prove that you did not commit some act, rather than you must be found guilty by a jury of your peers beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not all decisions of guilt or innonence are established by a court of law. If my parents had to resort to the courts when I "was" a little rat and proclaimed I did not eat our dog's food... finding the crumbs of food on my face was enough evidence. I could have said I fell face first into the dog's food and then it all just got caught in my mouth...

In Vick's case he can be tried by court system if enough evidence is even found to present an indictment.
If we had to go through a court system in the public schools about what a kid did or did not do, we would be bogged down forever.
If we have a camera that shows a kid putting graffiti on the wall he/she is sent to alternative school. There is a small hearing if the kid wishes to challenge the school district. If the kid wants to go to the court system then the school district goes through the court system. But in these instances, the standards applied in a court of law are way to cumbersome. It is up to the accused and convicted (by the district) to take it to the court system.

And even the court system is flawed.
I think there are very few people in the US that believe OJ did not kill his wife and is still searching for the killers at Wimbeldon and on golf courses.

I do understand your concern about certain allegations going public as in printed papers. But there are all sorts of levels that can be used to establish what did or did not happen. The court system is not the only method used, as valuable as it is. I happen to believe that Bond's used steroids based on all I have read. (Especially based on what Z put up about Bonds proclaiming that he may have been given steriods but did not know it).
This wont be taken to court unless MLB takes the record Bond's will surely break away from him based on steroid use. Or... if Bonds is found to have lied to a grand jury and other evidence comes to light and MLB nullifies the record at a later date.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1937594


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...used_steroids/




i really think bonds was out to use something that would extend his career--he had the ability to break the record if he stayed out there long enough--like the guy wrote at the end of the second article above, bonds was a hitter long before he started using anything.

thing is, a lot of people thought griffey jr could break the record, but injuries affect him pretty often--so he may not do it. so, altho bonds had the talent, the ability--what about artificially extending his career? after all, if you play longer, obviously you can get more runs, etc.

at any rate, the record imo will be tarnished-but it will still be his record.

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1937594


http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...used_steroids/




i really think bonds was out to use something that would extend his career--he had the ability to break the record if he stayed out there long enough--like the guy wrote at the end of the second article above, bonds was a hitter long before he started using anything.

thing is, a lot of people thought griffey jr could break the record, but injuries affect him pretty often--so he may not do it. so, altho bonds had the talent, the ability--what about artificially extending his career? after all, if you play longer, obviously you can get more runs, etc.

at any rate, the record imo will be tarnished-but it will still be his record.

Lets look at some facts and see where they were derived.

1. Hank Aaron has stated he will not attend the game or games Barry Bonds ties/breaks his record.

a.pure jealousy
b.he thinks his record is broken illegally
c.he actually will end up attending
d.he would not have attended no matter who breaks his record

waddaya think, why wont Hank attend? You can add some more choices if you wish.

2. How come Bud Selig has not yet decided if he will attend?

Oops I cant state that 1 or 2 are facts. I did not personally hear these men say this. I read that they said this.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Lets look at some facts and see where they were derived.

1. Hank Aaron has stated he will not attend the game or games Barry Bonds ties/breaks his record.

a.pure jealousy
b.he thinks his record is broken illegally
c.he actually will end up attending
d.he would not have attended no matter who breaks his record

waddaya think, why wont Hank attend? You can add some more choices if you wish.

2. How come Bud Selig has not yet decided if he will attend?

Oops I cant state that 1 or 2 are facts. I did not personally hear these men say this. I read that they said this.

well, as for hank aaron--if it was me, i probably wouldn't be there either. why would he need to be? but it might be a combo of what you put up there--i mean, the guy can't be thrilled that he's gonna be #2. as for selig, he should be there.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, as for hank aaron--if it was me, i probably wouldn't be there either. why would he need to be? but it might be a combo of what you put up there--i mean, the guy can't be thrilled that he's gonna be #2. as for selig, he should be there.

Selig has to attend, it's his job to represent baseball, reports are coming out that indeed he will...the owners simply won't allow him to not be there! Aaron...probably a combination, traveling from park to park at his age...it could take some time afterall, especially the way teams refuse to pitch to Bonds. Frankly, I don't think it matters either way.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Selig has to attend, it's his job to represent baseball, reports are coming out that indeed he will...the owners simply won't allow him to not be there! Aaron...probably a combination, traveling from park to park at his age...it could take some time afterall, especially the way teams refuse to pitch to Bonds. Frankly, I don't think it matters either way.

yeah, i don't think aaron needs to be there, but absolutely bud selig should be.

[Bigsmc]

Bowie Kuhn wasn't there for Aaron's 715th, so why is it such a big deal that Bud be there when Barry breaks the record? I'm pretty sure Barry could care less, so why should we care?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

Bowie Kuhn wasn't there for Aaron's 715th, so why is it such a big deal that Bud be there when Barry breaks the record? I'm pretty sure Barry could care less, so why should we care?

he wasnt? hmm, didn't realize.

just everyone take notice of the pitchers name when he hits the record setter. the guy will be a future trivia answer.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Lets look at some facts and see where they were derived.

1. Hank Aaron has stated he will not attend the game or games Barry Bonds ties/breaks his record.

a.pure jealousy
b.he thinks his record is broken illegally
c.he actually will end up attending
d.he would not have attended no matter who breaks his record

waddaya think, why wont Hank attend? You can add some more choices if you wish.

2. How come Bud Selig has not yet decided if he will attend?

Oops I cant state that 1 or 2 are facts. I did not personally hear these men say this. I read that they said this.

Hank has said from the outset that this is Barry's day and he didn't want to detract from that....I heard him say that!

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Hank has said from the outset that this is Barry's day and he didn't want to detract from that....I heard him say that!

So the answer is d.

[timmgirvan]

That is the plain,simple,unfettered truth.....but don't tell the media!