Edhardiman wrote an excellent post this morning basically trashing Schilling for his rants on Barry Bonds. I'm not sure why Schilling can't leave Barry alone, but me thinks he loves being in the spotlight. He can't pitch right now being on the DL, so his only way into the news is to say something controversial, at least it is controversial to me. I won't try to tear apart all the hypocrisy in what Curt said, but there is one point that I think no one has addressed that I shall try to set the record straight upon.
Schilling says that you or I would sue someone if they made false allegations against us. This is purely not true. Let me elaborate on the reasons why you would not do this, especially if you are in Barry's position.
If you are in already under investigation, the one thing you do not want to do is bring more attention to yourself by suing someone on the prosecution's witness list. That would look malicious and give the witness credibility. It would give Bell sympathy in the court of public opinion because Barry is already the bad guy.
What is there to gain? Some would argue that by suing someone for false and misleading information you can set the record straight. No one believes Bonds right now, so why would they believe him if he sued her and won?
Then there is the issue of monetary gain. Many lawsuits by celebrities against the "rag" magazines like Enquirer have huge punitive damages attached to discourage those editors. The celebrities know that these magazines have deep pockets, but in Barry's case, Kim Bell does not have anything he can go after. In the end, he would probably win a libel or slander suit against her but end up owing court costs with nothing to gain. His good name can not be restored by winning any lawsuit and certainly he will not win a huge award from her.
Barry is busy trying to break "THE RECORD" in baseball, and distractions like a lawsuit can take a backseat at this time.
Lastly, you only sue i fyou can win. In order to win, Barry would have to prove what Kimberly Bell said was untrue. That is being decided in his grand jury investigation right now. If they can't figure it out in the two years they have been balking over it, what makes anyone think a jury trial would proceed any faster.
In this life, when someone who doesn't matter talks bad about you the thing to do is to ignore them. That is what Barry is doing to Kim Bell. Giving people like Bell the time of day feeds their need for attention. Barry is wise to leave his ex-mistress alone. Sometimes taking no action is the best course of action there is. If we would all do as Schilling says and sue anyone for saying something untrue, then there would already be half a dozen lawsuits on this blog site. I read false accusations every day. Let's see Schilling sue everyone for saying his bloody sock was a fake. It won't happen because he knows he can't win against someone like you o rme. His comment that we would sue is just like many of his other statements, pure fiction.
Every time Curt Skilling opens his mouth he inserts the bloody sock. I don't know what this dude's deal is, but he is not the appointed spokesperson for Major League Baseball, but yet he continues to try and be just that. He should be worrying about rehabbing and getting back onto the field.
Athletes are so high profile that they haven't the time to sue everyone that makes an accusation about them. Did Schilling sue the Orioles broadcaster who commented on his tampon? Like I've been saying, his two best years were at the height of the steroid craze when pitchers' stats should've been getting worse. I'm thinking this guy is so guilty himself, and that's why he's got to keep getting involved. It's as if he's mocking the public for not suspecting him.
Well said socal, I think it proper to have a consistent opinion of Bonds and others using steroids, Schilling has whatever opinion he thinks will garner him the most publicity. As for Bonds, his lawyers could've stopped the book from being published if they mounted a defense based on it being untrue, which wasn't available to them. In any event Bonds is human, had he just admitted using them, not apologize, under the guise of keeping up with the Sosa's and McGwires I think we could've all put it in perspective. His egotistical need to hold the record at all costs prevented him from doing that. Well you throw the dice sometimes they come up craps...
Sorry to borrow the bad habit of cut and paste, but...
"What is there to gain? Some would argue that by suing someone for false and misleading information you can set the record straight. No one believes Bonds right now, so why would they believe him if he sued her and won?"
Why would they believe him if he won a libel suit? That can not be a serious comment by you. If he won, why would you not believe him?
The cost to him would be so negligible he wouldn't notice.
Distractions can take a back seat? Distraction like this person that could derail the "RECORD" he so covets? You mean THAT distraction? He doesn't have a good enough reason to shut her up?
Only sue if you can win? Shockingly naive.
You didn't make any cogent arguments at all. Bonds can't sue because he did it, she has the proof and he's got his tail between his legs praying that she doesn't do him to dirty.
Baf, I think you are wrong, but then again it wouldn't be the first time we disagree. You don't win just because a jury says so. Look at OJ. He was found not guilty or acquitted, but every one thinks he is guilty.
Maybe Barry don't sue because Barry don't give a #### It doesn't seem to be affecting his life as much as it does ours. Also, I thought poon tang was a good thing. Now you're not only envious of his natural baseball talent, you're envious he gets more #### than you? Where does it end?
SoCal - you make good points all but I think Refs last comment really hit the nail on the head. Barry don't sue because Barry doesn't give a #### about what Schilling, or just about anyone else, says.
It just goes to show there is not as much racism in MLB as Sheffield might think. We have a black loose cannon and a white loose cannon. And who can forget ole what's his name, the manager of the white sox Ozzie as the Latino Loose Cannon. I don't know how much more equality you could ask for unless the Asians have a beef.
SoCalSports'
Schilling to me has become like one of our legislators in Congress. Saying s*it just for the sake of saying it and hoping that it'll stick. For once I'd just like to hear an athlete come out and say something that actually has some relevance instead of making complete a*sholes of themselves. I don't suppose that's too much to ask for is it ?
Barry Bonds needs to be gone from the sport. He should have never been allowed to return to the sport. He should never be allowed into the Hall of Fame. He cheated, his name and deeds need to be removed from the record books.
SoCal I enjoy reading your posts but I think you might be missing the point. True it would be a waste of time for Barry to go after Kim Bell. There is nothing to gain, and would only drag his name around in the mud. BUT what about VICTOR CONTE...BALCO...GREG ANDERSON. According to BONDS he took these things UNWITTINGLY! I'm sorry that I'm not just rubber stamping your post. But I disagree. If I was given a drug that wasn't what it was supposed to be and it had an adverse effect on me, either through physical or externally..i.e..loss of job, dirty test or along those lines. I would sue in a second. It would show fans a great deal if he went after these individuals. The reason BONDS won't. Because BONDS KNOWS that if he removed any incentive for these individuals to keep their mouths shut, he would be the loser. They know too much about Bonds and his routines. Ask yourself this question. If Bonds sued would Greg Anderson start talking? What is Barry afraid of... if he in his own stance, is the VICTIM here.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 26th at 4:27 PM.
socrates, Victor Conte has said Bonds never took steroids. Read it in the latest online stories about Arnold. Conte denies he ever gave Barry the clear. So why sue him, unless you are admitting he did. Greg Anderson is in jail keeping quiet, why sue him? No, Barry is right not to sue anyone just yet.
You sue Greg Anderson because he was YOUR PERSONAL TRAINER who supplied you with these steriods under the pretense that they were something else. That's why you sue. You don't give someone a free pass like that especially if what was given to you could harm your body. And you definitely sue if he's in jail. Why? Public perception already thinks he has something to hide, that's WHY he's in jail. Remember HE WON'T TALK.
Socrates, you really are lucky you have friends. Why would you sue Anderson when he is sitting in jail to keep you from being tried for perjury. If you sue Anderson, then you he is liable to turn around and say you took steroids knowingly and put you in jail. Barry is thankful for every day that Greg Anderson is quiet.
SoCal that is my point! Both Barry and Anderson know Barry is in a world of hurt if Anderson testifies. So IF Barry is telling the truth about not knowing, then what kind of FRIEND would Anderson be? Not a very good one and not one I personally would want to have. Especially if he's pumping me up with drugs that may be harmful to me. SOOOMMMEEE FRIEND! Go after the PUNK!
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 26th at 6:45 PM.
Again he isn't my friend if he's giving me a drug that I don't know about. Being silent and not confronting Anderson gives the impression that Bonds is lying. It also gives the impression that Anderson and Bonds have something to hide. Because if your telling the truth let the jailbird sing. His testimony shouldn't hold weight unless there is undeniable proof BONDS KNEW he was taking steriods. That's what Barry is afraid of.
Anderson went to jail because they wanted him to testify against Barry, but he had too much integrity to purposely lie in order to advance the government's case.
Ref, exactly. Anderson already testified once, and they want him to change his tune to incarcerate Bonds. He won't do it, so they put him in jail. Now socrates would have Barry sue his friend for helping him out.
Socrates, as long as Greg Anderson won't testify against you, they you don't sue him. He has testified you didn't take steroids. Barry says he didn't take steroids, and Victor Conte says he didn't take steroids. So in other words, the only way the DA can prosecute is if they get one of them to change their story. If Bonds sues Anderson, then he would be suing him to say he gave him steroids, thereby proving the prosecutions case. YOu don't sue. Even if you think Anderson did give you steroids, you don't want to sue him and make him admit it, then the DA can land Barry in jail. You don't have a good grasp on the legal system swat.
Obviously you feel you have a better grasp of the LEGAL SYSTEM just because I don't agree with your stance. I assure you that you don't. All because RRS above you says Anderson said this and that DOES NOT MAKE WHAT RRS SAYS IS TRUE. Better go back and check your statements RRS. You will find that Anderson in LEGALESE avoided the direct testimony regarding Bonds and his usage and his involvement in that he was Bond's SUPPLIER. For ANDERSON to admit BONDS took steriods PROVIDED by him would make ANDERSON a DRUG DEALER. So of course he's going to say BONDS didn't take them. Get the facts straight RRS. Now SoCal I understand that you like to defend Bonds, by reading your posts. And that is all well and good, BUT don't go using so called references unless you are willing to back them up with facts. Be fair with your assessments and take away you bias. The FACT is ANDERSON is in the POKEY not because he WON'T change his story as RRS states, but because he won't testify regarding his training routine with BONDS and if steriods were involved. The same goes for VICTOR CONTE to say Bonds took illegal steriods would make HIS COMPANY BALCO a PRODUCER of illegal steriods and also a DISTRIBUTOR. HMMM If someone asked me that question knowing I could get considerable prison time, I think I might say Bonds and Sheffield never did steriods as well.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 26th at 10:38 PM.
The facts are that Anderson didn't testify because according to the terms of an earlier plea agreement he made with the government, he felt he wasn't obligated to. He also didn't want to comment on evidence that was obtained illegally, since the evidence was more than likely to be suppressed. It wasn't a question of him admitting to being a drug dealer, since he already copped a plea to distributing steroids and did 3 months for it. Simply put, he didn't have anything to testify about. Sure, he could've made up something and saved his ####, but I guess he had some honor and loyalty. Let me ask you, if Big Brother asked you to make up some #### about your best friend otherwise they were going to throw you to the wolves, would you?
What I don't understand about you SoCal is this... you are quick to jump on Barry's bandwagon even though HE has ADMITTED taking steriods abet unwillingly. You say in your other posts that other records should be stripped because of 'GREENIES' and such. That's why Bond's records should stand in your view because everyone has turned a blind eye to this problem so EVERYBODY's doing it. In what parallel universe does two wrongs make a right? All because MLB has turned a blind eye that gives any player including Bonds permission to do illegal drugs. Notice I said illegal drugs. Not banned substances in MLB. I'm talking about the Steriod Act of 1990 that made Anabolic steriods a CRIME to take without a prescription in the United States. Aaron admitted taking 'GREENIES in his book "Hammering Hank" eighteen years AFTER he broke the record. Bonds has NOT BROKEN the HR career record as of yet. There is a distinct difference between the two. And where is the FAIRNESS to the players who have NOT taken illegal substances? Sure LET US PENALIZE the players who have PLAYED BY THE RULES.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 26th at 11:05 PM.
RRS where is your point of reference where the prosecution got evidence that was obtained illegally. That is HILARIOUS. I'll tell you why. If a jury heard that a government agency obtained evidence illegally it would be laughed out of court. If it were suppressed because it was obtained illegally, then why would ANDERSON plea bargain? Anyone who has EVER picked up a newspaper knows that when you plea bargain you PLEAD DOWN. Meaning you cop to a lesser charge because you pretty much know they have the evidence to hang you on the more serious charge.
Socrates, I dont turn a blind eye. If Bonds is ever found guilty, not alleged, then his records can be stripped, but first MLB should strip all known cheaters including Aaron, Babe Ruth, and Perry.
As for Anderson, your facts are wrong. Both he and Conte already served time for a plea deal. Both admitted dealing steroids. The reason Anderson won't testify is because the feds are looking for him to turn in Bonds, something he refuses to do. He said all in an original plea deal, but it wasn't what they wanted so they are reniging on the deal and put him in jail. Bonds has no reason to sue Conte or Anderson. You already believe Barry knew what he was taking, so if that is true he wouldn't sue his friends to make him look good. It is not in his best interest to sue anyone. Silence is golden to a defense attorney. Again, Barry never admitted to taking steroids. You need to reread his transcript. He said he took something he thought was flaxseed oil and an arthritis rub. If it was steroids, he didn't know. That is not an admission at all. You want to believe it and every media guy says it is an admission, but that doesn't make it so. Barry has not been charged yet because they have no evidence. In fact, they are going after him on tax evasion because they can't get him for steroids period.
Again Socal there IS a difference between a book published 18 years after something has been broken and something that has not yet occurred. Bonds breaking Aarons' record. I have not stated that Anderson testified before the court. The term 'Legalese' is used during PLEA BARGAINS. It is NOT considered direct testimony and is not admissible in a court of law since the defendant is talking directly to the prosecutor without a judge or jury present. So even though he admitted being involved and accepted punishment,(A PLEA BARGAIN), on a lesser charge that still does not excuse him from testifying. In fact if I'm not mistaken usually part of the Plea Bargain agreement is the defendant testifies against others involved. And that is why he is in Jail. His refusal to reveal the facts.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 26th at 11:47 PM.
Oh and Socal the reason Barry hasn't been charged yet is because the GRAND JURY is still in SESSION. As I was explaining to Jaysisko a while back, in order to get to this juncture, charges are forthcoming. It's like this. Local Police departments can charge citizens with crimes. But local police can not charge corporations. That's why we have grand juries. Now MLB is under anti-trust laws. Meaning the Federal Government can not go in and have a congressional hearing unless there is evidence a crime has occurred. Also anti-trust laws protect all parties involved in MLB. MLB is a big conglomerate. You have three distinct entities. 1) You have the directors which consists of the owners and the commissioner which conduct business under the MLB logo. 2) You have the teams themselves which are separately run businesses much like franchises that must operate within the perimeters of MLB. And 3) You have the players who are represented by MLBPA. Now say the Red Sox management did something shady. Anti-trust laws protect the other owners by making it ILLEGAL for the Federal Government to make inquiries about them. The same with the teams and MLB. If a player is caught with steriods the government can not go after the teams or MLB unless it can be proven that the TEAM or MLB endorsed it.
A Congressional Hearing can only happen if there is evidence a crime has occurred. An example. The police find a bullet riddled body and the hit man. But they want to know who put the contract out for the hit. They know a CRIME has been committed, but they are not sure who to charge and what to charge them with. They have to do an investigation. Now in order for a GRAND JURY to be put in session against an entity protected by anti-trust laws which MLB falls under, A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING MUST have found a crime has been committed. The GRAND JURY is the INVESTIGATIVE component of the process that must determine WHO gets charged, and WHAT to charge them with. There will be charges based on the FACT that there is a GRAND JURY.
Socal--the only thing I'd add is that Barry Bonds is in a different position from the ordinary person in a libel action. Non-entities like us only have to prove the statement was false and that we were damaged by the statement. (That is, it may be false for me to say you're the Prince of Wales, but it doesn't harm your reputation except maybe among Lady Di fans.) Public figures have to meet a higher standard after a case involving the New York Times back in the civil rights area. Public figures have to prove that the allegedly libelous statement is not just false but was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for truth or falsity. So Schilling is wrong, but for a slightly different reason. Even if an MLB player is falsely accused of illegal steroid use he'd have to meet the higher standard. In Barry's case he'd probably lose the case because the statement is true, but that doesn't mean the fact he isn't suing necessarily implies it is true.
Uh--not to get all lawyery on a sports site, but baseball has been exempt from antitrust laws since 1922. Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National Baseball Clubs. And Congress can hold a hearing anytime a majority of a committee decides to have one. To paraphrase an old line about prosecutors, Congress can investigate a ham sandwich if it wants to.
thanks for the comments Con. So do you concur that not suing does not necessarily imply guilt? And do you concur that the average Joe would not sue either nor could we win? Thanks again for commenting.
Average Joe could sue and win if false, but there's always the question of expense. Average Joe would have to weigh the cost/benefit of a lawsuit--figure conservatively it goes on for two years, meanwhile you're paying a lawyer. Average Joe won't sue if he has any brain because of cost, etc., and also spreads the libel by the suit. As for Barry, he probably gets the benefit of the public figure presumption. People assume if Cal Ripken didn't sue it would be because of combination of the public figure problem plus expense, wasted time. Barry could say he wasn't suing because of those factors, but I wouldn't believe it.
socal, your so blinded by your allegience to Bonds that you choose to not see the facts.
Bonds has taken steriods and has cheated for at least the last 10 years. He has paid people to keep quite, others have kept quite or lied not to implicate themeselves, others have flat out said he's done it. Your in denial. He is guilty.
The way you justify his cheating is that others in the past have cheated(Aaron, Ruth, and Perry), and so on. Shift the blame or focus to others. Aaron and Ruth I have no idea what your talking about when it comes to cheating. Aaron played 23 years and was consistantly good and that's how he achieved the record. Ruth is the greatest player of alltime, period. Perry threw spitballs, but alot of his act was gamesmanship. He didn't throw the spitter every pitch.
The only good part about this Bonds record fiasco is that the record will be short lived. I hope ARod goes nuts the next 5 years and sets the record that should stand for a very long time. During that 5 year span, Bonds will be exposed as a cheat and a liar. His marks for HRs in a career and year will be removed(as will McGwire and Sosa).
The true records are 756 and 61.
P.S. OJ did it and everyone knows it, it just wasn't proven in a court of law.
If it wasn't proven that OJ did it, doesn't that mean he he didn't do it. Also 756, Oh great you do believe that Bonds is the the HR King. Good for you.
Ultimately, what truly counts is that Bonds will hold the record in a matter of days (perhaps weeks at this rate he's going at). Socrates, as for your grand jury point.... remember this is the 2nd grand jury. The first one expired without having found Bonds did anything wrong (as this one will in January). And it's not because they KNOW a crime took place, they're trying to determine IF a crime took place. As for the point of reference concerning the illegal wiretapping of Anderson's phones, you'll find thousands of them yourself on the net. Particularly in statements given by Anderson's lawyer, Mark Garagos, concerning the legality of the wiretap, the terms of the previous plea deal, the repeated Grand Jury 'leaking' of testimony, and his client's own personal integrity. The legality of the wiretap is still up in air. Being an expert on the bonds case, you should know this. This is pretty pertinent information concerning why Anderson doesn't testify. It's actually one of the reasons Anderson himself gives. Hell, you didn't even know there was an illegal tape made that was a major basis for the government's claims that Bond's did perjure himself? Beyond that and 'calendars' they seized at Anderson's home, they don't have a pot to #### in. And those two pieces of evidence are "shakey" at best. Face it, the record will be Barry's forever and ever as it should be since in America mere su####ion doesn't constitute wrong doing (see Michael Vick).
As for O.J., I like how Chris Rock put it. "I'm not saying it's right, but I can see where he's co
Last edited by RefsRuinSports on July 27th at 9:03 AM.
Again RRS you fail to recognized that MLB falls under ANTI-TRUST laws which are DIFFERENT than civilian proceedings. They knew a crime was committed on the first with BALCO, VICTOR CONTE, and ANDERSON.! Let me say that again for you RRS. THEY knew a crime was committed because of BALCO, VICTOR CONTE, and ANDERSON! They KNEW these things BEFORE there was a Congressional hearing OR a GRAND JURY. You need to go back and read those 1000's of articles ON THE WEB.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 27th at 9:47 AM.
SoCal you FINALLY are starting to get it! It is a FEDERAL PROBE but not against MLB. That's because MLB is protected by Anti-trust laws. Bonds on the other is a different story since he HAS been connected to Balco and Greg Anderson. In this case the Federal government can go after the individual but not the TEAMS or MLB's Directors. And since BALCO was distributing illegal steriods and laundering money,(Victor Conte has pleaded to this), Then YES the probe also includes STERIODS. This probe was started because of BALCO and Victor Conte. Not Bonds' alleged tax evasion. That is a separated issue and may be combined with other FEDERAL investigations IF they overlap. Which Tax evasion is.
Last edited by socratesofswat on July 27th at 10:50 AM.
socrates, I never didn't get it, on the other hand you are still struggling to see that Bonds would not nor should he sue. Gerbil is a lawyer and agrees with me, for different reasons, but Bonds woul dnot sue.
SoCal, I'm not struggling with whether Bonds should sue or not. I plainly stated on my 7/26 @5:12 post on this blog, that Bonds should sue Anderson for giving him steriods under false pretenses. This occurring while he was Bond's personal trainer. You are having a hard time because you can't sway me about not suing.
CR, once again you distort the truth. I have never said that Bonds hasn't used steroids. I say he has never tested positive for them. Read my posts, I have admitted I think he used repeatedly, but then again I think Clemens has used as well. Roger doesn't need to bulk up, he needs roids to recover his pitching arm strength. That type of roid doesn't show.
