The Giambi/McGwire counter-arguments for those who defend Bonds
Tonawanda Kardex
did it, would he be in this pickle now? No.
2) Is there any credible evidence linking McGwire to steroid abuse
like there is for Bonds? No.
But of course, it's all about race with Bonds, isn't it?
Tarkus
> 1) Giambi admitted what he did. If Bonds had done the same when Giambi
> did it, would he be in this pickle now? No.
Not this particular pickle, no.
> 2) Is there any credible evidence linking McGwire to steroid abuse
> like there is for Bonds? No.
No, but that hasn't stopped people from assuming he's done so. His
testimony before Congress didn't help him any either, when he said he
wasn't there to talk about the past.
> But of course, it's all about race with Bonds, isn't it?
Who said that?
Steve Cutchen
<607a1aec-bd23-4b57...@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Giambi admitted what he did. If Bonds had done the same when Giambi
> did it, would he be in this pickle now? No.
That ship's prolly sailed. Rose waited too long and all that happened
when he finally told the truth was he got confirmed as the liar and
gambler his was.
> But of course, it's all about race with Bonds, isn't it?
No. It was all about race with Marion Jones.
Bonds' knees are too bad for him to race.
Tarkus
> In article
> <607a1aec-bd23-4b57...@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) Giambi admitted what he did. If Bonds had done the same when Giambi
>> did it, would he be in this pickle now? No.
>
> That ship's prolly sailed. Rose waited too long and all that happened
> when he finally told the truth was he got confirmed as the liar and
> gambler his was.
And probably a bad gambler, since he apparently needed money so much
that he sold his "confession" in a book.
>> But of course, it's all about race with Bonds, isn't it?
>
> No. It was all about race with Marion Jones.
> Bonds' knees are too bad for him to race.
Heh. :)
David M. Nieporent
<607a1aec-bd23-4b57...@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>2) Is there any credible evidence linking McGwire to steroid abuse
>like there is for Bonds? No.
There's at least as much evidence with McGwire as with Bonds.
Realto Margarino
> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>2) Is there any credible evidence linking McGwire to steroid abuse
>>like there is for Bonds? No.
>There's at least as much evidence with McGwire as with Bonds.
And where did McGwire lie about it?
Somehow this has got to be Pete Rose's fault. How does he come into
play?
cordially, as always,
rm
--
http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4065/Rose-Pete-Awards-Accomplishments.html
Tonawanda Kardex
<niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <607a1aec-bd23-4b57-9d72-84608dc37...@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >2) Is there any credible evidence linking McGwire to steroid abuse
> >like there is for Bonds? No.
>
> There's at least as much evidence with McGwire as with Bonds.
Where? Cite, please.
David M. Nieporent
<836b4dbd-e7c9-4144...@w73g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>Where? Cite, please.
I shouldn't have said what I said; in fact, there's _more_ evidence with
McGwire than with Bonds.
With McGwire, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
and inferential evidence (he refused to discuss it before Congress) _and_
eyewitness statements (from Canseco).
With Bonds, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
plus the statements of an ex-mistress who says she heard Bonds talking
about it but admits she never witnessed any steroid use.
Of course, Canseco's accusations against McGwire haven't been tested in a
courtroom -- but neither have any accusations against Bonds.
Joetheone
"David M. Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-842F9F...@yellow.octanews.net...
Aparently, now we have a positive test result on Bonds. It is part of the
indictment.
David M. Nieporent
"Joetheone" <joet...@dontchabespamminme.com> wrote:
>"David M. Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>>>"David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >2) Is there any credible evidence linking McGwire to steroid abuse
>>>> >like there is for Bonds? No.
>>>> There's at least as much evidence with McGwire as with Bonds.
>>>Where? Cite, please.
>> I shouldn't have said what I said; in fact, there's _more_ evidence with
>> McGwire than with Bonds.
>> With McGwire, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
>> and inferential evidence (he refused to discuss it before Congress) _and_
>> eyewitness statements (from Canseco).
>> With Bonds, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
>> plus the statements of an ex-mistress who says she heard Bonds talking
>> about it but admits she never witnessed any steroid use.
>> Of course, Canseco's accusations against McGwire haven't been tested in a
>> courtroom -- but neither have any accusations against Bonds.
>Aparently, now we have a positive test result on Bonds. It is part of the
>indictment.
No; an indictment is a claim about what the government intends to try to
prove in court, but it is not itself evidence. If the government produces
evidence that there was a drug test, that it was of Bonds, and that it was
positive, _then_ we'll have that.
Dale Hicks
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu says...
It tells us that a positive test result paper with the initials BB
was presented to Bonds for him to comment upon (where he said that
he'd never seen it before, and that BB could pertain to lots of
people).
So it sounds pretty clear they'll try to introduce this, even if it
was just a test result for Br*tt B**n*.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
Steve Cutchen
Hicks <dgh...@southernbell.com> wrote:
> In article <nieporen-79C262...@yellow.octanews.net>,
> niep...@alumni.princeton.edu says...
> > In article <q950j.21010$B25....@news01.roc.ny>,
> > "Joetheone" <joet...@dontchabespamminme.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Aparently, now we have a positive test result on Bonds. It is part of the
> > >indictment.
> >
> > No; an indictment is a claim about what the government intends to try to
> > prove in court, but it is not itself evidence. If the government produces
> > evidence that there was a drug test, that it was of Bonds, and that it was
> > positive, _then_ we'll have that.
>
> It tells us that a positive test result paper with the initials BB
> was presented to Bonds for him to comment upon (where he said that
> he'd never seen it before, and that BB could pertain to lots of
> people).
*BOBBY* *BOWDEN* *took* *Steroids?!?*
David M. Nieporent
>> "Joetheone" <joet...@dontchabespamminme.com> wrote:
>> >Aparently, now we have a positive test result on Bonds. It is part of the
>> >indictment.
>> No; an indictment is a claim about what the government intends to try to
>> prove in court, but it is not itself evidence. If the government produces
>> evidence that there was a drug test, that it was of Bonds, and that it was
>> positive, _then_ we'll have that.
>It tells us that a positive test result paper with the initials BB
>was presented to Bonds for him to comment upon (where he said that
>he'd never seen it before, and that BB could pertain to lots of people).
>So it sounds pretty clear they'll try to introduce this, even if it
>was just a test result for Br*tt B**n*.
Right; I think a lot of people think that the government has Bonds' blood
or urine sample and has tested it and found steroids; what the government
allegedly has found is a piece of paper. I don't think it had BB on it; if
I read correctly, it had some code on it, which the government
cross-referenced with some other piece of paper and claim that it refers to
him.
Hank Gillette
> It tells us that a positive test result paper with the initials BB
> was presented to Bonds for him to comment upon (where he said that
> he'd never seen it before, and that BB could pertain to lots of
> people).
>
It's not illegal for the government to lie to a suspect, is it? The test
result paper with the initials BB could be a total fake.
--
Hank Gillette
"You know, nobody likes to be talked to in a way that may point up different
flaws in their strategy." -- George W. Bush
Tarkus
> In article <MPG.21aab47fa...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> Dale Hicks <dgh...@southernbell.com> wrote:
>
>> It tells us that a positive test result paper with the initials BB
>> was presented to Bonds for him to comment upon (where he said that
>> he'd never seen it before, and that BB could pertain to lots of
>> people).
>
> It's not illegal for the government to lie to a suspect, is it? The test
> result paper with the initials BB could be a total fake.
Yes, they could certainly use something like that to get Bonds to admit
to something he wouldn't otherwise. But since he didn't, they wouldn't
likely still be using such a lie in an indictment. That is, unless they
still have fantasies about him rolling, which is highly unlikely, from
where I sit.
--
Pitchers.bat found. Delete dh.sys (Y,y)?
David M. Nieporent
>> It tells us that a positive test result paper with the initials BB
>> was presented to Bonds for him to comment upon (where he said that
>> he'd never seen it before, and that BB could pertain to lots of
>> people).
>It's not illegal for the government to lie to a suspect, is it? The test
>result paper with the initials BB could be a total fake.
It's not illegal to lie to a suspect in an interrogation, no. But this
isn't an interrogation. It's illegal to present fake evidence to a grand
jury (or, obviously, a petit jury).
Ron Johnson
<niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article <MPG.21aab47fa2d03a10989...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> Dale Hicks <dgh1...@southernbell.com> wrote:
>
> >niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu says...
> >> "Joetheone" <joethe...@dontchabespamminme.com> wrote:
> >> >Aparently, now we have a positive test result on Bonds. It is part of the
> >> >indictment.
> >> No; an indictment is a claim about what the government intends to try to
> >> prove in court, but it is not itself evidence. If the government produces
> >> evidence that there was a drug test, that it was of Bonds, and that it was
> >> positive, _then_ we'll have that.
> >It tells us that a positive test result paper with the initials BB
> >was presented to Bonds for him to comment upon (where he said that
> >he'd never seen it before, and that BB could pertain to lots of people).
> >So it sounds pretty clear they'll try to introduce this, even if it
> >was just a test result for Br*tt B**n*.
>
> Right; I think a lot of people think that the government has Bonds' blood
> or urine sample and has tested it and found steroids; what the government
> allegedly has found is a piece of paper. I don't think it had BB on it; if
> I read correctly, it had some code on it, which the government
> cross-referenced with some other piece of paper and claim that it refers to
> him.
And just to add spice to this, said tests were done by a lab
that offered Conte 1/3 off if they could skip all of the
petty formalities that make a test legally meaningful.
Tonawanda Kardex
<niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article <hankgillette-4750F4.11592619112...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> Hank Gillette <hankgille...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dale Hicks <dgh1...@southernbell.com> wrote:
> >> It tells us that a positive test result paper with the initials BB
> >> was presented to Bonds for him to comment upon (where he said that
> >> he'd never seen it before, and that BB could pertain to lots of
> >> people).
> >It's not illegal for the government to lie to a suspect, is it? The test
> >result paper with the initials BB could be a total fake.
>
> It's not illegal to lie to a suspect in an interrogation, no. But this
> isn't an interrogation. It's illegal to present fake evidence to a grand
> jury (or, obviously, a petit jury).
Are you saying that's what happened in this case?
Tonawanda Kardex
<niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <836b4dbd-e7c9-4144-9962-f28aa1aad...@w73g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >2) Is there any credible evidence linking McGwire to steroid abuse
> >> >like there is for Bonds? No.
> >> There's at least as much evidence with McGwire as with Bonds.
> >Where? Cite, please.
>
> I shouldn't have said what I said; in fact, there's _more_ evidence with
> McGwire than with Bonds.
Is there a book like _Game of Shadows_ out on McGwire? Documented
court evidence? Paperwork and lab results seized by the feds?
> With McGwire, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
> and inferential evidence (he refused to discuss it before Congress) _and_
> eyewitness statements (from Canseco).
A) McGwire his 49 HRs as a rookie; he hit 70 HRs a decade later. He
always hit a lot of HRs, even when he was young. That's not
circumstantial; it's faulty logic any way you look at it. Otherwise,
anyone who hit a lot of HRs would fit your circumstantial evidence
model. To make this logical, you'd have to show a significant spike in
production over a short period of time, and McGwire doesn't fit that
model like other hitters (Bonds, for one -- or Brady Anderson/Luis
Gonzalez, et al.). McGwire's HR trajectory is within normal models for
long careers.
B) That's a personal choice McGwire made, and while I see your
thinking here and can definitely see how a critical eye would view it,
he could have a million reasons for not answering those questions. And
as Bonds' sycophants have said, everyone's innocent until proven
guilty. _Game of Shadows_ proved Bonds' guilt. McGwire's esilence to
Congress? Not so much. This is another leap.
C) Jose Canseco's "facts" in that book were so off-base, why would you
take his word for it? He misrepresented games, seasons and players
(who weren't even on his team when he claimed he did steroids with
them, for example). Critics panned his book, while the _Game of
Shadows_ writers won awards. Again, another leap.
> With Bonds, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
> plus the statements of an ex-mistress who says she heard Bonds talking
> about it but admits she never witnessed any steroid use.
Oh, and about a thousand documents seized from BALCO by the federal
government ... funny how you ignore that, huh?
> Of course, Canseco's accusations against McGwire haven't been tested in a
> courtroom -- but neither have any accusations against Bonds.
D. E. N. I. A. L.
Tonawanda Kardex
<niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article <q950j.21010$B25.10...@news01.roc.ny>,
>
>
>
> "Joetheone" <joethe...@dontchabespamminme.com> wrote:
> >"David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
> >> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>"David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >>>> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >2) Is there any credible evidence linking McGwire to steroid abuse
> >>>> >like there is for Bonds? No.
> >>>> There's at least as much evidence with McGwire as with Bonds.
> >>>Where? Cite, please.
> >> I shouldn't have said what I said; in fact, there's _more_ evidence with
> >> McGwire than with Bonds.
> >> With McGwire, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
> >> and inferential evidence (he refused to discuss it before Congress) _and_
> >> eyewitness statements (from Canseco).
> >> With Bonds, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
> >> plus the statements of an ex-mistress who says she heard Bonds talking
> >> about it but admits she never witnessed any steroid use.
> >> Of course, Canseco's accusations against McGwire haven't been tested in a
> >> courtroom -- but neither have any accusations against Bonds.
> >Aparently, now we have a positive test result on Bonds. It is part of the
> >indictment.
>
> No; an indictment is a claim about what the government intends to try to
> prove in court, but it is not itself evidence. If the government produces
> evidence that there was a drug test, that it was of Bonds, and that it was
> positive, _then_ we'll have that.
Yet you will convict McGwire on Canseco's word alone.
Glad you're not a lawyer.
Tarkus
First, lawyers aren't capable of convicting anyone. That's not the way
our legal system works.
Second, I think David *is* a lawyer. And just a guess, but probably on
the defense side, where he wouldn't be INTERESTED in convicting ANYONE.
If Nancy Grace shows up here, we may have an entirely different discussion.
David M. Nieporent
<5bfe0abc-51a5-409f...@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
No; I'm making some abstract legal points. Other than selections from
Barry Bonds' testimony contained in the indictment, I don't know who said
what to any grand jury.
Realto Margarino
>First, lawyers aren't capable of convicting anyone. That's not the
>way our legal system works.
>Second, I think David *is* a lawyer.
The Nieporent is a *real estate* lawyer. Whatever knowledge he
picked up during his night courses at City College Law School does
not inform any of his opinions on baseball.
>And just a guess, but probably on the defense side, where he
>wouldn't be INTERESTED in convicting ANYONE.
The Nieporent would love to convict Pete Rose. Of anything.
>If Nancy Grace shows up here, we may have an entirely different
>discussion.
Nancy Grace is a criminal lawyer and former prosecutor. She and The
Nieporent have nothing in common, other than the fact that they both
like to wear lace panties.
David M. Nieporent
<a419e6e0-818b-46bc...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >"David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >2) Is there any credible evidence linking McGwire to steroid abuse
>> >> >like there is for Bonds? No.
>> >> There's at least as much evidence with McGwire as with Bonds.
>> >Where? Cite, please.
>> I shouldn't have said what I said; in fact, there's _more_ evidence with
>> McGwire than with Bonds.
>Is there a book like _Game of Shadows_ out on McGwire? Documented
>court evidence? Paperwork and lab results seized by the feds?
Are there any of those things with Bonds, other than a book quoting a bunch
of anonymous people, none of whom were speaking under oath?
>> With McGwire, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home
>> runs), and inferential evidence (he refused to discuss it before
>> Congress) _and_ eyewitness statements (from Canseco).
>A) McGwire his 49 HRs as a rookie; he hit 70 HRs a decade later. He
>always hit a lot of HRs, even when he was young. That's not
>circumstantial; it's faulty logic any way you look at it. Otherwise,
>anyone who hit a lot of HRs would fit your circumstantial evidence
>model. To make this logical, you'd have to show a significant spike in
>production over a short period of time, and McGwire doesn't fit that
>model like other hitters (Bonds, for one -- or Brady Anderson/Luis
>Gonzalez, et al.). McGwire's HR trajectory is within normal models for
>long careers.
(1) Hitting 70 HRs is not "within normal models" for anybody.
(2) No, "a significant spike over a short period of time" is not required;
indeed, if it's over a short period of time like Brady Anderson, that
sounds a lot more like a fluke than evidence of steroid use.
(3) To the extent it is evidence, McGwire *did* have a significant spike
over a short period of time.
>B) That's a personal choice McGwire made, and while I see your
>thinking here and can definitely see how a critical eye would view it,
>he could have a million reasons for not answering those questions. And
>as Bonds' sycophants have said, everyone's innocent until proven
>guilty. _Game of Shadows_ proved Bonds' guilt. McGwire's esilence to
>Congress? Not so much. This is another leap.
It's not a "leap" at all. I simply laid out one piece of evidence. If a
husband had a big life insurance policy on his wife and then his wife is
killed, that's evidence that he did it. By itself it certainly wouldn't
prove anything, but it's a piece of evidence.
"Game of Shadows" is a book. It can't "prove" anything. None of the
statements in there are under oath, most of them are anonymous (which means
we have no way to evaluate their credibility), and none of them claim to
have witnessed Bonds use steroids.
>C) Jose Canseco's "facts" in that book were so off-base, why would you
>take his word for it? He misrepresented games, seasons and players
>(who weren't even on his team when he claimed he did steroids with
>them, for example). Critics panned his book, while the _Game of
>Shadows_ writers won awards. Again, another leap.
Canseco's facts were not off base; to the extent they've been verifiable,
they've matched up with later revelations, with a few small exceptions
(like Bret Boone's double). Numerous people he named have been caught or
have admitted use or have been otherwise connected to the scandal.
And this is the first I've heard that literary merit was a way to evaluate
the truthfulness of testimony.
In any case, who said I "took his word for it"? All I said was that he
made the accusations based on firsthand knowledge, and that they represent
a piece of evidence.
>> With Bonds, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
>> plus the statements of an ex-mistress who says she heard Bonds talking
>> about it but admits she never witnessed any steroid use.
>Oh, and about a thousand documents seized from BALCO by the federal
>government ... funny how you ignore that, huh?
What documents? Do *any* of them pertain to Bonds? _I_ haven't seen any
of them; have you?
Why would you believe anonymous quotes and documents you haven't even seen,
but ignore the statements of someone who said that he personally witnessed
McGwire use steroids?
>> Of course, Canseco's accusations against McGwire haven't been tested in a
>> courtroom -- but neither have any accusations against Bonds.
>D. E. N. I. A. L.
No, fact. Canseco's accusations against McGwire haven't been tested in a
courtroom. Accusations against Bonds have also not been tested in a
courtroom. Those are simple statements of truth.
David M. Nieporent
<0ce75299-2e0d-46ba...@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> "Joetheone" <joethe...@dontchabespamminme.com> wrote:
>> >"David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>> >> I shouldn't have said what I said; in fact, there's _more_ evidence with
>> >> McGwire than with Bonds.
>> >> With McGwire, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
>> >> and inferential evidence (he refused to discuss it before Congress) _and_
>> >> eyewitness statements (from Canseco).
>> >> With Bonds, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
>> >> plus the statements of an ex-mistress who says she heard Bonds talking
>> >> about it but admits she never witnessed any steroid use.
>> >> Of course, Canseco's accusations against McGwire haven't been tested in a
>> >> courtroom -- but neither have any accusations against Bonds.
>> >Aparently, now we have a positive test result on Bonds. It is part of the
>> >indictment.
>> No; an indictment is a claim about what the government intends to try to
>> prove in court, but it is not itself evidence. If the government produces
>> evidence that there was a drug test, that it was of Bonds, and that it was
>> positive, _then_ we'll have that.
>Yet you will convict McGwire on Canseco's word alone.
>Glad you're not a lawyer.
I _am_ a lawyer; you're obviously not. If you were, you'd know that
lawyers don't convict people; juries -- made up primarily of non-lawyers --
do. And if you were a lawyer, you'd also know to read more carefully, and
you'll see that
(a) WRT McGwire, I did not cite "Canseco's word alone," but three pieces of
evidence, of which that was only one; and
(b) I did not "convict" McGwire at all. I merely stated that there's more
evidence wrt McGwire than wrt Bonds. In fact, based on the facts -- not
gossip, innuendo, accusation, or rumor, but _facts_ -- we have right now, I
would not "convict" either of them.
David V. Loewe, Jr
Mores the pity...
It's made you unable to have a normal conversation with non-lawyers.
>you're obviously not. If you were, you'd know that
>lawyers don't convict people; juries -- made up primarily of non-lawyers --
>do. And if you were a lawyer, you'd also know to read more carefully, and
>you'll see that
>
>(a) WRT McGwire, I did not cite "Canseco's word alone," but three pieces of
>evidence, of which that was only one; and
>(b) I did not "convict" McGwire at all. I merely stated that there's more
>evidence wrt McGwire than wrt Bonds.
A statement that is wrong...
You overrate the "evidence" against McGwire and underrate the
"evidence" against Bonds.
>In fact, based on the facts -- not
>gossip, innuendo, accusation, or rumor, but _facts_ -- we have right now, I
>would not "convict" either of them.
--
"Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you
cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you."
Sir Karl Popper
Tarkus
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:49:10 -0500, "David M. Nieporent"
> <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> I _am_ a lawyer;
>
> Mores the pity...
>
> It's made you unable to have a normal conversation with non-lawyers.
Only if you're intimidated by his knowledge of the law.
I've certainly had my disagreements with David over the years, but I
would never pretend to know more about legal issues than him. Just as I
bow to the knowledge of the umpires that hang out here, though I often
disagree with their defense of umpires on non-rulebook issues.
Tonawanda Kardex
Who said it was?
> Second, I think David *is* a lawyer. And just a guess, but probably on
> the defense side, where he wouldn't be INTERESTED in convicting ANYONE.
Well, I am not a lawyer, but I do have a law degree. And I don't take
sides -- I look at the case facts.
[Heh, heh.]
Tonawanda Kardex
<niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <0ce75299-2e0d-46ba-aa46-bfe1baf5f...@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Zzzzzz. You tell me to read carefully, yet you made the same knee-jerk
response as some other clown.
There was no insinuation whatsoever that I made to suggest "lawyers
convict people".
I made two independent statements, separated by a line break and a
carriage return. Now, if there had been a semi-colon separating my two
statements, MAYBE you'd have a point.
And you're not a member of the California bar, so I don't really care
about your legal expertise. Thanks, anyway.
Tonawanda Kardex
> > On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:49:10 -0500, "David M. Nieporent"
> > <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> I _am_ a lawyer;
>
> > Mores the pity...
>
> > It's made you unable to have a normal conversation with non-lawyers.
>
> Only if you're intimidated by his knowledge of the law.
>
> I've certainly had my disagreements with David over the years, but I
> would never pretend to know more about legal issues than him.
FYI: Lawyers don't call themselves "lawyers". They call themselves
"attorneys". David doesn't even know that, which really makes me
wonder about his "legal issues" knowledge.
Hank Gillette
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>Yet you will convict McGwire on Canseco's word alone.
> >>Glad you're not a lawyer.
> >
> >I _am_ a lawyer;
>
> Mores the pity...
>
> It's made you unable to have a normal conversation with non-lawyers.
>
I'm not having any trouble following what he's saying. Are you?
Tonawanda Kardex
<niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> >> There's at least as much evidence with McGwire as with Bonds.
> >> >Where? Cite, please.
> >> I shouldn't have said what I said; in fact, there's _more_ evidence with
> >> McGwire than with Bonds.
> >Is there a book like _Game of Shadows_ out on McGwire? Documented
> >court evidence? Paperwork and lab results seized by the feds?
>
> Are there any of those things with Bonds, other than a book quoting a bunch
> of anonymous people, none of whom were speaking under oath?
Yes. And most people acknowledge this, including legal experts.
> >> With McGwire, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home
> >> runs), and inferential evidence (he refused to discuss it before
> >> Congress) _and_ eyewitness statements (from Canseco).
> >A) McGwire his 49 HRs as a rookie; he hit 70 HRs a decade later. He
> >always hit a lot of HRs, even when he was young. That's not
> >circumstantial; it's faulty logic any way you look at it. Otherwise,
> >anyone who hit a lot of HRs would fit your circumstantial evidence
> >model. To make this logical, you'd have to show a significant spike in
> >production over a short period of time, and McGwire doesn't fit that
> >model like other hitters (Bonds, for one -- or Brady Anderson/Luis
> >Gonzalez, et al.). McGwire's HR trajectory is within normal models for
> >long careers.
>
> (1) Hitting 70 HRs is not "within normal models" for anybody.
Okay. Then Bonds used PEDs and lied about it to the grand jury. Hence,
his indictment.
> (2) No, "a significant spike over a short period of time" is not required;
> indeed, if it's over a short period of time like Brady Anderson, that
> sounds a lot more like a fluke than evidence of steroid use.
Maybe Brady Anderson pulled a Norm Cash then. Since there's no
evidence on Brady Anderson, I guess I shouldn't have thrown his name
out there.
> (3) To the extent it is evidence, McGwire *did* have a significant spike
> over a short period of time.
In your opinion, which is debatable. However, I wouldn't consider five-
plus years to be a short period of time, nor would I consider his
rookie-record HR total to be a "fluke". His career body of work is
more power-consistent than a demonstrated PED abuser like Bonds.
> >B) That's a personal choice McGwire made, and while I see your
> >thinking here and can definitely see how a critical eye would view it,
> >he could have a million reasons for not answering those questions. And
> >as Bonds' sycophants have said, everyone's innocent until proven
> >guilty. _Game of Shadows_ proved Bonds' guilt. McGwire's esilence to
> >Congress? Not so much. This is another leap.
>
> It's not a "leap" at all. I simply laid out one piece of evidence. If a
> husband had a big life insurance policy on his wife and then his wife is
> killed, that's evidence that he did it. By itself it certainly wouldn't
> prove anything, but it's a piece of evidence.
And _Game of Shadows_ is full of evidence you choose to ignore. So in
essence, you just look at what you want to see. I see that clearly.
> "Game of Shadows" is a book. It can't "prove" anything. None of the
> statements in there are under oath, most of them are anonymous (which means
> we have no way to evaluate their credibility), and none of them claim to
> have witnessed Bonds use steroids.
You seem to feel that "proof" can only exist in a courtroom, so that's
your default assumption for the context of the words being used by
other people who do not share that default assumption.
That being said, you choose to believe what you want to, and you
choose to ignore what you want to. I am not sure that's a good
practice for an alleged "lawyer".
> >C) Jose Canseco's "facts" in that book were so off-base, why would you
> >take his word for it? He misrepresented games, seasons and players
> >(who weren't even on his team when he claimed he did steroids with
> >them, for example). Critics panned his book, while the _Game of
> >Shadows_ writers won awards. Again, another leap.
>
> Canseco's facts were not off base; to the extent they've been verifiable,
> they've matched up with later revelations, with a few small exceptions
> (like Bret Boone's double). Numerous people he named have been caught or
> have admitted use or have been otherwise connected to the scandal.
As you would say, those are flukes, right?
> And this is the first I've heard that literary merit was a way to evaluate
> the truthfulness of testimony.
Credibility of author; same excuse you would use to de-value Kimberly
Bell's testimony, I suspect -- even if her asertions have been
verifiable and matched up with later revelations.
> In any case, who said I "took his word for it"? All I said was that he
> made the accusations based on firsthand knowledge, and that they represent
> a piece of evidence.
And none of the documents in _Game of Shadows_ meet this criteria of
yours?
Interesting. Canseco? Reliable beyond a doubt. Federal court evidence?
Not reliable.
Gotcha.
> >> With Bonds, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
> >> plus the statements of an ex-mistress who says she heard Bonds talking
> >> about it but admits she never witnessed any steroid use.
> >Oh, and about a thousand documents seized from BALCO by the federal
> >government ... funny how you ignore that, huh?
>
> What documents? Do *any* of them pertain to Bonds? _I_ haven't seen any
> of them; have you?
The Xenophilius Lovegood Defense won't work here. Neither one of us
needs to see them to know they exist.
Unless you're suggesting, of course, that the two Chronicle writers
made it all up. And Troy Ellerton, too ... I know, it must be a
massive Rotfang Conspiracy, right?
> Why would you believe anonymous quotes and documents you haven't even seen,
> but ignore the statements of someone who said that he personally witnessed
> McGwire use steroids?
Same reason why I don't believe in religion.
You're spinning out of control here, since you really can't have it
both ways. You believe the Village Idiot Canseco's accounts, but you
don't believe award-winning journalists' accounts. You believe the
McGwire dirt, but you don't believe the Bonds' dirt.
Loewe hit your nail on the head quite clearly elsewhere in this
thread, as have I: you cherry-pick your realities.
> >> Of course, Canseco's accusations against McGwire haven't been tested in a
> >> courtroom -- but neither have any accusations against Bonds.
> >D. E. N. I. A. L.
>
> No, fact. Canseco's accusations against McGwire haven't been tested in a
> courtroom. Accusations against Bonds have also not been tested in a
> courtroom. Those are simple statements of truth.
Okay; believe what you need to and spin it as you need to. When Bonds
goes to jail, just remember this nonsense you posted to Usenet.
Hank Gillette
<a419e6e0-818b-46bc...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And as Bonds' sycophants have said, everyone's innocent until proven
> guilty.
Insisting on basic Constitutional rights makes one a Bonds sycophant?
Tonawanda Kardex
> > And as Bonds' sycophants have said, everyone's innocent until proven
> > guilty.
>
> Insisting on basic Constitutional rights makes one a Bonds sycophant?
Since he's already convinced himself of McGwire's PED use, yes.
He doesn't get it both ways: he doesn't get to "convict" McGwire in
his own mind while maintaining Bonds' "innocence" in his mind as well.
And just so I don't have to spell it out, I am not talking about a
court of law here, so lighten up on the ACLU crap.
Tarkus
Clearly, you don't see the same TV ads on a daily basis that I do.
Arguing semantics really doesn't help your case.
Tonawanda Kardex
Who do you think those ads are directed to? Other "lawyers"? No, dumb
people who don't know any better.
Context, Tark, context.
David M. Nieporent
<831aaf9b-f258-4529...@41g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 19, 10:47 pm, Hank Gillette <hankgille...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > And as Bonds' sycophants have said, everyone's innocent until proven
>> > guilty.
>> Insisting on basic Constitutional rights makes one a Bonds sycophant?
>Since he's already convinced himself of McGwire's PED use, yes.
Wow; you're stupid. Not only can't you read, but you can't even understand
simple statements like "Based on the facts we have right now, I would not
convict either of them."
>He doesn't get it both ways: he doesn't get to "convict" McGwire in
>his own mind while maintaining Bonds' "innocence" in his mind as well.
Fortunately, I'm not trying to have it both ways; that's why I said, "Based
on the facts we have right now, I would not convict either of them."
>And just so I don't have to spell it out, I am not talking about a
>court of law here, so lighten up on the ACLU crap.
Decent human beings apply the presumption of innocence in all situations.
David M. Nieporent
<61ddea65-39e9-4689...@l22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>> I _am_ a lawyer;
Who do you think my responses to you were directed to? Other lawyers? No,
David V. Loewe, Jr
<karn...@atlantabraves.net> wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:49:10 -0500, "David M. Nieporent"
>> <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>> I _am_ a lawyer;
>>
>> Mores the pity...
>>
>> It's made you unable to have a normal conversation with non-lawyers.
>
>Only if you're intimidated by his knowledge of the law.
Which part of normal, as opposed to legal, conversation with
non-lawyers flew right over your head?
>I've certainly had my disagreements with David over the years, but I
>would never pretend to know more about legal issues than him. Just as I
>bow to the knowledge of the umpires that hang out here, though I often
>disagree with their defense of umpires on non-rulebook issues.
--
"Just think of it as evolution in action."
Tony Rand in Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's
'Oath of Fealty'
David V. Loewe, Jr
<hankgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> >>Yet you will convict McGwire on Canseco's word alone.
>> >>Glad you're not a lawyer.
>> >
>> >I _am_ a lawyer;
>>
>> Mores the pity...
>>
>> It's made you unable to have a normal conversation with non-lawyers.
>>
>I'm not having any trouble following what he's saying. Are you?
No. Why?
The fact that you (or I) can follow it does not make it a "normal"
conversation.
For example, in a normal conversation, the fact that evidence has not
been presented doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
--
"One cries foul and will not speak
The other claims a little victory
And all the time you know we fail to see
This is the language of love"
Dan Fogelberg
David V. Loewe, Jr
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>> Hank Gillette <hankgille...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > Dale Hicks <dgh1...@southernbell.com> wrote:
>
>>> >> It tells us that a positive test result paper with the initials BB
>>> >> was presented to Bonds for him to comment upon (where he said that
>>> >> he'd never seen it before, and that BB could pertain to lots of
>>> >> people).
>
>>> >It's not illegal for the government to lie to a suspect, is it? The test
>>> >result paper with the initials BB could be a total fake.
>
>>> It's not illegal to lie to a suspect in an interrogation, no. But this
>>> isn't an interrogation. It's illegal to present fake evidence to a grand
>>> jury (or, obviously, a petit jury).
>
>>Are you saying that's what happened in this case?
>
>No; I'm making some abstract legal points.
Which is EXACTLY what I was referring to when I accused you of being
unable to hold "normal" conversations.
>Other than selections from
>Barry Bonds' testimony contained in the indictment, I don't know who said
>what to any grand jury.
--
"Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war?"
David J. Hayward
Seapig
wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:11:07 -0500, "David M. Nieporent"
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>"David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >>> Hank Gillette <hankgille...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> > Dale Hicks <dgh1...@southernbell.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> It tells us that a positive test result paper with the initials BB
> >>> >> was presented to Bonds for him to comment upon (where he said that
> >>> >> he'd never seen it before, and that BB could pertain to lots of
> >>> >> people).
>
> >>> >It's not illegal for the government to lie to a suspect, is it? The test
> >>> >result paper with the initials BB could be a total fake.
>
> >>> It's not illegal to lie to a suspect in an interrogation, no. But this
> >>> isn't an interrogation. It's illegal to present fake evidence to a grand
> >>> jury (or, obviously, a petit jury).
>
> >>Are you saying that's what happened in this case?
>
> >No; I'm making some abstract legal points.
>
> Which is EXACTLY what I was referring to when I accused you of being
> unable to hold "normal" conversations.
Yeah, a bunch of normal folks having a normal conversation about what
is and isn't legal, and Nieporent has to ruin it by bringing up "the
law."
David V. Loewe, Jr
You need to go back and look at how this started. Nieporent injected
his *opinion* that "There's at least as much evidence [with regard to
steroid abuse] with McGwire as with Bonds."
Moreover, he appears to be very inconsistent. It seems like he is
giving Juiced full evidential weight while dismissing Game Of Shadows.
David M. Nieporent
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>Hank Gillette <hankgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> >>Yet you will convict McGwire on Canseco's word alone.
>>> >>Glad you're not a lawyer.
>>> >I _am_ a lawyer;
>>> Mores the pity...
>>> It's made you unable to have a normal conversation with non-lawyers.
>>I'm not having any trouble following what he's saying. Are you?
>No. Why?
>The fact that you (or I) can follow it does not make it a "normal"
>conversation.
>For example, in a normal conversation, the fact that evidence has not
>been presented doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Nor did I ever say that it did. However, I can't and won't judge someone
guilty based on evidence that hasn't been presented. I don't subscribe to
the "Trust me, it must exist because lots of people think it does" school
of jurisprudence. _If_ and when it is presented, _then_ I will change my
views.
I don't understand why that approach is so anathema to so many people.
There's no prize for being the first to say someone is guilty. And for
people so scared of being wrong, "There isn't enough evidence yet" is _not_
"wrong" just because sufficient evidence is later presented.
Realto Margarino
>I _am_ a lawyer; you're obviously not. If you were, you'd know that
>lawyers don't convict people; juries -- made up primarily of non-lawyers --
>do.
Did you know that in Canada you are not allowed to serve on a jury
if you have completed one year of law school?
>And if you were a lawyer, you'd also know to read more carefully,
>and you'll see that
How long does it take to register a deed in NJ? Is it all
computerized yet?
>(a) WRT McGwire, I did not cite "Canseco's word alone," but three
>pieces of evidence, of which that was only one; and
Canseco's word is good enough.
>(b) I did not "convict" McGwire at all. I merely stated that
>there's more evidence wrt McGwire than wrt Bonds. In fact, based
>on the facts -- not gossip, innuendo, accusation, or rumor, but
>_facts_ -- we have right now, I would not "convict" either of them.
But McGwire's head didn't grow at nearly the same rate.
Is Tony S. still paying you a retainer? Or are the cheques signed
by Carmela?
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
>David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:49:10 -0500, "David M. Nieporent"
>> <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>> I _am_ a lawyer;
>> Mores the pity...
>> It's made you unable to have a normal conversation with non-lawyers.
>Only if you're intimidated by his knowledge of the law.
>I've certainly had my disagreements with David over the years, but I
>would never pretend to know more about legal issues than him.
Why not? There is nothing magical about a lawyer's brain.
>Just as I bow to the knowledge of the umpires that hang out here,
>though I often disagree with their defense of umpires on
>non-rulebook issues.
Never bow to anyone's "knowledge."
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
>Well, I am not a lawyer, but I do have a law degree.
That's pretty stupid. Why would anyone go to all the work of
getting a law degree and then pass up being a lawyer? Maybe you
didn't have a choice?
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
>FYI: Lawyers don't call themselves "lawyers". They call themselves
>"attorneys". David doesn't even know that, which really makes me
>wonder about his "legal issues" knowledge.
Actually, lawyers in Canada call themselves lawyers and not
attorneys.
cordially, as always,
rm
Tonawanda Kardex
> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> says:
>
> >Well, I am not a lawyer, but I do have a law degree.
>
> That's pretty stupid. Why would anyone go to all the work of
> getting a law degree and then pass up being a lawyer? Maybe you
> didn't have a choice?
I had a great financial offer from the government: being a federal
legal policy analyst is more more fun, lucrative and interesting.
Tonawanda Kardex
<niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <61ddea65-39e9-4689-b620-db68990e7...@l22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Witty.
Tonawanda Kardex
> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> says:
>
> >FYI: Lawyers don't call themselves "lawyers". They call themselves
> >"attorneys". David doesn't even know that, which really makes me
> >wonder about his "legal issues" knowledge.
>
> Actually, lawyers in Canada call themselves lawyers and not
> attorneys.
Americans have a highly-inflated sense of self-promotion.
Ahem.
Tonawanda Kardex
<niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <831aaf9b-f258-4529-bd45-bc69f4c8c...@41g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Okay.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>Hank Gillette <hankgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>>> >>Yet you will convict McGwire on Canseco's word alone.
>>>> >>Glad you're not a lawyer.
>
>>>> >I _am_ a lawyer;
>
>>>> Mores the pity...
>>>> It's made you unable to have a normal conversation with non-lawyers.
>
>>>I'm not having any trouble following what he's saying. Are you?
>
>>No. Why?
>>The fact that you (or I) can follow it does not make it a "normal"
>>conversation.
>>For example, in a normal conversation, the fact that evidence has not
>>been presented doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
>Nor did I ever say that it did.
Then what DOES this - "...an indictment is a claim about what the
government intends to try to prove in court, but it is not itself
evidence." - mean in conjunction with your assertion "...there's
_more_ evidence [of "steroid abuse"] with McGwire than with Bonds."
>However, I can't and won't judge someone
>guilty based on evidence that hasn't been presented.
I don't recall anyone trying to force you to pre-judge Bonds.
>I don't subscribe to the "Trust me, it must
>exist because lots of people think it does" school of jurisprudence.
>_If_ and when it is presented, _then_ I will change my views.
>
>I don't understand why that approach is so anathema to so many people.
You chimed in here claiming the evidence tilted one way or another.
You should have either known you were throwing fuel onto a fire or
you're a hypocrite for not allowing other people to form and hold
their own opinion based on their own criteria.
>There's no prize for being the first to say someone is guilty. And for
>people so scared of being wrong, "There isn't enough evidence yet" is _not_
>"wrong" just because sufficient evidence is later presented.
--
"I think between us, Bill Clinton and I have settled any lingering myths
about the brilliance of Rhodes scholars."
Kris Kristofferson
David V. Loewe, Jr
<hankgi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And as Bonds' sycophants have said, everyone's innocent until proven
>> guilty.
>
>Insisting on basic Constitutional rights makes one a Bonds sycophant?
That Right applies in a court of law, not the court of public opinion.
Your implication is as fallacious as the shibboleth that imputes that
free speech guarantees a right to be heard.
--
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man
who does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Sir Karl Popper
David V. Loewe, Jr
Brain dead human beings apply the presumption of innocence in all
situations.
David M. Nieporent
<afcb166f-e8c2-461e...@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Tonawanda Kardex <tonawan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >> >> There's at least as much evidence with McGwire as with Bonds.
>> >> >Where? Cite, please.
>> >> I shouldn't have said what I said; in fact, there's _more_ evidence
>> >> with McGwire than with Bonds.
>> >Is there a book like _Game of Shadows_ out on McGwire? Documented
>> >court evidence? Paperwork and lab results seized by the feds?
>> Are there any of those things with Bonds, other than a book quoting a
>> bunch of anonymous people, none of whom were speaking under oath?
>Yes. And most people acknowledge this, including legal experts.
Do "most people" have the foggiest clue about the details of the case? Can
you name some of these "legal experts"?
[Snip a fruitless discussion of statistics, except...]
>> > McGwire's HR trajectory is within normal models for
>> >long careers.
>> (1) Hitting 70 HRs is not "within normal models" for anybody.
>Okay. Then Bonds used PEDs and lied about it to the grand jury. Hence,
>his indictment.
That's not what I said. I said that it wasn't "normal," not that it was
proof of steroid use.
>In your opinion, which is debatable. However, I wouldn't consider five-
>plus years to be a short period of time, nor would I consider his
>rookie-record HR total to be a "fluke". His career body of work is
>more power-consistent than a demonstrated PED abuser like Bonds.
Bonds' great hitting wasn't a short period of time, either. Indeed, his
peak lasted longer than McGwire's, so if a short period of time is supposed
to "demonstrate" steroid use, then McGwire is again more on the hook than
Bonds.
>> >B) That's a personal choice McGwire made, and while I see your
>> >thinking here and can definitely see how a critical eye would view it,
>> >he could have a million reasons for not answering those questions. And
>> >as Bonds' sycophants have said, everyone's innocent until proven
>> >guilty. _Game of Shadows_ proved Bonds' guilt. McGwire's esilence to
>> >Congress? Not so much. This is another leap.
>> It's not a "leap" at all. I simply laid out one piece of evidence. If a
>> husband had a big life insurance policy on his wife and then his wife is
>> killed, that's evidence that he did it. By itself it certainly wouldn't
>> prove anything, but it's a piece of evidence.
>And _Game of Shadows_ is full of evidence you choose to ignore. So in
>essence, you just look at what you want to see. I see that clearly.
Game of Shadows is full of allegations that lack foundation, not evidence.
Gossip is gossip, no matter how much of it there is.
>> "Game of Shadows" is a book. It can't "prove" anything. None of the
>> statements in there are under oath, most of them are anonymous (which means
>> we have no way to evaluate their credibility), and none of them claim to
>> have witnessed Bonds use steroids.
>You seem to feel that "proof" can only exist in a courtroom, so that's
>your default assumption for the context of the words being used by
>other people who do not share that default assumption.
I don't feel that "proof can only exist in a courtroom." I feel that proof
requires actual verifiable evidence.
>That being said, you choose to believe what you want to, and you
>choose to ignore what you want to. I am not sure that's a good
>practice for an alleged "lawyer".
Good practice for a lawyer is being skeptical of _everything_ until there's
evidence to back it up. There are a nigh-infinite number of clients who
insist that the other guy cheated them, committed fraud, lied about
something -- but when one tries to pin them down on how they know that the
person lied, they just splutter.
>> >C) Jose Canseco's "facts" in that book were so off-base, why would you
>> >take his word for it? He misrepresented games, seasons and players
>> >(who weren't even on his team when he claimed he did steroids with
>> >them, for example). Critics panned his book, while the _Game of
>> >Shadows_ writers won awards. Again, another leap.
>> Canseco's facts were not off base; to the extent they've been verifiable,
>> they've matched up with later revelations, with a few small exceptions
>> (like Bret Boone's double). Numerous people he named have been caught or
>> have admitted use or have been otherwise connected to the scandal.
>As you would say, those are flukes, right?
Perhaps; he may have just guessed luckily, or perhaps he was telling the
truth.
>> And this is the first I've heard that literary merit was a way to
>> evaluate the truthfulness of testimony.
>Credibility of author; same excuse you would use to de-value Kimberly
>Bell's testimony, I suspect -- even if her asertions have been
>verifiable and matched up with later revelations.
"Credibility" is only an issue if the person is stating something based on
personal knowledge. Otherwise, the person can be entirely truthful and yet
the statement can be entirely false. That's why there's a hearsay rule,
you know. The key assertions of _Game of Shadows_ have virtually no
information that would enable us to evaluate its credibility. It seems
likely that Jeff Novitsky was one of the primary sources for the Bonds
allegations (but we can't be sure of that, because the sources are loosely
footnoted at best.) So if Novitsky lied to Fainaru-Wada/Williams, and they
reported it, _they_ could be credible and yet their reports would be false.
>> In any case, who said I "took his word for it"? All I said was that he
>> made the accusations based on firsthand knowledge, and that they represent
>> a piece of evidence.
>And none of the documents in _Game of Shadows_ meet this criteria of yours?
Which documents? The ones you admit you haven't seen?
>Interesting. Canseco? Reliable beyond a doubt. Federal court evidence?
>Not reliable.
>Gotcha.
No, you don't got me. Why do you feel the need to keep lying about what i
said about Canseco? And what "federal court evidence"?
>> >> With Bonds, we have circumstantial evidence (he hit a lot of home runs),
>> >> plus the statements of an ex-mistress who says she heard Bonds talking
>> >> about it but admits she never witnessed any steroid use.
>> >Oh, and about a thousand documents seized from BALCO by the federal
>> >government ... funny how you ignore that, huh?
>> What documents? Do *any* of them pertain to Bonds? _I_ haven't seen
>> any of them; have you?
>The Xenophilius Lovegood Defense won't work here. Neither one of us
>needs to see them to know they exist.
So that's a no; you haven't seen them. You really could have saved some
electrons by simply admitting that.
>Unless you're suggesting, of course, that the two Chronicle writers
>made it all up.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that we don't have any idea what the evidence
is or how credible it is. What if their sources were mistaken or
dishonest? It doesn't help if they faithfully reported what they were
told, if what they were told wasn't accurate.
>> Why would you believe anonymous quotes and documents you haven't even seen,
>> but ignore the statements of someone who said that he personally witnessed
>> McGwire use steroids?
>Same reason why I don't believe in religion.
>You're spinning out of control here, since you really can't have it
>both ways. You believe the Village Idiot Canseco's accounts, but you
>don't believe award-winning journalists' accounts. You believe the
>McGwire dirt, but you don't believe the Bonds' dirt.
Once more: I have not said that I "believed" anybody or disbelieved
anybody. If Canseco says that he saw McGwire use steroids, that's
evidence. It may not be high quality evidence, but it is evidence.
The journalists, however, do not have firsthand knowledge, so nothing they
say is evidence. It was a _joke_ when Lionel Hutz said, "We've plenty of
hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."
>> >> Of course, Canseco's accusations against McGwire haven't been tested
>> >> in a courtroom -- but neither have any accusations against Bonds.
>> >D. E. N. I. A. L.
>> No, fact. Canseco's accusations against McGwire haven't been tested in a
>> courtroom. Accusations against Bonds have also not been tested in a
>> courtroom. Those are simple statements of truth.
>Okay; believe what you need to and spin it as you need to. When Bonds
>goes to jail, just remember this nonsense you posted to Usenet.
This is neither a matter of belief nor spin. It is a simple fact. None of
the evidence has yet been tested in a courtroom. If Bonds pleads guilty,
if Bonds is convicted, if Bonds goes to jail for the rest of his life, that
won't change the _fact_ that as of November 20, 2007, none of the evidence
has been tested in a courtroom.
Brian Perry
>>> <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>> In article <q950j.21010$B25.10...@news01.roc.ny>,
>>>> "Joetheone" <joethe...@dontchabespamminme.com> wrote:
>>>>> "David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>>>>>> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "David M. Nieporent" <niepo...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 2) Is there any credible evidence linking McGwire to steroid abuse
>>>>>>>>> like there is for Bonds? No.
>>>>>>>> There's at least as much evidence with McGwire as with Bonds.
>>>>>>> Where? Cite, please.
>>>>>> I shouldn't have said what I said; in fact, there's _more_ evidence with
>>>>>> McGwire than with Bonds.
>>>>>> and inferential evidence (he refused to discuss it before Congress) _and_
>>>>>> eyewitness statements (from Canseco).
>>>>>> plus the statements of an ex-mistress who says she heard Bonds talking
>>>>>> about it but admits she never witnessed any steroid use.
>>>>>> courtroom -- but neither have any accusations against Bonds.
>>>>> indictment.
>>>> No; an indictment is a claim about what the government intends to try to
>>>> prove in court, but it is not itself evidence. If the government produces
>>>> evidence that there was a drug test, that it was of Bonds, and that it was
>>>> positive, _then_ we'll have that.
>>> Yet you will convict McGwire on Canseco's word alone.
>>> Glad you're not a lawyer.
>> our legal system works.
>
> Who said it was?
>
>> Second, I think David *is* a lawyer. And just a guess, but probably on
>> the defense side, where he wouldn't be INTERESTED in convicting ANYONE.
>
> Well, I am not a lawyer, but I do have a law degree. And I don't take
> sides -- I look at the case facts.
>
> [Heh, heh.]
You have a law degree and now teach as an adjunct instructor for online
universities and community colleges? You must have been one hell of a
lawyer. Stick with English Comp.
Brian Perry
Says the highly inflated self-promotor.
Roger Moore
>Is there a book like _Game of Shadows_ out on McGwire? Documented
>court evidence? Paperwork and lab results seized by the feds?
There was his very public admission that he used Andro, a steroid that
both MLB and WADA list as a PED. I think that counts as solid
evidence against him.
--
Roger Moore | Master of Meaningless Trivia | (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
There's no point in questioning authority if you don't listen to the answers.
Dale Hicks
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu says...
> In article <MPG.21aab47fa...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
> Dale Hicks <dgh...@southernbell.com> wrote:
>
> >It tells us that a positive test result paper with the initials BB
> >was presented to Bonds for him to comment upon (where he said that
> >he'd never seen it before, and that BB could pertain to lots of people).
> >was just a test result for Br*tt B**n*.
>
> Right; I think a lot of people think that the government has Bonds' blood
> or urine sample and has tested it and found steroids; what the government
> allegedly has found is a piece of paper. I don't think it had BB on it; if
> I read correctly, it had some code on it, which the government
> cross-referenced with some other piece of paper and claim that it refers to
> him.
Actually, checking this, the indictment said both. It said that he
was presented with a positive test paper with a number that (on
another sheet of paper) corresponded with "Barry B." At least that's
how I parsed the sentence, it's a little vague in the wording.
Then there was another document presented that had the initials "BB"
on it.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
Ron Johnson
> Tonawanda Kardex <tonawandakar...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Is there a book like _Game of Shadows_ out on McGwire? Documented
> >court evidence? Paperwork and lab results seized by the feds?
>
> There was his very public admission that he used Andro, a steroid that
> both MLB and WADA list as a PED.
I think that's misleading.
Best I can tell it's banned because it could potentially
serve as a masking agent.
Mind you, the only evidence I've found on this score
(in a document explaining why a power-lifing
association was banning Andro) is that it
actually causes false positives for Nandrolone.
In other words, it screws up the tests but not
in a way that an athlete would find useful.
> I think that counts as solid evidence against him.
I don't. It's not a controlled substance and
it's not performance enhancing.
The Big DP
"Realto Margarino" <r...@justlinux.ca> wrote in message
news:F1I0j.30739$bj2....@fe08.news.easynews.com...
Ummm, how about Law Librarians who want to be respected for their knowledge?
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm