That's today's big news headline? What's the new "news"?
When prosecutors charged Bonds with perjury and obstruction of justice, the indictment stated that they "have a blood test from November 2000 that shows a "Barry B" testing positive for two types of steroids." So in response to Bonds' request to dismiss the indictment against him (which is scheduled for hearing Feb. 29), this is all the government had to offer yesterday?:
"At trial, the government's evidence will show that Bonds received steroids from(Bonds' trainer Greg) Anderson in the period before the November 2001 (actually 2000) positive drug test, and that evidence raises the inference that Anderson gave Bonds the steroids that caused him to test positive in November 2001 (2000)."
Big Deal! Forgive me a moment for thinking like an attorney. But you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when Bonds told the grand jury that he did not know the substances he received from Greg Anderson (the "cream" and the "clear") and used by him were steroids, Bonds KNEW his statements were false. A questionable "Barry B" positive test result doesn't prove it. Even an unquestionable positive test result doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt -- In other words, even if there were evidence of a positive test result back in 2000 from lab reports confiscated in the BALCO raid bearing the label "Barry Bonds," that wouldn't prove he knowingly made a false statement unless there was evidence that Bonds was made aware of that positive test result.
The BALCO lab reports pertain to thousands of individuals (athletes and non-athletes). I rarely make predictions of what juries are likely to do in any given situation, but if "Barry B" is the smoking gun, I'm willing to say that there is not a "snows chance in hell" of a conviction.
0 comments:
Post a Comment