Bonds Indicted!

I guess Barry might retire a Giants after all...

The government has indicted Barry Bonds of numerous charges, which includes four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice and accuses him of lying when he said he didn't knowingly take steroids given to him by his personal trainer, Greg Anderson. According to accounts, the government has tests that prove that Barry took steroids and other PEDS, though the writer muddied by the water by adding, "and other professional athletes."

Good Buddy Freed

It also noted that Greg Anderson was released from jail at the same time. I guess they were hoping to squeeze him into ratting out his friend - assuming there is something to rat out - but once they got the indictment into the courts, they felt that they didn't need him anymore. There was no report that he was freed based on finally capitulating to the Feds and testifying about Bonds.

Based on the information that Anderson, Conte, and Bonds has said in previous accounts, the only scenario that makes sense, assuming all are telling the truth, is that Anderson and Conte tricked Bonds by giving him steroids and other substances under the guise of other homeopathic remedies. It will be interesting what comes out of the trial as to what really (or supposedly, since the truth might never get out) happened. If that's the story they hold to, I wonder how the Feds are going to prove that Bonds purposefully took the PEDs and not was tricked by his "good" friend, which apparently is now the story since Bonds reportedly tested positive (according to the indictment).

Wish Comes True: Bonds Retires a Giant

Of course, with this hanging over him, no team is going to even bother kicking the tires and seeing if he would sign with them. He would want much more than they would be willing to give him, and I don't think any team is so desperate to invite such a circus into their clubhouse. That would mean that Bonds would retire a Giants after all.

Odd Timing

Interesting that the Feds waited until now to file the indictment. If Anderson didn't testify against his buddy, then there appears to be no new evidence other than the charge that Bonds tested positive. But as I noted, a positive test still requires that the Feds prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bonds deliberately and knowingly take PEDS and lied to the Grand Jury, and not, as he stated, just take two substances that the Feds BELIEVE is PEDS. It will be key to their trial, proving this (I will note that I'm not a lawyer, but that's what seems to be the crux to me).

One thought I had is that they waited because they know that their case is not airtight and if they tried to do anything while Bonds is chasing Hank Aaron, if they lose the case, Bonds could theoretically sue the Feds for lost of future income, perhaps slander, for interrupting his chase of Hank Aaron's record and preventing him from becoming the home run champ.

I'm no lawyer, so there could be something simply obvious to a lawyer why that won't happen, but given future memorabilia sales, which he obviously intends and markets assiduously, plus the contract value lost, that could put the numbers in the $100 million range, perhaps above, assuming a long life, the steep inflation of collectible prices, the novelty of an item being associated with the ALL-TIME home run champ, at least until A-Rod passes him up, though you never know, Durham suddenly became gimpy, so did Griffey, in his 30's, or maybe a stripper's tassel flies off and blinds A-Rod in his eye (given that he was caught by paparazzi doing the town with a stripper or something like that), or his private jet plane loses air and all the passengers die on flight, you just never know.

I downloaded the indictment from CNN's account here. If I get some time, I'll read it and see what's it all about.

No Tax Evasion

I will also note that there was not one word about tax evasion in the news accounts I have read. If that holds, this means that whatever Bonds's ex-mistresss, Kimberly Bell, told the Feds about his alleged tax evasion did not prove to be true, because either he did or he didn't. That's what seems clear to me, that there can be no gray area regarding that accusation, because she must have told the Feds enough detail to research and determine whether he did or didn't and her information was not good enough.

If that turns out to be true that there was no tax evasion, and she made that a major part of her "story" of her life with Barry, then what else was untrue in her testimony thus far? And how can authors' use her "testimony" as a significant source of information for their books without corroboration?

I'm not a professional journalist, but that seems to be what they should have done, not include her accusations in her book, since there could not have possibly been corroboration of any sort, since this came from "private" conversations between she and Barry. But, of course, it fit their storyline so well that they had to include her information.

But I thought that there should be some sort of journalistic integrity that would prevent the inclusion of her decidedly one-sided story given to them. It is a "He said, She said" situation, so it is unprovable either way. Of course, I've never read either book, so maybe there is some snakey way of reporting it but saying that it is uncorroborated, but most of the accounts of the books I have read never had such a warning attached, it reported every one of her words as the truth.

Plus, as I noted in previous posts, that's why I've focused on how the tax evasion portion of her story held up. That's something that I think is provable, and if tax evasion is not part of the indictment, then it appears that her story is not holding up in that regard, and it brings doubt upon everything else she has said and claimed. That would also explain why her book deal that she was working on never came through, the publishers knew that her story wouldn't hold up. I hope this detail comes up in other news accounts, I would be interested to see what happened to that line of investigation.