PDA

View Full Version : Anyone here read "Game of Shadows"?



WMR
07-21-2006, 11:14 AM
Generally, what is your opinion of the book?

I've found it incredibly interesting, detailed, and exacting.


In other news: Greg Anderson, prominently featured in Game of Shadows was released from jail yesterday for refusing to testify and he has said that he will NOT testify.


Now, more specifically: Has anyone else seen the press conference given by Barry Bonds' attorney yesterday where he directly quotes--and he emphasized this point multiple times--Barry as saying, "Hearing about Greg getting out makes my day. I don't care if they indict me today, tomorrow, or next week, all I care about is hearing that Greg has been released."

Maybe the funniest quote yet out of this whole saga considering how Barry constantly verbally abused Anderson and expressed, publically, his overall disdain for Anderson in public on numerous occassions. Barry had no personal associations where he demanded anything other than absolute deference and humility (SEE: Breakdown/unbelievably crazy 'relationship' with Gary Sheffield.)




Watching Barry on SportsCenter chasing Aaron reminds me of something out of The Waste Land.



The Waste Land

The Waste Land is a highly influential 433-line modernist poem by T. S. Eliot. It is perhaps the most famous and most written-about long poem of the 20th century, dealing with the decline of civilization and the impossibility of recovering meaning in life. Despite the alleged obscurity of the poem—its shifts between satire and prophecy, its abrupt and unannounced changes of speaker, location and time, its elegiac but intimidating summoning up of a vast and dissonant range of cultures and literatures—the poem has nonetheless become a familiar touchstone of modern literature. Among its famous phrases are "April is the cruellest month" (its first line); "I will show you fear in a handful of dust"; and "Shantih shantih shantih" (its last line).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wasteland

Chip R
07-21-2006, 11:19 AM
In other news: Greg Anderson, prominently featured in Game of Shadows was released from jail yesterday for refusing to testify and he has said that he will NOT testify.


Now, more specifically: Has anyone else seen the press conference given by Barry Bonds' attorney yesterday where he directly quotes--and he emphasized this point multiple times--Barry as saying, "Hearing about Greg getting out makes my day. I don't care if they indict me today, tomorrow, or next week, all I care about is hearing that Greg has been released."

Maybe the funniest quote yet out of this whole saga considering how Barry constantly verbally abused Anderson and expressed, publically, his overall disdain for Anderson in public on numerous occassions.


Anderson must really be getting a nice check for his silence.

I hear there is talk about Bonds being suspended if he is indicted. IIRC, there is precedent for this. I believe in 1920, when the indictments came out against the Black Sox, Comiskey suspended them immediately even though they were in the thick of a pennant race. That was a different time, though, and you can bet Bonds would fight a suspension tooth and nail. I wonder if MLB could use that as precedent and I wonder if it would hold up in a court of law.

WMR
07-21-2006, 11:25 AM
Anderson must really be getting a nice check for his silence.

I hear there is talk about Bonds being suspended if he is indicted. IIRC, there is precedent for this. I believe in 1920, when the indictments came out against the Black Sox, Comiskey suspended them immediately even though they were in the thick of a pennant race. That was a different time, though, and you can bet Bonds would fight a suspension tooth and nail. I wonder if MLB could use that as precedent and I wonder if it would hold up in a court of law.

Everything I've heard indicates that it would ultimately be decided by an arbitrator.

I think Bud is approaching it from a p.r. standpoint as much as anything else. Much like when he publically called for tougher steroid testing policies, he'll have a similar level of public support (if not greater) on this issue and he and MLB could come out looking really good. Selig knows that how he deals with steroids and Barry Bonds will ultimately decide how history remembers his time as commissioner.

Chip R
07-21-2006, 11:41 AM
I think Bud is approaching it from a p.r. standpoint as much as anything else. Much like when he publically called for tougher steroid testing policies, he'll have a similar level of public support (if not greater) on this issue and he and MLB could come out looking really good. Selig knows that how he deals with steroids and Barry Bonds will ultimately decide how history remembers his time as commissioner.

It is a risk for Bud, though. Let's say he does suspend Bonds and the process works its way through arbitration. The arbitrator overturns the suspension. Couldn't Bonds sue MLB for millions? If he won, it isn't coming out of Bud's pocket. It's coming out of the pockets of all the owners, including the Reds.

WMR
07-21-2006, 11:42 AM
I think Barry Bonds is the last person in the world who would want a public lawsuit versus MLB. He's guilty as sin.

Just to say that even if Barry did have a strong case against MLB (which I don't think he could produce), MLB's lawyers would find ways to bring up all sorts of things that Barry absolutely does not want discussed.

Chip R
07-21-2006, 11:52 AM
I think Barry Bonds is the last person in the world who would want a public lawsuit versus MLB. He's guilty as sin.

That would be irrelevant in a civil suit. He can say something like MLB tried to keep me from playing even though I was never found guilty of anything. And keep in mind he isn't being indicted for use and/or distribution of steroids. He would be indicted for tax fraud and perjury. We may think and believe with all of our hearts and minds that he's used steroids but we don't know if he defrauded the government or lied under oath.

WMR
07-21-2006, 12:00 PM
That would be irrelevant in a civil suit. He can say something like MLB tried to keep me from playing even though I was never found guilty of anything. And keep in mind he isn't being indicted for use and/or distribution of steroids. He would be indicted for tax fraud and perjury. We may think and believe with all of our hearts and minds that he's used steroids but we don't know if he defrauded the government or lied under oath.


(Bolded part added to edit in Post #5)

Just to say that even if Barry did have a strong case against MLB (which I don't think he could produce), MLB's lawyers would find ways to bring up all sorts of things that Barry absolutely does not want discussed.
(on all topics concerning Barry's various misconducts)

That was my main explanation for why Barry would want to avoid a suit of any kind versus MLB.

Chip R
07-21-2006, 12:22 PM
(Bolded part added to edit in Post #5)

Just to say that even if Barry did have a strong case against MLB (which I don't think he could produce), MLB's lawyers would find ways to bring up all sorts of things that Barry absolutely does not want discussed.
(on all topics concerning Barry's various misconducts)

That was my main explanation for why Barry would want to avoid a suit of any kind versus MLB.

Perhaps. Or a judge could rule those various misconducts inadmissable. Let's look at these misconducts. He's accused of taking steroids. Since there is no proof that he did this, except by accident - which Bonds stated in his testimony - no lawyer worth his salt is going to use that in a civil trial. There are also allegations he beat his wife and is not a nice person. None of that is relevant in a case against Bonds and could be used by Bonds to show MLB is out to get him because he's not a nice guy. Besides, most everyone knows about Bonds' misconducts.

WMR
07-21-2006, 12:27 PM
Perhaps. Or a judge could rule those various misconducts inadmissable. Let's look at these misconducts. He's accused of taking steroids. Since there is no proof that he did this, except by accident - which Bonds stated in his testimony - no lawyer worth his salt is going to use that in a civil trial. There are also allegations he beat his wife and is not a nice person. None of that is relevant in a case against Bonds and could be used by Bonds to show MLB is out to get him because he's not a nice guy. Besides, most everyone knows about Bonds' misconducts.

True, true, the rules of evidence would play a large role in determining the scope of potential harm to Bonds.

The thing is, there IS proof that Barry took steroids, took them knowingly, and lied about that knowledge to a grand jury and that is what seems to be the crux of the government's prosecutorial interest in Barry Bonds.

Do we really know? I wonder what we don't know.

Chip R
07-21-2006, 12:31 PM
The thing is, there IS proof that Barry took steroids, took them knowingly, and lied about that knowledge to a grand jury and that is what seems to be the crux of the government's prosecutorial interest in Barry Bonds.

Do we really know? I wonder what we don't know.

There is proof he used them. He says unintentionally. Whether he was telling the truth or not is for the government to prove. Perjury is a difficult thing to prove.

WMR
07-21-2006, 12:36 PM
Right, right; I'm sure there's lots of info that we the public aren't privy to, but one thing that Gary Sheffield testified to was that Barry told him not to ask any questions about the drugs he was being given by Barry, The Cream and The Clear, among others. That would give rise to the suspicion that Barry had intimate knowledge of what drugs he was taking when he gave his grand jury testimony.

Gary Sheffield has immunity from prosecution. I wonder if his testimony is admissable if it is used in court proceedings against someone other than him or is used to build a case against someone else?

Chip R
07-21-2006, 12:46 PM
Right, right; I'm sure there's lots of info that we the public aren't privy to, but one thing that Gary Sheffield testified to was that Barry told him not to ask any questions about the drugs he was being given by Barry The Cream and The Clear, among others. That would give rise to the suspicion that Barry had intimate knowledge of what drugs he was taking when he gave his grand jury testimony.

Gary Sheffield has immunity from prosecution. I wonder if his testimony is admissable if it is used in court proceedings against someone other than him or is used to build a case against someone else?

Don't know about how his testimony could be used but Sheff is no choir boy either. This is where character assassination comes in to play. "Mr. Sheffield, did you state that you purposely tried to make errors in order to be traded? Isn't it true that you said those things because you were mad at Mr. Bonds for some personal matter and this is your way of getting revenge?" They could bring up every allegation anyone has made against Sheff to discredit him as a witness.

WMR
07-21-2006, 12:50 PM
I'm certainly not suggesting that Sheffield would be a cooperative or even willing witness. I'm sure you'd have to drag any additional testimony or information out of him kicking and screaming. That would somewhat discredit the 'scorned lover' tactics.

But yeah I see your point, but if Sheff is just one piece of a bigger evidence pie then the character assassination attempts might be all in vain anyway.

Chip R
07-21-2006, 01:04 PM
I dunno. From what I've read, Sheff may be more than willing to exact revenge on Bonds. Now if that goes as far as testimony in a trial, I don't know.

No matter how it looks in the court of public opinion, I'd hate to see MLB - and the Reds by extention - get messed up in this. If it comes down to paying off damages from a lawsuit and using that money for an extention for Aaron Harang, I would rather MLB do nothing. I think MLB's best course of action is to persuade all the other teams not to sign Bonds after this year. Of course that's collusion but it's less riskier than suspending Bonds and having him come back and sue.