He admitted to using the Cream and the Clear. Maybe some of you Bonds apologists need to start using preponderance of evidence instead of reasonable doubt for your standards. Not that it will matter in the end once all of the evidence is fleshed out.
I'm not ignoring him because this is an interesting story to follow. Many people (maybe a majority) will believe what he says and he knows this. Others, like me, will take it for what it's worth. It could be a while before the truth comes out and the attorney knows this. PR is a part of his job. I'll bet a lot of anti-Bonds people also fell for this hook, line and sinker.
I wonder if there are any other players out there that are cooperating? This has to be going through the minds of players. Who can I trust? I guess if your clean it doesn't matter but it could lead to some interesting discussions.
Or like every other investigation in history. You want evidence, but you don't want them to go through the process to get the evidence.
You are likening the FBI to a county sheriff's department. The "more important things to worry about" argument carries much greater weight when you're talking about the FBI. Of the various tasks they have to pursue (especially in an area that is thought to contain high value terrorist targets), I would say that the indictment and prosecution of users of non-prescription drugs should be fairly low on the priority list (in addition to being something that local law enforcement is equipped to handle).
I'm not really sure what information you have regarding the allocation of FBI resources relative to other tasks.
This is exactly what the Feds want. The episode with Grimsley shows they could be making major progress and will play hardball with players who have something to hide and will not cooperate.
If you really believe what was in your previous post, then evidently not. The FBI has agents tasked to all sorts of things - you could take them off all federal cases by just saying "terrorism is more important". If you think trying to investigate and break a convoluted country-wide steroids ring (of which Bonds and BALCO are various portions) is a local law enforcement job, then I'm not sure what to say.
its so funny how you guys dramatize this to make a point. bonds was apart of some big steroid ring? com'on, that's flat out ridiculous. bonds' childhood friend worked for a steroid distributor and probably gave him some. that's the extent of his involvement with balco. he used their drugs along with many other athletes. there is no justification for going after him so vigurously.
I'm not saying he was part of the distribution ring - he was simply one of the random pieces in a very complex puzzle. He was granted immunity if he testified honestly, just as Sheffield and Giambi were. The feds don't believe he did. If he had, he wouldn't be a part of this at all, just as the others aren't. He made his choice, and now he has to deal with the consequences. The goal is breaking the entire distribution system. Taking down high profile parts of it (recipients or dealers) is a big part of that. They got BALCO; now they are moving on. The feds could care less about Bonds' records or all that nonsense. The point is that if they prosecute him, it makes it far less likely that others will take a similar risk. If they let him go - with all the public info out there - what's the risk to people to do this stuff? It's similar to the aggressive prosecution of the Enron case. It doesn't help any of the people that got burned by the fraud, but the publicity helps to put a very public focus on it, and makes it less likely other CEOs pursue similar policies. If the feds had just let them go and let them keep their millions made on fraud, what does that tell other CEO's? Same deal here. Taking down Bonds has a far bigger effect on usage than would prosecutive Joe Schmoe dealer off the street that no one's heard of.
its not the same thing as the enron investigation. everyone who the governement has targeted in the enron investigation commited fraud. of course they're gonna take down ceos, they're responsible for the company. its not symbolic, its the guys who actually signed the papers and lied to the public. the traders who went to jail, committed fraud, and lied, and bilked people out of money. everyone who went on trial for enron in some way or another helped victimize the people who lost money in enron. who has bonds' victimized? russ springer?
FIne, let me clarify. While do know some things about what the FBI allocates resources and why based on both public and private knowledge, (and yes, I understand how federal jurisdiction and interstate crimes work) I also have opinions about what an agency that blamed "computer problems" for its failure to catch terrorists in 2001 despite ample tip-offs should be focusing on. I feel that abuse of drugs without a prescription is very low on the list. Anyway, what else needs to be broken? The ring is broken up. BALCO is defunct. Victor Conte did his time and was released.
There's a difference between cooperating and going in wearing a wire trying to find evidence against someone you don't know anything about.
