Turk Wendell thinks Sosa was on the juice

[Fred Hornkohl]

Wasn't the Turk on tabbaco juice? I don't which is more unhealthy for your body steroids or that crap.

 

I thought Turk's thing was licorice. Am I having a senior moment here ???

 

Licorice is right.

 

He'd grind it up and put it in a skoal can.

 

Now, that's just sick !!

[cubbieinexile]

Bonds: proven through his testimony, in which he admits they were in his system but claims someone rooked him into thinking it wasn't steroids. The new book pretty much yanks that rug out from under him. It's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

McGwire: proven because he pretty much took the 5th (not total proof I understand, but we're not talking about prison here and when you take the 5th a preponderance of evidence now shifts against you. Which incidentally is why you are not allowed to take the 5th in a civil trial where only a preponderance is required......but I digress). Proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

Bonds never admitted to knowingly or unknowingly taking steroids. Nowhere in his testimony does he acknowledge that there were/are steroids in his system or that he knew he was taking steroids. Nowhere in his grand jury testimony does the government make a real connection between what he used and known steroids. The reporters writing about the testimony and the government imply it, but no where in there do they hold up a can of clear with bonds name on it loaded with steroids.

 

Taking the 5th is a constitutioanl right, when you take it in a criminal trial nothing shifts. Not wanting to talk about a subject is not a proponderance of evidence. Also one can take the 5th in a civil trial. For instance say you have a civil trial involving landlord and tennant. The landlord is suing because the house recieved damage and the tennant will not pay for them. The tennant is a drug dealer. Plaintiff's lawyer asks him do you sell drugs. The defendant can take the 5th because his answer will incriminate him. He does not have to say yes I'm a drug dealer. Any testimony in any trial that can cause one to criminally incriminate oneself is protected under the 5th amendment. Now then if the defendant simply let the bathtub run over causing damage and the plaintiff's lawyer asks did you let the water run over in the bath tub? The defendant cannot plead the 5th since his answer would not criminally incriminate oneself.

[Soul]

With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Bonds admitted to taking the clear and the cream, and the government established what those substances were. That's why Bonds came up with the story about not knowing what was in them. And that story has now been impeached by a recent book.

 

You aren't seriously trying to defend Bonds (just curious)? Do what you like, but it's....inadvisable. He juiced to the max for several seasons, there's such little doubt about this it isn't even funny.

[cubbieinexile]

With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Bonds admitted to taking the clear and the cream, and the government established what those substances were. That's why Bonds came up with the story about not knowing what was in them. And that story has now been impeached by a recent book.

 

You aren't seriously trying to defend Bonds (just curious)? Do what you like, but it's....inadvisable. He juiced to the max for several seasons, there's such little doubt about this it isn't even funny.

 

Bonds did not admit that at all, nor did the government prove that what he did take was steroids. Go back and look at the articles and show me where it says that Bonds did the substances known as the cream and the clear. Show me where Bonds knows either before or after he took them that there were steroids in them. So far up to this points Bonds has stated that there are no steroids in him nor has he ever taken them. He has never said that he unknowingly took them or knowingly took them. Nor has the government ever actually made a direct link of steroid and bonds. They have evidence for sure but there is no smoking gun. No Bonds purchased the drugs, no Anderson saying I saw Bonds take the drugs, nothing.

 

What we have is BALCO selling drugs to Anderson and then the assumption that the drugs are for Bonds. It may very well be true but the government has not been able to make that connection yet. If they had then Bonds would be indicted by now, he has not been.

 

Am I defending BOnds? No, I think he used steroids, I also don't care that he used steroids.

 

But the point isn't what we think but what we "know" and what we can prove. This is about law and order. I wanted Barry BOnds to have the full protection of the law and rules that govern us. Because if somebody like him, somebody who everyone wants to "get" is protected from improper processing then that means I am protected as well, an innocent. Lynch mobs maybe expediate and may even solve a problem in the short run but when a society sets asides its laws and procedure for the sake of expediance then no one is safe in that society from the lynch mob.

[Fred Hornkohl]

With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Bonds admitted to taking the clear and the cream, and the government established what those substances were. That's why Bonds came up with the story about not knowing what was in them. And that story has now been impeached by a recent book.

 

You aren't seriously trying to defend Bonds (just curious)? Do what you like, but it's....inadvisable. He juiced to the max for several seasons, there's such little doubt about this it isn't even funny.

 

Bonds did not admit that at all, nor did the government prove that what he did take was steroids. Go back and look at the articles and show me where it says that Bonds did the substances known as the cream and the clear. Show me where Bonds knows either before or after he took them that there were steroids in them. So far up to this points Bonds has stated that there are no steroids in him nor has he ever taken them. He has never said that he unknowingly took them or knowingly took them. Nor has the government ever actually made a direct link of steroid and bonds. They have evidence for sure but there is no smoking gun. No Bonds purchased the drugs, no Anderson saying I saw Bonds take the drugs, nothing.

 

What we have is BALCO selling drugs to Anderson and then the assumption that the drugs are for Bonds. It may very well be true but the government has not been able to make that connection yet. If they had then Bonds would be indicted by now, he has not been.

 

Am I defending BOnds? No, I think he used steroids, I also don't care that he used steroids.

 

But the point isn't what we think but what we "know" and what we can prove. This is about law and order. I wanted Barry BOnds to have the full protection of the law and rules that govern us. Because if somebody like him, somebody who everyone wants to "get" is protected from improper processing then that means I am protected as well, an innocent. Lynch mobs maybe expediate and may even solve a problem in the short run but when a society sets asides its laws and procedure for the sake of expediance then no one is safe in that society from the lynch mob.

 

Aw, damn !! Are you telling me that we have to try Bonds before we execute him ?? :shrug:

[Andy]

One correction, CIE:

 

When the feds raided Anderson's home, there was a file on Bonds with notations on a calendar that seemed to indicate steroid-taking schedules. It was in the SI excerpt of the book. They have more than just vague testimony.

[cubbieinexile]

How is that a correction of something I said?

[Andy]

How is that a correction of something I said?

You said:

 

What we have is BALCO selling drugs to Anderson and then the assumption that the drugs are for Bonds.

 

They have more than just an assumption, they have hard evidence that Bonds appeared to be on a steroids regimen with Anderson.

[chopsx9]

"Turk Wendell thinks Sosa was on the juice"

 

Well Turk also thinks his head will explode if he steps on the foul line on the field so if you want to take this as hard evidence please go ahead. It speaks volumes about the motivation for your decision making.

 

(Not directed at any one poster in particular, just the group in general that seem to take great joy at grasping at any straw to knock Sosa down a notch.)

 

Turk also admits he has not one shread of proof.

 

There will be no end to my criticism of Sosa if evidence comes to light. However I will wait for some actual evidence.

 

And for the 100th time Sosa did not go from 30 to over 60 hrs. In 1996 he hit 40 before he got injured in August. He would have surpassed 50 fairly easily if he had remained healthy. So the jump to 66 is hardly monumental. There is plenty of on field evidence of Sosa becoming a better hitter through this time - holding off on the low outside pitch, hitting more to right field etc.

[Soul]

With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Bonds admitted to taking the clear and the cream, and the government established what those substances were. That's why Bonds came up with the story about not knowing what was in them. And that story has now been impeached by a recent book.

 

You aren't seriously trying to defend Bonds (just curious)? Do what you like, but it's....inadvisable. He juiced to the max for several seasons, there's such little doubt about this it isn't even funny.

 

Bonds did not admit that at all, nor did the government prove that what he did take was steroids. Go back and look at the articles and show me where it says that Bonds did the substances known as the cream and the clear. Show me where Bonds knows either before or after he took them that there were steroids in them. So far up to this points Bonds has stated that there are no steroids in him nor has he ever taken them. He has never said that he unknowingly took them or knowingly took them. Nor has the government ever actually made a direct link of steroid and bonds. They have evidence for sure but there is no smoking gun. No Bonds purchased the drugs, no Anderson saying I saw Bonds take the drugs, nothing.

 

What we have is BALCO selling drugs to Anderson and then the assumption that the drugs are for Bonds. It may very well be true but the government has not been able to make that connection yet. If they had then Bonds would be indicted by now, he has not been.

 

Am I defending BOnds? No, I think he used steroids, I also don't care that he used steroids.

 

But the point isn't what we think but what we "know" and what we can prove. This is about law and order. I wanted Barry BOnds to have the full protection of the law and rules that govern us. Because if somebody like him, somebody who everyone wants to "get" is protected from improper processing then that means I am protected as well, an innocent. Lynch mobs maybe expediate and may even solve a problem in the short run but when a society sets asides its laws and procedure for the sake of expediance then no one is safe in that society from the lynch mob.

 

Obviously this board is all about opinions.....I'm giving you mine.

 

A jury sends a murderer to his death based on their *opinion* of the evidence, too.

 

I'm telling you that, in my opinion, based on the evidence we have available to us now, there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt Bonds took steroids. Do I "know"? No, I don't know. That would be proof beyond all doubt (see Palmiero).

 

But when I look at the case against Barry Bonds as it stands right now: in my opinion that's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just like in the case against Pete Rose we didn't absolutely KNOW until he confessed. But the circumstancial case against him was strong. Not entirely the same thing here, but it's similar.

[cubbieinexile]

 

They have more than just an assumption, they have hard evidence that Bonds appeared to be on a steroids regimen with Anderson.

 

No they have a calendar with Bonds name on it and a bunch of letters on it. Like G under October 16th, H, W October 13th.

[Illini Iceman]

With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Bonds admitted to taking the clear and the cream, and the government established what those substances were. That's why Bonds came up with the story about not knowing what was in them. And that story has now been impeached by a recent book.

 

You aren't seriously trying to defend Bonds (just curious)? Do what you like, but it's....inadvisable. He juiced to the max for several seasons, there's such little doubt about this it isn't even funny.

 

Bonds did not admit that at all, nor did the government prove that what he did take was steroids. Go back and look at the articles and show me where it says that Bonds did the substances known as the cream and the clear. Show me where Bonds knows either before or after he took them that there were steroids in them. So far up to this points Bonds has stated that there are no steroids in him nor has he ever taken them. He has never said that he unknowingly took them or knowingly took them. Nor has the government ever actually made a direct link of steroid and bonds. They have evidence for sure but there is no smoking gun. No Bonds purchased the drugs, no Anderson saying I saw Bonds take the drugs, nothing.

 

What we have is BALCO selling drugs to Anderson and then the assumption that the drugs are for Bonds. It may very well be true but the government has not been able to make that connection yet. If they had then Bonds would be indicted by now, he has not been.

 

Am I defending BOnds? No, I think he used steroids, I also don't care that he used steroids.

 

But the point isn't what we think but what we "know" and what we can prove. This is about law and order. I wanted Barry BOnds to have the full protection of the law and rules that govern us. Because if somebody like him, somebody who everyone wants to "get" is protected from improper processing then that means I am protected as well, an innocent. Lynch mobs maybe expediate and may even solve a problem in the short run but when a society sets asides its laws and procedure for the sake of expediance then no one is safe in that society from the lynch mob.

 

I think the leaked federal grand jury testimony has him admitting to taking the cream but claiming that at the time he did not know it was steroids. Obviously this is not confirmable other than by the source that leaked it because this testimony is supposed to be sealed and the source actually committed a crime by letting anyone know about it.

 

You can question the credibility of the leak if you like, but you can not claim to know what he has and has not said since his testimony is sealed as part of his agreement to testify against BALCO. The government has virtually no interest in Bonds on the steroid charges. They want BALCO and are happy to give him immunity for his testimony.

 

Federal tax evasion, however, could be another matter.

[Andy]

 

They have more than just an assumption, they have hard evidence that Bonds appeared to be on a steroids regimen with Anderson.

 

No they have a calendar with Bonds name on it and a bunch of letters on it. Like G under October 16th, H, W October 13th.

What else are we supposed to believe that the calendar was for? Anderson is a noted steroids dealer and former user, and he is Barry's personal trainer. A calendar in his home with Barry's name on it is hardly going to be for things like picking up the kids from day care or going on a conference call to berate 50 more reporters for not being perfect human beings and then daring to criticize him for cheating and breaking the law.

[cubbieinexile]

What else are we supposed to believe that the calendar was for? Anderson is a noted steroids dealer and former user, and he is Barry's personal trainer. A calendar in his home with Barry's name on it is hardly going to be for things like picking up the kids from day care or going on a conference call to berate 50 more reporters for not being perfect human beings and then daring to criticize him for cheating and breaking the law.

 

Anderson was Bonds trainer it could be his work-out schedule.

 

Not saying it was but the only option isn't just steroids for that calendar.

[cubbieinexile]

I think the leaked federal grand jury testimony has him admitting to taking the cream but claiming that at the time he did not know it was steroids. Obviously this is not confirmable other than by the source that leaked it because this testimony is supposed to be sealed and the source actually committed a crime by letting anyone know about it.

 

You can question the credibility of the leak if you like, but you can not claim to know what he has and has not said since his testimony is sealed as part of his agreement to testify against BALCO. The government has virtually no interest in Bonds on the steroid charges. They want BALCO and are happy to give him immunity for his testimony.

 

Federal tax evasion, however, could be another matter.

 

No Bonds claimed that his trainer applied a cream upon him. The was never confirmed to be "the cream", the one with steroids in it. Bonds said his trainer gave him what he believed was flaxseed oil, and again it was never confirmed to be "the clear". What did happen was a lot of suggesting and a lot of bait and switch. Bond said a cream was applied to him and he swallowed a clear substance. From there everybody just assumed he confessed to using "the cream" and "the clear", which he didn't. If I put aloe on my skin I used a cream that doesn't mean I used "the cream". But that is what everybody assumed as soon as they heard the word cream.

 

I do not claim to know what Bonds has and has not said to the grand jury. It is those attacking Bonds that are claiming to know what he said to the grand jury. ALl I said was based on what we have read in the media Bonds has never confessed to using steroids. As for the government and BALCO/BOnds I disagree. The government and more particularly agents in that government want to get Bonds in the worst way. We know about BALCO because they wanted to get Bonds and other star athletes. Bonds isn't some pawn in this game he is the king.

[Soul]

What else are we supposed to believe that the calendar was for? Anderson is a noted steroids dealer and former user, and he is Barry's personal trainer. A calendar in his home with Barry's name on it is hardly going to be for things like picking up the kids from day care or going on a conference call to berate 50 more reporters for not being perfect human beings and then daring to criticize him for cheating and breaking the law.

 

Anderson was Bonds trainer it could be his work-out schedule.

 

Not saying it was but the only option isn't just steroids for that calendar.

 

I thought there were others who looked at that calendar and knew right away what each letter meant----from experience. Actually, I thought it was Conti who knew.

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14050067.htm

 

Game of Shadows documents Bonds' use of the cream and the clear (designer steroids), insulin, human growth hormone, testosterone decanoate (a fast-acting steroid known as Mexican beans), trenbolone (a cattle steroid) and clomid (a fertility drug), all of which were handily tracked on his "trainer" Greg Anderson's computer and on BALCO boss Victor Conti's calendar.

 

Anyhow, it's more circumstancial evidence. Granted, it's not absolute proof like a video tape of Bonds injecting himself. But circumstancial evidence also counts...

[cubbieinexile]

Except we have no real idea what it says on Anderson's computer or on Conte's calendar. We have a blurb that is telling us what it means but we haven't even seen it or what it says on these things. It reminds of some of pete rose's "betting slips". Read the newspaper and they claim they have Pete Rose betting slips which is proof that he bet on baseball. Well the betting slip they hold up as proof is actually a slip of paper with his basketball bets on it.

 

After Joe Jackson went before the grand jury in 1920 the media labeled it a confession and that Joe Jackson said this and that. When we finally got to look at the grand jury testimony it turns he didn't say those things.

 

Again not saying that Bonds didn't use drugs nor that the calendars and computers don't explicitly state he did use drugs. What I am saying is that we don't know what it says on those things.

Edited March 20, 2006 by cubbieinexile

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Wait a minute, Barry Bonds may have been a steroid user? What???

[Soul]

Except we have no real idea what it says on Anderson's computer or on Conte's calendar. We have a blurb that is telling us what it means but we haven't even seen it or what it says on these things. It reminds of some of pete rose's "betting slips". Read the newspaper and they claim they have Pete Rose betting slips which is proof that he bet on baseball. Well the betting slip they hold up as proof is actually a slip of paper with his basketball bets on it.

 

After Joe Jackson went before the grand jury in 1920 the media labeled it a confession and that Joe Jackson said this and that. When we finally got to look at the grand jury testimony it turns he didn't say those things.

 

Again not saying that Bonds didn't use drugs nor that the calendars and computers don't explicitly state he did use drugs. What I am saying is that we don't know what it says on those things.

 

We have Conte in a 60-minutes interview saying it was a calender to lay out which drugs to take at which times. I mean, what do we want? Someone to walk up to us with the actual documents so we can have a personal look? Even then, the docs could have been altered before we saw them...

 

It's asking for absolute proof. And that kind of proof seldom comes around. What we're left with is a mountain of circumstancial evidence, the testimony of several players in the whole deal, TV interviews, books that put it together, etc. It's enough. Sure, there's an outside chance it's all wrong----maybe everyone's lying because they don't like Barry. It's not very likely, but yeah it's possible. But it's enough evidence for a reasonable person to conclude he did it--which you seem to be leaning toward. I'm definitely already there.

[badger1679666666]

"Turk Wendell thinks Sosa was on the juice"

 

Well Turk also thinks his head will explode if he steps on the foul line on the field so if you want to take this as hard evidence please go ahead. It speaks volumes about the motivation for your decision making.

 

(Not directed at any one poster in particular, just the group in general that seem to take great joy at grasping at any straw to knock Sosa down a notch.)

 

Turk also admits he has not one shread of proof.

 

There will be no end to my criticism of Sosa if evidence comes to light. However I will wait for some actual evidence.

 

And for the 100th time Sosa did not go from 30 to over 60 hrs. In 1996 he hit 40 before he got injured in August. He would have surpassed 50 fairly easily if he had remained healthy. So the jump to 66 is hardly monumental. There is plenty of on field evidence of Sosa becoming a better hitter through this time - holding off on the low outside pitch, hitting more to right field etc.

 

Man if you can't see with your own eyes, what happened to his body, his flexibility seemingly overnight, then nothing will be able to convince you of it short of a written confession.

 

I agree someone people are on a mission to crucify, but it's as obvious as it was with Bonds, from circumstantial evidence, that Sosa was on juice.

[goonys evil twin]

Man if you can't see with your own eyes, what happened to his body, his flexibility seemingly overnight, then nothing will be able to convince you of it short of a written confession.

 

I agree someone people are on a mission to crucify, but it's as obvious as it was with Bonds, from circumstantial evidence, that Sosa was on juice.

 

I don't think it's nearly as obvious as with Bonds. Sammy went from a swing at everything guy to a guy who would take walks. He was hitting lots of homers pre-98. Sammy was turning into a power hitter in his mid to late 20's. He took his last leap of power when he was 29. It was not an overnight change, nor was it an oddly timed changed. Bonds plateaud at the same level for years, then came out of nowhere at 37 with an entirely new body and power stroke.

 

I'm not saying Sammy didn't. But the level of evidence against him doesn't come close to that of Bonds.

[badger1679666666]

Man if you can't see with your own eyes, what happened to his body, his flexibility seemingly overnight, then nothing will be able to convince you of it short of a written confession.

 

I agree someone people are on a mission to crucify, but it's as obvious as it was with Bonds, from circumstantial evidence, that Sosa was on juice.

 

I don't think it's nearly as obvious as with Bonds. Sammy went from a swing at everything guy to a guy who would take walks. He was hitting lots of homers pre-98. Sammy was turning into a power hitter in his mid to late 20's. He took his last leap of power when he was 29. It was not an overnight change, nor was it an oddly timed changed. Bonds plateaud at the same level for years, then came out of nowhere at 37 with an entirely new body and power stroke.

 

I'm not saying Sammy didn't. But the level of evidence against him doesn't come close to that of Bonds.

 

You are correct there - I was more talking about circumstanial physical evidence - i.e his body explosion.

[goonys evil twin]

You are correct there - I was more talking about circumstanial physical evidence - i.e his body explosion.

 

But even on that topic, Sammy's took place over time in his mid-to-late 20's. Everybody looks at pictures of him when he was a 19 year old in Texas to compare. But he was bigger in his first years with the Cubs than he was in Texas, or the White Sox. He was a pretty big dude in the mid-90's as well, with big guns. Yes, he did then get to a cartoonish size in 98, but it was also his late 20's, which is relatively normal, compared to a guy like Bonds doing so at 37, after so many years of stability.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

But even on that topic, Sammy's took place over time in his mid-to-late 20's. Everybody looks at pictures of him when he was a 19 year old in Texas to compare. But he was bigger in his first years with the Cubs than he was in Texas, or the White Sox. He was a pretty big dude in the mid-90's as well, with big guns. Yes, he did then get to a cartoonish size in 98, but it was also his late 20's, which is relatively normal, compared to a guy like Bonds doing so at 37, after so many years of stability.

 

My body got to a cartoonish size around 30.

 

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/0/05/PeterGriffinPic31B.JPG

[Banedon]

(Not directed at any one poster in particular, just the group in general that seem to take great joy at grasping at any straw to knock Sosa down a notch.)

 

Just to clarify, I didn't post this thread to knock Sosa down a notch. I posted it because it's a quote from a former teammate, and it was something new to talk about.

 

That said, I happen to believe Turk.