Bonds Will NOT Be Convicted of Using Steroids

[LouGehrig]

Barry Bonds is not being charged with purchasing, using, or distributing steroids or other illegal drugs. If he is convicted, he will not be convicted of drug use. He will be convicted of perjury.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/barry_bonds_perjury_trial

[Solrac]

Perjury Of Lying That He Didnt Use Steroids And Obstructon Of Justice By Impeding The Balco Investigation.

[jalbright]

Barry Bonds is not being charged with purchasing, using, or distributing steroids or other illegal drugs. If he is convicted, he will not be convicted of drug use. He will be convicted of perjury.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/barry_bonds_perjury_trial

That's true in a very technical sense only. As the post between ours indicates, what he allegedly perjured himself about was the use of steroids. The bigger question is whether the Feds can truly make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If trainer Anderson doesn't talk, the Feds seem to be left with a mistress who can easily be painted as vengeful, and some steroid test results which a) I'm not at all certain can be shown to have been shared with Bonds, and b) apparently were done with few if any of the usual safeguards to ensure that the samples weren't tainted. If the Feds are left with that and the other circumstantial evidence we have that Barry used, they're going to have a heck of a time proving beyond a reasonable doubt Bonds knew he was on steroids when he testified to the contrary. If they only had to prove it was more likely than not, they probably would make that standard with what the news reports indicate they have on him. Maybe they have more that the media is aware of, but if not, they need Anderson to roll--and he shows no signs of doing so.

Jim Albright

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

From reading the article, even if the samples show that Bonds had 'roids in his system, he could still be innocent since they would have to prove that he knew he was taking them?

[jalbright]

From reading the article, even if the samples show that Bonds had 'roids in his system, he could still be innocent since they would have to prove that he knew he was taking them?

Yup. If he was an innocent dupe of Anderson's, his testimony indicates he didn't believe Anderson would do such a thing, and that would justify his belief he was testifying truthfully that the stuff he took that Anderson gave him was not steroids.

Do I agree? Well, if we're talking about the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", yeah, it's difficult to say it's not reasonably possible to think Bonds was naive about this. Do I think that's the most likely scenario? No. The difference highlights how high a standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" truly is.

Jim Albright

[brett]

Perjury Of Lying That He Didnt Use Steroids And Obstructon Of Justice By Impeding The Balco Investigation.

From transcripts I have heard, he may be convicted of purgery simply about whether or not anyone talked to him about HGH, steroids, or similar substances.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

From reading the article, even if the samples show that Bonds had 'roids in his system, he could still be innocent since they would have to prove that he knew he was taking them?

Thats the biggest joke of all but I think that could be his way out.
Do we have to be attorneys to figure this one out, do we have to be professionals to figure this one out, that months ago Barry said he "never "knowingly" used steroids.

I'm not a lawyer and not a legal expert but I posted long ago that Barry and his attorney were looking down the road, making their case all built around the words "never knowingly".... just in case it was ever proved that he did use steroids. he could then say... I didn't lie, I was misled, given steroids but "didn't know".

Please............. are you buying this BS, he didn't know or are you just saying thats his way out, that I could accept.

Yes in a court of law that could be his way out, he didn't know ;);), sure he didn't.

But in the court of public opinion this only makes him look more guilty.

[ESPNFan]

Yes in a court of law that could be his way out, he didn't know ;);), sure he didn't.

But in the court of public opinion this only makes him look more guilty.

And frankly that is the only thing that really matters at this point. It's obvious that Barry, being the very smart person he is, built this plausible deniability defense in his agreement with Anderson. Anderson serving this much "optional" time in the clink make Barry look guilty as sin. And as I have said before The other ball players that testified they worked with Anderson (except Sheffeild) all admitted they knew what they were getting.

I don't want to see Bonds in jail. Thats not the point. Embarrassed for lying and having his accomplishments minimized since he has been on the sauce in the court of public opinion, is more than enough punishment for a person who is as vain and jealous as Barry apparently is.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

And frankly that is the only thing that really matters at this point. It's obvious that Barry, being the very smart person he is, built this plausible deniability defense in his agreement with Anderson. Anderson serving this much "optional" time in the clink make Barry look guilty as sin. And as I have said before The other ball players that testified they worked with Anderson (except Sheffeild) all admitted they knew what they were getting.

I don't want to see Bonds in jail. Thats not the point. Embarrassed for lying and having his accomplishments minimized since he has been on the sauce in the court of public opinion, is more than enough punishment for a person who is as vain and jealous as Barry apparently is.

I'm in agreement I don't want him to be jailed and I really think the odds are against the prosecution. I'm sure Barry's lawyer had something to do with his statement long ago....... that he "never knowingly" used steroids, thats the lawyers job. Do I think he knew yes. Can the prosecution disprove his statement that he did not know, I don't think so.

I don't think Barry will do any time, hard to prove and jail time would make him the martyr, even those that dislike him would not want that.

No jail but the dark cloud over Barry is bigger and darker than ever, some of his numbers and records will always be in doubt. Like him or not a sad ending for a terrific ball player. Instead of us celebrating his exit from the game he leaves under a cloud of suspicion.

[tigers527]

The Feds don't just screw up cases like this. Just ask Martha Steward and Lil Kim. Chris Weber could chime in as well, but he reached a plea instead of jail time. Mainly because the star witness in the Weber case, Ed Martin, died.

here's a good run down of past cases: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/11/16/bc.bbn.bonds.perjury.ap/index.html

[west coast orange and black]

shoelessjoe: ...Barry and his attorney were looking down the road, making their case all built around the words "never knowingly"
"never knowingly" was necessary, as bonds stated that he left it to anderson to recommend and administer. "never knowingly" fit the pattern.
"never knowingly" is what a prudent person answers when not certain.

[west coast orange and black]

tigers527: The Feds don't just screw up cases like this.

in 2006 perjury cases had a conviction rate of 86%.
obstruction of justice, 79%.

[sandlot]

The Feds don't just screw up cases like this.They wish that was so. But they do screw up. Even if you look at the conviction rates, they're only part of the story. What you don't see in those numbers are the indictments the Grand Juries never bought, the charges that never got filed, the cases that were never brought to trial or were dropped at the courthouse door, or were knocked down to lesser charges, or pled out, or withdrawn or tossed out part way through the hearings -- plus you also need to look at the rates of convictions upon appeal to various appelate levels.

But the real issue you'll never see in the numbers: It's the abuse of the Grand Jury system. Remember -- this is an indictment, a charge, that's being laid before the Grand Jury. If it can't make it through a Grand Jury -- which is generally bent in the prosecutors' favor -- it would never make it through a court. It is also a time-honored tactic of prosecutors, especially in difficult cases or where they are looking for a precedent that they can then apply elsewhere, to seek out defendants who are unpopular with the public. You can believe with all your heart that if some Fed snoop in the Bay Area had ever gotten reason to suspect that maybe North Beach native and favorite son Joe Dimaggio had used a performance enhancer, he'd have taken that suspicion to his grave. Hate Barry Bonds with all your being, it doesn't matter, but see the process for what it is.

[west coast orange and black]

^^
But the real issue you'll never see in the numbers: It's the abuse of the Grand Jury system.

thanx for your post, sandlot.
word is that the feds were gonna stay on it 'til they got jury seated that was gonna indict.

[KCGHOST]

Just like the Rose case the Bonds case will not change anybody's mind about how the view Bonds. The Anti-Bonds faction knows he did steroids and are going to crucify him if they get the opportunity.

The Pro-Bonds crowd could care less whether he did them or not. In fact, most of them in their heart-of-hearts know he did. They don't care and usually would prefer the position that the faults of others absolves Bonds of all blame.

[cardsfanatic]

He perjured himself by saying he didn't take steroids -- henceforth, he is basically being accused of using steroids, since the US Gov't would have to make a case that he did _KNOWINGLY_ take steroids to prove that he committed perjury. While he won't get in trouble for his steroid use directly he is being accused of steroid use and it has to be the anchor of the case against him. I know, logic is a tricky thing and all... but you can do better than this, can't ya?

[cardsfanatic]

The Pro-Bonds crowd could care less whether he did them or not. In fact, most of them in their heart-of-hearts know he did. They don't care and usually would prefer the position that the faults of others absolves Bonds of all blame.

You say that as if there is something wrong with it. At least that's how I read it. I happen to be part of that crowd. I think you'd have to be pretty naive to think Bonds didn't take a healthy dose of "carrot juice". However, I can't bring myself to care. And I've been fair about that down the line. I don't care that Raffy, Mac, Sosa or whoever took steroids. I just don't. Just like I don't care that the golden oldies took greenies and threw spitballs and whatever else method of cheating they used.

I played baseball all the way to the college level and I loved playing for the same reason I love watching it. It takes more skill to play baseball than any other sport and that's no lie. I had scholarships for all three major sports coming out of HS, something you can choose to believe or not, so I played all three rather well. Baseball is so hard I just can't believe that there's a drug out there that's a homerun in a syringe. No matter how much _whoever_ cheater or blah, blah, blah... Bonds still has more talent in his pinky finger than all of us here when it comes to playing the hardest sport in the country (I can't comment on soccer and the like since I never played them -- hence the country instead of world). I'm sorry if I see that as something to be relished instead of rejected.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Just like the Rose case the Bonds case will not change anybody's mind about how the view Bonds. The Anti-Bonds faction knows he did steroids and are going to crucify him if they get the opportunity.

The Pro-Bonds crowd could care less whether he did them or not. In fact, most of them in their heart-of-hearts know he did. They don't care and usually would prefer the position that the faults of others absolves Bonds of all blame.

The only one at fault, the only one that has to shoulder all the blame is the user. Be it Barry, Giambi or any other.

The fact that MLB should have started up testing for steroids and punishing those that did long ago..........the fact that the owners may have known steroids were being used ( what could they do about it before the ban) and last of all that crazy notion that some come up with..........that we the fans clamor for explosive baseball......... that we expect these guys to please us with all the offense we even share some responsibility.........please lets cut out the nonsense...............it's the users guys, no one else.

Yes on this board there have been posts asking us to look at MLB, the owners and even the fans and spread the blame around, sounds like the old ghetto defense again only this time applied to baseball and it sounds just as silly.

Some made the choice to go down that road other did not. Put all the blame where it belongs on the player that made that choice.

[Stray Cat]

Some made the choice to go down that road other did not. Put all the blame where it belongs on the player that made that choice.

The supposed adults who should have known better. Athletes are suppose
to be fit and take care of their bodies not abuse them. :confused:

[brett]

He perjured himself by saying he didn't take steroids --

I don't agree. I think its more subtle than this. The feds want to get individuals associated with BALCO. They will get Bonds for his mutliple responses that Anderson never DISCUSSED or used the terms HGH, steroids or any other similar substance in conversations with him.

I've seen some of the transcripts. Even if Anderson told Bonds "there are no steroids in this suppliment" Bonds pergured himself because he told the feds that that word was never used in any conversation.

[philipthegreat]

It was already bogus that Bonds was the one who would be sent to jail, but now in light of this article it seems to me like there is little or no charge against him.

Unless there is a witness or expert testimony by some ballplayer or some BALCO guy, I think that Bonds will get off

Like I asked, what's going to happen to this guy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2121659

[Mattingly]

And frankly that is the only thing that really matters at this point. It's obvious that Barry, being the very smart person he is, built this plausible deniability defense in his agreement with Anderson. Anderson serving this much "optional" time in the clink make Barry look guilty as sin. And as I have said before The other ball players that testified they worked with Anderson (except Sheffeild) all admitted they knew what they were getting.

I don't want to see Bonds in jail. Thats not the point. Embarrassed for lying and having his accomplishments minimized since he has been on the sauce in the court of public opinion, is more than enough punishment for a person who is as vain and jealous as Barry apparently is.
That "not knowingly" thing seems like the perfect defense. You could hammer away with a "Well, did you or did you not?" and the person only has to answer, "Not to my knowledge". Very frustrating, and obviously thought up by a very good defense attorney.

Seems like when someone is under oath and wishes to lie. Instead of saying, "I didn't say this", or "I did not do that", will instead say, "I don not recall having done so."

Yes, it could be true, but then again, that could also be a way to avoid perjuring themself if that denial ends up proving to be true.

A little too interesting that the uncertain items they won't fully agree they're aware of are so pertinent and material to the case at hand.

Unless someone in the clubhouse comes forward and testifies about some conversations, or unless Greg Anderson does a U-turn, I don't see Barry Bonds getting convicted of anything.

[west coast orange and black]

there is nothing brilliant about "not knowingly".

the feds presented thousands of documents, some identified with "BB" or "BBonds".
faced with that evidence, one does not ever directly with "no"... not if one is not certain, and definitely not when wants to stave off an indictment / have a chance at a not guilty.
it's defense 101.

the feds can not demonstrate just what, exactly, bonds used, so "not knowingly" is very proper.

[Mattingly]

there is nothing brilliant about "not knowingly".

the feds presented thousands of documents, some identified with "BB" or "BBonds".
faced with that evidence, one does not ever directly with "no"... not if one is not certain, and definitely not when wants to stave off an indictment / have a chance at a not guilty.
it's defense 101.

the feds can not demonstrate just what, exactly, bonds used, so "not knowingly" is very proper.
What thousands of types of documents have the Feds (IRS, et al) presented?

Regardless of the labels, to my knowledge, if a player may have taken steroids, I generally think he knows this or not. As we'd discussed several months ago (or possibly over a year ago), I'm very doubtful if someone tells me that they took something that their trainer gave them. To my knowledge, you'd replied that there's a certain amount of "trust" in the relationship that would allow a player to ingest whatever he'd been given by the trainer. Please correct me if I'm wrong or have mistated anything about this.

As to an staving off an indictment, wasn't Bonds given the same protection from prosecution that Giambi, Sheffield and others were given? From what I remember, so long as they told the truth, they were free to admit whatever they'd felt like, and they wouldn't face any federal prosecution over those admissions. Is this correct?

I'd agree that the feds would have trouble proving what he'd taken. Since they were relying upon the relatively lax PED testing, then there's so much you can do. If that's the basis, then when combined with so-called "designer drugs" that were specifically created to avoid detection, then proving he'd used may be a bit of a task.

When I say "lax", that's as compared to other sports organizations, such as the IOC, Tour de France and other world famous international sports organizations.

[plask_stirlac]

Maybe he can call Alberto Gonzales for coaching, although he might laugh off PED usage as kid's stuff.

[Solrac]

Never Knowingly???
So Maybe He Has Been Given Drugs And He Used It Without Ever Knowing Its A Drug???
So Whatever His Trainer Gives Him He'd Take???

[SHOELESSJOE3]

That line, "never knowingly is the first cousin to " I don't recall" or I don't remember that." It's the out for those who are under oath. If found that they did do what they are accused of they or their attorney can simply say, they never said no, they didn't know or the didn't remember, they did not lie.

If proven that Barry did use steroids they go back to his statement he didn't know what he was supplied with. I don't blame him many would do the same under the circumstances. It's hard to believe that he would not be aware of what he used but in a court of law they have to prove that when he made that statement he was not being truthful, difficult to prove. Unless there is some bombshell revelation, indisputable evidence that does him in.

[ElHalo]

If proven that Barry did use steroids they go back to his statement he didn't know what he was supplied with. I don't blame him many would do the same under the circumstances. It's hard to believe that he would not be aware of what he used but in a court of law they have to prove that when he made that statement he was not being truthful, difficult to prove. Unless there is some bombshell revelation, indisputable evidence that does him in.

People are under a very wrong impression about this case.

First, people really need to understand that the government is NOT bringing these charges as a proxy for bringing Bonds on drug charges, or as part of a witch hunt. Perjury is normally a nonsense charge you bring against people who you can't bring anything better against, but that's not the case here.

The federal government instituted an investigation into steroid use in professional sports, and called dozens of witnesses to give testimony. They offered immunity to drug charges to anybody who would testify truthfully about using them. Barry could have come in -- just like Jason Giambi -- testified truthfully about using steroids, and nobody would have given him any guff for it. No drug charges, no indictments, no nothing. Giambi hasn't been particularly slammed for using drugs -- more just for his play -- and I think a large part of that is that he was truthful about it. Sheffield did largely the same. Nobody's giving him a hard time either.

The problem with Bonds is that the Government spent millions and millions of dollars and thousands of man hours doing this investigation, and Barry still gave false testimony, even though he wouldn't get in trouble for telling the truth. That's essentially nothing more than a big F*** YOU to the federal investigators, and it causes lots and lots of problems when people do things like that. The "never knowingly" statement isn't in the slightest what the government has a problem with... it's the flat-out lies.

I usually have sympathy with people who lie under oath to protect themselves from criminal charges, even though, as an attorney, I certainly can't endorse the practice. However, when you're offered blanket immunity, your two choices are to either accept it and tell the truth, or say nothing (a la Mark McGwire). Neither choice will make you particularly popular, but when there's a blanket investigation like this with dozens of witnesses and dozens of investigators delving into something, actively lying when you have other options that will protect your interests is just inexcusable. So yeah, I have no sympathy with Bonds here, and this is one of the few times when I think perjury charges, in and of themselves, are entirely appropriate.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

People are under a very wrong impression about this case.

First, people really need to understand that the government is NOT bringing these charges as a proxy for bringing Bonds on drug charges, or as part of a witch hunt. Perjury is normally a nonsense charge you bring against people who you can't bring anything better against, but that's not the case here.

The federal government instituted an investigation into steroid use in professional sports, and called dozens of witnesses to give testimony. They offered immunity to drug charges to anybody who would testify truthfully about using them. Barry could have come in -- just like Jason Giambi -- testified truthfully about using steroids, and nobody would have given him any guff for it. No drug charges, no indictments, no nothing. Giambi hasn't been particularly slammed for using drugs -- more just for his play -- and I think a large part of that is that he was truthful about it. Sheffield did largely the same. Nobody's giving him a hard time either.

The problem with Bonds is that the Government spent millions and millions of dollars and thousands of man hours doing this investigation, and Barry still gave false testimony, even though he wouldn't get in trouble for telling the truth. That's essentially nothing more than a big F*** YOU to the federal investigators, and it causes lots and lots of problems when people do things like that. The "never knowingly" statement isn't in the slightest what the government has a problem with... it's the flat-out lies.
I usually have sympathy with people who lie under oath to protect themselves from criminal charges, even though, as an attorney, I certainly can't endorse the practice. However, when you're offered blanket immunity, your two choices are to either accept it and tell the truth, or say nothing (a la Mark McGwire). Neither choice will make you particularly popular, but when there's a blanket investigation like this with dozens of witnesses and dozens of investigators delving into something, actively lying when you have other options that will protect your interests is just inexcusable. So yeah, I have no sympathy with Bonds here, and this is one of the few times when I think perjury charges, in and of themselves, are entirely appropriate.

Correct me if wrong but isn't that what the perjury charge is all about in this case. From what I have read that the lie the government is out to prove. That when he said he never knowingly used steroids, he did know and that was a lie.

[west coast orange and black]

Mattingly: What thousands of types of documents have the Feds (IRS, et al) presented?
not thousands of types, but thousands (count) of documents were presented at the grand jury hearings.


I'm very doubtful if someone tells me that they took something that their trainer gave them. To my knowledge, you'd replied that there's a certain amount of "trust" in the relationship that would allow a player to ingest whatever he'd been given by the trainer.
i do believe in trust between athlete and trainer, yes.
the deeper the bond, the more likely that the athlete follows the trainer's lead.
what gives you cause to doubt if someone claims that they used something provided by a trainer?


As to an staving off an indictment, wasn't Bonds given the same protection from prosecution that Giambi, Sheffield and others were given?
apparently, yes.


From what I remember, so long as they told the truth, they were free to admit whatever they'd felt like, and they wouldn't face any federal prosecution over those admissions. Is this correct?
i believe that it is, yes. what are you after?

[digglahhh]

Never Knowingly???
So Maybe He Has Been Given Drugs And He Used It Without Ever Knowing Its A Drug???
So Whatever His Trainer Gives Him He'd Take???

I'm not saying I believe Bonds, but, assuming you can't prove that he "knowingly" took them (and it is difficult to prove what an individual "knew)...

Being gullible isn't a crime!

Everybody says it is so stupid that he would be so stupid just to put something in his body without knowing what it was, just on the word of the trainer. This whole situation is foreign to people, so it is very easily to criticize.

So, let's try to make this a bit more relatable, shall we?

Anybody heard this before; "Don't worry, baby - I'm on the pill!" :hp:hp

[west coast orange and black]

elhalo: Barry could have come in .... and nobody would have given him any guff for it.
i have a very difficult time believing that that would have occurred.
bonds, being bonds, would still have incurred much heat, unlike any other player or athlete.


The problem with Bonds is that the Government spent millions and millions of dollars and thousands of man hours doing this investigation, and Barry still gave false testimony...
more time and resources have been spent after the federal grand jury witnesses testified. much more.


The "never knowingly" statement isn't in the slightest what the government has a problem with...
it's the flat-out lies.
i do not see how the government can show that bonds lied unless they demonstrate that he knows that he used. if it were lies that bonds may have told, then they'd have the goods on him. as it is, though, they seem to not.


However, when you're offered blanket immunity, your two choices are to either accept it and tell the truth, or say nothing (a la Mark McGwire).
are you interchanging "blanket immunity" and "use/transactional immunity"?
(mcgwire was not among the 30-odd witnesses to testify.)

[west coast orange and black]

digglahhh: This whole situation is foreign to people, so it is very easily to criticize.

what has been widely overlooked or ignored is that bonds is a baseball player. period.
that is what he is. that is who he is.

bonds employed professional trainers and relied on them for their expertise.
why would a non-professional trainer question a professional one?
in this instance, why would bonds question a trainer who has been a longtime, close friend?

[west coast orange and black]

shoelessjoe: From what I have read that the lie the government is out to prove. That when he said he never knowingly used steroids, he did know and that was a lie.

ok, put this way, i agree that the prosecution, believing that bonds lied about using knowingly, is after a lie.

[ElHalo]

Correct me if wrong but isn't that what the perjury charge is all about in this case. From what I have read that the lie the government is out to prove. That when he said he never knowingly used steroids, he did know and that was a lie.

As excerpted from the transcript...

Q: . . . I mean, did you take steroids?

A: No.

Q: Okay. Were you obtaining testosterone from Mr. Anderson during this period of time?

A: Not at all.

Q: In January 2001 were you taking either the flax seed oil or the cream?

A: No


If you say "I don't think so," or "I'm not sure," or "I don't believe I did," you can pretty much say anything. But when someone asks you a flat out question (like, "were you obtaining testosterone") and you flat out answer "No," there's no equivocation, and there's no going back later and saying "oh but what I really meant when I said that was such-and-such."

[SHOELESSJOE3]

shoelessjoe: From what I have read that the lie the government is out to prove. That when he said he never knowingly used steroids, he did know and that was a lie.

ok, put this way, i agree that the prosecution, believing that bonds lied about using knowingly, is after a lie.


I can't imagine Barry doing any time. I really hope he doesn't.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

So if he did indeed say 'not knowingly', then it's pretty much going to take evidence explicitly pointing out that Bonds knew what he was taking (an order of roids/hgh/testosterone etc... with his signature on it, a tape with him talking about using, a video etc..) to convict? What kind of power would a witness have if he testified that he saw Barry use steroids that he knew were steroids?

Edit: Also, how many of you guys are lawyers?

[ElHalo]

So if he did indeed say 'not knowingly', then it's pretty much going to take evidence explicitly pointing out that Bonds knew what he was taking (an order of roids/hgh/testosterone etc... with his signature on it, a tape with him talking about using, a video etc..) to convict? What kind of power would a witness have if he testified that he saw Barry use steroids that he knew were steroids?

Edit: Also, how many of you guys are lawyers?

Lawyer here, though not a criminal lawyer. If it really were to come down to "not knowingly" (which it almost certainly won't), it would really be up to a jury to decide how much weight a witness' evidence had, although it would really vary with what the witness said. Ordinarily it would be inadmissible hearsay for a guy to testify "Bonds told me such-and-such," but in this case it would be directly relavent to his state of mind, which would be an essential element of the perjury charge, and thus admissible. If you get one or two guys to say that Bonds either said he was taking steroids, or told him that he believed it was steroids, that would be pretty powerful. It would certainly also help if people could testify that they spoke with Bonds about tailoring his testimony to the grand jury ("I have to say I didn't knowingly take it, so they can't come back later and say I lied to them."). It would also help if somebody could testify that they told Bonds he was taking steroids, because then you could argue that any belief Bonds had that the stuff he was taking wasn't steroids could only be wilfull ignorance.

[west coast orange and black]

elhalo: As excerpted from the transcript...
Q: . . . I mean, did you take steroids?
A: No.

Q: Okay. Were you obtaining testosterone from Mr. Anderson during this period of time?
A: Not at all.

Q: In January 2001 were you taking either the flax seed oil or the cream?
A: No

If you say "I don't think so," or "I'm not sure," or "I don't believe I did," you can pretty much say anything. But when someone asks you a flat out question (like, "were you obtaining testosterone") and you flat out answer "No," there's no equivocation, and there's no going back later and saying "oh but what I really meant when I said that was such-and-such."

while true that answering "no" makes it impossible to put the genie back in the bottle, the 3 unequivocals that you excerpt were all preceeded with the following 2 answers by bonds, which demonstrate that bonds' answers were based on what he believed to be true:

Q: I know the answer – let me ask you this again. I know we kind of got the [sic] into this. Let me be real clear about this. Did he [Anderson] ever give you anything that you knew to be a steroid?
A: I don’t think Greg would do anything like that to me and jeopardize our friendship. I just don’t think he would do that. (my italics)

Q: Well, when you say you don’t think he would do that, to your knowledge, I mean, did you ever take any steroids that he gave you?
A: Not that I know of. (my italics)

nb: it is also well to remember that the indictment contains only excerpts of the transcript.
testimony by bonds that does not appear in the transcript might benefit him.

[west coast orange and black]

elhalo: If you get one or two guys to say that Bonds either said he was taking steroids, or told him that he believed it was steroids .... It would certainly also help if people could testify that they spoke with Bonds about tailoring his testimony to the grand jury .... It would also help if somebody could testify that they told Bonds he was taking steroids...

you've been around the big city block, elhalo.
what do you think the chances are that any of the above will occur?