Yes, Barry Bonds could very well be convicted

26 Comments

I probably need to clarify a point regarding my assessment of the prosecution’s case in the whole Barry Bonds.  I’ve said many times that I think it’s a weak case. Recently my comments to this effect have been picked up by various blogs and have been characterized as me saying that Bonds is going to skate and the prosecution is doomed. That’s not exactly what I believe.

  • I believe that, as far as perjury prosecutions go, there is way less evidence here than you usually see and that the lies normally turned into perjury prosecutions are typically far more stark and unequivocal than the ones Barry Bonds is accused of telling. I believe that, in most instances this is case that would never have been brought by responsible prosecutors.
  • Some time ago, when it went up on appeal and the court excluded all of the doping calendars and everyone realized that Anderson wouldn’t testify I believed that the prosecution would drop the case and that Bonds would, at that point skate.  That obviously didn’t happen and I’m still surprised that it didn’t.
  • I still believe that the case to is light on evidence, wasteful, misguided and sets a dangerous precedent that actually harms the grand jury process far more than Bonds’ alleged perjury did.

But I also acknowledge that, once you get a jury in the box anything can happen.  My criticisms of the prosecution’s approach aside, the fact is that Bonds is telling a story that’s hard to believe and it’s not at all a stretch to think that the prosecution could get a jury to rule against him.

That doesn’t justify the prosecution because I don’t believe that the government should be casually bringing “yeah, I bet we can convince some people of this” kind of cases. The standard for pulling the trigger on a prosecution should be way higher simply because (a) as the old saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich; (b) despite their charge to be impartial, juries tend to believe that if someone was indicted that they probably did it; and (c) because of that conviction rates are really damn high for cases that last this long.

The prosecutor has way more power than most people think in the criminal justice system. Good ones decline to go after ticky-tack cases for a lot of good reasons and this is a ticky tack case.  You can say that “well, if he lied he should be convicted” but prosecutors are given a ton of discretion for a reason.  They typically and responsibly decline to prosecute cases when the costs — not merely financial costs but costs to the justice system — outweigh the benefits of the prosecution.  I believe this is one of those cases where that discretion should have been exercised and the prosecution not pursued.

But given that hasn’t happened here it certainly means that, yeah, the jury that is seated next month could convict Bonds. And I’m not making any predictions that they won’t.

The Braves’ top minor league team to rename itself

7 Comments

Whereas once it was expected that all sports teams would be named after ferocious animals, notable historic figures or events or something else otherwise inspiring, there has been a trend in the minor leagues over the past few years to give teams somewhat silly names.

The Jacksonville Jumbo Shrimp. The Binghamton Rumble Ponies. The New Orleans Baby Cakes. The Down East Wood Ducks. Etc.

I suspect a lot of that is fueled by a desire to sell intentionally uncool merchandise to ironic hipsters. Some of it may simply be a function of branding and creating a team identity that will not, for a moment, cause the local nine to be confused with anyone else. Not that those things are mutually exclusive. Whatever the impulse, the trend will no doubt continue.

The next place we could see it: Gwinnett County Georgia, where the Atlanta Braves’ Triple-A team plays:

Gwinnett Braves general manager North Johnson announced a contest to rename the Triple-A team for the 2018 season and beyond.

Fans and members of the Gwinnett community can suggest new team names starting Monday through June 2. After all team name suggestions are submitted, a final round of voting on the top choices will last from June 19-July 3 on the Gwinnett Braves’ website.

Like all but one of its other affiliates, Gwinnett is named the Braves, just like the parent club. Being so close to Atlanta has caused it some identify problems, however, as one suburban Atlantan telling another that he’s “going to the Braves game” tomorrow could be confusing. Especially now that the major league team also plays in suburban Atlanta, about 35 miles apart. It makes sense.

So, go to the website, folks, and suggest a new name. The sillier the better. Basebally McBaseball Face? The Gwinnett Crackers?

 

David Ortiz thinks the Yankees leaked his 2003 drug test results

Getty Images
19 Comments

David Ortiz was one of the hundred or so ballplayers who tested positive for PEDs during the 2003 survey testing which was designed to determine whether or not baseball’s drug problem was significant enough to warrant full-blown testing the following year.  His and everyone else’s name was supposed to remain confidential — indeed, the test results were supposed to be destroyed — but the government illegally seized them and, eventually, his, Alex Rodriguez and Sammy Sosa’s names were leaked.

While most people have long moved on from those survey test results — and while Rob Manfred himself recently said that those results may not, in fact, establish that Ortiz took banned substances  — the story still sticks in Ortiz’s craw. So much so that he’s still out speculating about how his results were made public. His theory? The Yankees did it. From an interview on WEEI:

“What was the reason for them to come out with something like that?” he said. “The only thing that I can think of, to be honest with you, a lot of big guys from the Yankees were being caught. And no one from Boston. This was just something that leaked out of New York, and they had zero explanation about it.”

I’m gonna call B.S. on that.

At the time names were surfacing in connection with those test results, in the summer of 2009, I was given a list of players by an anonymous source. This person claimed it was a list of all 100+ players who tested positive in 2003. Given the nature in which they were provided to me and given that, at the time, there were a lot of people circulating hoax lists, I was dubious to say the least. I had a separate source at the time who knew people who had access to the actual list of players. The source would not tell me who was on the actual list — it was and continues to be confidential — but the knowledgable source did confirm for me that, as I suspected, my list was bunk. I obviously didn’t write anything about it and moved on.

Some added value from that conversation, however, was learning just how few people actually had access to the real list. A small handful of top officials at the union and the league office did, I was told, and obviously the government had it given that they seized it in their idiotic and illegal raid, but that was it. Clubs, I was specifically told, did not have the list.

We’ll never know for sure, but I strongly, strongly suspect that the source of the leak was either IRS/FDA agent Jeff Novitzky, who spearheaded the government’s investigation into PEDs or someone close to him, such as the prosecutors with whom he worked. Novitzky spent close to a decade outing and prosecuting athletes for PED use and, in my view and the view of many others who followed the story at the time, he saw his work as an almost holy crusade. As the above-linked story about the federal court smacking down his seizure of the 2003 test results as illegal, he was often overzealous.

The reporter who broke the story of David Ortiz’s positive test result was Michael S. Schmidt of the New York Times. Schmidt almost always had the first stories about players being outed as PED users during that period and his reporting on steroids in baseball in general almost always carried with it a pro-government slant. As I said, we’ll never know for sure, but it seems obvious to me that federal investigators and prosecutors were his sources. I suspect they were his sources for the name-naming articles as well. When Ortiz’s name leaked, Novitzky’s investigation was on the brink of being smacked down hard by a federal court and, I suspect, he leaked Ortiz’s name to the New York Times as a means of putting a face on the story and getting public sentiment on the side of those who would name names.

Like I said, though, that’s all ancient history at this point. At least to most people. It’s not to David Ortiz, which is understandable given that the whole incident affected him personally. But I think he’s wrong on the Yankees being the ones to out him. I don’t think anyone with the Yankees knew who was actually on the list. And even if they did, they had no incentive to get into some sort of P.R. war about PED users given that they already at least one prominent superstar getting killed for PED use and a lot of other ones who could possibly have been on the list as well.

But the feds had the list. And a desire to have the bad guys they were trying to prosecute shamed in the public arena. I’d bet a decent sum of money that they’re the ones who leaked your name, Big Papi. I’d aim your rhetorical guns at them if I were you.