Innocent Until Proven ... Ah, to Hell With it

Matt Welch | December 10, 2007

You don't have to give one hoot about baseball, steroids, Barry Bonds, or his upcoming trial to appreciate the sight of grown men declaring -- before the first gavel is even struck -- that "innocent until proven guilty" is for suckers, and that the government is right because the government is right. A sampling of a certain mindset in action:

Bill Plaschke, L.A. Times:

Other folks say that this is only a charge, not a conviction, so Bonds should be given the benefit of the doubt. That benefit has been foolishly extended for four years.

Time's up. Game over. On federal indictments, the government swings and misses even less than Bonds did.

John Feinstein, Washington Post:

Some also made the "he's innocent until proven guilty" argument. Wrong again. Only in a court of law are you innocent until proven guilty. In the court of public opinion you can be guilty at any time, especially when the evidence of your guilt is overwhelming.

Tim Dahlberg, the Associated Press:

[The jury] can judge the evidence as presented, then decide whether Bonds lied when he told a federal grand jury he never knowingly took steroids.

I don't need to do that. Because one of the great things about being a columnist is I don't need to worry much about judicial protocol or any other legal gobbledygook. Actually, most of the time I start with a presumption of guilty and then wait for someone to prove me wrong. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I figure it just might be a duck.

And Barry Bonds is one big duck.

Joe Strauss, St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

His apologists will say the process is just beginning. They are wrong. It's over.

Jeff Passan, Yahoo Sports:

Even if the charges don't stick or Bonds escapes without jail time, the unsealing of the indictment revealed to the public the true breadth of Bonds' arrogance – and appears to have confirmed, once and for all, that he had tested positive for steroids.

Neil Steinberg, Chicago Sun-Times:

The feds don't indict unless they have a pretty good case. And while baseball star Barry Bonds is innocent until proven guilty, yaddity yaddity yaddah, he's still looking at 30 years if he's convicted.

Jim Litke, the Associated Press:

[E]ven with [Greg] Anderson clammed up in a jail cell, [the feds] indicted Bonds by doing the same thing that made him the toughest out in the game. They never took their eye off the ball.

"I'm curious what evidence they have now, they didn't have before," said John Burris, one of Bonds' attorneys.

Here's the answer: Enough.

For those more concerned with government overstretch in this case than government infallibility, some good news -- the one must-read article about the Bonds/BALCO investigation, by Playboy's Jonathan Littman in 2004, is finally online at a secure location. Also, Littman is covering the trial over at the mag's blog; first three installments here, here and here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 2:10AM|#

"most of the time I start with a presumption of guilty and then wait for someone to prove me wrong."

I can't believe someone in the media actually put this in writing. I can believe that media people apply this principle in practice, but it's shocking that they will come out and say it.

We could call this the Tim Dahlberg principle.

|12.10.07 @ 2:13AM|#

brings to mind one of my favorite cartoons lampooning the congressional steroid/baseball hearings: http://www.laweekly.com/news/image-control/congress-on-roids/8626/

Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 2:28AM|#

Some hack in the Washington Post writes:

"Only in a court of law are you innocent until proven guilty. In the court of public opinion you can be guilty at any time, especially when the evidence of your guilt is overwhelming."

While true in theory, it leaves out the fact that the evidence of guilt is being proffered *by the government,* not by some journalist doing a private investigation. When the *government* is the accuser, there are specific methods for weighing the accusation to see if it's good or not.

I have no idea if Bonds is guilty, but I'm sure not going to draw conclusions simply because a government criminal process has advanced to the accusatory stage. By the government's own standards, guilt has not yet been established.

If a reputable publication (a category which, apparently, no longer includes the Washington Post) provided evidence of Bonds' bad behavior, and if this evidence was fully sourced, without reliance on anonymous tips of the trust-us-this-guy-is-reliable sort, then (assuming I cared about the issue, which I don't) I might feel free to make some tentative conclusions. Or maybe not.

Perhaps journalism schools should have their students study this famous essay by Benjamin Franklin: "An Account of the Supremest Court of Judicature in Pennsylvania, viz., The Court of the Press"

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs16.html

JMR|12.10.07 @ 2:28AM|#

grown men declaring... that "innocent until proven guilty" is for suckers, and that the government is right because the government is right.

That's not what several of the cited columnists said. Feinstein, in particular, clearly noted that "innocent until proven guilty" was a standard for rendering legal verdicts, not for every instance of person A passing judgement on person B. His stance on Bonds's use of drugs predates the indictment by a long time.

Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 2:31AM|#

Franklin himself was a printer (the eighteenth century equivalent of an Internet service provider) and an author, so we can't just write him off as biased against the press.

Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 2:37AM|#

Feinstein's "stance on Bonds's use of drugs predates the indictment by a long time."

Fair enough, but Feinstein also has this to say:

"The best thing for baseball would be for Bonds to be found guilty, either in court or via plea bargain, of the perjury and obstruction of justice charges brought against him."

Feinstein has made up his mind specifically on the pending charges.

Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 2:43AM|#

A Sun-Times "journalist" expresses a touching faith in the government:

"The feds don't indict unless they have a pretty good case. And while baseball star Barry Bonds is innocent until proven guilty, yaddity yaddity yaddah, he's still looking at 30 years if he's convicted."

That's the attitude many "journalists" adopted when Mike Nifong procured his indictment of the Lacrosse players.

What kind of American reduces the presumption of innocence to "yaddity yaddity yaddah"? God forbid that this "journalist" ever has to experience the wonders of the criminal justice system from the receiving end - I will happily defend *his* presumption of innocence in such a case.

|12.10.07 @ 2:48AM|#

#1, Someone is trying to install virii on our computers, and I'd recommend those posts be deleted ASAP.

#2, Look at the size of Bonds' head! We can't have our children making their melons as large as... melons.

|12.10.07 @ 3:29AM|#

I don't need to do that. Because one of the great things about being a columnist is I don't need to worry much about judicial protocol or any other legal gobbledygook.

We know that you're not a judge or lawyer idiot. The main reason that we know is because you use nonsense words like gobbledygook.

You are however a journalist, or at least someone trying to pass off as a journalist. For that reason, please have some integrity at least.

The attitudes of some of these new-age "quasi-journalists" is amazing, they seem to have a total disregard for reporting anything that's close to the truth. I'm verging on just calling them morons though. Don't assume malice where stupidity is a possibility.

PS - Don't click Kvov0609's links, Bonds is an idiot, of that there is no doubt, and baseball is boring, watch cricket ;)

|12.10.07 @ 4:01AM|#

On federal indictments, the government swings and misses even less than Bonds did.

Is this guy implying that a conviction rate of .298 indicates that the federal government rarely prosecutes anyone wrongly?

Even Bonds' 2001 slugging percentage of .863 is a lousy conviction rate.

|12.10.07 @ 7:32AM|#

All this because some dude wanted to hit a ball very far. This civilization is so fucking infantile. We might be able to send people to the moon, but, maturity wise, we are still haven't finished with the dark ages.

|12.10.07 @ 7:39AM|#

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I figure it just might be a duck.

Really fucking original. Looks like we got the next Shakespeare over here...

...while baseball star Barry Bonds is innocent until proven guilty, yaddity yaddity yaddah, he's...

Yeah, the whole due process thing was sooooo last century...

This reminds me why sports writers should stick to printing stats and injury reports.

Chucklehead|12.10.07 @ 7:53AM|#

You're right Matt, I "don't... give one hoot about baseball, steroids, Barry Bonds, or his upcoming trial". Nor do I care what a bunch of columnists have to say about the matter. After all, they're paid to give they're opinion, no?

|12.10.07 @ 8:10AM|#

Come on people. You have no idea that Bonds is guilty? Not a single clue? Why is it that thirteen year old sports fans can figure this one out just by looking at him, and supposedly grown-up libertarians can't?

Whether steroids should be criminalized is another matter, but come on, don't let ideology make you blind to how to place the bet!

|12.10.07 @ 8:16AM|#

They're sportwriters. They make their livings peddling outrage about athletes(what they make,whether they work hard, how bad they are off the field, how throwing a pass too high means a person has no heart), occasionally broken up by heartwarming drivel about courage,heart etc. They're no benefit for them to say "innocent until proven guilty".

Unfortunately, in this instance, they're right. For most the public, the mere accusation is enough. To paraphrase Neil Simon, they figure that no one would bother to make an accusation if it wasn't true.

|12.10.07 @ 8:19AM|#

In the case of Feinstein, I'm not surprised at all. Money quote from his commentary on the Duke lacrosse case: "You know, I don't want to hear any ifs, and, or buts. These kids have acted disgracefully, just by the fact that not one of them-I don't want to hear about the code, among buddies and among teams. A crime was committed. There were witnesses to the crime. They need to come forward and say what they saw . . .

They won't, and that's why I'm saying the hell with them-strip their scholarships."

And then after the players were completely exonerated:

"I don't think I've been proven wrong, because . . . I said, I think they're probably guilty of everything but rape."

Or this article, where he blames everybody, except the lying prostitute.

What an asshole.

So, to apply their own standards to them, these guys are all guilty of being unsufferable, asinine moralistic jerks. Writes like a jerk, talks like a jerk, must be a jerk.
the locker room aromas must have gotten to them.

|12.10.07 @ 8:21AM|#

and supposedly grown-up libertarians can't?

It's kind of early, but...

DRINK!

|12.10.07 @ 8:22AM|#

Troy - have more optimism. Just like we look back on witchhunts and "female hysteria" diagnoses, shake our heads and go "what were they thinking?", we can count on our great-grandchildren to look back on McCain as McCarthy.

At least I hope so.

|12.10.07 @ 8:27AM|#

Come on imp. You have no idea what this is about? Not a single clue?

Let me explain it:

Mr Bond was asked questions by the Feds, that are none of their effing business.
As a result he is now accused of having lied to the Feds, not of taking steroids. Got that?
So what is he guilty of in your mind?
Taking steroids.
What is he accused of? Lying.
Get the difference?

|12.10.07 @ 8:28AM|#

martin,

Isn't falsely accusing one of a crime they didn't commit, in print, considered libel? I remember having to preface and crime stories with "accused of" or "allegedly" unless they were convicted.

Or rather, isn't falsely accusing people of crimes, of which they have yet to be convicted, the reason for libel law in the first place?

|12.10.07 @ 8:31AM|#

|12.10.07 @ 8:32AM|#

I have zero interest in sports, but the persecution of Barry Bonds is only slightly less ridiculous/tragic than the Salem Witch Trials. I don't suppose poor Barry will be crushed to death with stones, but his fate is to be pitied. Don't athletes commit enough real crimes as it is?

(In fact, when celebrities commit real crimes, they often get off because they're celebrities. But Bonds is going to jail for no other reason than that he is a celebrity. Life is unfair every which way!)

|12.10.07 @ 8:41AM|#

Taktix,

I'm not a lawyer. If I understand it correctly, libel is difficult to prove in the US, unlike England. Looks like a good idea.

|12.10.07 @ 8:43AM|#

highnumber|12.10.07 @ 8:44AM|#

Coincidentally, here's Steinberg on "innocent until proven guilty" from today's Sun-Times

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not an intellectual tool, but a dictum for how our government must behave. We do not put people in prison because they seem guilty. Instead we try them.

That concept doesn't have much validity outside of the law. A third of all murders going unsolved means that a great many people -- perhaps including Peterson -- are not innocent at all, despite having never been found guilty. Rather, they are guilty in fact until proven guilty in law, if that moment ever comes.

Not referring to Bonds directly, but...

|12.10.07 @ 8:45AM|#

Pet peeve time:

It's "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

You are not simply "innocent, then become guilty". You're either guilty or innocent to start with - external of any court proceedings - and the prosecution must prove your guilt, else the presumption of innocence sticks. You still may be guilty, but it hasn't been proven.

Etc.

|12.10.07 @ 8:54AM|#

Uh, Timon? If guilty is a legal construct, I find it hard to believe that you may be legally guilty despite the fact you're not convicted.

You may be morally reprehensible, or a monster, or whatever, but you're not "guilty" unless you believe that guilt is some Platonic ideal.

|12.10.07 @ 9:01AM|#

I find it hard to believe that you may be legally guilty despite the fact you're not convicted.

I didn't say that at all.

|12.10.07 @ 9:04AM|#

I think we're hewing a fine philosophical point, is all.

You still may be guilty, but it hasn't been proven.

What did you mean by this?

robc|12.10.07 @ 9:12AM|#

That's the attitude many "journalists" adopted when Mike Nifong procured his indictment of the Lacrosse players.

Also Richard Jewell.

Jesse Walker|12.10.07 @ 9:21AM|#

Someone is trying to install virii on our computers, and I'd recommend those posts be deleted ASAP.

Done.

|12.10.07 @ 9:29AM|#

What did you mean by this?:
You still may be guilty, but it hasn't been proven.

I mean that you may indeed have committed the crime of which you are accused, irrespective of the state's presentation of proof of said guilt.

BakedPenguin|12.10.07 @ 9:49AM|#

baseball is boring, watch cricket

Yes, nothing like two hours of 'dot balls' to start a test to get the blood flowing.

Perhaps if they changed the rules a bit...

|12.10.07 @ 9:58AM|#

Long before the feds got involved, Bonds was already widely regarded as an arrogant, ego-centric bastard. So he wasn't going to get much, if any sympathy from the public during the trial proceedings.

I'd imagine the court of public opinion would have reached a totally different verdict if the government was going after an athlete everyone loved (e.g. Lance Armstrong).

|12.10.07 @ 10:01AM|#

I can't believe someone in the media actually put this in writing.

The "someone" in this case is a sportswriter; a gullible, moronic, hero-worshipper. The wrath of a sportswriter whose child-like adoration of an athlete (or team) has been shattered is vastly worse than a "woman scorned."

|12.10.07 @ 10:04AM|#

I'd imagine the court of public opinion would have reached a totally different verdict if the government was going after an athlete everyone loved (e.g. Lance Armstrong).

Doubtful. It would just be a different narrative. Something more like "How awful that our hero was a fraud! He deceived us! He's ruined sports forever and made me answer tough questions from my kids!" as opposed to Bonds where it's "At last! We finally have something on this prick!".

|12.10.07 @ 10:07AM|#

"Only in a court of law are you innocent until proven guilty. In the court of public opinion you can be guilty at any time, especially when the evidence of your guilt is overwhelming."

This is right on target. The "innocent until proven guilty" principle is appropriate for the legal system, but it doesn't mean "private citizens should refrain from forming or expressing their own judgments".

JMR|12.10.07 @ 10:18AM|#

Plaschke from LA Times:
Time's up. Game over. On federal indictments, the government swings and misses even less than Bonds did.

This exact same sentiment sprung forth from many commentators upon the Michael Vick indictment... Feds can't possibly get an indictment wrong.

alan|12.10.07 @ 10:36AM|#

Other readers have already commented on this, but, wow:

Actually, most of the time I start with a presumption of guilty and then wait for someone to prove me wrong. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I figure it just might be a duck.

This guy gets paid for stringing together inanities in an attempt like 'Regular Joe John Q Public', the greatest bullshitter in the history of time. It's a livin' if you can get it.

|12.10.07 @ 10:40AM|#

"Some also made the "he's innocent until proven guilty" argument. Wrong again. Only in a court of law are you innocent until proven guilty. In the court of public opinion you can be guilty at any time, especially when the evidence of your guilt is overwhelming."

Feinstein is absolutely right. There is a difference between "factually innocent" and "legally innocent". You can be guilty as hell in reality but still legally innocent. Maybe a witness lied on your behalf, maybe govnernment misconduct lead to evidence being inadmissiable or any number of reasons that could cause you to be legitimately aquited but guilty as hell. Bonds may be aquitted but that doesn't mean that an observer, taking into account all of the facts can't reasonably conclude he is guilty as hell.

Why doesn't get that fact is disapointing but not surprising. It just becomes reason number 258,733, if you are scoring at home, why Reason is no longer a serious magazine.

|12.10.07 @ 10:42AM|#

"This exact same sentiment sprung forth from many commentators upon the Michael Vick indictment... Feds can't possibly get an indictment wrong."

And they were right. Michael was guilty as hell, plead so and is being sentenced this afternoon. You might want to pick a better example to prove your point. Maybe you were being ironic, in which case I apologize.

Elemenope|12.10.07 @ 10:51AM|#

"Distrust all those in whom the urge to punish is powerful."

Words to live by, I swear.

|12.10.07 @ 10:55AM|#

Why doesn't get that fact is disapointing but not surprising. It just becomes reason number 258,733, if you are scoring at home, why Reason is no longer a serious magazine.

This might have a little more sting if reasons 1 through 258,732 weren't disagreements over the Iraq war.

|12.10.07 @ 11:11AM|#

Because one of the great things about being a columnist is I don't need to worry much about judicial protocol or any other legal gobbledygook.

Everybody got that? The legal system is for chumps. We should just replace all involved with journalists, save ourselves some time.

|12.10.07 @ 11:15AM|#

John,

"There is a difference between "factually innocent" and "legally innocent". You can be guilty as hell in reality but still legally innocent."

What in the hell does that have to do with the thrust of Matt's post: That all those MSM types find it perfectly a-OK that the federal government goes after someone with an unrelated charge after overstepping their authority and after they find to their dismay that what they want to get him for ain't even illegal?
Even if you think, which you and those clucking journoes are perfectly free to do, that Bond is guilty of taking steroids, that's not against the law.
Aww WTH, then we just keep harrassing him until we find something he IS guilty of. Problem solved, justice served. We don't like him anyway, let's not waste any sympathy on him.
Wonder what the journalists would do if the Govt one day goes after them using the same tactics? Oh, I forgot, no danger here, they're careful not to disturb the lion.

That Reason keeps pointing that out is to their everlasting credit.

Juan|12.10.07 @ 11:26AM|#

They write this just because they don't like Bonds, and want everyone else to not like Bonds. Never mind that he was, in any case, just one of many steroid users in baseball.

If someone like Derek Jeter got caught doing 'roids, my schadenfreude would be too much to take. And I'm a Yankees fan.

|12.10.07 @ 11:33AM|#

"Even if you think, which you and those clucking journoes are perfectly free to do, that Bond is guilty of taking steroids, that's not against the law."

Bullshit. First, it is illegal to take steroids if you don't have a perscription. Second, if that is not good enough for you, it also illegal to lie to a grand jury. I really don't care if Bonds used steroids or not. But, you should not be allowed to lie to a grand jury. All Bonds had to do was tell the truth before the grand jury. This is not one of those gothcha moments for the prosecutor where they have him on some technicality that anyone could have mistakenly said. Bonds is a professional athlete who is known as a health and workout fanatic. He knows exactly what he didn't take and did take. They asked him a simple question and rather than take the 5th Amendment which was his right or just tell the truth he lied.

It is interesting that if Dick Cheney or Albert Gonzalez had lied about their golf score to COngress and were indicted for it, Reason would no doubt be cheerleading the whole thing. Bonds lies to a grand jury and he is a victim. I really think Cheney needs to start popping roids. If nothing else, it will turn Reason into fans. That is really what this is about. Reason doesn't like the fact that roids are not legal. I frankly agree with them on that. Where I part company is with the idea that just becaue roids ought to be legal means that Bonds can lie to a grand jury about it.

|12.10.07 @ 11:35AM|#

"They write this just because they don't like Bonds, and want everyone else to not like Bonds. Never mind that he was, in any case, just one of many steroid users in baseball."

True, but he is the only one who committed purjury about it. Jason Giambi is a bigger roid head than Bonds. But when the gig was up, he told the truth and admitted it and wasn't indicted.

|12.10.07 @ 11:37AM|#

All Bonds had to do was tell the truth before the grand jury.

Lets not forget that he had been granted immunity for his appearance before the grand jury, so if he had said he used steroids, he couldn't have been prosecuted for it.

Skoal|12.10.07 @ 11:42AM|#

Lets not forget that he had been granted immunity for his appearance before the grand jury, so if he had said he used steroids, he couldn't have been prosecuted for it.

What exactly was the point of bringing him before a grand jury?

|12.10.07 @ 11:45AM|#

To all of those like John, who argue that "all you have to do is obey the law" or some such shallow argument, I wish you that you some day soon face the real danger of getting caught up in the legal system. I hope it will make you feel like Charlie Chaplin in "Modern Times".
It's obviously the ONLY thing that will drive the point home to you.

|12.10.07 @ 11:47AM|#

What exactly was the point of bringing him before a grand jury?

To put him in a situation where he was fucked either way. If Bonds admitted to steroid use, the inevitable leaked testimony would have been fodder for even more article calling for his head. If not, he could be tried for perjury and make a fancy scalp for a federal prosecutor.

|12.10.07 @ 11:55AM|#

Bonds was guilty of being an asshole long before any of this steroids crap.

That reporters who don't like him so easily jump on the guilty boat is just testament to the erosion of the belief of rule of law, where people believe certain people have a way to circumnvent the truth and others don't, so the media feels no qualms in calling those people guilty before any sort of trial based on circumstantial evidence because they know their readers will assume Bonds would not be found innocent for any real reason other than he can hire sweet tongued lawyers. Of course, the court of public opinion has no authority other than to shun (or gather their torches and pitchforks...but that's unlikley here)

|12.10.07 @ 12:24PM|#

"To all of those like John, who argue that "all you have to do is obey the law" or some such shallow argument, I wish you that you some day soon face the real danger of getting caught up in the legal system. I hope it will make you feel like Charlie Chaplin in "Modern Times".
It's obviously the ONLY thing that will drive the point home to you."

Fuck off. That is a valid point to make but not in this case. Bonds wasn't asked anything technical or hard to answer. All he had to do was answer the simple question did you use steroids. There is nothing hard about that and nothing that would entrap Bonds into a perjury charge. The fact is that Bonds did not want to take the publicity hit of admitting to steroids. He was worried about his image and he lied to the grand jury to try to save. It was monumentally stupid. Should the government have wasted its time investigating BALCO? Probably not but it did. Once it did, Bonds like anyone else has a duty to tell the truth and not lie.

There are people out there who get screwed by grand juries and by out of control federal prosecutors. Barry Bonds with his millions and endless legal advice and defense is not one of them. Why don't you people spend your time and effort talking about real victims rather than some dumb assed millionaire athlete who thought he could lie to a grand jury and get away with it?

|12.10.07 @ 12:32PM|#

I had to love this headline from the San Jose Mercury News "Barry Bonds launches legal battle" like Mr. Bonds initiated the process.

By the way, wasn't the quote "looks like a duck..." trotted out in the run up to invading Iraq?

|12.10.07 @ 12:46PM|#

What exactly was the point of bringing him before a grand jury?

To build a case against the people running Balco.

|12.10.07 @ 12:47PM|#

I may be a little snarky here and treading on racist ground (so be it), but all Mr. Bonds has to do is play the race card and all will be forgiven. Hell, Mr. Simpson sure got away with murder.

|12.10.07 @ 12:59PM|#

What exactly was the point of bringing him before a grand jury?

BALCO. And his personal trainer.

|12.10.07 @ 1:02PM|#

My take from a previous thread -

I despise Barry Bonds. He's an asshole. If the Tigers signed him, I'd boycott my home team. I am presently shedding no tears about his predicament.

I had to get that off my chest. He should not be prosecuted. I'll defend him vocally because he is getting railroded for
A) Being an asshole.
B) Breaking Hank Aaron's HR record.
C) Cheating while he did it. (Cheating at sports is NOT against the law. Sports governing bodies take care of that shit. Ask Marion Jones about that).
D) MLB turned a blind eye to steroid abuse because home runs fill the bleachers, now they're in CYA mode.
E) He lied to a grand jury investigating something the government has no business intruding into.

A thru D are the real reasons he was indicted.
E was the excuse.

That is so much easier than composing it again.

ed|12.10.07 @ 1:17PM|#

The denizens of this blog, if not the editors, routinely convict before the trial. A skillfully constructed propaganda piece by Balko, Weigel et al is guaranteed to bring out the lynch parties. Not that this is unique to this particular blog. Are we not hypocrites?

Jennifer|12.10.07 @ 1:19PM|#

Actually, most of the time I start with a presumption of guilty and then wait for someone to prove me wrong. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I figure it just might be a duck.

What a coincidence! Change just one little vowel and that's exactly how I view the likes of Tim Dahlberg: if he looks like a dick, walks like a dick and quacks like a dick, I figure he just might be a dick.

alan|12.10.07 @ 1:39PM|#

Hey John,

First, it is illegal to take steroids if you don't have a perscription.

Should the government have wasted its time investigating BALCO? Probably not but it did. Once it did, Bonds like anyone else has a duty to tell the truth and not lie.

Why don't you just pull your pants down, and get branded, 'Property of the U.S. Government' on your ass. You think like a fucking slave.

Giambi rolled because he is a big pussy. Bonds refusal to cooperate, whether or not he is guilty of the the prosecutions claims against him, with the witch hunt is an example of a great deal of personal integrity that goes beyond the weirdly positivist legalism you espouse.

Barry *|12.10.07 @ 1:58PM|#

Hey Matt! Great collection of quotes and way to fire up the fans!

BTW, have you ever read: "Game of Shadows." ???

http://barrybondstrial.blogspot.com/

|12.10.07 @ 2:18PM|#

"Bonds refusal to cooperate, whether or not he is guilty of the the prosecutions claims against him, with the witch hunt is an example of a great deal of personal integrity that goes beyond the weirdly positivist legalism you espouse"

Not cooperating would be refusing to answer questions and telling the grand jury to go screw themselves. If Bonds had done that, he might be worthy of respect. But that is not what he did. What he did instead was tell this ridiculous story about how he didn't know what drugs he was taking. Get a clue you moron. If you are going to advocate civil disobedience, then at least no what it is. Lying to the grand jury is not civil disobedience dumb ass.

alan|12.10.07 @ 2:38PM|#

John,

If it helps your feeble conscience to tell yourself, 'oh, that guy is just a moron, a dumbass even!', go ahead, fire away. Not much originality there, but whatever it takes.

Suppose that he did lie to the grand jury, how is that not an act of civil disobedience? Lying is a tool that can be very useful in the situation Bonds was forced in. You assume he had only two valid choices either grandstanding or telling the jury what it wanted to here. There is at the least a third option that has a few benefits that merely grand standing doesn't.

Grand standing would have likely quickened the prosecution against him as the Feds would have felt like, 'he must be made an example of, and he must be made an example of now.' Whereas, lying (presuming, as stated at the start) bought him some time to extend his career and do what he loved doing, playing baseball at the highest level of the game is played.

You might not like the disobedience of lying, but compared to grandstanding which you advocate, it is a far more civil means.

|12.10.07 @ 2:45PM|#

Suppose that he did lie to the grand jury, how is that not an act of civil disobedience?

You can call it that if you want, but its not a defense against a crime. Indeed, the point of most civil disobedience is to get thrown in jail to illuminate the injustices that are being protested.

What injustice is Bonds protesting, again?

alan|12.10.07 @ 3:44PM|#

What injustice is Bonds protesting, again?

The one aimed at him personally for no other reason than he is a high profile target for career minded lawyers in the government. You may have an idealized view of civil disobedience that I'm going to perhaps unfairly describe as Thoreau sniffing daisies On Walden, but most often acts of civil disobedience are committed by people who never asked to be put in the spot they are put upon, and how they deal with the matters at hand will not resemble Martin Luther King writing from an Alabama jail cell in the least.

Matt Welch|12.10.07 @ 4:25PM|#

BTW, have you ever read: "Game of Shadows." ???

I didn't read the book yet, but I read the long Sports Illustrated excerpt, and found it remarkably unconvincing, which actually surprised me after hearing for so long how damning it all was. (Despite ample evidence to the contrary, I don't like Bonds as a person at all, and my hunch has been that he probably knowingly took banned steroids at some point, definitionally without a legal prescription.)

I don't have my notes on the SI piece in front of me, but there was a real everything-proves-it vibe to the piece, a la "he was injured in 1999, probably because of steroids; he was healthy in 2000, probably because of steroids," etc. And the sourcing & evidence wasn't nearly as impressive as I had expected. To me the single most convincing piece of "Game of Shadows" evidence is the growth in his foot size & hat size, which in addition to being otherwise inexplicable (if true), is really damned creepy.

|12.10.07 @ 7:53PM|#

No one on this thread has yet noticed that Tim Dahlberg chose to base his reasoning, if you can call it that, on "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck . . ." a direct quote from Joe McCarthy.
And I don't mean the Yankees manager in the DiMaggio era.

|12.10.07 @ 11:46PM|#

Barry Bonds has been branded a guilty man before a proper trial, and that is a travesty.

Many people seem to think Barry Bonds didn't use steroids, and that is asinine.

http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/

MJ|12.11.07 @ 12:01AM|#

A couple of reaons for the attitudes of sports writers toward's Bond's

1. Sports reporter's feel they have a divine right to "access" to any sports figure. A guy can be a complete jerk to everyone else, but if he treats the writers with kid gloves and feed them quotes they will love him*. Bonds, apparently, was never willing to play that game and treated the press with contempt. A player who does that, especially a superstar player, must be humbled. Giambi, for instance, does not have the kind of adverserial relationship with the press, and has largely gotten a pass on his admiied drug use.

2. Inside most sports reporters is a frustrated hard news reporter out to change the world with his scribblings. Because of that, any story the sports punditry can hoist the bloody shirt of a social cause for, becomes a righteous crusade, and mere evidence (or lack of it) cannot save the infidels from the reporter's just fury. Performance enhancing drugs is one of those crusades.

* The opposite is also true, a player can be a prince of guy to everyone else around him, but if he treats the reporter's with disdain and shuts up around them, they will hate him.

David Nieporent|12.11.07 @ 7:46AM|#

"innocent until proven guilty" was a standard for rendering legal verdicts, not for every instance of person A passing judgement on person B.

Bingo. Every time I see someone trot this out in the wrong context (i.e., outside a courtroom), I figure they've got a guilty conscience, and assign them a presumption of guilt, subject to rebuttal by convincing evidence.

Actually, "innocent until proven guilty" is the standard for all decent human beings to take in any situation. Now, our standards for what constitutes "proven guilty" may be different inside a courtroom and outside a courtroom, but in any situation, we ought to treat someone as innocent until there's convincing evidence of guilt.

David Nieporent|12.11.07 @ 7:50AM|#

Isn't falsely accusing one of a crime they didn't commit, in print, considered libel? I remember having to preface and crime stories with "accused of" or "allegedly" unless they were convicted.

It would be if it were in a regular article. A column is opinion piece, so it's perfectly fine to write "I believe that Bonds is guilty" or even just "Bonds is guilty".

Both of these statements are wrong.

Accusing a public figure, which Bonds is, of a crime is only libel if (a) it's false, which we don't know yet, and (b) if the accusation is knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth.

But the legal standards are no different for a column or article. You cannot defame someone and get away with it by putting "IMO" or "I think" in front of it.

David Nieporent|12.11.07 @ 7:54AM|#

Bonds may be aquitted but that doesn't mean that an observer, taking into account all of the facts can't reasonably conclude he is guilty as hell.

And if one-one-hundredth of the people (especially including sports columnists) who claim Bonds is guilty knew anything about any of those facts -- let alone "all of the facts" -- it would be a miracle.

(And, indeed, none of us know "all" of the facts yet; we don't know who will actually testify to what.)

|12.11.07 @ 10:55AM|#

It looks like a slippery slope at the end of which you get a legal system like this.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements