Comment of the day: "Do you read? Do you comprehend?"
Whatever your opinions about him -- and don't lie; you have some opinions about him -- there's no doubt that Barry Bonds is one of the most polarizing figures in modern sports, almost universally either revered or reviled. The thing that polarizes people about him is his use of steroids, but here's the interesting part: Everybody pretty much knows Barry Bonds did steroids except Barry Bonds. In Ru Johnson's open letter to Bonds on Monday, that disconnect is what she made fun of. But reader John P. Slevin clearly does not think it's so funny.
You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
This case is not about steroid usage. The case is about 4 counts of perjury before a Grand Jury and one count of obstruction of justice. Can you read? Do you comprehend?
Barry Bonds never denied using steroids. He testified forthrightly that he took "the cream" and "the clear". Also, he did that in the lockerroom, in full view of teammates, coaches and journalists.
He never denied it. The four counts of perjury are based on bs questions by a bs prosecutor (or, are you happy that our government has spent tens of millions of dollars going after this guy, that our government has dragged out this case for more than seven years?)
The perjury counts are ridiculous. Read that testimony (again, can you read?). There is no perjury. There only are lying prosecutors and the kind of dolt which you are.
You believe in cops, in prosecutors, in judges. Some of us are much smarter than you. Some of us know them to be crooks.
Only a pure moron waves the flag and cheers those in power. You empower the crooks.
In some ways, John, we agree with you on this one. When certain crimes are too minor to do much to prosecute but too sensational not to, the inevitable charge that results is perjury: The de facto crime was that you did it, but the technical crime is that you lied about it -- that was the case with Bill Clinton's shamefully hyped-up sex trial, and it's the case with Bonds as well. We are, however, going to take issue with your shitty tone.
Because you know what, John? We don't appreciate it.
Quoth you, John: "Barry Bonds never denied using steroids."
Hmm, that's interesting, because here's a little quote from an Associated Press story about the case:
More than three years after the all-time home run leader was charged with lying to a grand jury when he denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs, his trial got under way in San Francisco federal court.
Do you read, John? Do you comprehend? It may be a media circus of a trial, and it may be stupid, but that is clearly the issue here. Perhaps some of us are just smarter than you.