HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

At what point does all the circumstantial evidence minus the one actual evidence become enough?

And with so much circumstantial evidence against you, why shouldn't you have to help "prove" your innocen

HShockeywatcher wrote:At what point does all the circumstantial evidence minus the one actual evidence become enough?

And with so much circumstantial evidence against you, why shouldn't you have to help "prove" your innocen

What is this "The People's Court?
I don't recall he's been charged with anything...accused and charged are 2 different things...why would he try to prove he's innocent of something he has not been charged of?
Otherwise it's all sticks and stones..

Also Circleteach I've noticed quite a few spelling errors lately...better ease up on the O'douls

Can't Never Tried wrote:

HShockeywatcher wrote:At what point does all the circumstantial evidence minus the one actual evidence become enough?

And with so much circumstantial evidence against you, why shouldn't you have to help "prove" your innocen

What is this "The People's Court?
I don't recall he's been charged with anything...accused and charged are 2 different things...why would he try to prove he's innocent of something he has not been charged of?
Otherwise it's all sticks and stones..

Also Circleteach I've noticed quite a few spelling errors lately...better ease up on the O'douls

I'd agree with that. Nobody in the media, stands, or on this board is going to "convict" Bonds of anything, so he's not really obligated to say or do anything about it... doesn't mean people have to stop talking about it either though.

Of course, if I were in his spot (and people often believe I am on the 'roids... you should've seen the towering homeruns I was hitting at the wiffleball tourney this weekend... accusations were running rampant) and truly felt I hadn't done anything wrong, I'd probably be a little more adamant about it. But that's just me...

Govs93 wrote:

Can't Never Tried wrote:

HShockeywatcher wrote:At what point does all the circumstantial evidence minus the one actual evidence become enough?

And with so much circumstantial evidence against you, why shouldn't you have to help "prove" your innocen

What is this "The People's Court?
I don't recall he's been charged with anything...accused and charged are 2 different things...why would he try to prove he's innocent of something he has not been charged of?
Otherwise it's all sticks and stones..

Also Circleteach I've noticed quite a few spelling errors lately...better ease up on the O'douls

I'd agree with that. Nobody in the media, stands, or on this board is going to "convict" Bonds of anything, so he's not really obligated to say or do anything about it... doesn't mean people have to stop talking about it either though.

Of course, if I were in his spot (and people often believe I am on the 'roids... you should've seen the towering homeruns I was hitting at the wiffleball tourney this weekend... accusations were running rampant) and truly felt I hadn't done anything wrong, I'd probably be a little more adamant about it. But that's just me...

I didn't know Budweiser was making roids in a can

Can't Never Tried wrote:

Govs93 wrote:

Can't Never Tried wrote: What is this "The People's Court?
I don't recall he's been charged with anything...accused and charged are 2 different things...why would he try to prove he's innocent of something he has not been charged of?
Otherwise it's all sticks and stones..

Also Circleteach I've noticed quite a few spelling errors lately...better ease up on the O'douls

I'd agree with that. Nobody in the media, stands, or on this board is going to "convict" Bonds of anything, so he's not really obligated to say or do anything about it... doesn't mean people have to stop talking about it either though.

Of course, if I were in his spot (and people often believe I am on the 'roids... you should've seen the towering homeruns I was hitting at the wiffleball tourney this weekend... accusations were running rampant) and truly felt I hadn't done anything wrong, I'd probably be a little more adamant about it. But that's just me...

I didn't know Budweiser was making roids in a can

Ah! That would be so sweet. You might be on to something there! $$$$$$$$

Govs hit on my point. He doesn't have to do anything. That is true. But if you are continuously accused of something you didn't do that's in the media, wouldn't you want to set the records straight?

Bonds lied under oath?
A federal grand jury is considering whether to indict San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds for perjury because of testimony he gave to another grand jury in 2003.

It should have never got to this point in 2007.

Great roll model.


BUT REMEMBER TO BUY THE BOOK AND GO TO THE MOVIE WHEN IT COMES OUT, He has to feed his family too!

Govs hit on my point.

I'm still confused about what people have claimed: he never lied, he never failed a drug test, etc. He did lie under oath, as was just pointed out, and didn't he fail a drug test that same year (and lied about it)? Isn't the penalty for failing a drug test missing some games or something?

Here we go!!

Yeah, I know, isn't it annoying? Instead of answering questions you put up weird pictures. Whatever works for ya though.

HShockeywatcher wrote:Yeah, I know, isn't it annoying? Instead of answering questions you put up weird pictures. Whatever works for ya though.

If you would only stop talking out of so many sides of your mouth...

HShockeywatcher wrote:Yeah, I know, isn't it annoying? Instead of answering questions you put up weird pictures. Whatever works for ya though.

You obviously don't understand what annoying is....either that, or more likely you do, but this is your only opportunity to get attention so you persist.
They say "it's better to be picked on then ignored" but in your case your challenging what "they" say.

But what if??????...

i thought this was a thread about bonds not rippin on hshockeywatcher.

but anyways who thinks bonds will retire next year? or do you think he will play another year

It's just one side of my mouth, but enlighten me with how it's more instead of just saying things without explaining them.

Bonds should retire.

I think we could group the both of you together. Kinda like ying & yang.

One doesn't know how to stop.

And the other one just quits.

EREmpireStrikesBack wrote:I think we could group the both of you together. Kinda like ying & yang.

One doesn't know how to stop.

And the other one just quits.

we could group you in the complainers section

dangla. wrote:

EREmpireStrikesBack wrote:I think we could group the both of you together. Kinda like ying & yang.

One doesn't know how to stop.

And the other one just quits.

we could group you in the complainers section

AWESOME!!!

Here's your chance to put that * on the record!!
http://www.vote756.com/marcecko/

I suppose we posters should say what we're doing I gave it the *
Marc Ecko bought it for $754,000+ I like this guy's way of thinking

Looks like not just a few of us Minnhock posters feel like putting an * on this.
Now #755 is also up for public decision.
http://www.endthedebate.com

Well looks like the * wins

http://www.vote756.com/marcecko/

We were watching the Twins vs Tigers and packerboy jr. commented on how slim Pudge looks.

I asked why he thought that was and he quickly said: 'He's off the juice dad"

The use of steroids was rampant amoung atheletes. Whether Pudge used them, I dont know but he does look smaller.

The point is , you would have to throw out or put an astericks on all records from about the mid 90s until steroids were banned and testing started.

No reason for astericks for records for steroid users before they were illegal.

HShockeywatcher wrote:At what point does all the circumstantial evidence minus the one actual evidence become enough?

And with so much circumstantial evidence against you, why shouldn't you have to help "prove" your innocen

I guess that's today "Barry Bonds was indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges Thursday for telling a Grand Jury he did not use performance enhancing drugs."

"The ten page report cites 19 occasions in Bonds lied under oath during the BALCO investigation....during the investigation evidence was obtained, including positive tests for anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs for Bonds and other athletes the indictment says."

Bonds is charged in the indictment with lying when saying " I never knowingly took steroids" and (Greg) "Anderson never injected me with steroids"

All this on the heals of Marion Jones admitting she took steroids after, during the same investigation, she denied using them.

Bye Bye Barry, the big question will be how many guys will Bonds take down with him now that he's under the gun?

Steroid use has been exposed and banned.

People are being caught and suspended for its use.

Baseball was slow to react to this issue and has and continues to pay the price.

But is this really necessary?

Why are they indicting Barry Bonds?

What good will come of it?