Page 1 of 16

Sources: Bonds may be subject of perjury probe

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:25 pm
by SHOCKandAWE
Federal prosecutors may be pursuing a perjury case against San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds, stemming from his denials of steroid use during a federal grand jury appearance in 2003, multiple sources have told CNN.

For more than a month, a different federal grand jury has been hearing evidence about whether Bonds may have lied during his testimony on December 4, 2003, the sources told CNN.

The U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco would neither confirm nor deny that a grand jury has been hearing testimony about Bonds.

Bonds' lawyers were unaware that a grand jury had been convened, said Harry Stern, a spokesman for his legal team.

Bonds, who now ranks third in career home runs, has steadfastly maintained he never knowingly used steroids. He was one of several prominent athletes called to testify as part of an investigation into BALCO, a San Francisco Bay Area laboratory accused of distributing steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.

At the time, Bonds and the other athletes were given immunity by federal prosecutors, provided they told the truth on the stand.

Bonds' attorney, Mike Raines, has previously accused prosecutors of trying to set Bonds up for a perjury charge by offering him immunity to get him in front of the grand jury, then later challenging his testimony.

BALCO's founder, Victor Conte, spent four months in jail after pleading guilty to distributing illegal steroids. Greg Anderson, a long-time friend of Bonds, was sentenced to three months in jail on the same charges.

Bonds' denials came under renewed scrutiny in March with the release of the book "Game of Shadows" by San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams.

The book alleges Bonds used steroids and other performance enhancing drugs for at least five seasons, starting in 1998, and that Anderson -- his personal trainer -- helped him obtain the drugs.

Bonds has sued the authors to try to block them from making any money on the book, which his attorneys say was based on illegally obtained grand jury transcripts.

In the wake of the controversy over "Game of Shadows," Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig appointed George Mitchell, a former U.S. Senate majority leader and federal judge, to investigate steroid use in baseball.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:33 pm
by Yoda
Good luck. It's just a waste of time, resources and money.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:35 pm
by Blade
Bonds did not "roid up", he took human growth hormones, hence the oversized cranium.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:37 pm
by TheYanks04
Come on, it was flaxseed oil.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:42 pm
by Blade
TheYanks04 wrote:Come on, it was flaxseed oil.


This is true. Flaxseed oil laced with human growth hormones.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:46 pm
by TheYanks04
Blade wrote:
TheYanks04 wrote:Come on, it was flaxseed oil.


This is true. Flaxseed oil laced with human growth hormones.



And Insulin and whatever else he was never taking.

Wait until the BASH members here start their little spin-meister dancing. It should be most entertaining to hear all the re-hash of how other players cheat, everyone is out to get Bonds, the Press hates him and makes everything up, he is really Mr. Personality and misunderstood, there is no video tape of him sticking syringes in his buttt so he must be innocent, yada yada yada.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:31 am
by DGroundhog
If he committed perjury testifying before Congress he should be held accountable for it. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, Bonds shouldn't be above the same law.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 9:53 am
by Yoda
DGroundhog wrote:If he committed perjury testifying before Congress he should be held accountable for it. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, Bonds shouldn't be above the same law.


Clinton was impeached? :-?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:01 am
by BritSox
Yes. Being impeached only means being charged and sent to the Senate for trial, not necessarily convicted by that body.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:04 am
by bceagles04
BritSox wrote:Yes. Being impeached only means being charged and sent to the Senate for trial, not necessarily convicted by that body.


I was gonna say the same thing...US HIstory class came in handy for that one ;-D