Skip to content

Greg Anderson is going back to jail

Mar 2, 2011, 5:30 AM EDT

Barry Bonds

Considering that Greg Anderson, Barry Bonds’ former trainer, has (a) already done over a year in jail for not testifying against Bonds; and considering that (b) the practical limit of any future refusal to testify against Bonds is the couple of weeks his trial will take to complete, it’s not at all surprising that Anderson has again refused to testify against Bonds.

He’ll sit in County for a week or two. Then he’ll resume the life that he’s been living these past several years. Compared to the last couple of stints, he can do it standing on his head.

More substantively, the judge ruled thusly:

Illston said she would allow testimony of Kimberly Bell, Bonds’s former mistress, that related to the physical and psychological changes she saw in Bonds.

Prosecutors said those changes would include how Bell noticed the shrinkage of Bonds’s testicles and the worsening of his sexual performance, which the government says indicate steroid use. The judge also will allow Bell to describe an incident in which she has said Bonds grabbed her by the throat and threatened her.

With the caveat that I haven’t read the briefs, I have no idea how this is coming in. At most — at the absolute most — this could be evidence of actual steroid use.  But this trial isn’t about whether Bonds used steroids. He all but admitted that he did during his original grand jury testimony, and the prosecution is going to introduce a positive drug test to that effect.  What this trial is about is whether Bonds knew that Anderson was giving him steroids.  What does this stuff have to do with his knowledge?

It seems to me that to the extent Bell has anything to add to the prosecution’s case, it would be statements she heard from Bonds suggesting that he knew exactly what he was taking.  How the crap about his testicles and how good he was in the sack seems rather beside the point as far as the rules of evidence are concerned.

Moreover, I agree with Bonds’ lawyers that the prejudice caused by her testifying about an alleged domestic violence incident would far outweigh any relevance it might have with respect to the matters at issue in this case. People who aren’t on steroids commit acts of domestic violence every day. Some of the most juiced up athletes in history have wonderful family lives. How does this tell us anything? What, aside from making Bonds look like an evil person in the eyes of the jury — does it accomplish?

Oh well, at least it will give Bonds’ lawyers the chance to grill Bell on the methods she used to estimate relative testicle size and sexual performance during the course of her relationship with Bonds. I mean, her credibility must be tested, no?  Heck, if the prosecutors want to make this into a lurid spectacle, let’s make it into a full-blown lurid spectacle.

Again I will note: your tax dollars at work.

  1. paperlions - Mar 2, 2011 at 6:59 AM

    Compared to most of the things our tax dollars are used for (especially those tax dollars that should exist but never are realized because of tax breaks to certain elements that require no such breaks), this probably isn’t that bad.

    • stevejeltzjehricurl - Mar 2, 2011 at 8:44 AM

      That’s not exactly a great defense. I could note that the money we spend on any number of things, including the salaries of Congress and the President, seem to be wasted due to ineffective job performance, but that doesn’t really serve as a defense of spending money on this. If Charlie Sheen defends his purchase of 30 Snuggies for no reason by noting that it’s better than purchasing more coke, it doesn’t really excuse the waste of money on the Snuggies.

    • The Rabbit - Mar 2, 2011 at 8:50 AM

      Especially those tax dollars that should exist but never are realized because of tax breaks to certain elements that require no such breaks

      Unfortunately, the tax code is written by rich people who are elected with the funds of rich people. Would you expect anything different?
      On the bright side, we get to witness karma on a grand scale. There are those in that group of “certain elements” who donate to worthy causes without regard to and in excess of the beneficial tax breaks…and there are others consumed by greed and entitlement who are easily manipulated by the Bernie Madoffs. It’s fascinating in a strange way.

      Back to baseball (sort of)… Given that IMHO the judge’s ruling is absurd, maybe the defense needs to call a never-ending string of females to testify to the worsening of males’ sexual performances over time. They don’t take ‘roids; however, they do eventually contribute to Pfizer’s profits. I should point out that some men might be surprised at how young an age this occurs. Although my friends and I have discussed this topic, to the best of my knowledge, none of us have ever measured her partner’s testicles.
      In addition, Craig, your paragraph regarding domestic violence is on target. I won’t bore you with personal details only to say that steroids were not involved. Why a judge would think this testimony is relevant is beyond me.

      • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 10:01 AM

        And, at the very last Bell’ credibility as a witness needs to be called into question. She unquestionably profited from her association with Bonds and her negative portrayal of him. As such, those Playboy pictures need to be entered into evidence as they are germain to this argument. Would they have been near as famous, and Bell along with them, were it not for the story she told along with them? As such she has much to gain from successful prosecution. More spreads await! You may mock me for attempting to introduce girly pictures into a court of law but I submit that this transparent attempt to further satirize the proceedings are in keeping with the farcical nature of the proceedings themselves.

  2. lgehrig4 - Mar 2, 2011 at 7:44 AM

    I would rather have my tax dollars spent on sending Bonds to jail than spend them on all the babies and baby mama’s he’ll have sitting around the house doing nothing.

    • paperlions - Mar 2, 2011 at 7:58 AM

      Those things cost a pittance compared to the welfare programs for the already filthy rich.

    • Matt - Mar 2, 2011 at 8:19 AM

      YEAH!!!! How dare those two year olds born into poverty not go out and get jobs and feed themselves!!!

  3. mattjg - Mar 2, 2011 at 7:45 AM

    What, aside from making Barry Bonds look like an evil person in front of the jury, do the prosecutors want to accomplish in this trial? This is really about dragging Bonds’ name through the mud to send a message to America. What that message is, I’m not really sure.

    The only way I can see them letting Bell’s testimony in is if prosecutors argue that the Bonds must have noticed the ball-shrinkage, decreased sexual performance and anger too and thus could not have been unaware (or at least must have suspected) that Anderson was giving him steroids. It’s a stretch, but it’s the only explanation I can come up with.

  4. Kave Krew - Mar 2, 2011 at 8:02 AM

    It’s possible that a) she will testify that Barry started to develop a post-romp habit of apologizing for his poor performance -‘hey baby, it’s you know it’s not me, it’s the juice getting to me’ b) she has actual audio (if not also video) of Barry admitting that the juice is affecting his performance.

    • Old Gator - Mar 2, 2011 at 8:10 AM

      It’s also entirely possible that his deteriorating performance was due to his growing boredom with her. “Well, your honor, she would just lay there, so….”

    • Craig Calcaterra - Mar 2, 2011 at 8:12 AM

      If that were the case then there wouldn’t have been a need for a contested motion and a ruling on the matter of her testimony here. It would have simply been “Bell will testify that Bonds admitted to taking steroids.” No, this is “Bell will testify that Bonds was bad in bed, and the jury will then have to infer that such performance was due to taking steroids.”

      • stevejeltzjehricurl - Mar 2, 2011 at 8:38 AM

        Three thoughts:

        1. I hope Bonds denies this is true by stating that he’s a rock star from Mars.

        2. If this is the inference the prosecutors want to draw, it still doesn’t get them far enough to prove Bonds KNEW he was taking steroids. Even if Bell testifies that she told Barry his performance was suffering and his private parts were shrinking, Barry’s ego may be such that he could say she’s lying.

        3. This is not about an effective use of our tax dollars. This is a case where the prosecutors have gone down the road so far that they can’t back away without losing face. If they convince the jury that Bonds is guilty, the majority of the public will only remember the result, and these guys will list Bonds’ prosecution on their resume. And yes, this should be a cautionary if not terrifying tale for all of us regarding the power prosecutors have.

      • easports82 - Mar 2, 2011 at 8:44 AM

        So doesn’t that give the defense the opportunity to go find other sexual partners to testify that their sex life improved because of steroids? These transcripts might be good enough to make it in Playboy or Hustler.

      • Old Gator - Mar 2, 2011 at 11:15 AM

        Then Bonds’ attorneys need only counter with the “Coolidge Effect Defense.” As the story goes, more or less, Calvin Coolidge and his wife were touring a state of the art poultry plant in Delaware or some such other forgotten corner of the tidal zone. Each had their own guides and went their own way about the plant. Mrs. Coolidge noticed that there were hundreds of hens in the henyard but only a couple of roosters. She inquired why there weren’t more. The yard manager responded, sheepishly, that one rooster was all that was needed to service a hundred or so hens. She thought a minute and said, “tell my husband that.” When the President was shown through the henyard the manager relayed Mrs. Coolidge’s request. He thought for a moment and asked, “does the rooster service one hen all day or does he go from hen to hen to hen?” “Different hen every time,” replied the yard manager. “Tell my wife that,” said Coolidge.

        The defense will blow her out of the water with this.

  5. Paul White - Mar 2, 2011 at 9:14 AM

    (Not a lawyer here, so this may be completely off target. You’ve been warned.)

    Doesn’t this ruling set up Kimberly Bell to questioning from the defense about every single sexual encounter she’s ever had? I mean, if the substance of her testimony is shrinking testicles and decreased sexual performance, doesn’t that virtually force the defense to ask her to detail her qualifications for judging such things? How could the judge disallow a line of questioning such as, “Ms. Bell, what, exactly, is your definition of ‘decreased performance’?”, “Have you noticed such decreased performance in any of your other sexual partners over a similar length of time?” “How many sexual partners have you had in total?” “How many of them were you with for a similar length of time as you were with Mr. Bonds?” “How does this decrease in performance compare to other decreases in performance from other partners you’ve had?” “Did Mr. Bonds or any of your other sexual partners ever express to you that you were the cause of their decreased performance?”

    Regardless of her answers, doesn’t the defense win that line of questioning? If she’s had a ton of sexual partners, it paints her in an unflattering light with the jury and de-values her testimony. If she hasn’t had many, they can claim she isn’t really qualified to judge if a man’s sexual performance has actually “decreased”, or can claim that her own inexperience contributed to any diminished sexual interest Bonds may have shown toward her. Seems like a no-lose situation for the defense, and a no-win situation for the prosecution and Kimberly Bell.

    • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM

      I mean, if the substance of her testimony is shrinking testicles and decreased sexual performance, doesn’t that virtually force the defense to ask her to detail her qualifications for judging such things?

      She’s not going to testify as an expert witness on nut size. She’s going to testify as an expert witness on the physical and psychological changes Bonds underwent WHILE she was seeing him. So any questions about her sexual past are irrelevant.

      • jh0088 - Mar 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM

        I disagree with Chrisny3 because, as the original comment made clear, unless she has been with other men in her life she has no basis for comparison. Unless she has been with other men for all she knows a decrease in sexual function as a relationship progresses is normal. She does need a certain base level of experience to compare Bonds to anyone else.

        Perhaps this suggested line of questioning is not entirely classy, but the prosecution will have blown class out of the water by putting her on the stand in the first place so I give a big thumbs up to Mr. Paul White.

      • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 11:44 AM

        BUTT (heh, heh, heh) she has a reason for saying this beyond the truth; it gets her naked arse in Playboy if she tells such a story. As such her testimony is prejudiced against Bonds. The defense submits this copy of the Playboy pictures into evidence;

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 11:59 AM

        unless she has been with other men in her life she has no basis for comparison.

        Of course she has a basis for comparison — how he was in the early years of their relationship. She is not going to be asked to give her opinion as to why it happened. Just that it did happen.

      • Dan in Katonah - Mar 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM

        She is not an expert witness, but rather a fact witness. As such, I would argue that her ability to detect the difference in nut-sack size would be relevant so let’s grill her about how much of a whore she really is. This whole area of questioning is a joke as Craig pointed out. Who is sitting on the bench, Judge Ito? It is unfathomable that the Court would let this highly prejudcial/non-probative line of questioning proceed. After all the embarassment and garbage comes out, Bonds will have a nice basis to appeal. Of course the well will be thoroughly poisoned by then and good luck getting an impartial jury after all this crap has been splashed across the tabloids for months on end.

  6. Jonny 5 - Mar 2, 2011 at 9:17 AM

    This is some crazy stuff right here. This is becoming a witch hunt. Literally. The Judge is obviously biased in favor of the prosecution here. Is this woman an expert on testicle size? Maybe she’s just a woman jaded here, getting her chance to humiliate Bonds? More evidence of just how screwed up our “injustice system” really is.

    • larryhockett - Mar 2, 2011 at 9:36 AM

      The justice system is not screwed up. To the contrary, it works exactly the way it’s supposed to work and it is now and always has been the best in the world. There are trial courts and appeals courts and more appeals courts. If the judge makes an error of law, the appeals court can overturn it. If the appeals court makes a mistake, a higher court can overturn it. It is a system run by people and people don’t always agree on what the outcome should be. The mere fact that you don’t agree with the outcome does not make it an “injustice system.”

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 10:29 AM

        Couldn’t agree more. It is not perfect, but it’s the best in the world.

      • Old Gator - Mar 2, 2011 at 11:09 AM

        No system that valorizes something as barbaric as the death penalty is “the best in the world.” That’s the kind of jingoistic truism whose substance is far more apparent to those brainwashed into believing it than it is real.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM

        And which country’s system do you consider superior?

      • Jonny 5 - Mar 2, 2011 at 4:47 PM

        You can’t possibly be that naive Larryhockett. Our Justice system is flawed in many ways. How many people have been incarcerated wrongfully? Maybe even put to death? How many crimes have unfair punishments handed out? So many you could never figure it all out. Money may not be able to buy you love, but sure can go pretty far in our justice system. Many times people with money get off the hook when a poor to middle class person would spend time in jail. Open your mind some Larry, people make mistakes and wrong decisions, some of them are Judges, Jurors, and attorneys. It is what it is. And appealing cases works for those found guilty, but what of the guilty who are found not guilty? I guess they probably wouldn’t want their case appealed now would they? And as witnessed by the Barry Bonds case, sometimes fame can be a double edged sword. Ask yourself if Joe Shmoe from idaho would still be chased down by the law for using steroids and/or lying about it? This case would have been dropped long ago for lack of evidence.

      • larryhockett - Mar 2, 2011 at 9:00 PM

        I never said it reached perfect outcomes every time because no system of justice could do that. But it is as good a system as has ever been implemented. Your complaints of injustice are generalizations, perhaps you can be more specific as to what exactly you would change. Because all I gather from your post is that you don’t always agree with the outcomes. Others might disagree. That’s why we have a justice system so such disagreements can be settled within a framework of laws and procedures. No system can achieve perfect outcomes every time because the very nature of a perfect outcome is subjective. If there is now or ever has been a better system than our’s, I’d like to hear of it.

    • Matt - Mar 2, 2011 at 9:54 AM

      Judges are almost always biased in favor of the prosecution. Many are former prosecutors themselves.

  7. 8man - Mar 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM

    The real question here is what kind of jack is Bonds paying Anderson to do time and keep his mouth shut?

    • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 11:47 AM

      8man; Or, what kind of dirt does Bonds have on Anderson to keep him in line. Either scenario fits Anderson’s behavior; these are investigations worth pursuing.

  8. spudchukar - Mar 2, 2011 at 10:13 AM

    For me, the more egregious is the domestic violence issue. In order to allow said testimony doesn’t the judge need to justify her ruling that it is “common knowledge” that steroids cause increased violent tendencies? If not, isn’t it the responsibility of the prosecution to establish this knowledge through expert testimony? Then doesn’t she have to rule on the separate issue after the defense brings in their counter expert?

    • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 10:26 AM

      Roid rage is an established and well known side effect of steroids. They could have dueling expert witnesses in court, and the judge will allow the jury to decide who is right. But it’s not like no one knows about roid rage so the jury will likely accept it as a fact that it exists.

      • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 12:01 PM

        chrisny3; Baloney counselor. The results of studies on roid rage are, at best, equivocal. Here;

        “Out of 109 cases studied, only 5 people exhibited Psychological (Manic or Hypomanic) effects. (*Archives of General Psychiatry, Volume 57, February 2000.)”

        That was a land mark study. Here’s a more recent one (2005 I think);

        “The effects of supraphysiological doses of testosterone on angry behavior in healthy eugonadal men–a clinical research center study.

        Tricker R, Casaburi R, Storer TW, Clevenger B, Berman N, Shirazi A, Bhasin S
        Division of Endocrinology, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, California 90059, USA.”

        Also you can read up on this more by an actual authority on roid rage; Dr. Jack Drakes of USF. Neglecting question’s along the line of roid rage as evidence of roid use are ENTIRELY relevant.

      • spudchukar - Mar 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM

        Thanks for the back-up Cur. I wanted to counter with a similar argument, but your expertise and research blows me away.

      • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 12:13 PM

        No worries. I don’t care for that “everybody knows” crap. Stinks of “Spin”.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 12:14 PM

        I call to the stand Dr. Gary Wadler:

        I think a better way to view this is a spectrum of behaviors by people on anabolic steroids ranging from being somewhat more assertive, moving up one notch to being frankly aggressive, and moving up another notch to actually having this roid rage. It’s really an extreme of a spectrum of kind of behavioral things that you see with anabolic steroids …

        Yes. It’s been implicated in a number of murders and can result in extreme aberrations of behavior including the taking of one’s life.

        Another thing you have to be mindful of — it may unmask an underlying psychiatric disorder that has been basically kept in check until the individual is exposed to this category of drugs. And so what you may be seeing is unmasked psychiatric disorder.


        As I said, you will see dueling expert witnesses. It will be up to a jury to decide whose witness is more credible.

      • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 12:26 PM

        chrisny3; you stated it, in print (I can see it as I type this) that ‘everybody knows’. No they don’t. It’s an equivocal argument and it’s highly prejudicial against Mr. Bonds. Spin, sir, nothing but spin.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 12:34 PM

        Where did I say “everybody knows?”

        I think you’re making it up.

      • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 12:47 PM

        chrisny3; right you are. I’m extrapolating it from this statement here; “Roid rage is an established and well known side effect of steroids”. Well established my behind. The preponderance of evidence is that it is NOT well established and characterizing it as such is, indeed, prejudicial. You know, you are like a sith lord of spin doctoring. I have never seen such acumen, grasp of subject, and ability to carry on multiple lines of obfuscation, earth scorching, and word-sithing (a word-sith; nice) by people who are not being paid to do it. The amount of energy and patience it must take to research, think up, and type and post all this is staggering. If you ever used your powers for good the world would be a better place.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 1:00 PM

        Glad you admit you are making things up.

        I don’t think the prosecution will have problems getting an expert witness to testify that RR is a well-established, well-knownside effect of anabolic steroids. That’s not the same thing as saying RR impacts all abusers or “everyone” knows this.

        The jury will decide whose witness makes more sense.

      • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM

        chrisny3; Man, that’s the old fingertip lightening right there. Say, you got a cowl, face paint or a helmet? And what color saber you swinging there, bra? Is it one of them double sided Maul-type deals or are you sithing it old school? Look, Darth, you can’t introduce roid rage as evidence. You’ll get blown out of the water by something you seem little troubled by; fact. There are NO facts that support roid rage (a “fact” I am asserting is something that is verifiable by peer reviewed study when we are talking about something as easily studied as whether or not roids make you out of control angry), and none of this changes the FACT that you have asserted it is so, and that that is prejudicial and unsupportable by the preponderance of peer reviewed studies.

      • spudchukar - Mar 2, 2011 at 1:30 PM

        It is a breeze for the Defense. First establish that many, many substances have been shown to create similar and more serious reactions, Caffeine, Alcohol, Red Meat, et al.

        Proceed to destroy the Prosecution’s Expert Witness, with study after study, and testimony after testimony, that libido is increased and testicle size increases during testosterone usage. Take it from me, I take massive doses of steroids every day.

        About this time the Jurors are rolling their collective eyes, wondering the same as many here, why are we wasting tax-payers cash on a case that is grasping for straws?

        The Defense rest, the Prosecution’s statements have been proven to be both ad hominem and fatuous.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 2:02 PM

        cur68, so are you disputing what Wadler said? You really think the likes of Wadler are going to be blown out of the water? To the contrary, I think they will blow the defense’s expert witnesses out of the water.

        I’m not going to debate steroid studies here. One can probably find a study to support whatever you want. The credentials of someone like Wadler should suffice to convince many in a jury that roid rage exists. d

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 2:09 PM

        While anabolic steroids can increase libido, ED is a well known problem for some long-term abusers, as are shrunken nuts. Of course, I don’t expect you to admit to ED, lol.

        Believe me, the government is going to find a qualified expert to testify to this (or something very similar). And Bell’s testimony as to what she observed will likely jive with this.

        No one can predict how a jury will vote. But I think the government has a good case. I would not like to be in Bonds shoes right now. I think he is looking at a few months in jail.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Mar 2, 2011 at 2:12 PM

        But it really doesn’t matter whether Bonds expressed roid rage or not does it? The question is clear and very simple…did Bonds knowingly take steroids and then lie about it to a grand jury. If that is the question, then whether he beat up his girlfriend has literally nothing to do with this case. Nor does his shrinking balls. Nor does his lack of sexual desire with this one woman. Who’s to say he wasn’t banging someone else on the side? Who’s to say he wasn’t tired of this one and moved on to the next one? Who’s to say he wasn’t cold that night she checked his balls…Shrinkage anyone???

        I think this is all just a great misdirection away from the simple, basic question…did Bonds knowingly take steroids??? If the answer is yes, then how is the prosecution proving it by his girlfriend saying his balls were smaller or that he banged her less? Puh-leeze.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 2:28 PM


        “Are we to believe this elite class athlete underwent such stark changes and didn’t know what was causing them? His head grew 4 hat sizes and his nuts shrunk at the age of 35 and he didn’t suspect anything was wrong?” (note: testimony as to an inflated head is speculation on my part)

        I wrote that this morning, speculating how the prosecution will use Bell’s testimony. Perfectly plausible. And Ilston has already ruled such testimony to be admissible, so if that’s not the rationale for it, I’ll bet the prosecution has a good one. The judge has seemed to be pretty fair in this case.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 2:40 PM

        Nor does his lack of sexual desire with this one woman.

        Well, what if she testifies that he always initiated things, that he was the one who pushed for their encounters, and then he just couldn’t seal the deal. And it wasn’t just on occasion. It was for long periods of time. Starting a year or two after his other physical and psychological changes started (which would be consistent with ED being a problem after long-term heavy use).

      • Chris Fiorentino - Mar 2, 2011 at 2:54 PM

        I met this woman, way back in 1996. When we first met, I used to “initiate” all the time. I used to “push for all of the sexual encounters”. I got bored of her after about 9 months and moved on to another girl to “initiate with” all the time. I never did get rid of the first one though, so I would occasionally, half-halfheartedly sleep with her because I am a pig. I figured we could be friends with benefits. I wasn’t doing steroids. One day, when I got out of the pool, I had sex with her. She could have surmised that I was doing steroids, I guess, since my balls had shrunk.

        Ridiculous story…yeah, but not as ridiculous as this stupid trial.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 2:58 PM

        Who’s to say he wasn’t cold that night she checked his balls…Shrinkage anyone???

        PROSECUTOR: Did his testicles grow and shrink according to the room temperature?

        BELL: No, they were smaller all the time. Even in the summer heat. Indoors or out.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM

        so I would occasionally, half-halfheartedly sleep with her because I am a pig.

        PROSECUTOR: Was he half-hearted about it?

        BELL: No. In fact I tried to brush him off a few times as I had other things to do, but he insisted on flying to Las Vegas on his off days just to see me. Even when he only had one day off.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Mar 2, 2011 at 3:11 PM

        The halfhearted part was after all the time being with her, counselor, not in the beginning. I used her like the piece of meat she was, then I moved on. That’s why my sexual drive with her dissipated. Not because of steroids, but because I was tired of looking at her. I know maybe you have been married to the same tired piece of ass the last 25 years. But I was a professional athlete. I was banging 3 chicks at the same time nightly. Why don’t you subpeona some of them instead of bringing this jilted used up has-been up here?

      • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 3:14 PM

        Look Darth, its not me disputing the Wad-man, it’s his damn peers. The evidence is EQUIVOCAL and highly so. You asserted it wasn’t. Just accept some axel grease, do a back pedal from roid rage as evidence of use thereof and go do something more worthy of your considerable talents, ok? I mean now your speculating as to what Bell could say; “Well, what if she testifies…”. And if his nuts were small all the time. ‘What if’ my hairy bee-hind! The point is you can spin this as hard as you like but you can’t just “create” fact, sith powers notwithstanding. She has asserted no such thing, she’s irrelevant as an authority on roid use, and if she had better guns to fire @ Mr. Bonds then she should have done so long before now and saved all you nice American folks a whole lot money.

      • spudchukar - Mar 2, 2011 at 3:15 PM

        LOL at ED. What are you some knuckle dragging Neanderthal? When my testosterone level was diagnosed as life-threatening low, my Doc was amazed that my condition was limited to low libido, and warned that ED could certainly be on the horizon.

        Believe me a blind squirrel could find the proverbial “expert witness testimony” nut. This is NOT controversial in the medical community. Just because somewhere out in Quackland, some stooge will take the money to parrot the Prosecution’s wishes does not establish some neutralization of the discussion.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 3:19 PM

        CF, before we go on with this hypothetical play acting, you do know that Bonds is not going to testify, right? So there will no way to get in most of your far-fetched fiction.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Mar 2, 2011 at 3:23 PM

        Oh I see now. So whatever Kimberly Bell says is absolute 100% fact, but my Bonds stuff is “fiction”. Hmm, sounds a bit like your take on the Wilpons and the differences between the NYT and the DN. I’ll give you this much, though, you are EXTREMELY consistent with your inconsistency.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM

        cur68, and it will be the Wadler types who dispute any defense witnesses. You don’t think the government is not going to have an answer to every witness Bonds side drags up?

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 3:29 PM

        CF, no, you don’t see at all. It’s the laws of evidence. If Bonds wants to give his story, he has every right to. It’s just that he won’t dare testify. So, no go with your fantasy.

      • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 3:30 PM

        Did YOU, Darth, just use the term “far-fetched fiction”??? Ho-lleeeee! Man you must be on the clear yourself, because after the speculative testimony you’ve made up here, your are the Dark Emperor of “far-fetched fiction” and HUGE dark-side balls. chrisny3 you have been ‘creating’ out of thin air testimony that doesn’t exist to support an argument based on highly equivocal “evidence” uttered by a person who has a substantial amount to gain by slandering Bonds. OMG! Who do you go up against in court, my man? 6 year olds? No defense attorney worth 2 dimes could FAIL to crush this argument.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 3:35 PM

        spudchukar, the government is not going to bring in expert witnesses without good credentials. One is likely going to say ED is a side effect of long-term heavy AS use. Bell is likely going to say Bonds had frequent ED problems that didn’t exist when she first met him. If she does, it’s a strike against Bonds. If he doesn’t take the stand, he won’t be able to effectively combat that testimony. He is not going to take the stand.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 3:41 PM

        cur68, whoa, down boy. My speculative dialogue was solely in direct reply to a highly speculative scenario that was even more iffy, given the fact Bonds won’t even testify.

      • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 4:02 PM

        Well, gee, thanks ‘boy’ because, I hadn’t noticed you accusing someone of doing something you were also doing, so don’t condescend me, boy. You haven’t a good reason for sticking with Bell, you’d get creamed trying to in any court in your land, and, once again, its just YOU and only you on this side of the argument (and, yes, I am discounting the one guy who’s posted in favor of prosecution; he does not understand the issue). The sample mean should roughly equal the population mean (stat 101). Once again virtually 100% against proceeding with this. You sir, are a bag of wind. I’m done with this.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 4:32 PM

        Whoa, whoa, boy. It’s you who are the condescending one. At least you try to be. So why object if I throw a little of it back your way? Double standard there.

        And lets get this straight: the prospective testimony of Bell is not very speculative. The fact the judge ruled on it means that it’s probably on the agenda. The fantasized responses of the pro-steroids side are purely wholly speculative, especially since Bonds won’t even take the stand, LOL. So it’s CF who started the speculation first, which I replied with my own speculation.

        I’m sticking with Bell not because she’s Bell, but because she’s part of a government effort which has been extremely successful at prosecuting the BALCO perjurers. As for your opinion the prosecution will get “creamed” in court using her, I say just watch. Bonds may eventually walk, but I bet he’s wearing the prison stripes very soon, and Bell will be a key part of his conviction. As for you assumption that the baseball fans who are on hardballtalk will be representative of the jury pool, you only display your ignorance of the legal system here. For one thing, it’s obvious there are quite a few “AS” users here. None of them will be allowed on the jury. And second, the majority of posters here seem to be white males, probably under the age of 35, all sports fans. The jury pool in the bay area is likely to be a broad mixture very different from the group here and much more representative of the general population. It’s just laughable you would think otherwise.

  9. chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM

    How is Bell’s testimony relevant?

    The prosecution is going to show that Bonds underwent significant physical and psychological changes over a short period of time. Some of these changes, like roid rages and shrunken nuts are not associated with physical workouts and are classic side effects of steroids. And so they are going to say to the jury — “Are we to believe this elite class athlete underwent such stark changes and didn’t know what was causing them? His head grew 4 hat sizes and his nuts shrunk at the age of 35 and he didn’t suspect anything was wrong?” (note: testimony as to an inflated head is speculation on my part)

    And why would Bell need to be questioned about her own past sexual experience??? I believe her testimony will be that while she was dating Bonds, his nuts shrunk and he lost it in the sack. So her comparison would be with how he was when she first started dating him. It would be totally irrelevant to question her about her past and the judge won’t allow it.

    As for my tax dollars, I’m glad they are being used this way.

    • Paul White - Mar 2, 2011 at 11:11 AM

      Again, I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see how the prosecution can be allowed to have Bell testify in regard to “the worsening of his sexual performance” and then not allow the defense to establish the criteria by which Bell is making that claim. To you point, sure, she can say Bonds no longer had sex as frequently or wasn’t interested or couldn’t perform, or whatever, but the defense would seem to be perfectly within their rights to then try establish whether or not Bell had prior experience with that sort of performance drop from a partner. For all we know, what she witnessed was nothing more than the normal reduced sex drive that aging human beings experience, and it would seem to be fair game for the defense to try to establish whether or not Bell ever had other partners with performance difficulties that would allow her to conclude that Bonds’ were somehow different than the norm.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 11:26 AM

        Bell will not be asked to diagnose the reason for Bonds shrunken nuts and declining sexual performance. She will be asked to merely establish that it occurred.

        You don’t need to be an expert to notice shrunken nuts and a partner’s falloff in the sack.

        The government’s expert witnesses will be the one to establish that these symptoms are typical side effects of steroids use.

        So It will be up to the prosecution in their closing statement to reinforce the link, and the jury will then decide if a sufficient link has been made, and whether it would be logical or not if an elite athlete suffered all these side effects without knowing what was going on.

      • simplicitymadecomplex - Mar 2, 2011 at 2:02 PM

        Hello Paul, are you the same Paul White who was once-upon-a-time the editor of Baseball Weekly ?

  10. clydeserra - Mar 2, 2011 at 10:26 AM

    I agree that there seems to be no reason for any of the outlined testimony, but it does allow Bonds’ team to argue very forcefully “witch hunt.” I would go over this testimony thoroughly during closing and ask the jury why they are here, what the charges are and what the sex stuff has to do with anything.

  11. jh0088 - Mar 2, 2011 at 12:00 PM

    Everyone has the steroid and sex thing backwards. While ON steroids your sex life is off the charts. You cannot get it enough because your testoterone levels are through the roof. But the longer you take them the more your body forgets how to make testosterone on its own. So it is when you go OFF the steroids that your testicles shrink and you lose the ability to perform until your body starts to make its own supply of testosterone again.

    From 1996-2002 I was the training partner for an IFBB pro body builder. He was a personal trainer and our gym with the Golds in Venice, CA where I was heavily involved in the body building culture. I’ve personally only taken oral stacks of Andreostenedione during that time, but yeah, over the years I witnessed over a half dozen pro body builders inject themselves with anabolic steroids and watch them go from 250 to 300 pounds of muscle in a few months.

    I could feel and see what the Andro did to my body and my ability to perform sexually. And I heard personal stories from guys doing the real hard core stuff, including my own training partner, about how they could have sex four or five times a day every day. Their girlfriends and wives all publically loved it when these guys were juiced and it was a major topic of conversation at social functions within the “fitness” community.

    But the tragedy comes about when they go off the stuff and their body doesn’t produce the testosterone anymore. That’s when they can’t have sex and I know several guys, who after body building CONTINUE to take steroids so they can function sexually because it was hurting their relationships.

    These are the guys who are probably setting themselves up for major health issues down the line, but we’ll have to wait another 15 years or so to find out.

    The testimony from Bond’s mistress that she noticed a decrease in performance sounds like sour grapes to me and that it can be said shown that if there was such a decrease that it means Bonds was no longer taking steroids at that time.

    • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 12:11 PM

      Now this is what I call a testimonial! Also it logically fits with what we know of steroid and the body’s natural reaction to it. In effect we are all girls at conception. We do not become masculinized till our y chromosome (providing we have one) tells our testicles (providing we have those; not always a given, even with a y chromosome) to make with the testosterone (there’s more to it that that, but this is a baseball blog not Fetal Development 101). At this point we grow a pair and begin to develop into men. FYI that’s around week 16 or so into a 38 week pregnancy.

    • spudchukar - Mar 2, 2011 at 2:22 PM

      Exactamente JH.

  12. metalhead65 - Mar 2, 2011 at 12:23 PM

    that’s right it is a total waste of tax dollars to try and go after someone who knowling took roids lied about it and lied about it iunder oath. it’s wrong to go after the guy who gave them to him and refuses to admit it and to tell the truth. it’s a plot to besmirch the good name a famous player. he is completley innocent of any wrong doing. why anybody can go from hitting 48 homers to 80 in a year with a little hard work. and the body and your head will natuarly swell up twice the size it was the year before with taking the right is girfriend not supposed to know that his personality changes were just a by product of the new excersise regime?look my tax dollars are wasted on plenty of things I don’t approve of but just because bonds is a baseball player does not mean he should not pay the price for breakinng the law and lying. if that is the only way to get him to admit he cheated then so be it. sorry but if you believe he did not juice then you must also believe in the tooth fairy!

    • cur68 - Mar 2, 2011 at 12:31 PM

      Actually, no one here thinks he wasn’t on the juice. We all know he was. The question is why are we bothering with this? What good will it possibly serve to keep chasing this guy? The original testimony by Bonds can be shown (depending how you spin it) that he either lied under oath or deliberately took advantage of some lousy questioning. That’s what your tax dollars are being wasted on. Spin.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Mar 2, 2011 at 1:14 PM

        Not only do WE know he was, but HE now knows he was. The whole point is whether he knew what he was taking when he was taking them. His balls shrinking have absolutely nothing to do with that question. Her testimony is there for its shock appeal and nothing more. It is absolutely ludicrous. Prosecutors should be ashamed for this travesty of a trial. And I don’t even like Bonds.

      • chrisny3 - Mar 2, 2011 at 4:40 PM

        Just read metalhead’s post and he certainly sounds like he understands the case very well. He knows exactly what Bonds is being tried for and he states it in his first sentence.

  13. dickclydesdale - Mar 2, 2011 at 2:13 PM

    Complete waste of tax payer money, congress is upset because Bonds lied to them , hell congress lies to the public everyday.

  14. Kevin S. - Mar 2, 2011 at 8:54 PM

    Is this the first documented case where we see the Chewbacca prosecution? What a joke. Bonds’ team is going to tear Bell apart.

  15. thumper001 - Mar 2, 2011 at 10:23 PM

    Given how FUBAR this is; Bonds should demand his testicles be given the right to appear and testify on their own behalf…Bell wants to claim the boys are turning into girls, and given its a traversal, let Bonds have his day in court and disprove her claim…See what can happen when you “go there”. The ultimate in hitting below the belt (sounds like a taunt from the playground; na na na Barry gots no cajones)…

    [quote]”Well Mr. Bonds, I can see from the evidence before the court, those are indeed some very impressive testicles, sir, as I have seen thousands of them during my time in San Francisco and can clearly state for the record, WOW! Ms. Bell, in light of the testimony here today, your claim that Mr. Bonds’ testicles are “small” is hereby found to be untrue. You may step down, but please be careful walking past the evidence table, as we wouldn’t want you to trip over the “evidence”. Does the Government have anything else? Please tell me you actually have something here? No? Well, the Court then moves on it’s own behalf, and declares, Mr. Bonds has a healthy pair of boys. The Court will now entertain motions from the defense…”Your honor, if da nuts don’t fit, you must acquit” this is Cessna 4-40-2, I see the the treetops…. ahhhhhhhh”. Newsflash—This just in from Federal Court: Bonds’ Nuts Save the Day. Film at 11 (please, nooooooo!)…[/quote]

    At least in San Francisco, there should be no lack of expertise on the matter at hand….maybe The Machine can be brought in as an expert witness, lol. “For the record, please state your full name.” The. Machine. “In your professional opinion Mr. Machine, does Mr. Bonds have big testicles, or little testicles, or just ordinary everyday run-of-the-mill work-a-daddy testicles?” Well, in my professional opinion, based on extensive research and years of hands on experience, I can state categorically, anything more than a…

    Are you ready for some football!!!!!!!!

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2830)
  2. Y. Puig (2654)
  3. C. Correa (2640)
  4. B. Crawford (2638)
  5. G. Springer (2622)
  1. H. Ramirez (2557)
  2. H. Pence (2444)
  3. M. Teixeira (2374)
  4. J. Hamilton (2318)
  5. J. Baez (2297)