Skip to content

Greg Anderson goes back to jail

Mar 22, 2011, 2:56 PM EST

Anderson, former trainer to Bonds, arrives to Bonds' perjury trial at the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco

As expected, Barry Bonds’ former trainer Greg Anderson — the one man who could say if Barry Bonds knew what he was taking — was just called into the courtroom, was asked if he’d testify, refused through his lawyer, and was taken away to jail. Again.

Not much else to say about it, I suppose. He has his reasons. Maybe he likes the food inside. I’m not sure what motivates the guy, frankly. I mean, I have philosophical issues with the prosecution of Bonds too, but I wouldn’t do any time just to spite them.

All I wonder is what he says when someone in prison asks him “what are you in for?”

  1. The Common Man/www.platoonadvantage.com - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:06 PM

    “I’m not a rat, Agent Kujan. F-in’ cops.”

    • cur68 - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:12 PM

      “You don’t put guys like that into a room together. Who knows what could happen…”

      • Old Gator - Mar 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM

        I think you were straight with your frere. I think you were queer with Johnny Caspar. And I think you would rather join a ladies’ league that squeal on Bobby Bonds.

      • JBerardi - Mar 22, 2011 at 6:15 PM

        “Look the FBI guys promised me a deal. So I made up a lot of stuff about Barry Bonds ’cause that’s what they wanted — but it was all lies — uh — everything. And I kept saying — Barry Bonds did this and Barry Bonds did that — uhh — so I said yea sure, why not.”

      • JBerardi - Mar 23, 2011 at 1:22 AM

        C’mon. Thumbs down for Godfather II? Really?

      • cur68 - Mar 23, 2011 at 1:43 AM

        Well Gator got 6 down (so far) for Miller’s Crossing, probably one of the most quotable movies around so you and GF2 are in pretty good company.

    • cur68 - Mar 23, 2011 at 12:34 AM

      Greg Anderson as he’s heading to the hoosegow; “Close your eyes ladies! I’m comin’ in! “. Hope he remembers to get his frequent visitor card punched; one more and his next stay will be on the taxpayer…oh, wait…

  2. Jonny 5 - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM

    Hasn’t he already served enough time for his crime?? Seriously though, by the time this is over he will have spent more time behind bars than straight up murderers do.

    • heyblueyoustink - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:35 PM

      Sometimes that’s the plight of the flunkie, for example it happens in pro Wrestling all the time so it must be true

    • Dan in Katonah - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:45 PM

      I was going to say, he’d do less time if he killed Bonds than keeping quiet for the guy. He takes “stand-up” to a whole new level.

      • paperlions - Mar 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM

        I’m sure he is being paid handsomely for his time. There is only one reason for him to refuse to testify, and it ain’t because he’d say Barry had no idea what he was taking.

    • Old Gator - Mar 22, 2011 at 4:28 PM

      Every time he refuses to testify, he commits a new crime, as it were. But look at the benefits: every day he spends in the basement is another day his chromosomes for idiocy remain sandbagged from the gene pool.

  3. nicosamuelson2 - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:16 PM

    Yeah, Bonds could really flip you. Flip you for real.

  4. Dug - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:23 PM

    Does anyone doubt that Mr. Bonds is (ahem, cough, choke, gag) taking care of Mr. Anderson’s (ahem, cough, choke, gag) expenses?

    Wonder if the IRS is going to be investigating these two clowns?

    • jhorton83 - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:35 PM

      That’s what I always figured. It must be a crapload of money for Anderson to be willing to do this much time in prison for keeping his mouth shut.

    • Dan in Katonah - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:52 PM

      You would think so, but then Bonds would be opening himself up for a whole new bevy of charges – witness tampering. I would bet dollars to donuts (mmm, donuts) that the IRS and Justice are very carfeully watching for that and will be for some time to come…

  5. b7p19 - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:30 PM

    I would rather be a friend of Barry Bonds than a friend of the lawyers. I’m assuming Andersons family is doing just fine and he’ll be plenty comfortable once he gets out.

  6. tom-a-hawk - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:51 PM

    There is a real problem with putting him back in jail. You’re supposed to do that as a way to get him to testify. Clearly, that’s not going to work at all. So, what’s the point in sending him to jail again for a few more weeks. I assume the goal is to waste more tax-payer money housing and feeding him….gotta love our govt and court system.

    • tubal22 - Mar 22, 2011 at 5:40 PM

      Except he’s legally required to testify. By not doing it, he’s breaking the law.

      If they let him slide, why not let everyone slide? I think that’s the main reason he’s back in prison.

  7. clydeserra - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:52 PM

    He is not going to prison. he is going to jail.

    I can’t see what the issue is. He doesn’t want to testify against a childhood friend. Once he spent a month in jail, what’s the point of now testifying? In for a penny in for a pound.

    • Old Gator - Mar 22, 2011 at 4:31 PM

      Am I correct in assuming you gentlemen want to de-fang the criminal justice system even further? Every time he is asked to testify and refuses, he commits a new offense. Let’s put it this way: suppose you arrest a bank robber and he does ten years. Then he gets out and robs another bank. What do you say to him? “Oh, you already went to jail for bank robbery? Wow, sorry about this. Okay, sarge, take off the handcuffs. Have a nice day.”

      • clydeserra - Mar 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM

        No, you are incorrect in that assumption.

        If you think the prosecutions are “de-fanged” I suggests you turn of CSI:Miami and study the criminal justice system. You will will find that far from being hamstrung by legislatures that write laws that go too easy on bank robbers, or the pesky constitution that lets the guilty go free on “technicalities” by the airbus-full, the system works fairly well. Most people accused for crimes are convicted, and most get the punishment society has deemed appropriate.

      • Old Gator - Mar 22, 2011 at 10:05 PM

        Wel-l-l, that’s an assertive way to take a cheap shot (which doesn’t bother me in concept, as long as it’s a clever cheap shot that requires more than pulling the name of an irrelevant TV show out of your ass) and go off on a tangent that doesn’t make a Hailey’s comet pass at what I was talking about in the first place. Here, let me simplify it so even you can get the point: suppose that any jack-in-the-crowd who didn’t feel like testifying when obligated to do so knew that he’d get a little slap on the wrist (or even a kick in the rear) and then be free to remain in contempt of court any time he was called to testify in the same case. Is the point starting to get through? Anderson is a hard case but he’s not typical. Most people, confronted with a long contempt citation or a series of them, will do the logical thing. But they need to know that they’re placing themselves at risk for a serious term of incarceration. Whether the case itself is a crock or not, Anderson – or any other witness – has to know that refusing to testify is a serious matter. Turn the threat into kid gloves by caving in to an Anderson and the system, which now “works fairly well,” probably won’t work very well anymore.

        There now. Was that simple and direct enough for you?

  8. BC - Mar 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM

    I wonder how much Bonds is paying Anderson under the table.

  9. easports82 - Mar 22, 2011 at 4:01 PM

    Craig – I’m assuming the answer is no because he’s been there for so long, but is there a limit, outside of the trial ending, of how long an individual can be held in contempt? Where’s the check on a judge from leaving someone in jail indefinitely for contempt?

    • Craig Calcaterra - Mar 22, 2011 at 4:05 PM

      Actually, there is a limit. Generally, the witness can only be held in contempt during the time the proceedings for which his testimony has been needed are going on. The idea is to compel him, while it’s still possible, to testify. Once the trial ends, he’ll be released. His previous incarcerations have come during previous occasions (hearings, etc.) when his testimony was sought.

      You can, after the proceedings, be separately charged as a result of your failure to testify — the actual punishment for the act as opposed to the coercion to testify — but oftentimes such charges are not pursued. And, given how much time Anderson will have served since this all began, it likely won’t be charged against him.

  10. hep3 - Mar 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM

    It was speculated on Dan Patrick’s radio show that perhaps Anderson won’t testify because it could open up all kinds other problems for Anderson and others if he testifies. The proverbial Pandora’s box.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Mar 22, 2011 at 4:24 PM

      I would buy that before any deal with Bonds. Bonds is not facing serious time. There is a limit to how grateful he’d be. At the same time, if Anderson was/is into way heavier stuff than merely giving pro athletes PEDs, he probably doesn’t want to be on any witness stand.

      Of course, he could always invoke his 5th Amendment rights in such a case and avoid jail to begin with, so that’s not perfect either.

  11. j1mcrawford - Mar 23, 2011 at 5:16 PM

    Oh,
    Why is it that the government is prosecuting one of he finest athletes of his time, one of the best hitters in the history of baseball, but they haven’t prosecuted the guys who lied us into two wars that we didn’t need to be in? Lied to the public. Lied to the Congress. Lied to allies. Lied to the UN. Lied to everybody.

    Or have we all forgotten the lies they told us? That Iraq was building WMDs [like the major industrial countries], that Iraq had nuclear weapons [like the major industrial countries] , that Iraq was developing biological weapons [like the major industrial countries] — none of which they had, all of which had been disposed of before the war ever started, disposed of after the first Iraq war, the entire country inspected by the United Nations and found to be free of both WMDs and of programs for developing them?

    When are these guys going to get indicted and tried for these crimes by an American court? What’s going on? Is it one rule for Barry Bonds and another rule for people who do something really serious? Or is it that high government officials are immune from prosecution once they kill 4000 or 5000 people, or is it 104,000 people counting Iraqi civilians? Not to mention our soldiers maimed for life for their heroism.

    Or have the international community and the USA covertly passed laws that make it NO LONGER A CRIME to invade another country, the original prohibition against which was a result of the original Nuremburg Trials and has been part of international law ever since?

    Why is Barry Bonds being tried and not the people who started the wars with the illegal ”preemptive” invasions?

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Maddon has high hopes for Cubs
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. P. Sandoval (4991)
  2. Y. Tomas (3272)
  3. J. Lester (3120)
  4. G. Stanton (2700)
  5. J. Upton (2510)
  1. A. LaRoche (2484)
  2. T. Hunter (2412)
  3. H. Ramirez (2304)
  4. M. Scherzer (2189)
  5. B. Butler (1965)