[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The problem with this it is not about CSI and whether the DNA was put together or accurate. There are evidentiary rules that must be followed. Holding someone's DNA in the basement is not credible evidentiary procedures. I doubt a judge is going to accept evidence like this and later have it overturned by a higher court because they did not follow the proper procedures. Remember the O.J. Simpson trial? The issues in that case were not just about whether it was his blood or not, it was when it was discovered and the issues of chain of custody. I think you have been watching too much TV if you think that flies in the real world.

You conveniently neglect to address the fact that there are no criminal charges here for which the gauze, etc., are relevant. They are only relevant as a matter of witness credibility. "Chain of custody" blah, blah does not matter. Do the artifacts back up McNamee's story or not?

You cannot have it both ways without someone pulling your card. The case that many people made in the media was the actions of how Bonds defended himself. When another person takes another route, you cannot cry foul claim "they must be guilty" if you do not have any more evidence than you had before. And honestly, this is why baseball is inept in so many ways. MLB has allowed the past of their game to be tarnished over speculation and innuendo. And honestly I have yet to see the usage of steroids prove someone was a better player. Clemens during this period his velocity did not go up, he did not change drastically in size (which is suppose to be some "real evidence") and he did not start winning games (which pitchers do not have all the control over) and he did not start pitching more innings. So if Clemens used, a lot of holes in the argument that was used against Bonds are present.

Peace

Hello??? Where is it written that an accused strategy for dealing with the accusation has any bearing on guilt or innocence? Bonds never talked with the press before OR after the accusation. Clemens is a publicity seeker and privilege seeker and professional intimidator who can't stand to have his ego attacked. Hence different reactions.

And, again, I can have it both ways on this since it has nothing to do with whether or no they juiced. The evidence is very strong that both did. Different kinds of evidence for both, but both are cooked. And, rightly so.