Your tax dollars get worked
Hey gang, it looks like the government may well be perfectly aware that Barry Bonds wasn’t lying. Isn’t it great that we all pay to harass him? I suppose I should probably be pretty supportive of the whole idea, you know what with the Witch Hunters and all, but quite frankly it just makes me much less comfortable with the recent rumblings from Washington about going after Roger Clemens, too.
I’m no government apologist, but that’s a really nitpicky thing. I really don’t think Barry Bonds had any idea whether or not “The Clear” was technically classified as a steroid by the United States GUBMINT when he was taking it, but he sure goddamn knew it made his muscles bigger and his head grow to pumpkin-esqe proportions.
Comment by Dave | 15 January 2009
To be sure, but the law hinges on nitpicky things. We’re not talking about whether or not I think Bonds knew he was cheating — I’m sure he did. We’re talking about whether or not Bonds lied about whether or not he took steroids. And if the thing he took was not at that time classified as a steroid, then I’m not seeing how he was lying when he said “no.”
Basically, I’m looking at it like this. The government’s own files state that the substance Bonds is linked to was not classifed as a steroid either at the time he took it or — and this is important — at the time of the hearing. So it’s not a grey area, like if it got reclassified in the middle there; it wasn’t a steroid at that time. If the government asked a guy if he took steroids and he said no, and the government’s own files demonstrate that the thing he was linked to was not classified as a steroid either at the time he took it or at the time he was asked about it, then I think it’s an egregious waste of taxpayer money to pursue a perjury conviction on the grounds that, I dunno, maybe he should have said yes anyhow. Which, ironically, looks like it would have been perjury.
Comment by Darien | 15 January 2009