checkerboard_charly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,549
- Likes
- 5
You know something, Palmerio tested positive for steriods after blatenly lying to Congress and yet he didn't get charged with perjury. Yet the committee says it hopes to have enough evidence to convict Bonds by fall. Think that's fair???
You know something, Palmerio tested positive for steriods after blatenly lying to Congress and yet he didn't get charged with perjury. Yet the committee says it hopes to have enough evidence to convict Bonds by fall. Think that's fair???
Yes. Palmeiro tested positive for steroids AFTER having testified before Congress and denying having ever taken steroids. The problem is that to prove perjury you have to be able to prove that he was taking steroids BEFORE he testified. They can do that with Bonds. They can't do that with Palmeiro.
That test could have been before he ever went and testified, you don't know that it was after. That's the difference between Bonds and Palmerio, POSITIVE.
Wrong. His positive drug test was in May - 2 months after he testified to Congress.
Here's a clip from a story about it:
"And let's have a moratorium on the legally accurate but logically absurd argument that Palmeiro's positive drug test from May doesn't "prove" that he had ever used steroids before May. Does anyone actually believe that two months after truthfully testifying to Congress that he never used steroids and never would, Palmeiro suddenly became a steroid devotee for the first time? The logical principle of "Occam's Razor" applies: the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one. Palmeiro is a steroid user who decided that a brazen lie to Congress was the way to go. The straight-shooter Palmeiro pretended to be in front of Congress would never use steroid, period. The lying fraud we now know he is would have been using them all along."
Ok, so he just started taking them AFTER he testified. Whatever, he was taking them WAY before. If the media and some authors can make Bonds look like a liar and he never has tested positive, then Palmerio is just as guilty of perjury as Bonds is according to the committee. You can't prosecute someone who has never tested positive and leave the other guys who testified alone.
You answered your own question. He hadn't tested positive at that point in time, so he could legally say that. Doesn't matter though. Palmeiro is banned and gone.You know something, Palmerio tested positive for steriods after blatenly lying to Congress and yet he didn't get charged with perjury. Yet the committee says it hopes to have enough evidence to convict Bonds by fall. Think that's fair???
It was only suspicion... Yeah, IMO probably had pot in there. But nothing was proven.I'm sure that getting caught with a bong with the chronic in the bottom helps Vick's case of poster boy for the NFL right??
Probably not... At this point, it's possible that Atlanta just sells everything they can, wins 2 games, sets up to get Brian Brohm in the draft. And get Petrino whatever else he wants.lol:
lol:
lol: and 50 INTs..
WOW, i bet Arthur Blank is smacking himself for trading Matt Schaub. Oops.
He wouldn't be breathing today....Anyone notice how the feds are going to file a superceding indictment in August? This can mean one of two things, or a combination of both: 1) More charges will be filled against them 2) One of the other defendants has turned states evidence (in this case federal evidence I guess.) I wont bother to mention the third option, which is the charges would be dropped our reduced, because if that were the case they would have done it today. Vick is really in a world of trouble, folks. Serves him right for his atrocities to poor dogs. Imagine if Vick got a hold of Smokey!hmy::no:
He wouldn't be breathing today....
the players looked up.
A small plane kept circling over the practice field Thursday, pulling that annoying banner: "New team name? Dog Killers?"
"I was wondering when it was going to run out of gas," tight end Alge Crumpler said scornfully.
No you don't.