The justice (criminal) system is based on the fact that people tell the truth when "under oath". If that assumption is violated, the system becomes a lot closer to worthless. It's not worth the time and effort to deter baseball players from cheating, but it IS worth the time and effort (in my opinion) to continue to ensure that those who lie under oath and violate one of the premises of the justice system are dealt with harshly by that very system.

Oh, so now it's the "What took you so long?" dodge. As opposed to the "It's a rush to judgment" ploy that Bonds's armchair defense team would be employing if he were indicted too quickly. This is all so laughable. The feds don't care about Giants fans. Or homerun records. But they do get steamed when they catch someone lying in a federal proceeding.

The indictment has nothing to do with cheating it has to do with cheating.

I think the only deterent from cheating is a better test for PEDs and the athletes actually taking a larger role with this situation. It is one thing to say they want it out of the game, it is another thing to maintain the code of locker room silence.

It is a tough situation to solve

oops - it meant do with LYING. My bad

No, it will not deter cheating. This dolt was immunized. Giambi, no great intellect, knew better than to lie under those conditions. A conviction will bring real and deserved jail time. His defense will consist of Clintonian parsing, the meaning of the word "is", and the pursuit of an OJ jury. He may prevail, but it is an up hill battle.
The best deterrent to cheating would be the union and members declaring it against the code, treating violators according. Testing ain't gonna cut it. Potential damage, the Tour De France is a punchline, cycling an afterthought. Track and Field, and the Summer Games have been reeling since Ben Johnson. For some reason the NFL seems to get a pass. MLB cannot count on the same.

I don't know that this indictment will necessarily serve as a deterrent. Taking steroids and lying about it to a grand jury are two totally different things. I think once the Mitchell report is out (if it ever comes out) and the Bonds trial plays out, the "legal" investigations into steroids will probably die down if not end and the threat of similar indictments will go with them.

It will be up to the MLB to ensure it doesn't rear its head again and the only way to do that is with rigorous testing and severe penalties for offenders. If baseball really wants to do it right, they need to adopt the Olympics standard for testing and employ a third party to police it. That would be a real deterrent.

With the kind of salaries that players make, there will always be the temptation to find new ways to cheat and lessen the risk of getting caught. MLB has got to make a commitment to stay ahead of that curve.

Mike, do you think Palmeiro should be pursued like this for lying before Congress?

Of course, Scott, Olympic testing hasn't run drugs out of the games, either.

Correction: I meant hasn't.

I think Bonds will get a plea bargain. He cops to some lesser charge, no jail time, and nothing that would clearly ban him from the Hall of Fame, and he gets out of baseball.

If Greg A. is flipping, that's a different story. Then they'll jail Bonds for perjury.

I can't decide whether it will be a deterrent. I tend to think not, since the indictment isn't for steroids but for perjury.

"... do you think Palmeiro should be pursued like this for lying before Congress?"

Yes.

I don't know for sure, but I think it's much different if someone lies before Congress instead of in front of a grand jury. I may be wrong on that, but the same laws may not apply.

The other thing is that Palmeiro failed his drug test after he testified in front of Congress. Unless evidence existed showing he definitely used steroids prior to March, 2005, I don't think he could be charged.

If anyone believes that his failed test was the first time he ever used steroids, I have a bridge I'd be glad to sell you.

This has no chance of deterring further PED usage. Everyone seems to perceive Bonds as some special exception, which is convenient for MLB and the Players Union since he deflects a lot of attention from the rest of the league. No one seems to care if you're using as long as you're not breaking home run records.

The baseball portion of the Bonds saga is over. The legal system is not concerned with the rationalizations of Giants fans.

Agree with other comments that note this is not about cheating, it's about perjury. The length of time indicates to me how serious they are about making sure they get this right. Those guys read the opinions that say they are singling Bonds, they know that they better have an airtight case before they go after him. Frankly it doesn't seem like an unusually long time to me for somebody of Bonds' profile.

"Of course, Scott, Olympic testing has run drugs out of the games, either."

I'm not sure I see the point supposedly being made. For instance, increased penalties for crimes involving firearms hasn't stop firearm-related crimes. So let's stop penalizing crimes involving firearms?

The quote should be hasn't (changed in the original). People call for more invasive testing and harsher penalties despite the fact that they don't seem to be driving drugs from the Olympics. The incentives and disincentives are wrong.

David,

Your point is well taken about this deterring drug use. I don't think it will do a thing on that score.

I merely suggest that lying to a grand jury is a bad idea. If the Feds think they have enough to prosecute perjury, they're going to do it and nobody should be surprised. As Mike said above, the entire system is based on telling the truth "under oath". Perjury is a serious crime.

Time and the facts will tell us if Bonds perjured himself.

Won't deter cheating, but the indictment isn't about cheating, it's about lying under oath.

Scooter Libbey got convicted & faced jail time for perjury/OJ, even though no one else was charged with a crime (and it was Richard Armitage who leaked Valerie Plame's name first). Martha Stewart went to the pokey for perjury/OJ even though she wasn't convicted of any other crime.

Now, if only Mike Nifong could get sent to jail. . .

This is so absurdly ridiculous I want to vomit. Lawyers lie in court all the time. Politicans lie all the time. Corporations lie about everything. Baseball lies about revenues, stadiums and god knows what else. No one cares. But a baseball player with a bad attitude may have lied and everyone is up in arms. What a bunch of ignorant clowns.

Gregory,

That particular argument is "Appeal to Common Practice" and it doesn't make lying to a grand jury right. :(

To elaborate, an appeal to common practice argument also doesn't work here because the situations aren't comparable. Baseball executives don't take a legally binding oath and swear to tell the truth before reporting their revenue figures. Bonds did.

To answer David's original question: no, I don't think this will deter PED use. As others have already explained, this isn't about Bonds' use of drugs. It's about his (alleged) decision to lie under oath.

Thus, this might deter other baseball players from lying to government bodies about their drug use, but as long as those players feel reasonably sure that they'll never have to give sworn testimony on the topic, I don't see how this will influence their behaviour at all.

- Brian

No, it does nothing to deter drug use.

The only thing it does is deter participation in a grand jury.
If ever called as a witness, I won't be able to recall anything that happened.

If called as a juror, I'd certainly have better things to do than go every day and have prosecutors wear me out until they can get their indictment. Whatever it takes to get out of it.

All this again? I am a "fed" and a four year Grand Jury is...well..likely without precedent, especially for a freaking perjury charge. I'm sorry--and I firmly believe that Bonds used PEDs and fully understand the loathing that his name brings about--but I find this case dubious.

Kent, they want you back on Perricone's forum. I'm a fed, too, and if you think this is "unprecedented," you haven't been paying attention.

Granted, strict testing has not eliminated PEDs from the Olympics, but I would like to believe (and do) that the Olympics catches a far higher percentage of cheaters than baseball has.

Hey TSM: (sighing)...Go ahead and keep up with the rantings and ravings about this ridiculous case; that's no skin off my back. But I suspect that you haven't really read anything that I've written (or maybe you haven't understood it). So now, because I see this absurd obfuscation in a different light than you, I have to leave and go "back to Perricone"? Is that how you deal with people with different opinions? Nice.

Well, I'll write you this and you can deal with it as you will: I'm in federal law enforcement and I'll tell you that a four year grand jury that culminates in a charge of perjury against a baseball player is dubious at best. It's also a tremendous waste of money and time. Attacking and dismantling Balco is one thing; attacking and dismantling one asshole baseball player thumbing his arrogance at you is something different.

What scares me about people like you and so many others is that you have a personal axe to grind with someone that you don't know. And then, when that person is brought to face charges against him you celebrate like you're at the Roman Coliseum. Is your life really so pathetic? All the real and serious problems around you, us, this country and you're celebrating millions of dollars spent on catching-that-son-of-a-bitch-for-lying-how-dare-he? Man, too bad. And you have the balls to think that I'm the unhinged one? (Once again, I don't think that you've read what I've written in the past...or understood it.)

Kent, you moron, I'm familiar with the crap you post over at Perricone's "think tank." Personal bias? That's rich. I think your fandom for the Giants is keeping you from being a real thinking "federal law enforcement agent." (Yeah, right.) What I don't understand is how someone as sharp as Pinto accords any respect to a deranged halfwit like Perricone. It makes me question his judgment. You? You're just another idiot.

"I'm in federal law enforcement ...."

(Snorting.) I hardly see how working as an MP on the Presidio back in the day qualifies you as an expert on grand jury proceedings.

If you weren't so far up Bonds's shorts, you'd recognize that folks are indicted and convicted all the time for giving false testimony in drug trials.

The Internet is a funny place. I dare to see this case in a different light and look at the attack dogs (from behind their computers no less) come out en masse. So, the Bonds narrative is now set and guys like you (TSM) have set it? I don't think so. What's more, I'll reiterate that I still don't think that you've read (or understood) what I've posted here (and elsewhere) in the past. I'm hardly a Bonds apologist and I've certainly noted that I believe (i.e. "know") that he used PEDs. What I am is someone skeptical of the proceedings surrounding him because of personal feelings, scapegoating, media laziness, Selig head-in-the-sand, etc, etc.

For what it's worth, I'm an FBI agent and I'm well-versed in federal prosecutions. I've worked with three different USAOs and I'll tell you (again!) that four years for a perjury charge is hardly a successful use of USAO manpower, federal investigators, or your federal tax dollars. After all, we're not talking about Al Capone, we're talking about a freaking baseball player. If that's too much for you to understand, I'd suggest question your own level of intelligence.

I know that I'm not a moron and am happy that I don't have a life where a professional athlete's fall makes me so happy. I don't take personal satisfaction in the rise or fall of professional athletes. Really, who are the crazies in this forum?

Baseball is a funny game if being a Giants Fan Boy can get a (putative) FBI agent to insist that federal prosecutors should look the other way when they have solid evidence that perjury was committed in a federal grand jury proceeding. Tell yourself what you want, Kent, but you are a moron.

P.S.
What office do you work out of? I have some crimes I might want to commit right in front of your nose. I'll wear a Giants jersey while doing it, so you'll give me a pass, won't you.

Again, you haven't read what I've written or, at least, you haven't understood it. I also don't believe that you (and many others) understand federal prosecutions nor FGJs. As to evidence? I can't speak to that and you can't either. Neither of us is privy (Rule 6e) to the evidence.

This has become silly and exchanging jabs back and forth over a computer is equally silly. This is a written forum and you want to mock me and not pay attention to what I've written. That's fine, maybe it makes you feel big and tough to go along with "everyone else." We don't know one another and we never will. But, this topic is closed for me right now.

It's certainly easy to perhaps feign indignation over a computer. I don't care for personal attention and I only check this site from time-to-time now that the season over. I also don't come here and push for you (and others) to leave and not come back because my opinions differ from whatever the purported mainstream thinks.

But, if you'd like to have me prove that I'm an FBI agent, that's something that I can do. I don't quite understand why you then have to act so tough, imply that I don't do (or do well) the many aspects of my job. Let me think about it. There's got to be a way for you to get in touch with me. We can talk and you can insult me more. I'll consider that. I've been in much worse situations than daring to question the conventional wisdom regarding the perjury case vs. Barry Bonds.

And the jersey that I have is a New York Mets road jersey...

Kent, stop feeding the troll.

Kent, if you are indeed an FBI agent, you are an unbelievably lousy one. I hope you don't play as dumb on your job as you do in defending Bonds.

"Unpopular opinions" re Bonds? This and Perricone's fanzine are Amen Corners Nos. 1 and 2 for Barry.

Bill Clinton lied to the grand jury, and was not indicted.

Scotter Libby and Martha Stewart were convicted of perjury after there it was found that there was no underlying crime.

Four years of investigation and the best they can come up with is perjury/obstruction of justice? When that is the only charge, I do suspect politics in who gets indicted or not (meaning who's popular and liked and who's not).

Police: "$1000 is missing from your office. Where were you last night?"

Witness: "I was stuck in traffic"

Police, next day: "The secretary found the money, no crime here. But...we learned you were in the closet making out with one of your coworkers"

Witness: "Please don't tell my wife"

Police: "No, we are recommending you be charged with perjury and obstruction of justice"