The Barry Bonds Saga: New Inadmissable Evidence
The first games of Spring Training are just days away. This should excite even the least enthusiastic fan. Here, at the Outsiders Look, I am simply beside myself with joy!
Oh, and the biggest sports trial in recent memory isn't too far off either.
Baseball is about to grab center stage, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The following is courtesy of David Pinto's Baseball Musings. It is an interesting article at CBS Sports, which states that much of what seemed to be key evidence against Mr. Bonds has been ruled inadmissible for the upcoming trial.
According to the article"
"The decision is a setback for the government in its five-year pursuit of Bonds, who has pleaded not guilty to lying to a grand jury on Dec. 4, 2003, when he denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs.
"U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said the test results—urine samples that are positive for steroids—are inadmissible because prosecutors can't prove conclusively that they belong to Bonds. The judge also barred prosecutors from showing jurors so-called doping calendars that Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, allegedly maintained for the slugger.
"The judge said for prosecutors to introduce such evidence, they need direct testimony from Anderson. Illston said Feb. 5 she was leaning toward that ruling."
Not being familiar with the ins and outs of the court system, I decided to contact the author(s) of Sports Law Blog for further information. Once I receive a reply, I will be certain to discuss this issue further.
At this point, however, it is looking as if Mr. Bonds is going to be set free from these charges. If that is the case, the union's collusion case against MLB will gain that much more steam.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?