Do you think that the fact that someone speculated on a test is a prima facia case that Bonds used steroids?

A. It is a recording that is only admissible if you can show line of custody was not tainted and it was not altered in anyway.


B. It probably comes under present exclamation, but is not enough proof that Bonds used Steroid.


C. Where is the proof of Bonds being punctured by a Yankee Trainer or a friend?Do you think that the fact that someone speculated on a test is a prima facia case that Bonds used steroids?
You only have to look at Bonds to know he took steroids... his record such as it is, if listed should definitely have an asterisk beside it.. along with any of these others if they have records standing





If it were up to me.. I would strip each and every one of them of their so called titles.. and give them to those who deserved it.





Hey, maybe these drug users could form their own league.. instead of MLB.. they could be MSU.. major steroid users.


Yeah,, that might be a plan. Selig can be commissioner, because if he was so dumb as not to do anything before.. he is perfect for the job.Do you think that the fact that someone speculated on a test is a prima facia case that Bonds used steroids?
The pile of circumstantial evidence linking Bonds to Steroids is overwhelming. Its not just the tape of Greg Anderson warning Bonds of the testing. Greg Anderson also had ';BB'; listed numerous times on a calender that was proven to be a schedule for a doping regiment. Bonds played it off saying ';it could be another BB.'; Greg Anderson also referred to Bonds as his ';best customer.'; There is more, much more. The man used Performance Enhancing Drugs and deserves the asterisk on his record breaking ball.





While Bonds may not have been caught red handed, there is an awfully convincing argument made with circumstantial evidence that he was using Performance Enhancers.
Your questions do not make sense at all and your attempt at using big words totally failed because nobody will understand what your point is.....





I'd say that the case against Barry Bonds is 50/50 because we only know that either he lied or the evidence for the prosecution is not strong enough to convict him of perjury.





There is proof that he did take in substances, but the question is; were they really steroids or HGH he ingested or rubbed on his skin, or were they vitamin supplements because he said ';they did not work'; and that he never tested positive for those drugs?





There is no proof of Barry being ';punctured'; because he did not administer those substances in that way through his veins. They were administered orally and transdermally.