PDA

View Full Version : Wow, they really know how to hire them at ESPN


FedEx227
11-26-2007, 01:57 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/071119&sportCat=mlb

This is the most far-off, stupid article I've read in years.

Somebody better tell Jemele "I Make Skip Bayless Look Smart" Hill that Bonds isn't going to jail because he took steroids... he's going to jail BECAUSE HE LIED TO A GRAND JURY.

Why can't people grasp that concept?

It doesn't matter if he's on trial for a robbery, murder, tax evasion, terrorist plot, money laundering, etc.

Ugh, these ESPN apologist drive me nuts. How she has a job is beyond me? This is lazy, lazy journalist and as I striving journalist it makes me feel great that hopefully it won't be too hard to get past the likes of Jamele Hill for a job.

Domeshot17
11-26-2007, 02:31 PM
I have to choose my words carefully here.

I don't hate Bonds because he is black. I don't hate him even because he took steroids. I hate him because he has no remorse at all. Mcgwire, I have zero respect for, which hurt. Being a first baseman and pitcher in high school and college, I couldn't help but love Mark. And after those hearings, his jersey went on ebay, his poster came down, because I could no longer celebrate him. But on top of it all, you could see the shame in his face. Maybe it was only because he got caught, but he knew he had messed up.

When Matt Lawton tested positive for Horse Steroids, he came out, and said I was hurting, and I needed something to get me back up, I was scared of losing my job, HE WAS HONEST.

Sosa you can laugh at, nothing had to be said. The way he crashed, his career and the way it ended was sorry enough.

Mota or Dotel I forget off hand which pitcher tested positive ,and didn't lie, admitted they had arm problems and took it to play through.

Look, we aren't stupid as fans. We know a lot of these guys do it to hold on to their careers. Probably why the majority of them do it.

Bonds did it to be above the game. He couldn't handle being an all star, an icon. He had to be THEE ALL STAR, He had to be THEE ICON. He couldn't be one of the best ever he had to be THEE BEST EVER. Its all ego. Then he has to balls to try and play us like fools, to say he didn't know he used them. To say his records aren't tainted. In his world, he is the king, and we are all his people who just lap up what he says and it must be true. There is no sorrow from Bonds. There is no regret. There is no worry that he is destroying the greatest game ever played. There is no respect. And now, when everything has snow-balled on Barry, and his lies have caught up to him, his constant breaking laws, having his personal trainer rot in jail so he could break records he never would have without steroids and or hgh, he treated the US Government and the courts just like he treated the fans, like they were nothing to fear, nothing he wasn't above, nothing that could lay a finger on him.

Well they don't play that way, and Barry is learning he is not above the law. Im sorry you hack of a sports writer, I have no sympathy for Bonds. You can keep that race card in your back pocket where it belongs. The fact you threaten to use it makes it no longer valid.

FedEx227
11-26-2007, 02:33 PM
The worst part is she doesn't seem to grasp what perjury is. Great journalism if you ask me.

rowand33
11-26-2007, 02:43 PM
I have to choose my words carefully here.

I don't hate Bonds because he is black. I don't hate him even because he took steroids. I hate him because he has no remorse at all. Mcgwire, I have zero respect for, which hurt. Being a first baseman and pitcher in high school and college, I couldn't help but love Mark. And after those hearings, his jersey went on ebay, his poster came down, because I could no longer celebrate him. But on top of it all, you could see the shame in his face. Maybe it was only because he got caught, but he knew he had messed up.

When Matt Lawton tested positive for Horse Steroids, he came out, and said I was hurting, and I needed something to get me back up, I was scared of losing my job, HE WAS HONEST.

Sosa you can laugh at, nothing had to be said. The way he crashed, his career and the way it ended was sorry enough.

Mota or Dotel I forget off hand which pitcher tested positive ,and didn't lie, admitted they had arm problems and took it to play through.

Look, we aren't stupid as fans. We know a lot of these guys do it to hold on to their careers. Probably why the majority of them do it.

Bonds did it to be above the game. He couldn't handle being an all star, an icon. He had to be THEE ALL STAR, He had to be THEE ICON. He couldn't be one of the best ever he had to be THEE BEST EVER. Its all ego. Then he has to balls to try and play us like fools, to say he didn't know he used them. To say his records aren't tainted. In his world, he is the king, and we are all his people who just lap up what he says and it must be true. There is no sorrow from Bonds. There is no regret. There is no worry that he is destroying the greatest game ever played. There is no respect. And now, when everything has snow-balled on Barry, and his lies have caught up to him, his constant breaking laws, having his personal trainer rot in jail so he could break records he never would have without steroids and or hgh, he treated the US Government and the courts just like he treated the fans, like they were nothing to fear, nothing he wasn't above, nothing that could lay a finger on him.

Well they don't play that way, and Barry is learning he is not above the law. Im sorry you hack of a sports writer, I have no sympathy for Bonds. You can keep that race card in your back pocket where it belongs. The fact you threaten to use it makes it no longer valid.

Quoting this solely because I wanted to acknowledge what a great post this was.

well said

SOXPHILE
11-26-2007, 04:44 PM
Oh my dear God, is that woman ever stupid......

DumpJerry
11-26-2007, 05:04 PM
I could not read it all, too stupid. This summed it up for me:
The decision to indict Bonds on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, a charge I still don't understand, considering the government didn't need Bonds to topple BALCO -- isn't right, fair or just.
What she seems to miss is that the charge is that Barroid made the choice to lie. This is not the case of arresting the crackhead and not the crack dealer (her example).

mjmcend
11-26-2007, 05:14 PM
Oh my dear God, is that woman ever stupid......

Don't forget lazy. She tries to tie the Bonds indictment to much larger national issues and figures. If only the San Fransisco area DAs hadn't gone after Bonds then the whole health care issue would be resolved and violence at home and abroad would be a thing of the past.

FedEx227
11-26-2007, 09:57 PM
I could not read it all, too stupid. This summed it up for me:

What she seems to miss is that the charge is that Barroid made the choice to lie. This is not the case of arresting the crackhead and not the crack dealer (her example).

Exactly why I posted this. I know people think Bonds is a rotten person and he is.

But that's not what this case is about. He committed a felony, plain and simple. He lied to a grand jury. I don't care who you are, if you lie to a grand jury they are going to get you.

WizardsofOzzie
11-26-2007, 10:20 PM
Yet another idiot who has to reduce every single thing on the planet to race. :rolleyes:

doublem23
11-26-2007, 10:50 PM
Your best off not reading about 99% of what is published on "Page 2." Jemele Hill has a special knack for finding the most boneheaded opinion out there and trying to defend it, but really, they all suck. I like Gregg Easterbrook's weekly column, Tuesday Morning Quarterback, Uni-Watch, and I can tolerate Bill Simmons every now and then (he's a good writer, who can be funny, but his opinions are sometimes completely inane).

IceczMan
11-26-2007, 11:10 PM
Bill Simmons usually provides something in his article to make you laugh because its humorous, I started laughing at first at this lady's article, and than realized that its not funny that there are actually people out there who will agree with it. That article is a sad joke.

ilsox7
11-26-2007, 11:15 PM
Bill Simmons usually provides something in his article to make you laugh because its humorous,

Bill used to crank out a few GREAT columns a month. But the last few years, it's more like a few good columns every few months. And his wife's rants are much better than Bill's writing.

chaerulez
11-27-2007, 12:19 AM
Simmons was good before every other column was about the Red Sox or at least something about Boston.

As for Hill, when she is paired on First Take with Skip Bayless, it's really brutal. Bonds basically got charged because he provoked the government. He basically laughed at the feds daring them to come at him. And they did.

Could it be argued there are better things to spend money on for this country and to better society as a whole than $6 million to take down a baseball player that took illegal drugs? Of course. However we could cherry pick situations like this all day. Our time could be better spent than watching a game all day. Or who cares if the government spends $6 million to nail Bonds when he makes $15 million a year playing said game. These so called ethical debate topics are silly, because I can ask myself all these hypothecials as well asking if we should be really doing this and that but in the end of the day it doesn't change anything.

mjmcend
11-27-2007, 12:42 AM
Simmons was good before every other column was about the Red Sox or at least something about Boston.

As for Hill, when she is paired on First Take with Skip Bayless, it's really brutal. Bonds basically got charged because he provoked the government. He basically laughed at the feds daring them to come at him. And they did.

Could it be argued there are better things to spend money on for this country and to better society as a whole than $6 million to take down a baseball player that took illegal drugs? Of course. However we could cherry pick situations like this all day. Our time could be better spent than watching a game all day. Or who cares if the government spends $6 million to nail Bonds when he makes $15 million a year playing said game. These so called ethical debate topics are silly, because I can ask myself all these hypothecials as well asking if we should be really doing this and that but in the end of the day it doesn't change anything.

I would argue that $6 million isn't that much for perjury. That's about the most serious non-violent crime one could commit. Out entire judicial system is based on people telling the truth under oath. And as an incentive not to lie is that if you get caught, you are punished severely.

IlliniSox4Life
11-27-2007, 03:39 AM
I could not read it all, too stupid. This summed it up for me:

What she seems to miss is that the charge is that Barroid made the choice to lie. This is not the case of arresting the crackhead and not the crack dealer (her example).

Yeah. She is just an idiot. It's like the only way going after Bonds would make sense to her would be just to get to BALCO. I think that's what she meant by not understanding it. She doesn't realize that the charge has absolutely nothing to do with steroids other than that is what they initially wanted to talk to him about.

I would argue that $6 million isn't that much for perjury. That's about the most serious non-violent crime one could commit. Out entire judicial system is based on people telling the truth under oath. And as an incentive not to lie is that if you get caught, you are punished severely.
Yes. This is why they are going after them. Barry Bonds arrogant treatment of the judicial system as if he was larger than it. It's like the saying "all a man has is his word/reputation". Well, the only thing keeping the integrity of our judicial system together is the knowledge that if you lie under oath, especially to a grand jury, you are going to get ****ed. If the government lets a guy like Barry off especially with the way he has acted, it cheapens the whole system, and makes it harder for them to get the information they need from others in the future.

Railsplitter
11-27-2007, 06:32 AM
I've said before, and I'll say it again: ESPN = Employs Stupid People Netowrk

fquaye149
11-27-2007, 08:53 AM
read this, if you don't mind some profanity. by a friend of mine:

http://firejaymariotti.blogspot.com/2007/11/jemele-hill-probably-wants-to-make-you.html

D. TODD
11-27-2007, 09:44 AM
The indictment is well within the feds rights. Perjury is a difficult one to prove though, so we will see what they can dig out of people to prove the perjury charge.

The Immigrant
11-27-2007, 09:45 AM
She doesn't realize that the charge has absolutely nothing to do with steroids other than that is what they initially wanted to talk to him about.

The government even granted him immunity from all charges except perjury in exchange for his cooperation in the case against Conte, and the idiot couldn't keep himself from committing the only crime for which the government could pursue him on the basis of his testimony.

mjmcend
11-27-2007, 10:12 AM
The indictment is well within the feds rights. Perjury is a difficult one to prove though, so we will see what they can dig out of people to prove the perjury charge.

The Fed has about a 95% conviction rate. They don't indict you unless they know they can win. Bonds is screwed and I couldn't be happier.

D. TODD
11-27-2007, 11:24 AM
The Fed has about a 95% conviction rate. They don't indict you unless they know they can win. Bonds is screwed and I couldn't be happier. This is true, but not with perjury charges. Perjury is difficult to get convictions on. They are pissed that Anderson didn't roll, and now they are settling for a charge that they are not close to 95% successful with. The Fed's are no joke that's for sure, but perjury is a tough sell, and the indictment alone was punishment to Bonds in the public eye, so they would be more willing to indict without as certain a case as their 95% rate usually is.

drewcifer
11-27-2007, 11:27 AM
This is true, but not with perjury charges. Perjury is difficult to get convictions on. They are pissed that Anderson didn't roll, and now they are settling for a charge that they are not close to 95% successful with. The Fed's are no joke that's for sure, but perjury is a tough sell, and the indictment alone was punishment to Bonds in the public eye, so they would be more willing to indict without as certain a case as their 95% rate usually is.

Don't be so sure. They had Anderson on ice for a year. They've got something on Bonds, I believe, and he has been lying (about everything) the whole way through. He continues to say and do stupid things; like all fans are just mindless sheep. Lots of people are pissed off.

Trust the odds.

D. TODD
11-27-2007, 11:41 AM
Don't be so sure. They had Anderson on ice for a year. They've got something on Bonds, I believe, and he has been lying (about everything) the whole way through. He continues to say and do stupid things; like all fans are just mindless sheep. Lots of people are pissed off.

Trust the odds. Maybe, but Anderson really has a ***** with the Feds for this indictment on Bonds. They released him without needing his testimony to indict which was the whole reason why they were able to keep him in lockup for so long, the claim that his testimony was essential to indict. If it is his mistress and other third party people saying what he "said" to them it's a tough sell. Perjury always is, and the Feds conviction rate for it is far below their normal 95% norm in all cases.

drewcifer
11-27-2007, 11:46 AM
Maybe, but Anderson really has a ***** with the Feds for this indictment on Bonds. They released him without needing his testimony to indict which was the whole reason why they were able to keep him in lockup for so long, the claim that his testimony was essential to indict. If it is his mistress and other third party people saying what he "said" to them it's a tough sell. Perjury always is, and the Feds conviction rate for it is far below their normal 95% norm in all cases.

It's going to be awesome to see, that's for sure! Part of me can't help but wish Anderson went *****, wanted out, and chirped behind his lawyers back (Garagos, or whatever his name is). It happens more than you might think.

mjmcend
11-27-2007, 12:23 PM
Maybe, but Anderson really has a ***** with the Feds for this indictment on Bonds. They released him without needing his testimony to indict which was the whole reason why they were able to keep him in lockup for so long, the claim that his testimony was essential to indict. If it is his mistress and other third party people saying what he "said" to them it's a tough sell. Perjury always is, and the Feds conviction rate for it is far below their normal 95% norm in all cases.

They also claim to have a positive steroid test from before the grand jury trial. That seems like solid physical evidence for the Feds.

D. TODD
11-27-2007, 12:34 PM
They also claim to have a positive steroid test from before the grand jury trial. That seems like solid physical evidence for the Feds. That alone does not address the perjury charge, Bonds said he took the steroid, but not knowingly. The old flax seed oil excuse. They need to prove he knowingly took 'roids, and lied about it under oath. Very possible, but often a very murky area without direct evidence to the lie.

FarWestChicago
11-27-2007, 12:37 PM
That alone does not address the perjury charge, Bonds said he took the steroid, but not knowingly. The old flax seed oil excuse. They need to prove he knowingly took 'roids, and lied about it under oath. Very possible, but often a very murky area without direct evidence to the lie.There is obviously only one way to settle this. You need to start taking bets. You take Bonds and everybody else takes the Feds. It could be a high risk, high return proposition. :D:

FedEx227
11-27-2007, 12:41 PM
There is obviously only one way to settle this. You need to start taking bets. You take Bonds and everybody else takes the Feds. It could be a high risk, high return proposition. :D:

Haha, indeed. I'll take the feds.

My radio show's co-host looked up a fact that there is an almost 93-95% conviction rate for indictments.

They don't just throw them around without evidence.

Edit: Crap, saw someone else already posted it. Aaaah well... give me $20 on the feds.

mjmcend
11-27-2007, 12:47 PM
That alone does not address the perjury charge, Bonds said he took the steroid, but not knowingly. The old flax seed oil excuse. They need to prove he knowingly took 'roids, and lied about it under oath. Very possible, but often a very murky area without direct evidence to the lie.

You are right, but my feeling is that the Feds wouldn't have indicted in such a high profile case if they weren't certain they would win. I doubt they want the massive amount of egg on their face if they let a guy who has already been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of public opinion beat them. I believe the Feds waited until they had a slam dunk case to indict. Also I expect a plea deal from Bonds in the coming months.

spiffie
11-27-2007, 12:47 PM
There is obviously only one way to settle this. You need to start taking bets. You take Bonds and everybody else takes the Feds. It could be a high risk, high return proposition. :D:
Depending on the odds Bonds might be a decent bet. I have no doubt in my mind that he is guilty as hell, and wouldn't be sad if every trace of his career was removed. But it would not shock me to see the bastard somehow skate on this.

According to the Sacramento Bee, the conviction rate on perjury is 86%, and obstruction is 79%. Not great odds for Bonds, but it definitely seems like the Feds have more trouble getting those to stick than most charges. Especially because they have to prove Bonds lying has to materially affect the outcome of the investigation. His lawyers may be able to make a case that BALCO folks are all getting indicted and convicted without Bonds giving honest answers, making it a harmless fabrication to the court. I'd guess the Feds get him on something, but you put the odds up at 8 to 1 or so, and its a decent, albeit soulless, bet.

http://www.sacbee.com/114/story/504378.html

D. TODD
11-27-2007, 12:55 PM
There is obviously only one way to settle this. You need to start taking bets. You take Bonds and everybody else takes the Feds. It could be a high risk, high return proposition. :D: Maybe if I get the 95% rate, at 20 to 1 it would be worth a shot. I really don't care one way or the other about the outcome so maybe that would give me the "action" I need to make it worthwhile for me.:tongue:

FarWestChicago
11-27-2007, 01:01 PM
Maybe if I get the 95% rate, at 20 to 1 it would be worth a shot. I really don't care one way or the other about the outcome so maybe that would give me the "action" I need to make it worthwhile for me.:tongue:Now you're talking. I'm staying out of it, though. I'm not much of a gambler. :smile:

fquaye149
11-27-2007, 01:30 PM
Now you're talking. I'm staying out of it, though. I'm not much of a gambler. :smile:

If Bonds gets off, you'd lose doubly...not the kind of bet one should make

getonbckthr
11-27-2007, 01:59 PM
Hey what do you know she has another column about race:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/071127
Is she attempting to be the Jesse Jackson of ESPN?

fquaye149
11-27-2007, 02:04 PM
Hey what do you know she has another column about race:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/071127
Is she attempting to be the Jesse Jackson of ESPN?

She's awful...at least Whitlock and Smith are capable of writing intelligently about incredibly stupid race-baiting topics.

She's a brutal writer, underinformed, and makes the most pathetic pop-culture references known to humanity

DumpJerry
11-27-2007, 02:56 PM
Hey what do you know she has another column about race:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/071127
Is she attempting to be the Jesse Jackson of ESPN?
She misses a lot of points about homicide in the black community (like who is being killed and who is doing the killing) which would make her piece less relevant.

I'm surprised she did not mention Lyman Bostock.