JAIL TIME!

Here's where I'm coming from, just to set the record straight. I like Barry Bonds. I have been a Bonds apologist since 1993. I didn't like Bonds before that. I thought he was brash and cocky and a Pirate. But when he became a Giant and I watched him regularly back up his brashness and cockiness with thrilling baseball and homeruns, well, the guy just sort of rubbed off on me the way that Orel Hershiser as a Giant or Jeff Kent as a Giant never did. Its hard not to respect a ball player that comes to the plate in the bottom of the ninth inning when the game's on the line and you just KNOW he's going to hit a homerun to win the game... and he does. I've never thought that about any other player who ever played the game. When the news media kept trying to rip him apart for being standoffish, I ignored them. The reporters don't play the game, so really, what should I care what they think about whether Bonds is rude or surly. That's their problem, not mine. When the news media tried to make him into a clubhouse pariah, well, again, I didn't care. The Giants kept winning with him. If other players have a problem with that, that's their problem - so long as they keep winning. But when the Steroids scandal hit and hit so closely to Bonds, I admit my faith was a little shaken. However, I've now been waiting for years for the smoking gun, and I've still not seen it, heard it, read it, or discovered it. I've heard a lot of former players bag on Bonds and I've heard a lot of reporters bag on Bonds, but I've never seen anyone actually provide direct evidence that Bonds cheated. This may qualify me as the ultimate Bonds apologist, however, I still consider the spirit of law to be much more important than the spirit of trail by media. I believe in INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. If you've ever been accussed of something that you didn't do, you know how frustrating it is to have nobody believe you until you can clear your name. That's where I'm coming from, just so you know.

With this bias clearly stated, let me explain why I think the two Chronicle reporters should either reveal their source of the secret Grand Jury testimony or go to jail for contempt. Their argument is that they need to shield their source to protect the public's right to know the important news of the day. The government's counter argument is that someone willfully and knowingly broke the law to leak secret testimony to these reporters and that while they don't like this information being out there, the fact is that they're not after the reporters but the person who broke the law.

We live in a nation that is held together by a Constitution and laws. Grand Juries exist to allow prosecutors the chance to present evidence that a law was, in fact, broken and that enough evidence exists to take a person to trial. The Grand Jury, in this case, was convened to hear whether there was enough evidence to try four members of the BALCO Steroids scandal. Bonds was called as a witness to present testimony as to what he knew about the scandal. The proceedings were supposed to be secret. Anyone breaking those rules would be subject to not only fines and prison time, but might also jeopardize the proceedings of the case against those accused. In a Grand Jury evidence is only presented in one direction - there is no rebuttal, cross-examination, or the opportunity for witnesses to defend themselves. They are placed on the stand and asked questions which they must answer without being given the opportunity to clarify all of their remarks. It is not a trial - merely an attempt to see if evidence exists to move forward with a trial. The reason many Grand Juries have secrecy clauses is not to keep the public uninformed of what is going on in these proceedings, but to not taint any possible testimony and evidence before a real trial can begin.

The problem I have with the two Chronicle reporters receiving this leaked information is that they then turned around and presented this to the public as fact. And since Bonds was still tied up in a Secrecy agreement about his testimony to the Grand Jury and wasn't about to come forward and try and explain his testimony before a trial could begin, these two reporters were basically given license to trash Bonds and his image in the media free and clear - without any rebuttal or counterevidence presented. Bonds was tried, convicted and sentenced by the public without a single opportunity to set the record straight.

Now, I'm not saying that he could set the record straight. Maybe he could, maybe he couldn't - maybe he's guilty as hell. I don't know. And neither do you. And neither are these reporters. Anyone who claims to know for sure what Bonds did or didn't do with steroids is a liar, or clairvoyant. Why? Because Bonds has never had his day in court. Never. And, according to the spirit of the Law that makes this country great, Bonds is still innocent until proven otherwise.

I think these two Chronicle reporters need to do something to restore the balance to the system. I think they need to reveal who leaked the Grand Jury testimony so that we can determine why this highly biased information was printed. I think they need to acknowledge that while some secret information is important for the world to know, whether a guy used steroids or not is NOT one of those things - even if it helps the writers get a book published and sells more newspapers. And quite frankly, I think if they refuse to reveal their source, they should go to jail for just as long as Bonds' former trainer - who refuses to testify further against Bonds in a "Secret" Grand Jury because he knows that this information will just be used to drag his former friends name through the mud even more. To do anything else would be the equivalent of saying we have two justice systems - one for those who we don't like, and one for those who we do. And that's not a system I want to believe in.

And that's all I have to say about the ugly side of baseball...

Let's enjoy the last two weeks of the season!