Barry Bonds Steroid Trial

Case Brief

Barry Bonds originally appeared in court in 2003, testifying whether he and other MLB players had used performance-enhancing drugs during their career. During this initial trial, he allegedly lied to the jury about his use and, in 2011, was convicted on one charge of obstructing justice, while three counts of perjury were dropped. Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, was the man known to inject him with steroids.


Barry Bonds: Home Run King

Barry Bonds, shown here in 1989, was noticeably thinner in his early years.

Barry Bonds, son of famed professional baseball player Bobby Bonds, began his career in 1986 with the Pittsburgh Pirates as a thin, yet powerful, leadoff hitter-- his reputation as a home-run hitter was still a few years away. As his professional career continued, Bonds' power became apparent, as he racked up 33 home runs and earned his first MVP award in 1990, while many Silver Slugger awards quickly stacked up. Barry Bonds was proving himself to be a threatening batter that pitchers feared.

Seen here in 2004, Bonds showed no resemblance to the player he was a decade earlier.

Along with his statistics, Bonds' body mass grew considerably. According to www.reuters.com, Bonds grew from an average 185 lbs in 1991 to 228 lbs in 2001, the year he recorded a record-breaking 73 home runs, unprecedented by any standards. "Fans and critics say the weight gain alone is evidence that Bonds must have used illegal steroids to build muscle, strength and endurance" (Reuters). Suspicion surely arose about Bonds' steroid use, but no evidence was ever come by early enough to charge him during his career, as steroids are highly illegal in the MLB. Still, he maintained his reputation as a slugger, eventually adding up to a total 732 home runs when his career ended in 2007.

BALCO Scandal: Beginning of the end
Greg Anderson, Bonds' personal trainer since 2000 and part of BALCO (Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative), became entangled in a mess of legal issues when he was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in California of supplying anabolic steroids to many MLB players. Speculations immediately arose of Bonds' connection to this scandal, as Anderson had been  Bonds' trainer while Anderson had supplied steroids to other players. Denying these claims, Bonds said that his massive body shape was due to bodybuilding exercises, diet, and other legitimate sources. On December 4, 2003, Bonds testified to a jury that he did not use anabolic steroids, rather flaxseed oil as a supplement and a clear rubbing cream for arthritis. It was during this testimony that Bonds allegedly lied about not using steroids,  and from which the counts of perjury and obstruction of justice were derived. 


Sentencing
Just a few months before Barry Bonds gave his notorious BALCO trial testimony, prosecutors say that Bonds had tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs. As a result of this evidence and the conclusion of the trial, Bonds was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice on April 13, 2011. Bonds has yet to be sentenced for the crime, but prosecutors are aiming for 10-15 months in jail; however, due to the similar steroid cases of athletes like Tammy Thomas, a bicycle racer, who was sentenced only to house arrest, it seems likely that Bonds will get the same punishment. 

Bonds leaves a San Francisco court after trial on April 8, 2011.

Contracts in Baseball
In a sport recently plagued by anabolic steroid use, baseball is certainly in danger. It seems that every all-star has been caught using steroids, and the future is shaky. With levels of competition rising every day and outrageous contracts of $25 million and higher, steroids may have the illusion of being a feasible alternative to raw skill. However, the rules of Major League Baseball regarding steroid use, known as the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program, clearly state that steroids are absolutely out of the question. When signing a baseball contract, players agree to the terms of MLB rules, and any infraction of the rules is a blatant breach of contract. 


What affect will this case have?
Since the scandal began almost 10 years ago, I have given Barry Bonds' case much thought, and I don't know what should be done about Bonds and other athletes throughout sports. Should his records be swiped away, undoing all of the years of his steroid use? Or do these numbers still count? From this argument arises a key question: Were Barry Bonds achievements a measure of skill, aided in small part by steroids, or simply an exploitation of artificial talent? To be fair to the players who rely on only talent, I believe that all records set under the influence of anabolic steroids should be eliminated, as if the players who set them had never existed. But what do you think? 

U.S. v. Burns Case

        US v. Burns was a remarkable case challenging the death penalty in Washington state. As we know relationships between countries are important, and keeping these bonds requires abiding to agreements between them. The Burns Murder in Washington state shows just this when two 18 year old men, Glen Burns and Atif Rafay were convicted of murdering Tariq, Sultana, and Basma Rafay. It has been found that they did this act for insurance money, and profit from the sale of their home by the US government. 

       The conviction came about after they confessed to undercover Canadian policemen. Even though after confessing they claimed that the story was made up, there was enough evidence to make the story believable and Canada extradited them back to Washington. Rafay stated that he had profound admiration for his father's brilliance, generosity, and learning. He also claimed that he was "closer to his mother than anyone", and broke down when saying this during the investigation. However police of both U.S and Canada's departments didn't believe his act because of the fact that their story matched with the evidence that was found at the crime scene.

         "I'm going to continue to struggle for truth in this case. . . I won't betray their hopes and expectations for me" - Rafay

        "The story (of the murders) freaks you out. If you look for the evidence you won't find it because we didn't do it and that's the truth." - Burns

         "These boys did not kill anyone," said Burns' sister, Tiffany Burns. "They were wrongfully accused, wrongfully jailed and wrongfully convicted."

         However the United States has a treaty with the Canadian justice department that assures that fugitives would not be subject to the death penalty. In order to keep a good relationship with Canada, the US has decided to abide by the treaty and extradite Rafay and Burns to the US for trial. The benefit of this would be that the United States had more evidence from the murder to give a harsher sentence than Canada.

       Rafay and Burns were both sentenced to three consecutive life sentences each. One each would be sufficient, but three definitely proves a point that no men should profit from their crimes. As well as life sentences, both men were required to pay remedies for Rafay's families burial costs, as well as Canada's and the United State's investigative and legal costs, which are in the millions and have been paid by United States taxpayers. Both men will have to do a lot of work while in prison to repay for the damage they caused to both countries as well as the Rafay family. However unlike Burns, he believed Rafay was "genuinely remorseful."

       With all the evidence present, Burns and Rafay's lies didn't convince anyone of their innocence. They deserve to be in jail for three lifetimes, considering Rafay had the audacity to murder his own family members.

Insider Trading

Insider Trading has been a problem in the U.S. for many years now. Many wealthy individuals use insiders trading, and take advantage of this system to increase their earnings substantially. It is a complex topic which needs to be thoroughly explained because of the ease of which it could accure without you even thinking about it.

Now what is insider trading? It is the use of non-public information to sell/buy securities. This is a problem because of the "tough" situations people can get into without even understanding/realizing that they have just done something illegal. If you somehow acquire inside information about a company, that is considered insider trading, many people that participate in stocks do not know that and get punished. But most cases out there, the individual knew that it is illegal and used the valuable information he had just acquired to profit or avoid a bad situation (loss of money). For example, if someone owns securities in a company and they get "tipped off," to the fact that the company is going out of business, that individual (using this information) will sell, sell, sell so he will not be lose money. This may be nice for the person who sold his share, but what about the one buying the securities? The buyer will be receiving them not knowing that they are about to loose a whole lot of money days after making the interaction, which is plain unfair and morally wrong.

Luckily we have many laws against insider trading, such as rule 10b5-1 which states that trades that are made based on non-public information is illegal and who ever uses it will be punished for their actions.

Illustration by Frits Ahlefeldt-Laurvig

Now there are some people who believe that inside trading should not be illegal for some reasons such as saying that it is a victimless crime, but I completely disagree. Insider trading does have victims, the people who purchase the stock from the individual with the inside knowledge about that trade. As I said before selling someone a stock that is bound to drop is just wrong, you are placing that individual in a sure situation where he is going to loose money, throwing him into a ditch he may not be able to climb out of. Lets put this in a different prospective, would you trade flights with someone, knowing that the plane you are sending him on is going to crash? Although a common argument would be the "its better him then me", which at some situations may apply but it is just something that should not be done.

Insider trading seems to be the one way to "cheat" the whole stock owning business. The rules holding people back from doing these kind of things legally have a huge affect on society because of the simple fact that it saves people from hurting their economic status. If insider trading would have been legal society would have fallen apart. The world I picture (without insider trading) is one where anyone with enough brains and contacts in the business industry could get rich very easily and quickly, or even place innocent people in situations they cannot get out of. Insider trading actually stirred controversy when people realized that it was (sort of) legal for members of congress to use insider trading. Experts believed that due to their knowledge about companies, having insider trading be legal for members of congress would be absurd, earning them money easily without the need to work for it. This is just another example of the moral wrongs of insider trading. The impact that these rules have on society is huge, protecting people from loosing their money and preventing those who break the law from achieving the desired benefit. They hold the stock business in place and make sure that no "undesired consequences" will rise out of the actions on those who decide to go against public belief and break the law, and having these laws there to protect the innocent have and will always have an impact on society today as we see it.

The Hidden Implications of Social Media

Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, all of these names should ring a bell. After all, it's websites like these that have burrowed their way into our daily lives and for some consume hours upon hours daily. While most recently the media has focused on the positive benefits of social networking giants like these, often the ugly truth behind these communication outlets gets ignored. Since the birth of social media, there has been numerous criminal cases ranging from identity theft to acts as dangerous as rape and murder. Yet despite the flurry of dangerous and sometimes deadly Internet-related crimes, most people still continue to use these websites with little to no moderation.

MySpace

As the one of the first incarnations of the social networking frenzy, MySpace was no stranger to crimes committed between users. Founded in 2003 MySpace ran into problems starting 2006 when seven girls ages 12-16 came out to the public after being sexually assaulted by men whom they met through MySpace. From that incident on, MySpace a crewed infamy as more and more crimes like those popped up in the news. All a sudden MySpace was known less for the intention it was created, a place for friends and sometimes strangers to connect, but instead a tool for evil people to harp on naive teenagers. Things got the worst when two girls were found dead after what seemed like communicating with strangers on MySpace. What made MySpace different than anything else seen before was that these kids were actually unknowingly advertising themselves to horrible people rather than the criminals preying on children like in chatrooms such in the past.

Facebook

Although MySpace arguably gave rise to the greatest social media titan of all, Facebook. Launched all the way back in 2004, since then it has claimed over 845 million users. While it has been praised for its ingenuity and has become an important part in many peoples' lives, that is to not say it has gone through its fair share of problems also. As well as a place to keep in touch with everyone you know it has also become a home for con-artists and bullies. From the always prevalent cyber-bullying to now as complex crimes as downloading malware and jacking important personal information on a click, Facebook crimes are reportedly on the rise. What's the reason why people are so vulnerable to Facebook criminals? People trust the person they can't physically seen online, just not if they saw them in person. Users are so willing to post seemingly unimportant information on Facebook, sometimes enough so that a stranger could even set up a credit card in your name.

So what does this all mean for the future of social media? It really means that while our addiction to "staying connected" grows so does our need for privacy. The most depressing part of these stories is that many could have been prevented if these people just exercised their common sense, yet for some reason it appears that we tend to separate our "real" life with the one on the internet. For many out there, the great world wide web is a whole other world where they can be completely different people. For some I guess that means they can leave out their basic human ideals, "don't talk to strangers" and "don't do something you wouldn't do want done to yourself."