The truth about Giambi

[Yankees SUCK]

OK, this past spring I did a lot of research on the whole BALCO/ steroid situation. Here is the information I found, which I found to be more than enough evidence that Jason Giambi has been up to some shady business.

"These athletes, which Conte volunteered the names of, last September, include 5X Olympic medalist Marion Jones, 100-meter world record holder Tim Montgomery, 7 NFL players including 4 members of the Oakland Raiders, and of course baseball superstars Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield, and Barry Bonds. Allegedly many of these pro-athletes were given illegal steroids from Conte in exchange for their endorsement of his legal substance ZMA."

Barry Bonds's personal trainer, Greg Anderson, also spent time as Giambi's personal trainer back when he played for Oakland. He was arrested for distributing his clients with steroids.

"Although Anderson has pleading innocent, agents found steroids, syringes and workout plans which included daily doses of steroids along with a list of clients which he worked with. Agents also found a safe with $63,920 of cash in envelopes marked with the names of clients."

[rmeesig]

What's the source? I'd like to read the whole thing if you don't mind. I've never seen anything regarding Anderson being Giambi's trainer. This is new to me.

[swoosh3esq]

Show me where it says you can be convicted on circumstantial evidence so I can go prove all of my law professors wrong as well as the partners at my firm....that's just a riot that you even made that statement.

This post is in no way an attempt to bash or belittle you, but I could not help interjecting. Before you make such statements, you should know for sure you are right. Perhaps your law firm should show you how to do a little legal research. Here are a few US Court of Appeals decisions that should clear this issue up.

U.S. v. Cordova Barajas, 360 F.3d 1037
C.A.9.Cal.,2004
Circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to demonstrate guilt.

U.S. v. Wright, 340 F.3d 724
C.A.8.Neb.,2003
A conviction may be based on circumstantial or direct evidence or both.

U.S. v. Keene, 2003 WL 21994744
C.A.1.Me.,2003
Both direct and circumstantial evidence are considered in determining whether evidence is sufficient to support a criminal conviction, and the government's proof may lie entirely in circumstantial evidence.

- Here is one from the 2nd Circuit, which NY belongs to...

U.S. v. Glenn, 312 F.3d 58
C.A.2.N.Y.,2002
Circumstantial evidence can be as compelling as direct evidence and a conviction can rest solely on circumstantial evidence.

I could cite you dozens more, but I think I have made my point. Although your arguments were flawed, I enjoyed your enthusiam. Good luck with law school.

[rmeesig]

Yup, Amazinz and I were talking about the same thing, but coming from different angles. Point taken, thanks!

[Nomar4prez]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1846688

Scary stuff. I, as a Red Sox fan, always want every Yankee to suck, but when it gets this serious, I think we all need to step back from the game, and just hope he's alright. From what I've seen of Giambi, he seems like a great guy, and I just hope he recovers from this.....but hit's under .200 the rest of the season.