Yes, but the only way to do that is to make a determination on whether or not they juiced. You are simply wrong, here, Keith.

• ... BTW, there are other contradictions other than the PEDs issues, like whether or not Clemens was at Canseco’s party.

Yes, but perjury has to be about a material issue. It remains to be seen how much of the other inconsistencies rises to the level of a perjury. And, at any rate, whether or not the players juiced knowingly will remain the core issue.

• ... I’m pretty sure the jury verdict will not be “Clemens is guilty of perjury, because…” It will just be “guilty or not guilty.” Most likely we won’t find out why they found him guilty of perjury if he is, in fact, found guilty.

I'm positive you're wrong about that. Among the charges for Bonds is a specific one that he lied when he said he didn't knowingly do PEDs. So in order for the jury to find he perjured himself, they will have to find that the government proved its case that he knowingly did PEDs. The central charge for Clemens will also be one concerning his lies about doing PEDs. Likewise, in order for the jury to find him guilty on that charge, they will have to agree with the government that he did PEDs.

This is just logic. But likely this same reasoning will be repeated by either side in their statements to the jury as well as the judge.

At any rate, jurors frequently speak out after a trial is over. You will see, in one way or the other, after these trials are over, that you are simply wrong on this point.

• ... As for the federal government’s record in criminal cases, it’s pretty darned imposing, perjury or otherwise.

Yup, just as I said. So why did you originally say otherwise?

• ... So yes, the OJ comparison is different because it was a state trial, however that was just an example to show how difficult it is to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt.

Uh, so are you backtracking now? You agreed that the feds have an excellent conviction rate, so now you're saying they will have a hard time getting a conviction????

Also, even in state courts, the rate of convictions is high. That's because they usually don't prosecute unless they feel they have a good case. We all know "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a tough standard. But that hasn't precluded the prosecutions in both state and federal court from winning a majority of their trials.

The Met O is in a big hole. Was it you or someone else who said to get a guy like Mensch? This bench doesn't balance the starting lineup at all, which I think many here said over the Winter.

And yes, perjury cases are very difficult to prove, however I was just pointing out that all criminal trials are difficult because of the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof.

You can disagree all you want, but you're wrong. They have to decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether they lied under oath. That's the issue, not whether or not they juiced or cheated. BTW, there are other contradictions other than the PEDs issues, like whether or not Clemens was at Canseco's party. Refer to Annie's post above, a lot of the contradictions do not deal with "did he or didn't he take PEDs."

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I'm pretty sure the jury verdict will not be "Clemens is guilty of perjury, because…" It will just be "guilty or not guilty." Most likely we won't find out why they found him guilty of perjury if he is, in fact, found guilty.

As for the federal government's record in criminal cases, it's pretty darned imposing, perjury or otherwise. Look at what happened to Vick. Dude didn't even have a trial, he was thrown in the slammer because the feds do not mess around. For the most part, when the federal government comes a knocking, you're in deep trouble.

So yes, the OJ comparison is different because it was a state trial, however that was just an example to show how difficult it is to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of whether or not the jurors were sympathetic, it is still the highest and most difficult burden of proof in the legal system. By contrast, OJ was found guilty in his civil trial, which only requires a preponderance of the evidence.

The standard of proof may be different, but that doesn't change the nature of what they will be deciding.

In the court of public opinion, Clemens or Bonds didn't need to prove they were innocent. The reason so many people think they are guilty is because of the nature and the amount of evidence that exists in both cases. In Clemens case, that evidence isn't all from the MR either.

If I'm not mistaken, the record for convictions by the federal government for perjury charges is extremely high. OJ Simpson is a different situation because it was a murder trial by a state court. They were also lucky to get a sympathetic jury.

Bottom line and I don't think you can deny this is that the juries will have to decide whether or not Clemens and Bonda knowingly juiced (in order to decide whether they committed perjury). To me that is the same "core decision" that the public has made in these situations. You can call it whatever you want. But it is essentially the same.

As I said, the job of the juries will be more complex. And the process and standard of proof will be different. But the nature of the decision will be the same.

It is extremely difficult to get a conviction as this is quite a high burden for the prosecution to prove (see O.J. Simpson.)

So no, the respective juries will not be making the same core decision that fans have been making. Getting a conviction in a criminal courtroom is a whole different ball game than convicting someone in the court of public opinion.

IOW, in order for the juries to decide whether they perjured themselves, they will also have to make a decision on whether or not they took PEDs and cheated.

So in an actual trial, what the juries will be doing is not so different from what the public has been doing. Of course the juries' job will be much more complex, but they will be making that same core decision that we as fans have been making.

As for legal punishment, the parameters are already set by law, and if they go through a trial and are convicted, both will spend a longer time in jail than if they had plead guilty.

As for informal punishment, that is up to each individual fan-team-writer to decide for themselves what is appropriate.

Legal or practical, there is a huge difference between taking PEDs as a professional athlete and lying under oath. To use your own term, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Look, no one is saying these guys should be let off the hook, especially for perjury. However, I do feel one's punishment should be proportional to his crime.

The issue that will be examined in their respective trials/investigations is whether or not they lied under oath. Obviously one of the contradictions to be examined will be PEDs, however the main, and more serious transgression is perjury.

From a legal perspective, there's a big difference. But from a practical perspective, there is little difference … because at the heart of the perjury charges is whether or not they knowingly cheated and did PEDs. That’s precisely what the juries will have to decide in both situations.

Based on what I know of the evidence so far, it’s clear to me both did and I believe both will be convicted.

Normally, the question of whether or not a player did PEDs always remains in the court of public opinion. But Bonds and Clemens have forced the issue into a real court, and they have mainly themselves to blame for this.

I hope your, Imean our boy Church is not hurt too bad. He really got whacked by Marlon. Too many guys playing positions they are not familiar with, but Marlon as an infielder should have heard Church calling and backed off.

Lets see Mar 1 and our first baseman, 2nd baseman, center fielder, rightfielder and fifth starter are allhurt. Maybe Sanatana and Pedro will have to do a king and his court type of thing.

Well, there is a difference. They're not being tried for steroids, they're being tried for perjury.

"sloppy, chill out and stop with the dramatics."

Says the dude who wrote,"whenever I look at Bonds, I don't see him holding a bat, but a syringe."

As for Bonds and Clemens, both of them will be going through a real court soon … and likely convicted. They brought it upon themselves.

You keep saying things like "as long as MLB's policy is reasonable" but you keep failing to see it wouldn't even be reasonable today if Congress had not hammered Selig and Fehr on their heads multiple times.

Congress has shown no inclination to get into any other aspect of MLB's business. But they rightfully jumped in when it was clear MLB was not doing enough to clean up the game. And they kept jumping in when it was clear Selig and Fehr weren't moving fast enough.

I'm really glad Congress stopped the roided up Popeyes, because it was clear if they didn't, no one else was going to.

I disagree with the sentiments of your post here. I do not want MLB run by Congress. Where does their control end? Can they realign the divisions? Can they contract teams? I know Congress granted MLB an anti-trust exemption, but should that give them free reign over MLB?

I think Congress should stick to passing legislation and keep its nose out of MLB. If they're so gung-ho about PED testing, then they should establish some sort of neutral 3rd party Agency that tests professional sports. Otherwise, they don't need to get involved as long as MLB's policy is reasonable.

This is why there is a union, to protect the players' rights. There will be some kind of back and forth and a compromise. This is the way the world works. Congress should not get involved.

Now don't go flying off the handle that I'm some ex-juicehead, PED sympathizing, apologist. I'm just saying that in real life, you can't always get the perfect solution. So MLB will have to negotiate the best one they can get.