washingtonirvin
New member
Barry Bonds has been indicted on four counts of perjury and one count of obstructing justice in response to the testimony he gave to a federal grand jury in 2003. I thought that people on this board would be buzzing about it, but they are not as of yet.
I am interested in this as an ethical question. I think that most people on this board recognize that anabolic and androgenic steroids have legitimate medical applications, and most of us think that individuals should be able to use these compounds for the purpose of bodybuilding without facing legal repercussions. I certainly believe both of those things.
When it comes to introducing these drugs into competitive sports, however, I think the opposite. I think that taking steroids in the context of a sport where one or more opponents abides by the rules and does not take them amounts to cheating. I think that Barry Bonds cheated, lied about it to a grand jury, and should be punished for it. It matters not at all to me that Bonds was encouraged in his actions by McGuire, Conseco, Sosa, and whoever else. As long as one of his opponents played by the rules, Bonds is a cheat in my book.
What should his punishment be, if any? I think Bonds deliberately derailed the government's effort to make baseball fair, and he deserves a punishment for doing so. "Mr. Bonds, 43, faces up to five years in prison if he is convicted of the perjury charges and 10 years if convicted of the obstruction of justice count." -from
Invalid Link Removed
I think Bonds should be punished, but these sentences sound excessive to me. Basically, I think the punishment should be restitutive, not retributive ... i.e. I think that the punishment should seek to make right the wrong that Bonds inflicted, rather than inflicting harm on Bonds to avenge his crime.
What would an appropriate resitutive punishment be in this case? Well, for one thing, I think Bonds could repay the money that was spent putting together the grand jury in the first place. I think he should be obliged to forfeit earnings from the times the government establishes his first known use until the present.
If Bonds continues to deny everything, rather that attempt to atone for his actions, perhaps some prison time is warranted. I would think that a nominal sentence is warranted, something that sends a warning to others, but does not prevent Bonds from moving on. I think six months to a year would do the trick.
What do the rest of you think?
I am interested in this as an ethical question. I think that most people on this board recognize that anabolic and androgenic steroids have legitimate medical applications, and most of us think that individuals should be able to use these compounds for the purpose of bodybuilding without facing legal repercussions. I certainly believe both of those things.
When it comes to introducing these drugs into competitive sports, however, I think the opposite. I think that taking steroids in the context of a sport where one or more opponents abides by the rules and does not take them amounts to cheating. I think that Barry Bonds cheated, lied about it to a grand jury, and should be punished for it. It matters not at all to me that Bonds was encouraged in his actions by McGuire, Conseco, Sosa, and whoever else. As long as one of his opponents played by the rules, Bonds is a cheat in my book.
What should his punishment be, if any? I think Bonds deliberately derailed the government's effort to make baseball fair, and he deserves a punishment for doing so. "Mr. Bonds, 43, faces up to five years in prison if he is convicted of the perjury charges and 10 years if convicted of the obstruction of justice count." -from
Invalid Link Removed
I think Bonds should be punished, but these sentences sound excessive to me. Basically, I think the punishment should be restitutive, not retributive ... i.e. I think that the punishment should seek to make right the wrong that Bonds inflicted, rather than inflicting harm on Bonds to avenge his crime.
What would an appropriate resitutive punishment be in this case? Well, for one thing, I think Bonds could repay the money that was spent putting together the grand jury in the first place. I think he should be obliged to forfeit earnings from the times the government establishes his first known use until the present.
If Bonds continues to deny everything, rather that attempt to atone for his actions, perhaps some prison time is warranted. I would think that a nominal sentence is warranted, something that sends a warning to others, but does not prevent Bonds from moving on. I think six months to a year would do the trick.
What do the rest of you think?
