A-Fraud cooperates with MLB investigators

[Upton]

Alex Rodriguez had a two-hour meeting with Major League Baseball officials Sunday. How much he told them about steroids is a secret -- at least so far.

The commissioner's office released a statement saying Rodriguez was "cooperative" in an interview with officials from baseball's Department of Investigations and Labor Relations Department. No further details were revealed, and the statement said MLB would have no additional comment at this time.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/03/01/arod.meets.mlb.ap/index.html?eref=si_topstories

Rodriguez was "cooperative"..what exactly does that mean? Was he snitching on other players?..I wouldn't put it past a man(?) like him.

What a contrast..here we have Barry Bonds standing up, exercising his constitutional rights and fighting these charges getting chastised....Meanwhile Rodriquez, who folds up like a school child, receives standing ovations.

[DaveinMD]

1. that's quite the spin

Bonds like committed perjury. That's why he needs to exercise his constitutional rights.

[trumad]

2. It's the spin of the "Dumb Motherfucker" cult...

And Upton/Cboy is the Grandmaster.

[Upton]

5. What..did I miss something?

Has Bonds already been convicted? Or are you a member of the Bonds haters..a group that specializes in rushing to judgment and convicting before trial.

[DaveinMD]

6. he lied under oath

the fact that the results got thrown out doesn't change that fact. It just make the prosecution much harder.

[Upton]

8. You've got it wrong

Bonds is ALLEGED to have lied under oath. Remember, this is America, that's why we have trials..to determine guilt or innocence.

[DaveinMD]

9. as an American

I can make my judgment. And by the way, trials don't prove guilt or innocence. They determine if any reasonable doubt exists. OJ may have been acquitted of murder. But I still believe he did it based on the evidence I saw.

[Upton]

14. No one is trying

to deprive you of an opinion...I am merely pointing out that to state "Bonds like committed perjury" is factually incorrect.

[DaveinMD]

15. no its not

he did lie to a grand jury about his previous use of steroids. That is perjury. Whether or not the government is allowed to enter the evidence to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt is another matter. OJ committed murder regardless of what that jury decided.

[cboy4]

19. You need to tell me which lottery numbers to pick this week

since you think you're such a good fortune teller.

You have no proof that he lied under oath. Zero.

[DaveinMD]

21. he testified he didn't take steroids

there are numerous positive tests showing that he did. Therefore he lied under oath.

[cboy4]

23. No, you don't even know what he testified. He said he did not

knowingly take steroids.

And these phantom tests you're talking about were thrown in the garbage can by the judge.

So what else do you have?

[DaveinMD]

26. that they were ruled inadmissable

doesn't mean they don't exist. He lied whether or not he ends up being convicted. Do you think OJ didn't kill anyone just because a jury didn't convict him?

[Upton]

27. Those tests

cannot even be conclusively connected to Bonds...which is why the judge threw them out.

You're just all opinion..no facts.

[PRETZEL]

29. Wasn't the judge's ruling

they are inadmissable unless corraberated?

If their not Barry's why won't Anderson testify to that?

[Upton]

30. Maybe he has principles

anyway your question is like suggesting one shouldn't mind government intrusion unless they have something to hide.

[PRETZEL]

32. I'm in no way defending what the government did

in those raids on his wife and mother in law. Witness intimidation is absolutely wrong. I'm not going there.

Wouldn't the principled thing to do would be to come forward and clear this whole mess up? I just don't see the argument that this is "principles" as to why Anderson isn't testifying.

Bonds originally testified back in 2003 in the Balco case. The grant of immunity given to him that the feds would most certainly have been based on his knowledge of what he was testifying to. All Bonds had to do back in 2003 was tell the grand jury basically what the prosecution already knew about Balco, Anderson and the other defendants. Bonds does that and he's free. The immunity deal stated that nothing in his testimony could be used agains him. From what I gathered from the indictment Bonds was asked 3 specific questions concerning his relationship with Balco, Anderson and certain tests for steroids that the feds already knew about. What Bonds told the grand jury was not the same as what the prosecution knew and was not what he was given immunity for. Hence Bonds violated his immunity deal and was subjected to perjury charges. What Bonds said in essence was that nothing he got from Anderson or Balco were steroid or other performance enhancing drugs. He also denied that drug tests performed by Balco were positive. The evidence that the prosecution has that they got from raids on Anderson's house in the Balco investigation indicate that these were positive tests from Bonds. The only person who has first hand knowledge of these tests is Greg Anderson. He's refusing to testify that those tests results which indicate positive results are not those of Barry Bonds? Or is he resusing to testify that Bonds didn't have first hand knowledge that the "Clear" and "Cream" that Anderson was giving to him and other professional athletes were not performance enhancing drugs that contained banned substances?

Basically it just seems that the one person who could have cleared Barry Bonds as far back as 2003 is refusing to do this on "principles" and to protect his friend. This should have been a non-issue years ago.

Maybe, just maybe, somebody really does have something to hide.

[cboy4]

34. Prospective jurors like you are why the judge threw them

out.

You would never be selected because you'd tell the defense team you'd be unwilling to only look at the evidence before you in court.

[PRETZEL]

51. Neither one would be perspective jurors,

we're just seeing this from different points of view.

[cboy4]

55. No, I couldn't be a juror because I would fire insults at the

prosecution team for their mob-like behavior, seconds before they excuse me with one of their peremptory challenges.

But that aside, of course I could judge a case based only on the evidence presented in court.

[DaveinMD]

31. they were thrown out

because of the manner of the drug testing program at the time. But they are his tests. The fact that you are a fanboy is clouding your judgment.

[nickgutierrez]

3. You and cboy are getting ridiculous with this steroid hysteria.

Who is giving A-Rod a standing ovation? Is anybody really praising A-Rod for "cooperating", whatever that means, with MLB investigators? Or is he getting slammed in the media, and having every sentence questioned, examined, poked, and prodded?

Him and Barry have one thing in common: positive steroid tests. A-Rod's were leaked, Barry's were taken by a federal raid. Neither one was worse than the other. But the need to deify Barry, and slam A-Rod, is absurd.

Here's the proof for saying that Barry has positive steroid tests: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28900576/

The judge and the lawyers didn’t discuss a fourth positive steroids test seized in 2004 from a lab used by Major League Baseball to test its players in 2003.

The difference between that test and the three positive tests from 2000-2001 is there’s no need to authenticate it.

So, yes, there is evidence that Barry used steroids. Chances are good that this is from the same list of 2003 survey results from which A-Rod's were leaked. So, drop it.

[Upton]

4. A-Fraud received standing ovations

in Miami, where a stadium was named his honor, and in his first spring training game.

Edit: Let me add that if that 4th test was so incriminating, I doubt that the prosecutors would be appealing the judge's decision to exclude the other 3.

[nickgutierrez]

7. And Barry received standing ovations in San Francisco...

...and nowhere else.

He's not exactly going to be getting standing ovations in ballparks throughout the league. I got a good, up close look at exactly how he'll be treated this past Friday, at a Spring Training game in Ft. Myers against the Twins (in a game that he didn't even play in), where a guy walked around the park with a "clever" sign that called him A-R*id, and got loudly cheered for it with little, if any, opposite response. One guy at Spring Training is nothing compared to what he'll get at any other ballpark in the country.

[trumad]

12. Snap---

nickgutierrez--- You're debating a mental midget and a class A--- Bond's ball-licker.

We have two members of the Dumb Motherfucker" cult here in this forum, Cboy4 and Upton---and there are many of us who think they post from the same IP Address.

What ever logic you throw at them, they'll counter with the racist meme or the big bad Gov. Meme... that's all they got.

Upton up above has already admitted that he suspects Bonds used the juice---but constantly pretends that he never did.

Cboy cries out each day with his strawman that if Bond's is found not-guilty---we owe him and Barry an apology.

nickgutierrez---what you are dealing with are two guys, maybe Brothers---most likely lovers, who share a room in their mom's basement and thrive for this kind of attention---no matter if the attention makes them look like the biggest douche bags on the net.

So before you waist any more bandwidth with reasonable logic--- know that your kind of posts are like Viagra to these two knuckleheads.....

[Upton]

13. Weren't you defending the injecting of steroids into Big Brown?

That kind of crap is okay with you...even though millions of dollars in betting money was involved.

I stand up for what all true Americans should champion...the presumption of innocence.

I also oppose government intimidation...no matter whom it involves. One would think, that an assumed progressive thinker such as yourself, would join me in that opposition....the mere fact that it doesn't is just pure hypocrisy.

[two gun sid]

16. Upton, my friend, Big Brown...

got one injection a month of Winstrol to help him maintain his appetite and it was perfectly legal. Every jurisdiction he raced in allowed the use of steroids. I don't think any of the racing fans applauded the fact that Dutrow was giving steroids, especially trumad. The rules have now changed in most racing jurisdictions. No more juice!

I don't know what ballplayers have used steroids and I guess I don't really care. I just hate to see racing dragged into this fight because we don't need anymore adverse publicity. We are trying to clean up our sport, but it's been a slow process. I'm for the rule of law and a presumption of innocence but, I would think that you would want to clear out the bad actors in the sport you love the same way I'd like to see a lot of trainers get lifetime bans for cheating.

Just my two-cents.

[trumad]

18. Nope--- never defended that---

[nickgutierrez]

17. I don't care who they are - it's not about them.

One of them intentionally posts stuff intended to irritate people, the other one pushes the same dishonest narrative in a slightly less flamethrowey way - to me, the way to beat that is to club them over the head with substance at every opportunity. The more they throw out the same tired bullshit, the more people get to see why they're wrong.

I prefer the scalpel over the sledgehammer.

[cboy4]

20. trumad, have you heard the proverb: " Everyone is wise until he speaks."?

That's you!

But there is no happiness where there is no wisdom, which is why we all laugh at you in a sad way, and wish we could at least give you a cookie as a token of our sympathy.

LOL

[nickgutierrez]

25. Pot, meet kettle. n/t

[trumad]

33. "why we all"

So now you got the whole sports forum on your side? is that it?

[Upton]

35. Believe it or not

not everyone who frequents the sports forum is a Bonds hater....I have detected a subtle shift in opinion as the overall weakness of the case combined with the government's misconduct is revealed

[cboy4]

39. Total misconduct

No wonder the judge is beside herself with anger.

[trumad]

40. Dude---you're too fucking funny

First off---my reply was to your alter-ego Cboy. Not you.

I gotta ask you guys something straight up.

Are you guy's lovers? Seriously---I want to know. It's the only way I can explain the similar writing styles, the follow around posts, the almost verbatim love for Barry----and the identical Douche bag attitudes.

You two live in the same parallel Universe--- It's almost spooky how you answer each others posts with the same type of disillusion.

Cboy say's "why we all" as if the whole sports forum is behind him--- you claim that there's a "subtle shift" in opinion about Barry when there is clearly not--- this is the parallel Universe that you two live in and quite frankly it's bizzare as shit.

That's why no one put's you guys on ignore---- you two are like a glorious train wreck and we simply can't keep our eyes off your posts.

[cboy4]

42. Did you know your lovers comment is one of the most pathetically

weak insults anyone can say.

I mean, if you're in 5th grade, I can understand, but an old, unwanted, useless grandpa like yourself...hilarious.

"Oh, you must be gay .. oh you must be a faggot .. :

I mean, seriously, it's an indication that not only do you have a lazy mind, it's a clear demonstration that you lack creativity.

There are dozens of excellent insults related to intelligence that are out there, and you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for the fag comment.

And you question why I bring up racism and homophobia.

LOL

[trumad]

44. "Oh, you must be gay .. oh you must be a faggot .. :

You put that in quotes--- Why? I didn't ask that.

I asked if you two dip shits were lovers.

See---that's you in a nutshell--- you simply make shit up to move your agenda.

Asking if you and Upton are lovers is scraping the barrel for a "Fag" comment.

Dude--- I see you working here--- made up hype and outrage is the name of your game.

You yell racism and then come back and pretend you never did...

Now you're gonna claim that old trumad is some type of homophobe and claim I called you a faggot----simply as a diversion to your silly little game you're playing here in this forum.

So I ask again---- being that you two follow each other around on this forum like puppy dogs---being that your writing style is exactly the same---- being that you have identical argument styles when it comes to Barry---

Are you two lovers?

[cboy4]

45. And being that you continue to rely on fag jokes, I ask again,

when will you admit you're a homophobe?

I mean you're asking a straight guy and a gay guy if we're lovers.

You don't see any conflict there?

[trumad]

46. Now how would you know that your other half is straight?

Let me guess--- PM's back and fourth? Douche bag strategy meetings?

You could be Hansel and Gretal and I'd still ask if you're lovers.

[cboy4]

47. I don't even care if you make homophobic comments about

me.

But I think it's pathetic that your reliance on homophobia now revolves around him as well, when he's not gay.

How about you be a man and keep your fag comments to me and leave him out of it.

[trumad]

53. So---if you're lovers---it means you're a fag?

Is that what you are saying?

Your self loathing is really sad.

How would I know if your other half is Gay or straight?

Reason I don't is because I don't give a shit.

Why is so important to know if your sidekick is Gay or Straight? Did you ask him? Why would you ask him something like that? It really is none of your business.

It seems to me that you are more concerned about his sexual preference than I am.

So I ask the question--- why are you calling your other half---Upton---a Fag.

Knock that off--- it's rude and extremely homophobic.

[cboy4]

54. Excellent projection trumad, but I'm far from self-loathing.

I'm constantly trying to evaluate my real life behavior to make sure that I avoid crossing the line from confidence to arrogance.

It worries me all the time because I'm very humble in real life, and I don't want people to get the wrong idea. But I'm very confident in my abilities in all facets of life, especially my proficiency in tormenting you with insults.

And nice strawman.

I never said or implied or inferred that I care whether anyone is gay or straight.

Unlike you, who throws around homo references.

And what a riot. The guys who asks two other dudes if they're lovers says I'm more concerned about his "sexual preference" than you. :wtf:

Unreal

[madinmaryland]

56. "that I avoid crossing the line from confidence to arrogance"

Huh??

I don't know which one of these apply: :wtf: or :rofl:

[cboy4]

57. Yea, I never know if my confidence is being mistaken by

people for arrogance.

There are a lot of similarities, so you have to be mindful.

And I'm not talking about worrying whether people in the sports forum think I'm arrogant.

I try to be arrogant and annoying, because it makes an otherwise dreadfully sleepy forum interesting .. a forum where people wake up and immediately check to see what I might have posted.

LOL

[trumad]

59. Again I ask--- how do you know your other half is straight?

Did you ask him? Did he tell you?

I never asked Upton what his sexual preference was? Why? Because I don't care.

So again I ask... How do you know he's straight and why do you care?

[cboy4]

60. I think it's despicable that you're dragging him into

your homophobic feud with me.

Again, are you capable of leaving him out of this

[trumad]

62. Hey---you're the one calling him a fag.

[cboy4]

63. Nice try.

But I'm satisfied I've embarrassed you enough.

[Upton]

58. cboy and myself

are far from the only ones that see an injustice taking place...here's some reading material for you:

The case against Barry Bonds long ago passed the demarcation line between prosecution and persecution, with each successive move by the government confirming the latter. The government has conducted a witch hunt against Bonds since December 2003, when he testified before the grand jury investigating the BALCO case involving steroid distribution to athletes in a number of sports.

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3013:the-goverments-persecution-of-barry-lamar-bonds&catid=68:jordan-kobritz&Itemid=156

[PRETZEL]

61. Read it a couple of times,

not sure where this guy's coming from.

In the paragraph preceding the one you cite, he makes this point:
(snip)
The sole issue on appeal is Judge Illston’s ruling concerning the admissibility of the drug evidence. Regardless of the decision of the appellate judges, the government has nothing to lose. A win in the Court of Appeals, and the additional evidence could persuade a jury to convict Bonds. If the government loses the appeal, which is likely, the trial could still go forward but the result will almost certainly be a not guilty verdict for Bonds. In either case, the appeal represents an abuse of prosecutorial discretion and power reminiscent of the McCarthy era.
(snip)

Now, if the likelyhood of the prosecution winning the appeal and the strength of the evidence that would be allowed in could be sufficient to convict Bonds, why wouldn't the prosecution take whatever the steps are needed in appealing Judge Ilston's decision? And if they lose, then the likelyhood of Bonds being found not guilty increases. At least he's right about that.

Then there's this little snippet:
(snip)
A reading of the grand jury transcript suggests that Bonds – and only Bonds – was targeted for prosecution even though he wasn’t the only baseball player who testified to illegally using performance enhancing drugs. Thus began a five-year crusade that included sending Anderson to prison on two separate occasions for failing to cooperate with government investigators, and intimidating his wife and mother-in-law in an effort to loosen the trainer’s tongue.

The government’s actions in the Bonds case have been unconscionable. Despite the fact that Bonds is an admitted steroid user, and his testimony before the grand jury was less than forthright, the campaign against him exceeds all manner of perspective. The crime(s) Bonds committed, and the likely punishment if he is ever convicted, do not merit the time and expense the government has expended in his pursuit.
(snip)

I'm confused. Bonds' whole indictment in reading it stems from not what other players have testified to, but to statements Bonds made directly to the grand jury and to what he was immunized for. The guy says it right there "his testimony before the grand jury was less than forthright" says to me that Bonds didn't tell the grand jury what he told prosecutors before he appeared and what he was given immunity for. I don't see where the prosecution is doing anything wrong here. Bonds tells the prosecution "I'll testify as to what I know about Balco and the stuff I was given in exchange for immunity that what I say won't be used against me. Well, it seems from the prosecutions point of view, Bonds didn't do that.

[cboy4]

64. So you just believe the prosecutors....because deputy US

Attorneys have to be the ones telling the truth.

The same group of people that raids homes of mothers and is subpoenaing a personal shoppers. (I'm sure the florist is next).

It couldn't possibly be a situation where they're desperately seeking a conviction in order to satisfy their boss, the Bush-appointed US Attorney?

Bonds says he didn't knowingly take steroids.

And I'm positive the government has nothing at this point to indicate otherwise.

[PRETZEL]

65. I'm not saying no such thing.

I'm saying let the government make it's case in court. Let them present the evidence they believe supports their case and let Bonds' attorney have at it. If Anderson's testimony is so weak then Rains should have a field day with it. The prosecution believes that Anderson's testimony is vital to their case. The only thing Judge Ilster has ruled (from what I remember) is that only Anderson can corraberate evidence that the prosecution feels is vital. It's just as likely the jury will see it as bullshit just as much as it's likely they'll see it as evidence that Bonds perjured himself. It's nothing more, nothing less.

As I've said before this could have been over and done with a long time ago.

[cboy4]

66. Well I couldn't disagree with you more about the jury finding

the prosecution's "vital" "evidence" bullshit.

And we don't know that it could have been over a long time ago.

They could have charged Anderson with perjury, just as easily as they did Bonds.

And then we'd have two people on trial.

I take that back, you're right, it could have been over and done with along time ago ..

If the government concentrated on important issues that threaten society, instead of going after a baseball player suspected of taking steroids.

Huge waste of tax money

Huge waster of time.

It's disgraceful.

[PRETZEL]

67. I'm not sure,

wouldn't be the first time a prosecution got it wrong when they thought they had a solid case. And it wouldn't be the first time someone was convicted on less. So it's not that I disagree with either Bonds or the govenment it's just that both sides are doing what they feel is right.

As for the other things, maybe in 2003 Bonds' testimony to the grand jury could have provided more information than what he gave. If it was maybe he wouldn't have been indicted. I don't know. All I know is that the government believes that Bonds gave false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in the Balco trial.

Maybe this could have been resolved in 2006 when Anderson first refused to testify to the grand jury looking into whether Bonds made false and misleading statements. Maybe if Anderson testified that the stuff he was giving to Bonds contained stuff that Bonds was not aware of at the time then that's evidence that Bonds didn't know. End of story. Bonds' 2003 testimony becomes corraberated and then the possibility of him not being indicted goes up. Anderson's been given more than ample opportunity to clear this up and he hasn't.

If this is a witch hunt then I tend to think that it's of Bonds & Andersons choosing. If, as you said in an earlier post, Anderson's willing to keep silent at the risk of additional jail time in order to reap the financial and publicity rewards, then I'd have to ask who playing who? Is it a witch hunt or publicity stunt?

[cboy4]

68. Well it's pure speculation whether Bonds providing more info.

than he did would have headed off an indictment.

So neither of us know that.

As for Anderson saying he gave Bonds steroids but Bonds didn't know about it .. I would absolutely forbid him to testify such a thing if he were my client.

Why?

Because the prosecution could simply say, ah hah .. so now we know Bonds did take steroids. Mr. Anderson, how are you sure Mr. Bonds didn't know what you were giving him? Is it not true he could have done his own research? Is it not true he could have asked other players who've admitted to taking steroids what the substances were?

And on and on.

Very easy to capitalize on such a damaging admission by Anderson.

Not only that, even you concede it would only be a possibility Bonds might not be indicted.

The defense lawyers for Anderson and Bonds are puting on an impressive show of legal prowess.

And this is not a publicity stunt for Anderson. He's protecting a friend.

I'm saying his reward for doing so, which could include a second round of prison time, would be a fat book deal .. among other things.

[PRETZEL]

69. I guess we'll just to let things play out

from here.

[cboy4]

71. I'm just happy the defense teams are so good, that they

haven't had to ask me for any advice yet!

HA

[MaineDem]

10. Because he paid for the honor

Of course they'd cheer him.

There will be very few standing Os for A-Roid during this upcoming year. Except, probably, in the new Yankee Stadium.

[PRETZEL]

11. That 4th test has nothing to do with the perjury charges,

those stem from his grand jury testimony during the Balco trial. That's where the first 3 test stemmed from.

Still not sure why Bonds would subject himself to these charges if he had immunity during Anderson's Balco trial?

[cboy4]

22. How am I getting ridiculous? The judge in the Bonds' case

is furious, because she's saying what I've been saying all along.

The prosecution is a desperate group of pathetic lawyers who should be busy prosecuting pedophiles and other threats to our society.

Not a MLB player who was never accused of breaking the law.

They just didn't like what he said in his depo and say he lied.

LOL

The absurdity of it all will come full circle when Bonds is acquitted after being unfairly made an example of something other players have confessed to but aren't be prosecuted.

And when Bonds walk, I won't say a thing, other than probably a simple, what did I say. At which time all of the sports forum can line up and offer individual posts of apology.

Upton is exempt.

[nickgutierrez]

24. Because you conflate the PEDs issue with Bonds's trial.

Bonds is not on trial for taking steroids - he's on trial for saying things to a federal investigator that turned out not to be true. The trial now swings on whether or not the feds can prove he did so knowingly or not. That question will be on trial soon enough, as I've said in the past.

There is at least as much evidence that Barry took steroids as A-Rod has - the only difference is that A-Rod has admitted to it, while Barry is involved in a debate over whether or not he did so knowingly, while involved with a laboratory that was a known PED distributor.

[PRETZEL]

28. I totally agree,

the whole totality of the Bonds indictments stemmed directly from Balco for which Greg Anderson was a defendant and convicted.

Greg Anderson was subpoenaed in this trial. He's refused to cooperate and corraberate evidence that the prosecutors have but can't use. I have no problems with Judge Ilster ruling that evidence can't be entered unless corraberated by Anderson. If the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Appellate Division is to compel Anderson to testify then I'm in total agreement with the prosecution. At some point Anderson is either going to have to testify (and be considered a hostile witness due to his refusals) or face his own obstruction charges. I agree with the prosecution on this. And apparently Anderson and Bonds are comfortable with this also.

[cboy4]

43. PRETZEL, he will not be a hostile witness, and he's perfectly

happy going to the slammer for the duration of a short trial.

His book deal alone will make him wealthy.

He absolutely knows what he's doing.

I'm not sure why you keep holding out hope that he'll testify.

OJ will confess to the murders before that happens.

[madinmaryland]

36. Nice avatar!!!

Did you give it to yourself??

[Upton]

37. What?

The SC must have done things to your head.

[madinmaryland]

38. You've been in some other forums??

Let's decide..





:shrug:

[cboy4]

41. Yea, we both root for our home hockey teams.

And who do you root for?

I'm guessing Boston or Detroit .. you know, teams that are ridiculously far away from where you live.

[madinmaryland]

48. The last time I actually saw or watched a hockey game was

in 1980. That would be your answer.

[cboy4]

49. Oh that's right, you root for the Boston Celtics .. another

historically successful franchise.

Even though you're not from Massachusetts or even New England for that matter.

Connect the dots. Right madinmaryland?

[madinmaryland]

50. There you go again.

BTW, who is your avatar? Tom Brady or Tedy Bruschi??

[cboy4]

52. It's Jason Newsted.

[KamaAina]

70. Typo in headline

it's "A-Roid" now. :P