posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 01:56 PM
What constitutes proof? A confession? Not likely. He isn't on trial, so it's not like there's a criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of
proof. We're talking "court of public opinion" here. And there's certainly sufficient evidence to find him guilty of steroid use in that court
based upon a preponderance of the evidence.
Sports Illustrated's "The Truth"
article has enough
documentation to convince me.
Here's the Bonds Exposed
article, also from SI.
And here's the documentation
There's just too much there to throw it all aside. So if we're waiting for Barry to say, "Yep, I did it. I knew it wasn't flax seed oil all
along. I was pumping myself full of whatever chemicals I could get my hands on that I thought would enhance my performance. Hell, McGwire was doing
it. And so was Sosa. Not to mention borderline players who wouldn't have even been in the league without the juice. Come on, McGwire looked like a
skinny paperboy until he started juicing."
I just don't think that's going to happen.
But I don't intend to personally bother him. If Maris's record 61st homer warranted an asterisk because he played in 12 more games than Ruth's 60
season, then this record definitely does.
But then we're forced to attempt to question everything that's happened in baseball since the 80's. What do we do? Asterisk everything?
I don't know. But it's a shame. And I blame baseball for being willing to look the other way - because the fans were coming out to see the
Frankensteins at a time when the popularity was ebbing after the strike year that cancelled the '94 series.