But I doubt my Congressman is obsessing over steroid use in baseball. Besides, multitasking is very 21st century.

I don’t like the fact that Bonds has become the whipping boy in the media for the new and improved steroid era – or, for that matter A-Rod. But Bonds’ trial is a whole other ball of wax. If he lied to a grand jury, he’s got to pay the piper.

Otherwise, don’t you have to start drawing a line on what you can or cannot lie about to a grand jury?

Here’s another solution – tell the truth from the start.

but recent news coming out is starting to question if Bonds even did actually lie

http://deadspin.com/5131861/maybe-barry-bonds-wasnt-lying-after-all

“… It seems that someone actually took the time to read the 30,000 pages of court documents that were made public from the rather extensive BALCO case and discovered an interesting little tidbit about the "Clear,” the “designer steroid” at the heart of the investigation. Before 2005, the main ingredient in the "Clear"—tetrahydrogestrinone (THG)—was not illegal. It was unapproved for sale by the FDA, but it was not a banned steroid. So when Bonds said he didn’t know if he took a steroid, well … technically he didn’t take one. And when you’re on trial for perjury, “technically” is all that matters.

The story also implies that prosecutors would have known that fact, and made their questions to Bonds intentionally vague as a result …"

WTF? Congress gave baseball a virtually unprecedented waiver from anti-trust laws because of its unique place in American culture. That does make oversight of baseball Congress’s responsibility to some degree.

As to Bonds, prosecutions are a function for the judicial and executive branches, not the legislative. Conflating the two issues weakens both arguments he’s trying to make.