(Except for the acne on his back.)

On the other hand, this story is so swarmy (unnamed sources, the implication that a MLB rule was broken through this leak, the freakin Daily News for gods sake) that I cant help but give some credence to Bonds' parinoia. How could you not think for a minute that baseball and the press were "out to get" Barry after reading a story like this.

The whole thing stinks. I feel gross having read it.

And very few would feel dirty for having read it.

There, I feel vindicated again.

1. Magowan said in October "Bonds will not be the centerpiece."
2. After capitulating to the big loveable lug and his salary, the Giants are taking forever to protect themselves by negotiating contract language.

Remember, no one is leaking the names of other guys who had a first positive amphetamine test.

Also, there is a silver lining here - Bonds was then subject to six tests for cause, and he apparently failed none of them.  Not for steroids, not for amphetamines.

At any rate, does this mean that fans will throw green M&Ms at Bonds instead of syringes?

That should definitely earn him a cookie.

I really couldn't care less about the drugs.  But giving up Sweeney was about as low as it gets, and perfectly typical of Bonds.  Flaxseed oil, "get my kid in the shot", there is a deflection for every accusation.

And good laughs Grant.

Plus, in response to the people who claim this could be a false positive (really on the other thread) - I don't think that is likely at all.

From what I have read, it is standard procedure in a lab to split samples into two, in part because only a tiny bit needs to be tested, and in part to ensure that multiple samples are tested to prevent false positives.

From what I know (and anyone who works in this field could confirm or deny my statements), this shouldn't be a false positive.  From a legal standpoint, if I were Barry's lawyer (oh the wealth!), I would make damn sure that the lab followed proper procedure, and if not, I would appeal the results.  That didn't happen.

1. Not caring. He broke the rule, he'll be punished for it (increased testing for first offense, IIRC), I care equally as much as I did when Zach Day got busted with a nail file.
2. Not caring some more, but also wondering if this makes it that much more likely that Mark Sweeney gets dealt.

Peter: This is it. You can turn around your franchise, turn around the way it is perceived and do something (gasp) good for baseball. You've signed Zito - a terrible move but no matter: people like it. You've got some young pitching. There is a future, not withstanding the signings of Aurilia, Feliz, Klesko and Ortiz (all of which are beyond pathetic). Where was I? Oh yeah, dump Bonds! You've been handed another chance.

Plus, the offseason is so far advanced that it's unlikely that anyone else will pick him up - especially after this latest fiasco. So, he won't be not-breaking the record in anyone else's uniform (and he won't be breaking it either way).

Anyway, like I said, this is yet another chance for the Giants to relinquish their position as the moral nadir and laughing stock of the sports world. Take it.

Now, a question: it seems to me that the Bonds arguments I have with people go in a circle.  I'll say "there is no conclusive evidence of what steroids can do for a hitter, particularly vis-a-vis what they can do for a pitcher."  My interlocutor will say "But they were illegal!" To which I respond "yes, in the eyes of the U.S. government, but not explicitly in the eyes of MLB.  To MLB, taking steroids was no different from all the players (including HOFers) who blew coke throughout the 1980s."  And the response to this line of reasoning is, of course, "but using steroids is cheating!"  If there is one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that TWO THINGS CAN BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME.  Even so, I'd like to know which of these two issues--the legality or the suspicion cast on statistics and the levelness of the playing field--is the central issue here.  I don't discount that there are very valid and damning points to make in the case against Barry, but most of the arguments I hear from the people carrying the nooses seem to be less focused and specific arguments, and more mountains of various circumstantial bits of evidence that all amount to an unignorable pile of suspect maybes.  

One totally unrelated point, if'n I've managed to keep anyone's attention this far (which I doubt): was anyone else surprised (as hell) by Bonds' public statement today?  Honestly, the LAST person I would expect to make a smart PR move/generous mea culpa (or at least non sua culpa) like this is Barry, and I have to say that my general dislike of the man parted just long enough to admit that today's statement was a surprising touch of class.  Way to go, BB!

What is entertaining, is Grant's post.  That was hilarious. I managed to scare my co-workers with my guffaws, especially with that ecstasy shit. I popped some a little while ago and it started to hit before I was halfway through the post. I never knew I could guffaw. Did I ever tell you how much I love you guys?  I'm going to go dance now.  

1. They are often fascinating, even when misleading.
2. They give us insight where we had none.
3. They engender heated conversation, and an exchange of viewpoints and ideas.
4. Life would be dull without them.
5. God Bless the Squealers.

1.  Bonds is black, and outspoken about it, and not a "good negro" - are we really so far away from 1974? Does anyone remember what Aaron went through? Are we so naive that Bonds isn't getting his own share of death threats? I saw in another blog about "Bonds is probably an egocentric jerk like most famous people", and all we hear this week is what nice guys Gwynn and Ripken are (by the way, my understanding is that Ripken was a prick in the clubhouse). Should we have a "other people like them personally stat in the usual three tiered stats? My neighbor's a really nice guy.. does that make him the 523rd best ballplayer of all time?
2. MLB would rather throw itself on a funeral pyre than open the door to the whole "everyone has used drugs forever" argument - I DO think this is legitimate point, if only that Bonds is being made the poster child to deflect this being out in the open - then, we're talking about real damage - better to have a scapegoat. Good god, I know he's not such a popular guy anyway, but do they really want chapter and verse about how much coke Joe Morgan used? As far as amphetamines, lets look at how many millions of people use them daily in this country, and most of all, let's look at that free coffee that you get at work.  I'm sure that's a tradition because we all love the soothing aroma. This whole topic is reeking with denial.
3. the prosecution is obviously getting desparate, or MLB is, or Sabean is sick and tired of the media circus (I sure wouldn't sign Bonds at anything but an extremely incentive laden contract). Desparate measures. Um, has anyone without an agenda actually said that Bonds implicated Sweeney? Has Sweeney's name come up from anything but "sources"? Has the player's union said "Bonds tested positive and named Sweeney"? Has Sweeney or Bonds said this? And do we really think that Bonds would be so stupid, if he was already busted, to make up such a weird and lame excuse? The man may be a pompous self-righteous egotist, but I really don't think he's that dumb.
4. This is not towards you guys, but do you think that anyone has actually read the "Baseball Prospectus" type research on the effects of steroids? I don't care how many steroids you give me, I couldn't make a Rookie league team, now or ever - it just isn't like that, at best, it's marginal.
5. For god sake, read some Bill James and get 100 reasons why home runs exploded in the late 90s and early 00s - change in equipment, stadiums amd style of play.

End of rant.