Steroids and Supplements
Is anyone really surprised that Bonds took steroids?
More importantly, is anyone not shocked by baseball's new policy to approve various nutritional supplements and sell them to players?
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It's hard to be surprised at what's been obvious for five years.
Why was this even a news story?
I think it had something to do with the level of detail in the new book, versus the vague denials of the past couple years.
Seems pretty indisputable now.
Do the authors of the book have any hard evidence beyond there words? If not, we're back to the status quo.... People accuse Bonds of using steroids, Bonds denies it. Nothing new.
As for the policy of MLB selling supplements to players, I think that's a good thing. MLB can act as its own FDA and have better control over the situation.
I agree with you that it's a good thing for MLB to regulate supplements. My surprise comes from the fact that they're generally not so forward-thinking.
Anyway, SI printed a large excerpt from the book about Bonds, and it's pretty detailed. The reporters seemed to get all of their ducks in a row, and have named names and sources, and printed some of the pictures.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Bonds. But anyone who wasn't already convinced he was juicing after the BALCO testimony leaked likely has their head so far in the sand that even this book won't convince them.
No doubt. The article's not really going to change anyone's mind.
Looking at it from a legal perspective -- and yes, the article is hearsay -- it's essentially a summary of all of the evidence likely to be presented against him, and it seems like an awful lot.
Mostly, though, it showed why he's likely to be in serious trouble with the IRS and whatever California court is enforcing his divorce/alimony/custody arrangements.
Post a Comment