Commenting on the steroid back and forth, Bill Arkansas brings up a good point about the prosecution of Barry Bonds:
Don’t forget that they’re going after Bonds for lying under oath, the same thing that they got Martha Stewart and Miguel Tejada for. The reason that Jason Giambi has basically gotten a walk on this whole issue (at least from a legal standpoint) is that he has consistently told the truth. I’m with you in general about steroids, but I think in general, going after celebrities who lie under oath provides a high profile disincentive for others to lie under oath. I agree with you that if the goal is to limit steroid abuse, money can be better spent than bothering with Bonds, but I disagree that steroids are the primary issue in the Bonds case.
True, the case against Bonds is not about steroids: it’s about his lying under oath. That said, it does still seem like a bit of a witch hunt. It’s easy for Barry to say that the Feds are trying to make an example out of him because it really does seem that way inasmuch as the coverage of the case in the media. I suppose Bonds was just unlucky to be implicated so directly in the BALCO case that he caught a subpeona. But being unlucky and famous (as opposed to other players implicated in that case, but not called before the grand jury) just doesn’t come off as very just, even though I have to admit that it is just. You do need to ask yourself, though: would the Feds have thrown out/stopped pursuing a case so troubled by procedural errors and tenuous evidence (as far as the media knows about)?