General Error SQL ERROR [ mysql4 ] Table './cafe_forums/baseball_sessions' is marked as crashed and should be repaired  An sql error occurred while fetching this page. Please contact an administrator if this problem persists.
The preponderance of evidence is by far the most detailed and damning condemnation that Bonds, formerly a sleek five-tool player, built himself into a hulking, record-setting home run hitter at an advanced baseball age with a cornucopia of elaborate, illegally-administered chemicals.
Everyone wanted evidence, looks like there is a ton of it in the book.
What I find the funniest about all of this is that if the idiot hadn't denied it so vehemently while breaking one of baseball's most hallowed records none of these articles and/or books would be comign out now.
Bonds brought this on himself. He deserves the attention he's getting.
PlayingWithFire wrote:reminder: Steroid is legal before 2002
The use of steroids in the United States without prescription has been illegal for sometime now, hence the term "illegal steroids." Simply because MLB did not contractually ban steroids, does not mean they were legal for use without prescription in the United States. I hope this argument is put to rest.
a book written by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters at the forefront of reporting on the BALCO steroid distribution scandal.
Yawn... When I see something with any sort of validity maybe I'll listen. This is just a couple of tabloid writers trying to sell books.
Note: It has been my stance forever that Bonds has not been proven of taking steroids. I have never said, "Bonds never used steroids", because I haven't been around him his entire life.
When I see some actual, concrete proof, I'll then say he used steroids. Until then, I see no facts to prove that.
Yawn, another apologist who doesn't have a clue what he/she is talking about. They go into great detail in the book listing all their sources and where all their information is from. It's all legit, and its time to face the facts. Also, its not illegal to report the grand jury testimony, it would be illegal for the source to leak it. However, the government actually has to bother to badger the reporters into giving up that name. It was hard enough for them to get the source out from Novak in the whole Valerie Plame case. They aren't going to bother for a rather trivial thing and a cause that they pretty much support. I knew as soon as I heard about this there would be dopes attempting to discredit it by saying "BIASED SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE" etc etc.