[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

John: I don't disgaree that there's a good possibility that Bonds was using. However, the "proof" that he was is terribly weak. All there exists, is illegally-obtained Grand Jury testimony when Bonds suggested he used two substances which apparently contain some form of steroid. That's it. And, using this in a light most favorable to him, he didn't "know" they contained these substances. (At this point, there's no evidence to prove otherwise). Other than this, there is nothing beyond pure conjecture, to link him to use. I wonder why guys like Canseco and others who have played with Bonds (i.e. Kent) haven;t blown the whistle on him? If it was that obvious, don't you think there would be more, competent, evidence?

So- with regard to Bonds- weigh the evidence. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but must we make statements assuming it's unequivocally true?