I know by now that it's impossible to sway the opinions of the masses on the topic of steroids in baseball, particularly related to the situation swirling around Barry Bonds. There are generally two camps: The I hate Barry therefore he did it no matter what anyone says people and the I like Barry, therefore these guys are just haters people.

Rather than quibble over things that can't necessarily be proven or measured or quantified, I have taken my issue, instead, with the piece of journalism constructed by the two authors of the book Game of Shadows. As a fellow journalist, it makes me quesy to even think of the book as a piece of journalism, but here goes:

In the book, the authors assert that Bonds was driven to steroid use by his jealousy of Mark McGwire. OK. Let's just say that's true. Something else they said doesn't add up, then. Here's the world they've painted--a jealous Bonds crazed that he's not as popular and as loved as Big Mac so he's driven to try to smash Big Mac's record and steal his limelight, thus the turn to steroids.

Fine. Seems ridiculous to me, but I'll grant it. Bonds didn't even touch his person record in homers until three seasons after beginning to take steroids. Thems slow acting roids. That personal high was reached in 2001, the year after the Giants moved into Fill In The Phone Company of Your Choice Park with the shortest left field fence in the MLB. Coincidence? He was also hitting in front of Jeff Kent, who won the MVP award. You can't really pitch around Bonds to get to the soon-to-be MVP and expect to win a lot of games. But, and here's the damning evidence, according to the book, Bonds settled for the walk whenever the pitch was three inches out of the zone. Why? Wouldn't a crazed egomaniac bent on smashing home run records swing at everything even close to the strike zone? Vladamir Guerrero can hit a pitch a foot off the dirt over the wall--lots of hitters can. Big League hitters can hit pitcher's pitches out of the park, so why didn't Bonds flail more? Certainly he was smart enough to know each walk he took was a potential homer off of the boards.

They continue by saying that whenever Bonds hit the ball squarely, "which he almost always did" that year, according to the book, the ball soared off of his bat. Amazing. A power hitter hitting balls squarely all season and hitting a career high in home runs. Doesn't seem possible.

The other troubling fact is that the book utilizes as a heavily used and relied upon source, Bonds' former girlfriend. The authors claim she's a reputable source becuase she wasn't after Bonds monetarily--well, except to pay off her house--and that she seemed to lack evident ulterior motives. I mean, except for the fact that she was a jilted lover. That's enough. That's all you need. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned--where do you think that expression comes from. A jilted lover doesn't need financial motivation. Loraina Bobbitt cut her husband's #### off and last I checked John Bobbitt wasn't one of baseball's all time great hitters with a net worth of millions. Another woman ran her husband over with her car--repeatedly! No fortune in the picture. Lots of really ticked off girlfriends and wives would jump at the chance to inflict pain of their former lover just for sheer principle. The thought that these guys consider her a value source is baffling to me, as a journalist.

Look, they said, at the claims made in grand jury testimony--transcripts of which made it to these writers through dubious means, at best. Leaking grand jury testimony is against the law, so having it in their possession as a source is akin to receiving stolen property. At any rate, they cite the testimony of Victor Conte and Greg Anderson--drug peddlers and untrustable liars, if you believe the FBI's take on the duo. They cite claims by CJ Hunter and Tim Montgomery that Conte told them that Bonds used the very same steroids that he was trying to coax them to buy--at a pretty hefty price. Does it seem far fetched that Conte, something less than a law abding citizen, would lie to try to get yet another sale of a substance it was illegal to sell in the first place? You have to approach the testimony of Conte and Anderson with skepticism--to say the very least.

This is all part of a "mountain" of evidence compiled by the Federal Government that is damnable to Bonds. Really. Then why hasn't the Department of Justice indicted Bonds? It's possible there is a reasonable amount of circumstancial evidence, but I doubt federal prosecutors would sit on an indictment if they knew they could nail Bonds dead to rights. Federal prosecutors live for high profile takedowns. If they could drop the hammer on Bonds, they would have by now. This type of "evidence" is not good enough to hold up in court, but it's good enough to sell books and that's the real motivation. There's your crack team of journalists--following in the footsteps of Jose Canseco. What more do you need to know.

One reputed and respected baseball writer said of the whole thing, "we haven't seen any REAL evidence" in the Bonds situation. Hmm. Real evidence. What else kind is there?