by the way, under the terms of the immunity bonds received (just like, i believe, every other athlete asked to testify before the grand jury), the only stuff he could be charged with was perjury, obstruction of justice and the like. this numbnut had no way of getting into trouble for anything he injected/ate/snorted. unless he lied. again, granting immunity to people like bonds - who are in the position to provide evidence against the big guns (in this case, BALCO) - seems like a good idea, too. but to each his own.

As for our system of justice working, maybe you need to do some looking around to see how efficient said system really is. My questions raise on how much people are incited over Bonds regarding legal issues, and how many are incited over moral issues. All I keep hearing about is Bonds and his hubris, Bonds is a cheater, Bonds deserves his punishment. But what about Selig, who allowed rampant steroids to infultrate baseball while turning the other cheek, so long as profits were good? Do you thnk that if Selig were invesitaged in the manner in which Bonds was, four years of federal scrutinty and grand jury testimonies, he would walk away clean as the preacher's sheets? Do you really think if the feds wanted Selig, they wouldn't be able to get him under perjury or obstructing of justice charges? People don't want Selig because many want to believe that this steroids issue is a Bonds problem, not a baseball problem.

Bonds is one of hundreds who are all guilty of the exact same thing. Only difference is they didn't break a sacred record, and therefor, for whatever reason, it's unecesssary to hold them up to the same standards, investigation, and scrutiny Bonds has faced.

Am I defending Bonds? No. But keep in mind he was also doing something that at the time was not against the rules of MLB. But then Congress stepped in, where baseball and Selig wouldn't, and suddenly things changed.