You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.

And Another Thing


Uncle Sam, flushing your dough

Been nominally following the Barry Bonds terrorism trial, or quadruple murder trial, or whatever heinous thing it is he's supposedly done. And I'm fast beginning to think the feds have no case whatsoever against the man.

(For the irony resistant: He's actually on trial for perjury, a charge that carries a few months behind bars at best and for which the feds are spending thousands of tax dollars. Meanwhile, the fools on the Hill fret about whether teachers might be earning a decent standard of living, and how saving America depends on them ending such a travesty).

Anyway ... so far, all we've been hearing is testimony from all the ballplayers who say they took steroids from Bonds' trainer, Greg Anderson. And testimony from Bonds' ex-girlfriend about how his head grew while, um, other appendages shrunk. And testimony from other trainers about how much muscle mass and back acne Bonds developed, surely an indication of steroid use.

None of this is remotely relevant to anything. Remember, Bonds has never denied he took steroids, only that he took them unknowingly. So why this parade of witnesses to establish an already established fact?

None of it goes anywhere in proving whether Bonds lied about not knowing he was taking steroids, so it seems a complete waste (that word again) of time. Where are the feds going with this? And unless they actually have the man himself on tape acknowledging he was taking steroids, how do they prove he was lying to the feds about not knowing he was taking them?

What a colossal squandering of time, effort, money, resources, trying to prove something the feds can't prove. And which 99.9 percent of the country wouldn't care about it they could.

Ben Smith's blog.