?>

2.19.2009

Barry Bonds: Who Wouldn't Object to That?


We've all heard the disgusting side effects from steroids. The shriveled testicles, premature male pattern baldness, giant heads, 'roid rage and back acne. Ew. But should these things come into play as evidence in Barry Bonds' perjury case?
"Please Lord, no," says the federal court.
The Home Run King's defense attorneys are attempting to squash a proposal by the prosecution to have such things addressed as scientific and physical evidence.

As far as the allegations regarding Bonds’ family jewels, the defense claims there is no way to prove whether they are any smaller than they were on the day of his big league debut 23 years ago. Bonds’ former mistress Kimberly Bell, who filed a lawsuit against him while shopping a tell-all book about their affair, claims to "have noticed that Mr. Bonds’ testicles became smaller" throughout the course of their relationship. Something tells me a gold-digger's word may be taken with a grain of salt in the court of law.

The decision of what evidence is permissible rests with Judge Susan Illston alone, however. Good luck, Your Honor.

[NY Times] | [Fanhouse] | [Bob's Blitz]


4 comments: