As Craig has pointed out with regard to Clemens, defamation cases are difficult to win under U.S. law, especially for public figures. And a loss would hardly be viewed, as Mr Marshall suggests, as a restoration of reputation, even if it occurs on technical grounds after evidence discrediting the statements of the defendants has been presented. It’s a bad option for Clemens and a bad option for Bonds.

Forgot to add, it’s also a very bad idea to bring matters before a civil court that are scheduled subsequently to come before a criminal court. There would be lots of ways inadvertently to improve the case of the criminal prosecution, even if the accused is entirely innocent. Why risk any of that?

Mr Marshall’s views notwithstanding, I would agree with Craig that Mr Bonds and his attorneys made absolutely the right decision not to challenge the authors of Game of Shadows in a court of law, regardless of the accuracy of that book. His lack of action against them—actually his withdrawal of his limited action against them—says nothing whatsoever about the authoritativeness of that book’s allegations. There’s just too much risk in taking action and too little gain, and that’s all we can read into it.

Mr Marshall - if you’re placing lots of weight on those allegations and are urging others also to do, it might be a good idea to list them. What exactly does that book allege that hasn’t also been put in play in the perjury investigation?

Well, let’s see…“Game of Shadows” cites various sources to allege that Bonds used Stanozolol, “The Cream, ” “the Clear,” Trenbolone (a cattle steroid), HGH, Insulin, Testosterone decanoate, , Clomid (a drug that restores serum testosterone levels following steroid abuse), Deca-Durabolin, and Norbolethone.

As with all near-certainties based on a complex mass of circumstantial evidence, any one bit can be deconstructed and questioned. This is how O.J. got acquitted, and Novitzsky is Bonds’ Mark Fermun. But as with Simpson (or Stevens—-remember him?), while any one indicia of guilt can be challenged, the odds that ALL of them are manufactured or misleading or innocent are ridiculously long. Heck—-forget about “Game of Shadows” for a minute. A great ballplayer, one who has displayed a consistent contempt for authority, rules and others in his sport, suddenly hulks out, prompting expert observers to note that he has the physical characteristics of a steroid user. He becomes an order of magnitude more powerful than he has ever been, AFTER the career and age points when ALL previous hitters in a hundred years of baseball history had begun to decline, and NONE had improved to s significant degree. He does this while being trained by a steroid advocate and user, who is also his close friend, and who later is convicted of steroid-related offenses. He also happens to be a client of a supplements company that has supplied steroids to other athletes, many of whom have admitted as much. In his grand jury testimony (illegally leaked, but that is no credit to the player), he unconvincingly argues that he took “The Clear” thinking it was “flax seed oil.” His trainer/friend, ordered to testify to a grand jury about the player’s steroid use, chooses instead to remain in jail. The player’s lawyer gives an interview in USA Today in which he says that he “sure hopes” his client “takes care” of the recalcitrant witness.

Is it theoretically POSSIBLE, given all of this, that this player didn’t use steroids? Sure. Would any unbiased individual who wasn’t invested in another conclusion think it is LIKELY or PLAUSIBLE or LOGICAL—- I would even say conceivable—-that this individual player didn’t use steroids? I don’t think so.

Now add the “Season of Shadows” allegations to that.

Come on.

Good. I’m sure everyone is grateful for THAT.