The idea that Bonds was slacking in the mid 90s is news to me. I always had impression that he was fanatical about his workouts. Maybe Bonds was working out harder than before in the 98/99 winter because he couldn't work out any harder before he started taking drugs.

However you slice and dice the numbers, there's one thing that can't be ignored: Barry's production did not decline as he entered his mid-30s and apparently began using steroids. Even if his home-run totals only stayed the same, his performance from age 35-40 is a huge statistical anomaly. Add in the 73 home runs and the spike in batting average, and Barry seems to belong to some other species.

And besides, you can't rely on statistics alone to disprove a meticulously detailed chronicle of Bonds' drug use. This isn't just the ravings of a former girlfriend; the writers have compiled a massive amount of evidence, much of it from official sources. So far, those who are defending Barry are simply choosing to ignore this highly documented reality.

I really do think that there was something wrong with either the pitching or baseballs that helped more than steroids.

Look at McGwire. If you believe Canseco, then why didn't McGwire really start hitting home runs until he was traded to St. Louis? He had 2 years of around a HR every 8 ab in Oakn in 95-96, which is an improvement over his rookie year of 1 every 11 ab, but in 97 with oakland, he was back to his rate of his rookie year. Only until he was traded to St. Louis did he suddenly hit them a lot on a consistent basis (basically 1 every 7 ab for the next 2 1/2 years, til his final season which is back to his normal rate)

Anyway, my point is, two things have to be proved = that steroids were used, and that steroids actually helped, not some other factor.