Well, hell, Jeff, they've been pretending the NFL's steroids era is over for the last 20 years, so why should baseball be any different?

Also, if you're so concerned, why don't you do some investigating, instead of hyping your "Barry Bonds is rude to old ladies and kicks puppies" book.

He won't do any investigating because investigating is hard. That's really what it comes down to, I think. These beat writers are paid to go to baseball games, talk to the stars, and write up what happens. They're not investigative journalists, and most of them, I would guess, never have been.

Just look at Pearlman's suggestion when it comes to specifics, with regard to investigating Pujuols: "perhaps a flight or two to his native Dominican Republic to check out the friendly neighborhood pharmacies." The Dominican? Local pharmacies? What the hell is he talking about?

I am aware that journalists are supposed to dig into things and have to be hated sometimes, but I think what Pearlman is suggesting here would be unproductive, unrealistic and unethical--much like Rick Reilly daring Sammy Sosa to pee in a cup a few years ago. It seems to me that rather than hassling any player who performs exceptionally well and/or looks buff, if Pearlman is this concerned, he should educate himself--and his readers--about the testing program. How does it work? How does it compare to Olympic testing programs? Selig claimed there is an MLB-funded enterprise at UCLA to develop a method to detect human growth hormone--let's ask about that. What is the Mitchell Committee doing? Yes, I know this isn't as exciting to read about as Roger Clemens saying "#### you" to some guy asking him "are you juiced?" but I think a good writer could make such things interesting to all of these people who claim to be so worked up about PEDs in baseball.

I also wonder if Pearlman is getting some flak/freezeout from other writers and/or players about the Bonds book. The piece, for all its alleged moral outrage, is rather whiny.

Finally, I think this is very unfair to Pujols. Yes, he is bigger, but guys do fill out, and he does not look unusually defined, nor do I see any changes in his head or whatever. He may be juicing for all I know, but let the testing program doing its work. I think he is just a great hitter on a hot streak.

What is interesting is if you surf the caption bar at the bottom of the article. I had no idea Slate had done this much steroids coverage. Its not all baseball, so it hasn't made it out here. But the expose of steroids for middle school girls, the steroid excuse list, etc. are all very interesting.

I'll change the world!

It seems to me, the steroid crusaders will never be satisfied - regardless of any evidence.

Just this week an independent investigator (hired by the International Cycyling Union) came out with a report that said the French, WADA, et al can go (forget) themselves and Lance Armstrong didn't dope during the '99 Tour de France. Well what happens the next day - Dick Pound is on his soapbox calling for another investigation and an investigation of this investgation.

At some point people are innocent - despite all efforts to make them guilty.

Just this week an independent investigator (hired by the International Cycyling Union) came out with a report that said the French, WADA, et al can go (forget) themselves and Lance Armstrong didn't dope during the '99 Tour de France.

Actually, that's not what they said. They said that there were big holes in the evidence claiming that Armstrong doped. They didn't positively assert his innocence, because that's not their business, and the near impossibility of proving a negative. They also didn't condemn "the French," monolithic though you believe they be.

That said, I was very pleased by this report, because I have grown steadily angrier at the increasingly arbitrary behavior of WADA and its supporters. To my mind, the key battle is in football. We will see what results from the recent detente betwen WADA and FIFA - an equally arbitrary, maddening and pompous bureaucracy. But I very much doubt we're going to see 2-year bans resulting from technical offenses of the Rio Ferdinand kind, however much Pound blusters. For a start there's no way the courts will uphold them. Secondly, there's no way that UEFA or the G14 will put up with it.

Ultimately, professional sports is a business.

TA, you really think the NFL is interested in ridding the sport of steroids? I don't.

Oh, never mind. You're talking about soccer.

Stop talking european.

kevin, the NFL is not interested in getting rid of steroids. And the American public (and the sportswriters) don't seem to care. And MLB is only interested in keeping Congress away from their antitrust exemption.

On the one hand, I thought the article was consistent: if you're going to accuse people without any evidence, then why should some people get to be teflon-coated? If a player is suspect for hitting lots of home runs, then Pujols should be just as suspect as anybody else. On the other hand, I thought the article exemplied the witchhunt perfectly: we're going to presume guilt and throw around innuendo without facts.

(I've wondered about Pujols for a couple of months now: not about his guilt, but about the effect of his season. Will the reaction be, "He must be cheating also," or "Because of those bastard cheaters, poor Albert is being unfairly suspected also," or "Because of those bastard cheaters, he doesn't have the record that should legitimately be his"? Or will it be, "If Pujols could do it without cheating, then maybe we've been unfair to other people who have been accused without evidence"? Clearly, Pearlman is in the first camp.)

As for what Pearlman said: if one is going to accuse players of using steroids, yes, one should do investigative journalism about those players. But one should do it, not whine about other people not doing it and insinuate that something would be found.

OTOH, David, how often do you see an article written by a sportswriter that is critical of other sportwriters? He's kind of throwing his colleagues under the bus too, for lacking integrity and journalistic ethics.

You don't see that too often.

Investigative reporting has gone the way of the Dodo and Pinto. There is no news, only entertainment. And judging the quotes that writers get from players - insight, wit, sarcasm, information - we the people are extremely easy to entertain.

I hate to admit it but there's an awful lot of truth in that, SS.

There is no news, only entertainment.

Infotainment!

I think news still exists, but you usually have to seek it out in places where it doesn't care about ratings.

That said, I expect some incredible documentary within the next ten years on HBO. Some of the sport-based things they put out are incredible. Something on the level of that OJ documentary where the country was split by race.

Pearlman's article is great. I disagree that he's tossing around innuendo; what he says is right. We have NO reason to believe Giambi, journalists have NO reason to accept what any players say on steroids. Their job is to investigate and question. There's nothing unethical about challenging these guys.