I’m not sure what reason we have to believe that there are ergogenic benefits to HGH other than the fact that the media and companies who sell HGH have been beating us over the head with incorrect information for years. And given all of the attention I have received for bringing this up, you would think that someone would have provided some counter evidence if I was wrong.

As for andro, I cannot recall the citation for the seminal study on andro. The paper is on my desk at work, and I will post the abstract on Monday. The deal is, andro can convert to either testosterone or estrogen. And if you already have plenty of testosterone, its going to turn to estrogen. If anything, andro was hurting Mark McGwire, not helping him. In the meantime, here is a link to a literature survey.

The Safety and Efficacy of Anabolic Steroid Precursors: What is the Scientific Evidence?

Although fairly new to the athletic community, steroid precursors have been used as ergogenic or anabolic agents for quite some time. Suggested gains in strength and lean body mass are attributed to an increase in the endogenous production of testosterone and enhanced protein synthesis. Most of the scientific data, however, do not support manufacturers’ ergogenic claims, and the potential for serious side effects, such as decreased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increased estrogen concentrations, has been associated with precursor use. Thus, the safety and efficacy of these supplements must be questioned.

I agree with you on anabolic steroids, of course, and think you’re *probably* right on HGH (aside: I don’t think that the evidence that it doesn’t enhance performance is as strong as you suggest – I think it would be safer to say that it doesn’t help performance nearly as much as steroids) but I’m surprised to hear you say that andro doesn’t improve performance. I assumed that since andro is a chemical precurser to testosterone that its effects would be along the same lines as steriods. What evidence is there that andro doesn’t improve performance?

JC, I know that you are of the opinion that Bonds REALLY hasn’t done anything wrong since:
1. HGH Steroids and the like were not illegal for some time in baseball.
2. You don’t believe that stuff actually improves a players ability to hit or catch a ball.
3. The majority of the public really hates Bonds because he is an asshole rather than because he cheats.

I really don’t care if he is convicted or not. But I would be happy if he never played major league baseball again.

My thoughts echo JC’s. It is way worse for them to not indict than it is to indict and lose. That combined with what, in my opinion, looks like a weak factual basis for perjury, leads me to believe that Bonds will skate.

However, this doesn’t mean that you don’t have a point, Jason.

I think this case is special. They’ve renewed the grand jury twice (I think). From a political standpoint—which is all this case is about—I think they would prefer to go for it and lose than admit they wasted four years of resources pursuing a bum case. The wildcard here is new information that we haven’t seen. That is still a very real possibility.

I strongly disagree with you here. I think Bonds’ career is over. No one is going to sign a guy who is under indictment. Aside from the PR problems–I think fans would object to signing a guy facing prison time–he would the distraction of all time.

As for releasing Anderson, once the indictment was obtained, the govermment had to release him. He was in jail to try to get him to testify and once his testimony was no longer necessary, they had to release him. I don’t think there’s anything coincidental about it. They probably should have released him sooner since it was obvious he wasn’t going to testify but they had to once they got the indictment. However, if he refuses to testify now, it seems to me they have a strong obstruction of justice case against him and I hope he gets some real prison time.

As for it being a weak case, I doubt that we are privy to everything the govermment has. Given how difficult it is to convict on perjury, several other legal observers have come to the exact opposite conclusion–that the government must have an extremely strong case. It seems unlikely to me that a prosecutor would want to get an indictment without a reasonable chance of winning–he’s going to look a lot worse if he presents a weak case and Bonds is acquitted.