I guess the major new development for me is the extent of the cheating. We knew that he cheated but i was not aware that it went back as far as 1998 and was as extensive as it appears to be, though I'm not surprised by this.

I suspect some people will argue that he did not cheat because their was no rule against what he did. That argument is simply absurd. He took an illegal and harmful substance which gave him an unfair advantage over other players who chose not to risk their health by taking these drugs. That is cheating by any definition of the word

The record books are what they are. They can't be "wiped clean" in the sense that his numbers for those years are left blank, but they can be discounted, which is what I do and what major league baseball can do. If you think the record books can be wiped clean simply ask yourself, "who holds the single season home run record." The only possible answer to this question is Barry Bonds. He did hit more homers than anyone else in a season. It is also undeniable that he cheated to do it. I discount what cheaters do and consider their accomplishments illegitimate, but that does not change the fact that he accomplished it. Who holds the legitimate record? I don't have a clue.

Regarding the Hall of Fame, Pete Rose is being kept out for what he did as a manager despite being a HOF caliber player. Therefore, I see no reason why Bonds could not be kept out for cheating despite being a HOF caliber player beforehand. He's a disgrace, he was going to go down as one of the 10 greatest players ever, now he's just a loser and a drug addict.

I keep hearing it reported that Bonds has steadfastly denied ever using steroids. But isn't it a fact that he admitted it during his grand jury testimony? How can anyone still refer to this as mere allegations. There is no such thing as absolute proof, even a positive test is not absolute proof. Proof is simply a matter of probabilities.

It's an admission that he took steroids. You cannot deny that. It's a denial that he knowingly took steroids. But if you beleive that he didn't know what he was taking then, as King said, you need therapy

I agree the WBC has been pretty entertaining baseball, the first time that has happened in my lifetime in the month of March, so for the first time I'm giving credit to Bud for coming up with a decent idea.

I think the most interesting thing will be to see if the teams without many major league players, but with quality professional baseball in their own right can win, I'm referring specifically to Cuba and Japan.

I just looked at the tie-breaking rules for this thing and they are the dumbest single rule in the history of sports. After head-to-head, you go to runs allowed in games between the tied teams. Not run differential, but runs allowed. Who thought that was a good idea? It should be noted that the US will advance over Canada despite losing to Canada, although I actually have no problem with that.

King makes a good point about the meaning of the conference tourneys to the top teams. But a corollary is that if UCONN losing doesn't and should not cost them, then Syracuse beating them shouldn't benefit them all that much. Does anyone think that if UCONN was playing at say regular season intensity, it would have come out the same way?

One ump makes the call, then Buck Martinez comes out to argue, then the umps confer and then Davidson overturns the call.

Now Davidson says that it was his call to make the entire time. Well, if it was then why did he wait until Martinez came out to argue. Was he gonna let the wrong call stand if Buck didn't argue. This leaves the impression that he was unduly influenced by Martinez. Clearly his statements are an after the fact rationalization.

Anyway, I love the fact that I'm watching baseball that means something more than absolutely nothing in March, and how bout the Cubans knocking off a bunch of major league all-stars from Venezuela. Could it be that there is a wealth of major league quality talent not in the major leagues, but playing in places like Cuba and Japan. that is in an intriguing thought.

A loss to Mexico would not necessarily eliminate the U.S. team. If Korea beats Japan; Japan beats Mexico and mexico defeats the U.S., Korea would be 3-0 and the other teams would all be 1-2, thereby triggering the tie-breaker of runs allowed versus the tied teams.