We've been keeping an eye on the fallout, two days later, of the big Barry Bonds expose in Sports Illustrated, and we've noticed the debate being framed thusly: Do you believe in Barry or do you believe the book?
We find this an unusual way to look at it; the book is not an argument or an essay: It's hard evidence. (Though it's worth noting that it's evidence leaked by prosecutors because they're likely not going to end up pursuing a case against Bonds after all.) It's like that old story about the husband who is caught cheating by his wife but still denies it: Who are you going to believe: Your lying eyes ... or Me?
But that's the way it's going: Believe in Barry, or side with the haters. (The third option is, "Who gives a crap about steroids?" a position we understand far more than "Bonds didn't do steroids and is just being attacked.") The notion of even having a debate about this seems borderline insane — an argument for Barry against the charges is similar to claiming that, actually, Team USA did beat Canada yesterday — but human beings do not choose to be sports fans because it's rational and logical. Hell, we sure didn't.