[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Easier answer for Bonds. If it's false, he should sue them for libel. He's got the money to bankroll a litigation, and it should be pretty easy to prove that what's written in the book is false -- for example, that the records they say exist do not exist in reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, but what is to gain by a multi-millionare who is at the sunset of his career and about to enjoy the rest of his life in luxury have to gain by instead spending 4-5 years tied up in civil courts suing two newspaper columnists with a combined net worth of less that one week's pay?

Not to mention, no matter what outcome of any libel suit, the publicity of it will remain on the fornt page and people will villify him no matter the outcome.

When I read the synopsis that one of the authors was fired from a job early in his career for fictionalizing news articles, and the other was barred from teh Giants clubhouse in the late 90's for villifying players, it made me question their motivation and credibility.

I'm not saying Bonds is squeaky clean by any measure, he may be, he may not be, but I find it amazing how everyone places INSTANT credibility and infallibility in these two authors who they know nothing about, just to justify their preconcieved notions on Bonds.