Barry Bonds' Testicles to Get Their Day in Court

Will this photo find its way into evidence as well?

​Four years ago, just one of Barry Bonds' balls sold for $752,467. Well that was then and this is now.

These days, the focus is on both of Bonds' balls -- and their diminished state. Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 at the Bonds perjury trial will be the slugger's depleted testicles, an indicator that he pumped more than Gatorade and flaxseed oil into his body to induce a power-hitting renaissance at age 35. Incidentally, testimony regarding testicles will mark a long, etymological loop, as the term "testimony" is purportedly derived from the ancient rite of clasping one's scrotum while swearing an oath. But we digress.

The variant sizes of Bonds' hands, feet, head, and balls will be the evidence the government, after a two-year sojourn, will apparently employ in its attempt to nail the home-run king for perjury. Will discussion of Bonds' naughty bits outweigh the fact that, when he last testified in 2003, "The Clear" he was accused of taking was not considered a steroid -- or even illegal? Is this a desperate attempt to salvage a lengthy, expensive prosecution, or simply an opportunity to vengefully drag Bonds through the muck? University of San Francisco law professor Bob Talbot says everything is in play.  

Talbot -- who previously chatted with SF Weekly regarding the Grizzly Bear Grotto and SpiderDan cases -- says there are three ways to approach the forthcoming trial.

"One is, so much time and energy has been put into this case and the prosecutors sincerely believe he did lie about taking performance-enhancing drugs," he says. "Another way to look at it is, from the point of view of the system, the rule of law depends on people telling the truth in court. Judges are very serious about that. And another way to see it is what a crazy waste of time and money this is -- a trial where one of the issues is Barry Bonds' testicles."

Ch-ch-ch-changes...

​Once more: Since the drug Bonds is accused of taking was legal in 2003 and not considered a steroid, he could truthfully deny taking steroids during his grand jury testimony. He could have taken steroids by the truckload from '04 to the present and still be legally in the clear. Yet the overwhelming evidence Bonds took performance-enhancing drugs will certainly weigh on a jury, even if it comes after the all-important 2003 testimony.

"As a trial lawyer, I'm going to try and get everything I can into evidence," Talbot says. "It shouldn't be able to come in. But trial lawyers are clever."

So, testimony from former Bonds mistress Kimberly Bell that he admitted drug use (and exhibited multiple, grotesque symptoms) or Kathy Hoskins' claim that she saw Bonds trainer Greg Anderson inject the home-run king in the stomach may carry weight. So will former Big Leaguers' testimony regarding how Anderson gave them performance-enhancing drugs -- and how Bonds must have known he was juicing, too.

It remains to be seen whether Bonds will be made to try on an old pair of his underwear as government attorneys instruct the jury that "if the briefs don't fit, you can't acquit." But, at this point, would it surprise anyone?

Follow us on Twitter at @SFWeekly and @TheSnitchSF