Two topics on this blog are legal matters and baseball, so Barry Bonds has been a frequent subject of posts here over the past four years. Inasmuch as this post from over two years ago speculated that Bonds would be indicted, regular readers of this blog weren’t surprised when the shoe finally dropped on Bonds this past week.
The Bonds indictment was met with typical self-righteous vindication by much of the mainstream media, but the blogs have thankfully provided a much more measured analysis of the charges. For example:

Peter Henning provides this excellent analysis (see also here) of the indictment and the probable course of the prosecution. Also, JC Bradbury compiles some thoughts from other legal commentators about the Bonds case, and Keith Scherer provides this extensive analysis of the Bonds case;
Norm Pattis provides this interesting post that analyzes the probable prison sentence that Bonds is facing, which is far less than those typically reported in the mainstream media. Thankfully, Bonds does not appear to face a draconian trial penalty if he chooses to defend himself at trial;
Reason’s Hit & Run blog provides this balanced compendium of blog posts and articles from over the years that remind us that witch hunts are common when a controversial person such as Bonds is prosecuted for covering up an alleged crime when the investigation was actually into the alleged crime, not the cover up; and
Along those same lines, Scott Henson questions the prosecution’s motives and judgment in pursuing Bonds.

And as Bonds is being singled out while more popular ballplayers have had a pass on being investigated for alleged illegal use of steroids, I’m trying to figure out why the Apple Rule is not available to protect Bonds? Could it be for the same reason that it was not available to former heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson during an earlier era?