The Real Issue is what you were Doing with his 6-year-old Urine in the First Place

Big news yesterday was that a 2003 urine sample from Barry Bonds has tested positive for steroids. The positive sample will likely play a huge role in his ongoing trial for perjury. I wonder if those guys that said it was negative five years ago are in trouble too.

Seriously though, this urine is six years old. What's it doing be retested now? I don't even want to know what my urine would test positive for after six years. You leave the wrong shit out in your kitchen and it smells awful after a day!

Another thing: I'd like to know who tested this sample. I'd bet money it wasn't the lab's top dog. Think about it, testing a six year old urine sample seems like a job for the new guy, right? Then he passes it off to the janitor.

Apparently the evidence was retested and was sealed, but today the judge is expected to...wait for it...break the seal and hear arguments on the admissibility of the tests. I get the feeling that not many people care that much about this trial anymore, but there is nothing like a good stale pee story to rejuvenate interest in Barry Bonds. Stay tuned for a Pedro Gomez report.