In the past twenty-four hours (long enough for Jack Bauer to save the world three or four times), I've seen two separate stories perpetuating one of the worst of the steroid myths. Phil Garner and Steve Phillips both stated that they thought the current testing program was working because they thought players looked smaller.

There's a couple things wrong with this. First, there's just no way to tell. Even trained eyes have a hard time discerning small differences in physiques. Over and over, we hear tales of Barry Bonds' head growing, but has anyone checked his hat size? I did - it hasn't changed from his rookie year. Bodies change for a number of reasons. The one extremely accurate way to check is testicle size and even that only works when someone is actively using. Next time I hear someone say "I showered with Canseco and his balls were the size of raisins" will be the first time. If we could accurately eyeball steroid users, we could save a ton of money on testing programs. Just set up these Juice-Eyes up and let them judge. I'm sure they'll be much more accurate than a scientific testing program, don't you?

Second, what if you're wrong? What if Scott Spiezio is laying off the Krispy Kremes, if Pudge Rodriguez would rather be called Skinny and worked with a nutritionist, or if Miguel Cabrera is finally filling out his body? Do we have any evidence that players are smaller? Why don't the beat writers ask the trainers? Trainers are fanatical about taking weights during spring training to prevent dehydration and heat-related illnesses.

Here's my point - QUIT GUESSING. There's ways, sometimes easy, to get real information that would help advance the discussion. Those with the access should be using that opportunity.