On baseball writers and Bonds

Jon Friedman takes the media to task for not investigating Barry Bonds sooner than the two Chronicle reporters whose book is about to come out. And in a letter to Romensko, author Evan Weiner says "baseball writers are baseball apologists first, baseball lovers second and journalists third." I'm sure there's some validity in both opinions, but my same question remains: Without the grand jury testimony, what were newspapers and other media going to do about Barry Bonds -- say he looked like he was on steroids? Rely on the word of other -- disgruntled exes, friends and hangers-on -- that he was doing them? With everybody looking at themselves these days -- and others like Friedman and Weiner doing it for us -- I still wonder where the Chronicle investigation (wonderful work, no doubt) would be if BALCO and the grand jury hadn't come along. What reportable information would have led us to connect Barry Bonds and steroids sooner? Nobody seems to have a good answer to that.