Which evidence is more compelling in the Bonds' trial; His smaller testicle size or his increased hat size?

As we all know, in proving a perjury case you must prove a case within a case;i.e. the truth of an underlying fact(s) and knowingly lying about it under oath or in other specified situations. So here , the Government must prove that Bonds knew he was taking steroids before they can get to the lying part. Not easy without Greg Andersen the trainer, who is allegedly the only one with direct knowledge regarding "the actual injection of steroids" So what does the Government have? A strong circumstantial case is being built. Giambi and other baseball players' testimony regarding general facts about steroid use. Someone who saw an individual come out of Bonds' bedroom with a syringe. His former girlfriend who testified about discussions with Bonds and her observations about hair falling out, acne, weight gain, ....and smaller testicles and larger hat size. Hmm. Did someone say "getting older "? Well, it will be interesting to see how the evidence and trial progress. Can a jury convict Bonds for having "small balls" and "a big head" ? Your thoughts?