So, how much do you trust government officials and our system of justice? Do you believe they're doing their jobs correctly? And how much do you let their actions influence who you believe in the current wave of sports controversies?

Consider this:

* The affidavits charging Tim Donaghy, and the information coming so far from the FBI, tell us that Donaghy acted alone in providing inside information to gamblers. The key phrase is: "Donaghy concealed this scheme from the NBA and other referees in order to prevent its detection.'' That, it seems, proves David Stern's assertion last month -- that Donaghy is a "rogue, isolated criminal'' -- correct, and that there aren't two or five or 15 other refs about to be caught up in the net, and that Donaghy isn't about to flip on several of his colleagues.

Do you buy that? Is what the charging documents, the judge and the FBI tell you good enough to give the NBA a pass on the idea that it's rife with crooked refs and has no integrity left at all? Its integrity has taken a severe hit, for certain, but it looks as if it's not as bad as it could have been. Does this mean you're free to surrender your trust back to the NBA, or are you going to look cockeyed at the league for a long while to come?

* Michael Vick is still mulling a possible plea, now that his three co-defendants are turning on him, several other witnesses previously turned, and possibly teammates are going to called to testify. The thing here is, he might very well be completely innocent and the victim of a huge frame-up -- but with all these witnesses lined up against him, can he and his lawyers still believe they'll win the case? He looks guiltier by the day, and if he pleads out, that will seal the deal.

So, again -- do you buy it? The federal prosecutors are showing the public what appears to be an airtight case (although no one will see actual evidence until this actually goes to court, if it does). Remember, a certain local prosecutor made a huge public scene of having an airtight case against certain college lacrosse players, until it became obvious that he had no evidence at all. But that prosecutor didn't have seven people waiting to bury the defendants. Vick's lawyers are even divided on this -- some say a plea is the safest route, others want the feds to bring their evidence to court and see if it stands up in the light of day.

Whether you believed Vick guilty from the start or you wanted to see how the case played out, the latest developments have to color your impressions of him. Unless there's some shocking reversal soon, the people who "convicted'' Vick prematurely might have been premature, but they might also have been right all along.

* Last but not least, Barry Bonds is talking about striking back at people who publicly jump to conclusions about what he has and hasn't done. It's been made clear that it's directed toward Curt "Shill''-ing more than anybody, but it does raise this never-ending question: How, in all these years, has the federal government not been able to find a single thing to charge Bonds with? Not perjury, not tax evasion. Yes, Bonds' pal, Greg Anderson, has clammed up and let himself cool his heels in jail (Vick needs friends like this, right?), but if he's the linchpin to either case, then you might conclude that there isn't much of a case.

So ... do you believe the circumstantial evidence piled up against Bonds -- books, grand-jury testimony, witnesses, doctors, the eyeball test, his helmet size and all -- or do you think, "Well, this is what the Justice Department supposedly does best, and they can't pin anything on him, so what exactly can we really say?'' Heck, they caught Capone, they caught John Gotti, but they can't get Barry Bonds? What conclusion can be drawn from that?

Just asking.