ST Alpha - "Cuz Bonds didn't test positive in 2005, 2006, 2007.....so not showing up would have been.....suspect. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 156

In response to "Not disagreeing on that point." by the liioulu with receipts

Cuz Bonds didn't test positive in 2005, 2006, 2007.....so not showing up would have been.....suspect. -- nm

Posted by Will Hunting (aka JoeMetz) Aug 2 '13, 13:29

(No message)

Responses:

Way before that point Bonds had passed suspect and had become tainted. -- nm - the liioulu with receipts Aug 2, 13:33 10
- Of course. But they had no 'proof'. He's not going to bypass the biggest number in sports for a suspicion. -- nm - Will Hunting Aug 2, 13:34 9
  - He chose not to. - the liioulu with receipts Aug 2, 13:37 8
    - How could he confirm it? Bonds PASSED the tests when they counted. You overestimate the ability of MLB to enforce rules that few wanted enforced. -- nm - Will Hunting Aug 2, 13:47 5
      - Uhm...no...I said that they chose to ignore the issue. -- nm - the liioulu with receipts Aug 2, 13:53 4
        
        as I mentioned yesterday(?), the NHL is now in this position. Do they proactively go after PED users or quietly wait until things happen that they hav - zork Aug 2, 13:56 1
        
        Hmm....never thought about that. - the liioulu with receipts Aug 2, 14:07
        
        Becuase they had no positive test. They had nothing. He didn't bury his head in the sand in 2007. - Will Hunting Aug 2, 13:56 1
        
        Still making my point for me. -- nm - the liioulu with receipts Aug 2, 13:57
    - he would have gotten sued if he did anything on a "suspicion" - groiny Aug 2, 13:37 1
      - That is part of my point. - the liioulu with receipts Aug 2, 13:47

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.