so who are you? wrote:
Shelby is guilty wrote:
Are you blind in addition to dumb? He already responded
Huh?
He responded IN THE THREAD. Holy Sh*t
so who are you? wrote:
Shelby is guilty wrote:
Are you blind in addition to dumb? He already responded
Huh?
He responded IN THE THREAD. Holy Sh*t
Shelby is guilty wrote:
so who are you? wrote:
Huh?
He responded IN THE THREAD. Holy Sh*t
Lay off the pipe bro. I want names, not anonymous keyboard warriors defaming the best athletes.
If you're going to appoint yourself as the High Priest of Sporting Ethics, you need to be accountable for your own actions.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
westsouthrunner wrote:
So the idea of a clean sport group saying that people shouldn't support someone who believes they are clean is sickening. Regardless of if they went to trial or not. They should be tweeting that Lawson, Wilson, and Martinez should be banned since blindly following the results of drug tests would morally be in line with what they are with Shelby.
The cases were similar only in the fact that Shelby used the same justification as they did. The difference (and it’s a big difference) is that in those other cases, they provided evidence, went to court and it was determined that they were not cheaters. In Shelby’s case, it was determined that she was lying.
westsouthrunner wrote:
Has anyone on these message boards ever been accused of something they didn't do?
Yes, absolutely! But have I ever presented by case to a court, lost, appealed, and lost again? — all for something I truly did not do? No, that’s never happened.
truth teller for now wrote:
westsouthrunner wrote:
So the idea of a clean sport group saying that people shouldn't support someone who believes they are clean is sickening. Regardless of if they went to trial or not. They should be tweeting that Lawson, Wilson, and Martinez should be banned since blindly following the results of drug tests would morally be in line with what they are with Shelby.
The cases were similar only in the fact that Shelby used the same justification as they did. The difference (and it’s a big difference) is that in those other cases, they provided evidence, went to court and it was determined that they were not cheaters. In Shelby’s case, it was determined that she was lying.
westsouthrunner wrote:
Has anyone on these message boards ever been accused of something they didn't do?
Yes, absolutely! But have I ever presented by case to a court, lost, appealed, and lost again? — all for something I truly did not do? No, that’s never happened.
And yet Wejo, Rojo, and Gault INSIST on defending her. Why?
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
Shelby is guilty wrote:
so who are you? wrote:
You first.
YOU first
I might be rojo.
But then again, so might you.
so who are you? wrote:
Shelby is guilty wrote:
YOU first
I might be rojo.
But then again, so might you.
No, we’re both too articulate to be Rojo. I know Rojo’s writing voice and yours ain’t it