Re: Bonds Responds
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why did you read anything about Bonds into that?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because you had previously asked:
"If Bonds is listed in the Mitchell report, does that change any minds about the probabilites of BB using some sort of PED?"
Naturally, i questioned why the prescence of Bonds name in the report would do anything to change your view of it's credibility.
The credibility of the report should stand on it's own merits...not on whether or not it mentions Bonds.
[ QUOTE ]
I think it could:
1) include Bonds and be credible.
2) include Bonds and not be credible.
3) not include Bonds and be credible.
4) not include Bonds and not be credible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Option 3, FTW.
And I'm not guessing. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
[/ QUOTE ]
Not guessing? Lets hear the inside info if you have it.
Just to be clear on my position on the Mitchell report. I dont expect that everyone that is in it is 100% a user nor do I expect that 100% of the people not on it are non users.
|