Originally posted by ShoulderRoll
And, like I've said twice now, his solicitor made it clear what their key evidence was, which was a contaminated supplement. How is that not clear and coherent? It's clear because he made categorically clear publicly and it's coherent because it's very possible. Which is just as likely as likely as a contaminated meat excuse.
Originally posted by ShoulderRoll
Originally posted by ShoulderRoll
The long and short of it here is you're showing a blatant double standard. The two cases here as close to identical as you can get. Same amount of failed tests, both claim innocence, both have same amount of of trace amounts, both list same reason of contamination, both have the same likelihood of being true. The only single difference being Canelo failed for a much more potent drug, that's essentially the only difference between the two.
Comment