Quote:
Originally Posted by mikev
Because it's pretty much the equivalent of saying "This guy took steroids because this other guy said he did."
That's not very good evidence. Not at all.
I think it takes away some of the credibility of the report because I don't think anybody should have been named without hard evidence -- copies of checks, money transfers, failed tests, etc...
|
I agree. Funny how people just automatically assume that the report is proven fact. It isnt. Its just a report.