View Single Post
Old 08-24-2012, 05:14 PM   #15
murrrcat's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,831

Originally Posted by juanab View Post
He may be a jerk, an a-hole, etc., but don't you still need to have proof other than the word of those who were caught cheating? This reminds me of what happened to Gary Condit. Did he cheat on his wife, yes, but that didn't make him a killer. With no proof whatsoever, the implications abounded. Turns out, he didn't do it. Innocent until proven guilty? Seems not anymore.

Sent from my iPhone using CurlTalk

someone wrote this:

To quote someone (I don't remember who), if he was doping, Lance beat a bunch of fellow dopers. If he didn't dope, he still beat a bunch of dopers

it is odd to not actually have proof, tis kind of rude.
murrrcat is offline   Reply With Quote