Sorry if I come off as a hater Wr but just what are you trying to say?
wrveres wrote:oh ....
and for you fools thinking he is just trying to Skirt the WBC drug testing ...
As of January 17th, every single participant has been subject to testing, so if that was the case, he would have dropped out earlier ..
He would have dropped out earlier...but he didn't...so he was a participant as of January 17th. And every single participant as of January 17th has been subject to testing. So as a participant as of January 17th Bonds was subject to testing? Did I get that right?
and no, they don't announce when they are testing .. and they don't make positive or negative results available to the media ..
I'm not trying to interpret your posts so don't go ballistic.
You are brutally honest to a flaw but are you saying that he got tested or are you just using up bandwidth?
Not trying to be a sheep or anything ... but baaaa.
Guys, it's pretty obvious what Wr is saying...not that he was tested, but that he knew when the testing started, and if he was worried about it he would've opted out before it was possible he might be tested. It sounds to me like he wanted to play at first, but the more he thought about it and with people trying to talk him out of it, he decided it was smarter to just get ready for the season. Why the uproar? At least he didn't do like ARod and be all wishy-washy, trying to do the politically correct thing. The people I have no respect for are the people that don't speak their mind, instead of doing what's in their heart. Quit trying to make everyone happy ARod, be a man and do what you want to do.
ok - now I get it "subject to testing" only means that the possibility of being tested was there but he was not necessarily tested. That was very confusing. Being subjected to testing can also mean that he was tested.
For a person who is never vague wrveres you were definitely unclear there. "As of January 17th, every single participant has been subject to testing" sure sounds like they were all tested.
Mookie4ever wrote:ok - now I get it "subject to testing" only means that the possibility of being tested was there but he was not necessarily tested. That was very confusing. Being subjected to testing can also mean that he was tested.
For a person who is never vague wrveres you were definitely unclear there. "As of January 17th, every single participant has been subject to testing" sure sounds like they were all tested.
thank you sooner. I thought it was pretty obvious ..
I would especially expect a lawyer to understand what ..
"subject to testing" means
apparently not ..
I still fail to see how this was vague .. You all can make a play on words all you want ...
He was subject to testing .. PERIOD!
did I say he was tested NO.
So please stop putting words in my mouth, calling me dishonest and a liar ..
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by wrveres » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:31 pm 
