Quote Allez="Allez"Yet another example of you reading what you want to read. So I'll be (very) literal just for you.
No they are not. But I can read and what Lance is quoted as saying is '[i[usince returning to playing[/u[/i'.
What that means is is wasn't there before - or did you conveniently omit that in the inevitable blind defence of the convicted thug?
So you/I don't actually have to be medically qualified to look at the chronology and whilst I'd accept that people can and will draw their own conclusions his statement is actually pretty clear [u[iIF[/i[/u you care to read it before making silly statements.
However, what I will agree on is that I wish any player, from whatever Club, the very best when they are forced to retire. RL is a tough enough game without having it forced upon you.'"
Going to have to pick you up on this post..
Firstly you aren't being literal at all. You, like most people, are being opinionated. There's a big difference.
Convicted thug? What has he been convicted of? Do you mean the ban he received for the incident in question? If so, you do realise that Lance received a ban for his part in the same incident don't you? Therefore, by your terminology, anything you post is also in defence of a "convicted thug". Of course, both instances are nonsense.
As a matter of fact you DO need to be medically qualified to look at the chronology in this instance. I can tell you from personal experience that this is the case. I'll give you chapter and verse if you like but, if you agree to stop posting ill thought out, self-righteous nonsense, I promise not to bore you with the details.
On the third point I think we all agree.