This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
To say there is NO evidence that Tiger used is myopic. Galea and growth is evidence, but not convincing to some.
Once again, I don't believe Tiger or Bryson broke any rules. Bryson just bugs people
Many people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence. Most, I’d say. I once prosecuted a case in which the defendant argued that, because there were no eye witnesses, there was reasonable doubt. Guilty.
I'll say it again: there remains no hard evidence to support Tiger having been "juiced."Your point about "growth" carries no weight at all (no pun intended).
This is a "Discussion Group" not a "Court of Law". I am not part of Nike's PR team either.
Quote from: Mike Sweeney on November 26, 2022, 07:25:11 AMThis is a "Discussion Group" not a "Court of Law". I am not part of Nike's PR team either.Nor am I. I'm simply discussing your "belief" that you don't think Bryson "juiced" while you think Tiger did.
What are you implying?
I have a pretty good idea what you meant but was hoping you would clarify.