Game is over...still waiting for you to answer for your earlier statement
What eariler statement? Do you think that by playing dumb you will confuse the issue?
Very simply:
1. Chick Denies ever breaking the law in his competitive bodybuilding carreer by saying that he never used gear without a script
2. I point out the absurdity of this statement by mentioning that Chick is not a diabetic, and (by his own admission), has used insulin for bodybuilding purposes, therefore breaking the law.
3. Chick implies that he did not break the law since he was able to just buy some slin without a perscription, by just walking into a pharmacy and buying some. (In California that is). Chick says that he bought Humalog.
4. Myself and several other Getbiggers laugh at this, because there is no way in hell Chick bought Humalog without a script.
5. Like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Chick swears up and down that he did indeed buy Humalog without a script...thereby not breaking the law.
6. We continue to mock Chick for this....Milos gets involved and also laughs at this absurdity.
7. Chick backpedels and now implies that despite the legal implications involved, he did in fact buy Humalog without a script, which makes him ethier a liar, or a law-breaker.
So there you have it....thats pretty much the play by play...should I start drawing this out in crayon for you, or do you think you get it now?
M!