|
It's not a "because I'm right" thing. You can argue there's no major difference until you're blue in the face and it changes nothing. Dude, the guy was way better defined by the end of 2005 than he was at the beginning. His size change was pretty much over the course of his US title run, and he managed to stay pretty impressively buffed on an increase touring schedule. You say that he has none of the charactersistics of a steroid user, based on what, I'm not entirely sure. I mean, you give examples of steroid abuse, which is far from necessary to gain the bulk Cena did.
I mean, The Hurricane shows none of the indicators you talk about, and he was taking Steroids. Eddie Guerrero, who we know to have been part of Signature's scandal, was also on steroids, and never showed those signs. The only sign in his case was that he was significantly larger. Your whole stance seems to be based on "he doesn't have what I consider to be a steroid body."
Which is fine, it's just not very aimiable with reality, where you don't need to be Steiner or Lesnar to be on steroids. You don't even need to be Triple H. Steroids don't even need to make you more injury prone.
And by the way, in EVERY post you've had where I disagree with you, you've resorted to some sort of cop out, such as this "I'm right because I'm KK" thing.
Seriously, I don't know if you're fooling yourself or what, but since you are the one doing exactly that, it's kind of comical that yo're making accusations. Consistantly. I disagree with you, you cop out with a made up argument like "You're right, everybody sucks," or you accuse of copping out before the fact, or you simply try and make it about me.
If you're doing it to be a massive hypocrite or score some points on an internet message baord by "pwning" me, then by all means. But assuming you're actually trying to argue, that's just ridiculous.
|