http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19569703/

7/2/2007 11:20:34 PM

Maybe, but then again Tank Johnson is a 320 pound man. .072 for him is not the same number of drinks as .072 for me.

7/3/2007 12:51:28 AM

obviously thats what he meant

7/3/2007 1:46:03 AM

the simple fact is that he should be nowhere near a bar, club or anything else. He should sit his fatass at home until his probation is over, he is obviously just putting on an act trying to rebuild his life.

7/3/2007 10:40:51 AM

^^^so fucking what? being drunk isn't a factor solely based on the number of drinks you've had.

if you can drink a case of beer and blow a 0.000, then you're not drunk and thus free and clear to drive. sames as if you drink half a can of beer and you're gonna blow a 0.15, then you're drunk off your ass.

he was clearly within his legal rights to drive his car

7/3/2007 10:43:32 AM

Something that a lot of athletes will never understand is that once you get involved with the law, you need to be on your best behavior until your punishment/sentence/probation is up. If that means staying away from the club scene, then so be it. It's a huge ego killer for these guys to deal with that though. In all honesty, Tank Johnson did nothing wrong that night at .072, but something that these athletes will never understand is that putting yourself in that position looks bad enough, especially when you already have a rap sheet and are trying to earn back the respect of your coaches and the commissioner, and the judge that was nice enough to let him out of the state of Illinois to compete in the super bowl.

7/3/2007 11:55:39 AM

this thread was needed

7/3/2007 12:05:31 PM

its a well known fact that my threads suck ok

you all have a fun 4th

7/3/2007 3:01:20 PM

^^^^ I think you misunderstood him. He meant that technically Tank didn't have "less to drink" than most because if we drank what he drank we would definitely be drunk.

It's more a statement that the thread title is misleading it should say "Tank had a lower bac than most of you before driving"

7/3/2007 7:07:55 PM

his thread was needed

7/3/2007 8:06:30 PM

almost as needed as your worthless post...

...which happened to bring his thread back to the top.

[Edited on July 3, 2007 at 8:34 PM. Reason : .]

7/3/2007 8:32:47 PM