Jesus.Dude that’s your interpretation. I have responded to each and every poster that I understand what and why. I never said he was injury prone because of the ankle injuries, I said he was injury prone because of five surgeries within 16/18 month period, and that conversation stemmed from a poster calling out another. Not sure why you’re so butt hurt over that.
You just don't care at all that the ankle surges were 100% elective and were not because they were bad or rare or anything like. At this point, if the guy got a tattoo removal you'd count that too. It is absurd. You've been given evidence and just ignore it and continue pushing this BS narrative all while acting like everyone is else is wrong.