Oh I think you nailed it. One of your biggest problems is your blind mistrust in the authorities. This negatively distorts everything you read.
The "proven" IAAF corruption between Diack's unofficial circle, and the Russians, is not a carte-blanche license that allows you to pick and choose what you want to believe.
Another of your biggest problems, is that without your distorted retellings of historical events, your conclusions would make little sense.
For example, who else shares your completely unfounded suggestion that "WADA tolerated IAAF's pro-doping actions"? There are a broad spectrum of plausible scenarios, but none suggesting WADA turned a blind eye to blood sample results, suspicious according to a formula not yet adopted, or for the earliest samples, not yet even invented, at a time when blood samples were not required to be collected by WADA, or results given to WADA, and had no evidentiary value in determining WADA anti-doping rule violations. This is too extreme even for the UK tabloids to suggest, and you repeat it with no shame, accusing me of blind trust in WADA because they praised the IAAF's historically proven and extremely active contribution to anti-doping research and enforcement.
The example of you describing the destruction of "54 re-tested negative samples according to the mandate" (which is uncontested public knowledge) as "more than 50 suspicious values" is another one of an endless stream of examples, where you need to distort the reality, and inject your bias, to prop up an endless series of opinions that needs propping.
That is your style of "your extreme wish to downplay or outright ignore evidence and actions" -- fabricating your own reality.
I know many things about the destruction of the retested Russian samples, from the two documents I posted, but I (and you) don't know the exact terms of the retention instructions, and how (or if) they were formalised between WADA and the Lausanne lab, and whether the terms were completed after the retesting of the A and B samples permitting their destruction, and where exactly any misunderstanding occurred, and if the occurrence was intentional or not.
While it's tempting to reduce this complexity to the shallow conclusion that "somebody lied", this kind of reduction is also a lie you use to prop otherwise baseless conclusions.
If anything, I might accuse the former WADA president of bias towards his own goals for a more powerful WADA, but nothing in his history, as a founder of WADA, suggests a bias towards completely undermining everything WADA stands for, by protecting the IAAF's alleged or real pro-doping actions. On the contrary, Dick Pound has repeatedly showed a bias to his own ideals, to the detriment of his own career, by routinely stepping on the toes of others.
Unlike you, I have gone to great lengths to attack your ideas and methods, and not your person.
It's not a question of trying to reduce things to who can "never be trusted". The intellectual challenge is to use observed reality to know when you can trust WADA, the WADA IC, the IAAF, and Saugy, and so on.
