Ultraboy wrote:
Page 8,
“I would seem that the first test had fatal flaws as the B test took place without notification .
That is why Edwards was due to be reinstated .”
No it’s not why Edwards was about to be re-instated. Two reasons why. Firstly because the Helsinki failure wasn’t used in the first case and it was this B test that didn’t have a witness from Mr Edwards present and secondly because Mr Edwards had never presented any case that the first ban was flawed.
No the only reason Mr Edwards was being reinstated was due to the IAAF reducing the term. To pretend he was being reinstated due to any faults in the first case or his court case which he lost is an absolute lie.
You deliberately confuse the Helsinki test with the London one. And would you provide evidence of the repeated assertion that I said he was about to be cleared.
I have never said that he was about to be reinstated because of failing associated with the London 94 test.
As I never said it you have no reason to call me a liar.
At no point have I said that the reason he was anything other than IAAF reducing bans.
Your second para is a jumbled mess of discordant phrases,ill defined terms , and incoherent logic.
Please repost and I will try and respond because I do like to disarm the inadequate of their incompetence.
Still not moving up to high school; sorry.