Utterly bright enough to understand the rules; rules you refuse to read.
You have had the following similar explained but you just said FO.
Stuck on a road to get home for the hour but did not make the effort to pull off and make the call. Not acceptable but not intentional.
Phone no charge and did not find an other.
At hotel and did not tell receptionist to break house rules and allow a drug tester into the hotel to test.
Staying at friends house and he or servant would not allow them into house.
Plus 100 others.
If his excuses were accepted he wouldn't have incurred a violation and a ban. But they didn't cut it. He lost. And so have you.
Negligence is not the same as intent. You have zero information as to whether it was negligent or intent have you. If you had you would have provided such but you have not.
I never said he was an "innocent victim". He admitted to committing violations. You have mingled some realities among your "fantastic ideas".
None of this though provides a basis in reality for your other claims, that he committed other violations he was not charged with, nor admitted.
Among my "fantastic ideas" is that an athlete who commits antidoping violations is generally a doper. But there are no dopers in your world; only "victims".
So a violator of the rules is not automatically a doper ….. after a year and a hundred requests you eventually admit it.
Among my "fantastic ideas" is that an athlete who commits antidoping violations is generally a doper. But there are no dopers in your world; only "victims".
So a violator of the rules is not automatically a doper ….. after a year and a hundred requests you eventually admit it.
No, I don't. Anyone who fails to show for 3 tests and tampers with evidence - as did the subject of this thread - is a doper. I am saying no other hypothetical "violators of the rules" are relevant to this discussion. Nothing you say is relevant to the discussion. You are a minor lunatic.
If his excuses were accepted he wouldn't have incurred a violation and a ban. But they didn't cut it. He lost. And so have you.
Negligence is not the same as intent. You have zero information as to whether it was negligent or intent have you. If you had you would have provided such but you have not.
So you make things up.Again.
Negligence is a hypothetical presumption in your part. As is everything. A professional athlete doesn't risk his career by accumulating breaches of his professional obligations through simple carelessness. He knew what he was doing. A 3-times failure speaks of intent unless he is so mentally deficient to be unaware of what he is doing. He isn't.