My memory serves me well. But Simpson didn't fail a drug test. He admitted to doping because of conscience, he said. He could have changed his mind and retained the medal while withdrawing his admission. But you would know nothing of this because you only read the "rules".
Are there any limits to your lies?
Why are the medals the same now as on the day.
Why was he still competing after the Comm Games and the next year.
His admission of doping at Kingston came at least a year after the Commonwealth Games, so that is one reason why he was still competing. The other is that he wasn't busted. He was therefore still eligible to compete for as long as liked.
Why was he still competing after the Comm Games and the next year.
His admission of doping at Kingston came at least a year after the Commonwealth Games, so that is one reason why he was still competing. The other is that he wasn't busted. He was therefore still eligible to compete for as long as liked.
What a contorted set of lying as you change your story?
Where do you get that you don’t get banned for admitting drug use?
His admission of doping at Kingston came at least a year after the Commonwealth Games, so that is one reason why he was still competing. The other is that he wasn't busted. He was therefore still eligible to compete for as long as liked.
What a contorted set of lying as you change your story?
Where do you get that you don’t get banned for admitting drug use?
Why are the results not changed ?
He wasn't subject to a ban.if the results weren't changed then he likely withdrew his admission. But you continue to argue, as you do, something you know nothing about.
I have no reason to invent the story. I don't care who Alan Simpson is or was. I simply recall him as a noted British runner from the early and mid sixties. I knew of his Tokyo performance and saw him compete at Kingston, where I was impressed. That is why the subsequent media report caught my attention. It wasn't prominent and wasn't a scandal. Doping was then a rarity in the news. I recall being impressed with his integrity. I cannot imagine who else it might have been as I knew who Simpson was. However, as his admission did not result from a bust he may well have later said he was mistaken and withdrew that admission. It wouldn't have been big news - it wasn't - as his career was over and he wasn't particularly famous. A bit like just another elite Kenyan today.
I have no reason to invent the story. I don't care who Alan Simpson is or was. I simply recall him as a noted British runner from the early and mid sixties. I knew of his Tokyo performance and saw him compete at Kingston, where I was impressed. That is why the subsequent media report caught my attention. It wasn't prominent and wasn't a scandal. Doping was then a rarity in the news. I recall being impressed with his integrity. I cannot imagine who else it might have been as I knew who Simpson was. However, as his admission did not result from a bust he may well have later said he was mistaken and withdrew that admission. It wouldn't have been big news - it wasn't - as his career was over and he wasn't particularly famous. A bit like just another elite Kenyan today.
Please confirm you were in Kingston in ‘66.
British record holding milers were big news at the time.
Drug stories were very big even in the mid 60’s ; note Tommy Simpson etc.
So he had integrity and then withdrew his admission; really.
Why does AW not have one single line of his drug use?
Every single sentence of your smells of malicious lies.
I have no reason to invent the story. I don't care who Alan Simpson is or was. I simply recall him as a noted British runner from the early and mid sixties. I knew of his Tokyo performance and saw him compete at Kingston, where I was impressed. That is why the subsequent media report caught my attention. It wasn't prominent and wasn't a scandal. Doping was then a rarity in the news. I recall being impressed with his integrity. I cannot imagine who else it might have been as I knew who Simpson was. However, as his admission did not result from a bust he may well have later said he was mistaken and withdrew that admission. It wouldn't have been big news - it wasn't - as his career was over and he wasn't particularly famous. A bit like just another elite Kenyan today.
Please confirm you were in Kingston in ‘66.
British record holding milers were big news at the time.
Drug stories were very big even in the mid 60’s ; note Tommy Simpson etc.
So he had integrity and then withdrew his admission; really.
Why does AW not have one single line of his drug use?
Every single sentence of your smells of malicious lies.
I wasn't in Kingston. I didn't say I was. I saw the race live on television. As I have said repeatedly, I read a newspaper report with the admission about drug use some months later. I have no reason to make it up. If the report cannot be found either the story was withdrawn because it was incorrect or he changed his story. It was half a century ago - why should you care? Of course - you just have to take issue with anything I say. That's really what matters to you.
British record holding milers were big news at the time.
Drug stories were very big even in the mid 60’s ; note Tommy Simpson etc.
So he had integrity and then withdrew his admission; really.
Why does AW not have one single line of his drug use?
Every single sentence of your smells of malicious lies.
I wasn't in Kingston. I didn't say I was. I saw the race live on television. As I have said repeatedly, I read a newspaper report with the admission about drug use some months later. I have no reason to make it up. If the report cannot be found either the story was withdrawn because it was incorrect or he changed his story. It was half a century ago - why should you care? Of course - you just have to take issue with anything I say. That's really what matters to you.
You lie again.
The race was not live on TV.
The original story would have been heavily featured in AW even if it was later withdrawn.
I care because Alan Simpson was and is a fine gentleman and should not be besmirched by your persistent and malicious lies.
I wasn't in Kingston. I didn't say I was. I saw the race live on television. As I have said repeatedly, I read a newspaper report with the admission about drug use some months later. I have no reason to make it up. If the report cannot be found either the story was withdrawn because it was incorrect or he changed his story. It was half a century ago - why should you care? Of course - you just have to take issue with anything I say. That's really what matters to you.
You lie again.
The race was not live on TV.
The original story would have been heavily featured in AW even if it was later withdrawn.
I care because Alan Simpson was and is a fine gentleman and should not be besmirched by your persistent and malicious lies.
"Live" - whatever. I saw the full race. It was a good race and Simpson finished strongly, closing on Keino. However I clearly remember the article with the doping admission some months later, so it bemuses me there is now no record of it. I can't think of who it might have been if not Simpson because it referred to Kingston and Simpson's race. It may have been that he was persuaded to withdraw his admission because he hadn't been busted.
The original story would have been heavily featured in AW even if it was later withdrawn.
I care because Alan Simpson was and is a fine gentleman and should not be besmirched by your persistent and malicious lies.
"Live" - whatever. I saw the full race. It was a good race and Simpson finished strongly, closing on Keino. However I clearly remember the article with the doping admission some months later, so it bemuses me there is now no record of it. I can't think of who it might have been if not Simpson because it referred to Kingston and Simpson's race. It may have been that he was persuaded to withdraw his admission because he hadn't been busted.
The original story would have been heavily featured in AW even if it was later withdrawn.
I care because Alan Simpson was and is a fine gentleman and should not be besmirched by your persistent and malicious lies.
"Live" - whatever. I saw the full race. It was a good race and Simpson finished strongly, closing on Keino. However I clearly remember the article with the doping admission some months later, so it bemuses me there is now no record of it. I can't think of who it might have been if not Simpson because it referred to Kingston and Simpson's race. It may have been that he was persuaded to withdraw his admission because he hadn't been busted.
Now you even change the year of the “ admission “.
I think your incompetence and lack of worry about lying has allowed you to mix up Alan Simpson and Tommy Simpson, the cyclist.
You are a geriatric old chap.A combination of a demented fool and a liar.
Add to that, your malicious streak and you are the most vile poster that contaminates this site.
"Live" - whatever. I saw the full race. It was a good race and Simpson finished strongly, closing on Keino. However I clearly remember the article with the doping admission some months later, so it bemuses me there is now no record of it. I can't think of who it might have been if not Simpson because it referred to Kingston and Simpson's race. It may have been that he was persuaded to withdraw his admission because he hadn't been busted.
When caught lying his answer is "whatever".
No, it's just not relevant if the race was shown live or on tape-delay. Focusing on such a trivial irrelevant detail and boldly proclaiming him a liar reveals far more about you and your 37 unregistered handles than it does about him.
No, it's just not relevant if the race was shown live or on tape-delay. Focusing on such a trivial irrelevant detail and boldly proclaiming him a liar reveals far more about you and your 37 unregistered handles than it does about him.
So can you find any reference anywhere or from anyone about Simpson that supports Armstronglies then provide it.
He said that he saw the race in Kingston and not from Kingston and then said he remembers it well from watching TV live.In terms of the actual race it is all not important but illustrates his lies at every turn and thus undermines his claim that Simpson said he took drugs.
So can you find any reference anywhere or from anyone about Simpson that supports Armstronglies then provide it.
He said that he saw the race in Kingston and not from Kingston and then said he remembers it well from watching TV live.In terms of the actual race it is all not important but illustrates his lies at every turn and thus undermines his claim that Simpson said he took drugs.
Forgetting the specifics of unimportant details from over half a century ago isn't establishing a pattern of lying. Your pretend defense of the subject in question is quite transparent however.
So can you find any reference anywhere or from anyone about Simpson that supports Armstronglies then provide it.
He said that he saw the race in Kingston and not from Kingston and then said he remembers it well from watching TV live.In terms of the actual race it is all not important but illustrates his lies at every turn and thus undermines his claim that Simpson said he took drugs.
Forgetting the specifics of unimportant details from over half a century ago isn't establishing a pattern of lying. Your pretend defense of the subject in question is quite transparent however.
Specifics being wrong.His constant flipping from one changed specific to an other stinks.He used all the so called non important detail to substantiate and reinforce his whole geriatric lie.
Exposed he comes up with an other definitive statement on for that to crumble like the bones of a geriatric.
Forgetting the specifics of unimportant details from over half a century ago isn't establishing a pattern of lying. Your pretend defense of the subject in question is quite transparent however.
Specifics being wrong.His constant flipping from one changed specific to an other stinks.He used all the so called non important detail to substantiate and reinforce his whole geriatric lie.
Exposed he comes up with an other definitive statement on for that to crumble like the bones of a geriatric.
Specifics being wrong.His constant flipping from one changed specific to an other stinks.He used all the so called non important detail to substantiate and reinforce his whole geriatric lie.
Exposed he comes up with an other definitive statement on for that to crumble like the bones of a geriatric.
Now who's being vile?
I could have said disintegrate; would that have been a better way of dealing with his lies.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.