rekrunner wrote:
What an interesting false dichotomy you've created.
No. Not false. Stop deflecting. Canova said that she was clean in Boston 2014, and the IAAF DQ'd her anyways (because of the wishes of the majors organization). That would mean that the IAAF led by Coe is still corrupt, and Schumacher as the expert and CAS who confirmed the decision as well.
rekrunner wrote:
At no time did I interpret this as Renato "throwing shade" at the IAAF and even less, Lord Coe.
Wow. Saying that the IAAF ignored its own and WADA rules and DQ'd Jeptoo for Boston 2014 though she was clean is not throwing shade at the IAAF?
rekrunner wrote:
I don't see a conflict between:
c) there existing intense pressure to find a way to justify avoiding a payout, and
d) there also being sufficient evidence to properly annul the earlier performance, something those applying pressure couldn't have known
Of course, but then again, the point was that Canova said that there was no such evidence.
rekrunner wrote:
You have a strange black and white thinking process that one must first chose whether a person or a group like the IAAF can always be trusted.
Straw man discussion again. I said no such thing.