Of course it is possible to miss an appointment without intent; what sort of world do you exist in?
Now yet again.Is an unintentional infractor a doper?
Yes - it is possible to miss one appointment without intent to dope. But not three. And not with further tampering. So that's why he is in breach of the rules. They don't say so but he is a doper. You may as well have a paper bag over your head.
Here we go again.
You keep in inventing stuff.
And why is tampering with the email automatically the act of a doper ?
Now once again… Is an unintentional violator of the rules a doper?
Yes - it is possible to miss one appointment without intent to dope. But not three. And not with further tampering. So that's why he is in breach of the rules. They don't say so but he is a doper. You may as well have a paper bag over your head.
Here we go again.
You keep in inventing stuff.
And why is tampering with the email automatically the act of a doper ?
Now once again… Is an unintentional violator of the rules a doper?
He isn't an "unintentional violator of the rules". It is a spurious and irrelevant point. As everything you argue is.
It was really a request for you to back up another one of your baseless claims.
It wasn't meant to be rhetorical, but I already knew any answer would be nonresponsive on all counts.
Not so baseless. This thread is about an athlete who committed antidoping violations. Only a doping denier seeks to maintain that he is still somehow "innocent". That is the aim of your practised and strained pedantry. It fools no one but you and your unfortunate sidekick, liar soorer.
It was really a request for you to back up another one of your baseless claims.
It wasn't meant to be rhetorical, but I already knew any answer would be nonresponsive on all counts.
Not so baseless. This thread is about an athlete who committed antidoping violations. Only a doping denier seeks to maintain that he is still somehow "innocent". That is the aim of your practised and strained pedantry. It fools no one but you and your unfortunate sidekick, liar soorer.
You once again avoid the issue.
He is clearly not innocent of the charges. There has been no suggestion otherwise.If I am wrong please provide evidence.
What is a disagreement is that this makes him a doper in common parlance.
You have said that all guilty of antidoting infractions are dopers.
On a dozen occasions you have been asked if an unintentional infractor is a doper.
Not so baseless. This thread is about an athlete who committed antidoping violations. Only a doping denier seeks to maintain that he is still somehow "innocent". That is the aim of your practised and strained pedantry. It fools no one but you and your unfortunate sidekick, liar soorer.
It remains baseless because you never provide any basis.
Scantling is guilty of some violations, but not all of them. This is basic reality 101.
Not so baseless. This thread is about an athlete who committed antidoping violations. Only a doping denier seeks to maintain that he is still somehow "innocent". That is the aim of your practised and strained pedantry. It fools no one but you and your unfortunate sidekick, liar soorer.
It remains baseless because you never provide any basis.
Scantling is guilty of some violations, but not all of them. This is basic reality 101.
Not so baseless. This thread is about an athlete who committed antidoping violations. Only a doping denier seeks to maintain that he is still somehow "innocent". That is the aim of your practised and strained pedantry. It fools no one but you and your unfortunate sidekick, liar soorer.
You once again avoid the issue.
He is clearly not innocent of the charges. There has been no suggestion otherwise.If I am wrong please provide evidence.
What is a disagreement is that this makes him a doper in common parlance.
You have said that all guilty of antidoting infractions are dopers.
On a dozen occasions you have been asked if an unintentional infractor is a doper.
You conspicuously fail to give an answer.
Armstrong goes into hiding again as soon as he is intellectually cornered and just has no answer to provide other than “ sorry I was wrong yet again”.