No, because you said that breaching the anti doping rules makes you a doper.
You said it ; don’t keep running away.
The decathlete didn't breach the rules unintentionally. He is therefore a doper and so your question is a red herring. But relevance isn't your strong suit.
But you made statements and are being asked about them but refuse to answer.You have been asked this question over a hundred times.
A yes or no would do.
You have asked the same question over a hundred times? It must be the wrong question.
Hard to remember which set of questions you are avoiding now, but I think they are all basically asking if any basis in reality exists for your fantastic ideas you repeatedly express in your posts, and your reflex is to replay the same worn out songs and dance.
No, because you said that breaching the anti doping rules makes you a doper.
You said it ; don’t keep running away.
The decathlete didn't breach the rules unintentionally. He is therefore a doper and so your question is a red herring. But relevance isn't your strong suit.
You have been asked many times what evidence you have to say he breached the missed tests rules intentionally?
You have only provided your own assumptions… yet again.
You have asked the same question over a hundred times? It must be the wrong question.
Hard to remember which set of questions you are avoiding now, but I think they are all basically asking if any basis in reality exists for your fantastic ideas you repeatedly express in your posts, and your reflex is to replay the same worn out songs and dance.
Among my "fantastic ideas" is an athlete who committed antidoping violations - which he had to know he was doing because he didn't come up with acceptable excuses, or there wouldn't have been a violation - and he tampered with evidence. By admitting to this his ban was reduced by a year. But all this is just "fantastic ideas" - it can't have happened. He is another poor innocent victim. In your books.
The decathlete didn't breach the rules unintentionally. He is therefore a doper and so your question is a red herring. But relevance isn't your strong suit.
You have been asked many times what evidence you have to say he breached the missed tests rules intentionally?
You have only provided your own assumptions… yet again.
So why do you make things up… why?
If he couldn't produce acceptable excuses for missing 3 tests it had to have been intentional. You aren't bright enough to understand that.
Hard to remember which set of questions you are avoiding now, but I think they are all basically asking if any basis in reality exists for your fantastic ideas you repeatedly express in your posts, and your reflex is to replay the same worn out songs and dance.
Among my "fantastic ideas" is an athlete who committed antidoping violations - which he had to know he was doing because he didn't come up with acceptable excuses, or there wouldn't have been a violation - and he tampered with evidence. By admitting to this his ban was reduced by a year. But all this is just "fantastic ideas" - it can't have happened. He is another poor innocent victim. In your books.
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.
The decathlete didn't breach the rules unintentionally. He is therefore a doper and so your question is a red herring. But relevance isn't your strong suit.
You have been asked many times what evidence you have to say he breached the missed tests rules intentionally?
You have only provided your own assumptions… yet again.
No, because you said that breaching the anti doping rules makes you a doper.
You said it ; don’t keep running away.
The decathlete didn't breach the rules unintentionally. He is therefore a doper and so your question is a red herring. But relevance isn't your strong suit.
You have no reason to presume the misses were intentional have you?
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?
Among my "fantastic ideas" is an athlete who committed antidoping violations - which he had to know he was doing because he didn't come up with acceptable excuses, or there wouldn't have been a violation - and he tampered with evidence. By admitting to this his ban was reduced by a year. But all this is just "fantastic ideas" - it can't have happened. He is another poor innocent victim. In your books.
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".
I told y'all the Brits were dirty! Never should have let them sit out the war while we did all the hard work. Yeah, and we saved them at Waterloo too! Tainted burrito my big fat Texan butt!! I wonder what Lord Coeruppt will have to say this time!
Also #neverforget how the British bailed on us at the Alamo, leaving Texan Patriots to be massacred by Carlos Santana!