Interesting: British hammer thrower banned for 4 years after missing 1, not 3 tests

michelle v wrote:

321boom wrote:

will you make even one point?

or just stay implying innocence while found guilty by 2 bodies already?

Now you really shown your intellectual depth.

Had you bothered to read either of the decisions you will have noted that only one found him guilty of an offence.

Will you apologise for this mistake ?

Why will you not read the decisions ?

Why give forth without knowledge of what you are writing about?

Have you grasped the concept of proportionality especially as referenced in the second decision?

Are you going to continue with your juvenile drivel without reading about the case?

This is were you lied.

Where not were

There was no decision to ban from the first hearing , he was cleared but UKAD appealed the decision of the first hearing and Dry lost the appeal.

You have been told this time and time again.

Read the decisions.

However I think you know this.

But you continue to lie.

quote where I 'lied' even once you desperate degenerate druggie!

you appealed the rightful ban to multiple institutions AFTER receiving it, imbecile!

the dirst failed already and the rest are pending, dumdum!

stop lying and harping the same nonsense dufus and at least try to be entertaining! you boring dimwit!

321boom wrote:

quote where I 'lied' even once you desperate degenerate druggie!

you appealed the rightful ban to multiple institutions AFTER receiving it, imbecile!

the dirst failed already and the rest are pending, dumdum!

stop lying and harping the same nonsense dufus and at least try to be entertaining! you boring dimwit!

Shown that you lied.

No appeal from the ban from the second hearing is possible , but you know this, so you lie again.

He never appealed the first decision.

But you know that so you lie.

This writer has never had a conviction , but you know this , but you lie.

Liar ; for the reasons previously set out.

And what in any use of the English language is a “ thot”?

You are an illiterate liar and intellectual incompetent .

Even though 321 is a proven super troll and may well be not as dumb as he appears I now thank him.

He has kept this thread persistently on the front page of Letsrun.

Job done.

Bravo 321; law of unintended consequences hey.

Goodbye.

*mumbling

read the decesion and clear the Dry has been badly done to

hope he gets justice

welcome back, mark. why did you decide to abduct my user name now, you psycho?

and clear your grammar too

32Iboom wrote:

read the decesion and clear the Dry has been badly done to

hope he gets justice

Great that you have finally got round to read the decisions.

Your good wishes that he gets justice are greatly appreciated.

When the rules are wrong, as you will have noted from reading the decisions, something had to change.

Will you write to UKA, who agree with Dry, to further encourage them to get Dry justice?

So, it is goodbye again.

321boom wrote:

srs you're starting to get me worried.

will you please seek help with your addictions, sir?addiction to drugs as well as addiction to talking nonsense.

pretty hard to see how you found a post from the old page but somehow ignore the only one at the time of your posting on this one. makes you look even more delusional than the content of these ramblings, which of course is completely nonsensical.

enjoy your 4 year ban and failing appeals, druggie

Can you use a language we can understand.

I have heard that Dry was told that if he admitted the lie then he would just get a missed test strike but he then had a four year ban hit on him.

gglenob wrote:

I have heard that Dry was told that if he admitted the lie then he would just get a missed test strike but he then had a four year ban hit on him.

I had no idea.

I wondered why he owned up to the lie.

He could have kept quiet, they are not the police and gone and cross examined his parents like the Cummings affair.I presume they did not have a spy checking on his parents.

Interesting if the authorities cheated!

321boom wrote:

also interesting is how you now twice pretended to leave but only in order to come back hoping to steer the 'conversation' when I'm not there, mark. or will you say someone else randomly picked up the dead thread that no one but you cared about even while it was constantly popping for several days? this 'other person', definitely not you, just comes in to say ' 'they' heard somehow that poor snarky mark (who is also not you, right?) got tricked into getting banned?

and then you just so happen to be on hand to respond with that nonsense?

no, dufus, you've been stewing on it this whole time. that's your great new defensive strategy.

but you don't make sense. are you inebriated again?

you goofy ?...

Why did Dry confess ?

What was he offered ?

But why did he confess..?

It makes no sense,it would just have been a filling error and one strike.

Was he asked to give intelligence on what was happening at Loughborough as part of a deal that went wrong?

This thread is amazing. I would wonder if it was two artificial-intelligence bots going at each other for weeks, if not for the fact that one of them has been involved in antidoping for her entire career and is massively knowledgeable about it.

Michelle, if this really is you, thank you for all of your efforts over the years to clean up sport in the UK, and shine truth and reason on an area that badly needs it. If not, awesome AI programming by somebody!

eurodonkey wrote:

This thread is amazing. I would wonder if it was two artificial-intelligence bots going at each other for weeks, if not for the fact that one of them has been involved in antidoping for her entire career and is massively knowledgeable about it.

Michelle, if this really is you, thank you for all of your efforts over the years to clean up sport in the UK, and shine truth and reason on an area that badly needs it. If not, awesome AI programming by somebody!

You are correct that I have been closely involved for a very long time even though I left the front line in strange circumstances quite some years ago.

There is something wrong about this case.

Dry does not deserve a four year ban and thus is what the hearing said.

I have no idea what might have been involved at Loughborough but it would not surprise me that it has something to do with intelligence led testing.

One of their lecturers got banned for a drug offence.

Worth a punt to go for plea bargaining to try and get some big big names.

321boomunbanned wrote:

wow... you take ever wackier angles, snarky mark. has to be some of the most delusional nonsense in the site's history. a monumental achievement. what a lunatic?

Your posts are those of a person struggling with GCSE work whereas the concepts and problems of this case are those of Post Grad level.

It is like someone spotting that an odd Duke was shot and that that caused the turmoil of the 20th century.

So, as has been posed, why did Dry confess?

Part of a plea bargaining and deal that went wrong?

How interesting for those who can think beyond the obvious.