He didn't get a 4 year ban for nobly trying to protect his athletes from sabotage. He didn't break the doping rules for fun, either. He was doing it for his athletes.
The reasons for the ban can be found in the respective AAA Panel and CAS reports.
Even "casual obsever" can't make the link to NOP athletes.
The AAA arbitrators and the CAS are the officials in sport who adjudicated the dispute. You, on the other hand, are merely an anonymous troll on a message board.
She was an official in Jamaican sport who investigated the issue of testing and doping. She is quoted as a significant source on the subject of sports doping. Even you have heard of her. You, on the other hand, are merely an anonymous troll on a message board.
Sweeping generalizations with no specific value aside, the burning question is, given her importance to your beliefs, whether next time you will get her name right.
Are these "conclusions"? They look like sweeping generalizations which really do mean very little to me. How does it apply to distance running? How would she know? Has she ever doped, or let alone been, an elite sportswoman?
She was an official in Jamaican sport who investigated the issue of testing and doping. She is quoted as a significant source on the subject of sports doping. Even you have heard of her. You, on the other hand, are merely an anonymous troll on a message board.
You distort yet again.
Would you accept that she was a disgruntled ex employee who left with a barbed comment and did no investigations and is only quoted cos Bolt comes from this tiny island?
She was an official in Jamaican sport who investigated the issue of testing and doping. She is quoted as a significant source on the subject of sports doping. Even you have heard of her. You, on the other hand, are merely an anonymous troll on a message board.
Sweeping generalizations with no specific value aside, the burning question is, given her importance to your beliefs, whether next time you will get her name right.
She was an official in Jamaican sport who investigated the issue of testing and doping. She is quoted as a significant source on the subject of sports doping. Even you have heard of her. You, on the other hand, are merely an anonymous troll on a message board.
You distort yet again.
Would you accept that she was a disgruntled ex employee who left with a barbed comment and did no investigations and is only quoted cos Bolt comes from this tiny island?
Thank you for that. Further proof you are a complete ignoramus.
He didn't get a 4 year ban for nobly trying to protect his athletes from sabotage. He didn't break the doping rules for fun, either. He was doing it for his athletes.
The reasons for the ban can be found in the respective AAA Panel and CAS reports.
Even "casual obsever" can't make the link to NOP athletes.
The AAA arbitrators and the CAS are the officials in sport who adjudicated the dispute. You, on the other hand, are merely an anonymous troll on a message board.
Yes, we know the reasons were in their reports. But as you can't actually say what they said I can take from that you didn't understand what they said.
Thousands of athletes, coaches and trainers in every sport have been convinced of the efficacy of doping through their own experiences and the results they have achieved. It has been so for decades. But you - who have never doped let alone been an elite sportsman - know better than all of them. Without experience of what you deny, you are the very definition of self delusion. You cannot bear to believe your heroes are fake.
You just got done telling us they take it without waiting for statistical confirmation.
The statistics that count for them are in their personal improvements. Perhaps you could refer me to another mere placebo that has taken in generations of athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians to the tune of millions of dollars, that you alone know about.
Would you accept that she was a disgruntled ex employee who left with a barbed comment and did no investigations and is only quoted cos Bolt comes from this tiny island?
Thank you for that. Further proof you are a complete ignoramus.
You added "annually" after the fact, altering the goalposts.
Only a fiscal idiot like yourself would think a financial figure without a specified time period is a relevant measure of anything.
I'll just note that I was the first one to provide a source with a specified time period. You are welcome. I'll concede your point that before my contribution, the discussion was irrelevant. You are welcome again.
You just got done telling us they take it without waiting for statistical confirmation.
The statistics that count for them are in their personal improvements. Perhaps you could refer me to another mere placebo that has taken in generations of athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians to the tune of millions of dollars, that you alone know about.
The reasons for the ban can be found in the respective AAA Panel and CAS reports.
Even "casual obsever" can't make the link to NOP athletes.
The AAA arbitrators and the CAS are the officials in sport who adjudicated the dispute. You, on the other hand, are merely an anonymous troll on a message board.
Yes, we know the reasons were in their reports. But as you can't actually say what they said I can take from that you didn't understand what they said.
Judging by the inaccurate content of your posts, it appears you don't actually know the reasons in their reports. I could spoon-feed it for you, but experience has shown that you are too set in your thinking to let reality change your mind.
Only a fiscal idiot like yourself would think a financial figure without a specified time period is a relevant measure of anything.
I'll just note that I was the first one to provide a source with a specified time period. You are welcome. I'll concede your point that before my contribution, the discussion was irrelevant. You are welcome again.
Wrong again. The discussion became irrelevant after your contribution. Always does. All we get are the voices in your head.
It was implicit that the figure I gave was over the period of a year, as most meaningful financial measures are. You chose to respond with a 4-yearly figure, as though that is comparable. Yet you call yourself a mathematician. Another pretence to knowledge.
Yes, we know the reasons were in their reports. But as you can't actually say what they said I can take from that you didn't understand what they said.
Judging by the inaccurate content of your posts, it appears you don't actually know the reasons in their reports. I could spoon-feed it for you, but experience has shown that you are too set in your thinking to let reality change your mind.
So you still can't tell us what they said. It explains the confusion in your posts on the subject.
The statistics that count for them are in their personal improvements. Perhaps you could refer me to another mere placebo that has taken in generations of athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians to the tune of millions of dollars, that you alone know about.
I'll wait for confirmation of those statistics.
You are personally in touch with thousands of athletes, who will tell you how much they have improved since they started doping? I suppose you imagine you are Napoleon, too.
In the meantime, tell me about another multimillion dollar placebo that for decades has had all the world fooled but you, Napoleon.
I'll just note that I was the first one to provide a source with a specified time period. You are welcome. I'll concede your point that before my contribution, the discussion was irrelevant. You are welcome again.
Wrong again. The discussion became irrelevant after your contribution. Always does. All we get are the voices in your head.
It was implicit that the figure I gave was over the period of a year, as most meaningful financial measures are. You chose to respond with a 4-yearly figure, as though that is comparable. Yet you call yourself a mathematician. Another pretence to knowledge.
I'll also concede your point that after my definitive response, any further discussion afterwards was irrelevant.
I chose to respond with a quote of a recent IOC estimate. No mathematics was involved, just copy/paste from an external source quoting the IOC.
You are personally in touch with thousands of athletes, who will tell you how much they have improved since they started doping? I suppose you imagine you are Napoleon, too.
In the meantime, tell me about another multimillion dollar placebo that for decades has had all the world fooled but you, Napoleon.
You are the one pretending to speak on behalf of all these thousands of athletes and coaches, without ever providing any substantial evidence.
If you have any substantial confirmation, I am waiting for it.
Meanwhile, religion is a placebo of uncountable value, fooling mankind for millenia if not longer.