Ultraboy wrote:
MV,
Those who questions are to Paul. If he doesn’t have the documents then nobody does. If he doesn’t know when he found out then nobody does. If he doesn’t know why it wasn’t used in 97 or 2013 nobody does.
The 4th point, we’ll that was exactly what Paul did when I asked him about the 94 tests. Not medical exam, not any facts about the sample. Straight to making out the 94 case was invalid because a test that was not used in the case against him wasn’t attended.
As for you final point. Yet again it’s just you asserting that a code you don’t have was broken. Unless you can show the code you stating it means nothing.
The reason that nothing was done about the 94 test in the 97 2013 court cases was that such was not applicable on balance and for cost purposes .
You have chosen to ignore this dozens of times.
Further due do time baring , which in relation to 94 , would have been reasonable it was not raised. A person of intelligence would have worked that one out.
4th point ; if you asked him about the tests in 94 it may be reasonable to make comment on the Helsinki test as that was one of the tests in 94.
It could be that either the questions or answers were unclear . But clarity has now been provided.
To make a ref to a public document , IOC Medical Code, is reasonable . Do you really think that the supporters of Edwards would make such up given the evidence that has been provided already ?
You have already said that to support the Medical Code defence you would wish to see the whole of the 94 file. Files that in drug cases that reach thousands of pages.
You have no intention of any nature to entertain that the people who post for Edwards have seen and have an understanding of the case supported by experts.
Whatever gets posted you will demand to see documents that will never be able to get on Letsrun and demand more contextual info.
You are confirmed to wax eternal in a tautological trap.
Your support is not required . I am happy that you will not give it. Bye bye.