rekrunner wrote:
I expressed a historical fact, and a personal disappointment in her testimony, in lacking one important detail. I didn't express my personal belief about the truthfulness of her statement in court, but did show that it corroborates what the CAS also found to its comfortable satisfaction.
Did you express a fact, that "she doesn't know"?
rekrunner wrote:
It's disappointing she doesn't know (and therefore we won't know) how or when EPO got in her system
Too funny, considering that she obviously lied. A more accurate statement would be:
"She does not admit how and when and under whose guidance she doped."
Same old, same old.
rekrunner wrote:
Very little, if any at all, of what I "believe" about Jeptoo, Aden, Salazar, my British buddies, etc., is based on me "trusting" what they've said about themselves.
Oh? You defended Paula's nonsense about 30 C and having been tested "right after the race" multiple times, although she never brought up any evidence.
Plus, you consistently choose to put the statements of the people under investigation as well as proven corrupt organizations and their plan-B Saugy over the analyses of independent experts and investigative journalists, calling the corrupt organizations "authoritative sources" and journalists from BBC, Guardian and Seppelt "sensationalist journalists".
Then, you can "accuse" me of using discoveries of "sensationalist journalists", which are disputed by "authoritative sources". Lol.
For your sakes, I continue to hope that you are simply trolling.