Since you seem unable to determine what is a fact on its face, let me spell it out. The fact was that she stated in court that Beradelli did not inject her with EPO and anytime. Regardless of whether her statement is truthful, or what I believe about the truthfulness, it is a fact that she is corroborating what the CAS also found in its judgment, based on the evidence available to them. If you think that me telling truthful statements are "trolling", I cannot help you. I am not in a better position than the CAS, and have no reason to believe that the CAS has come to the wrong conclusion. The disappointment I expressed, which you seem to share, was that she stated "she didn't know", despite the CAS having "comfortable satisfaction" of the source of her EPO.I never defended Paula's statement about 30 C, but always found "Paula's excuses" irrelevant, if not superfluous. I've showed you many times, that according to exercise physiology textbooks, 23 C is enough to produce a significant effect in as little as 10 minutes (before you lose hydration through sweat), rendering the debate between 23 C and 30 C useless. And I showed you many times according to scientists like the Sunday Time's "independent experts", it requires at least 2 hours to return to pre-race values, rendering (hearsay) discussions of 30 minutes versus 90 minutes equally useless. It doesn't matter what Paula said, or what the IAAF said in defense of Paula -- without their statements, I can only draw the same conclusions. Based on the evidence and the analysis, it was irresponsible to make it about individual athletes. The "independent experts" did not make it about the athletes, by their own stipulation before conducting the analysis -- this was done by the UK press, conducting their own analysis, to make the story "sensational".I do not value the statements of "the people under investigation" at all. I have consistently placed zero weight on their statements, unless they were independently corroborated. I have considered detailed reports from WADA and the IAAF Ethics Commission authoritative -- these were not written by the "people under investigation", and are not the organizations that have been "proven corrupt". The statements were written with much consideration, without the motivation to sell newspapers. Saugy was not "under investigation", and was not "proven corrupt", and his assessment is backed up by ABP research, including research conducted by Ashenden and Parisotto. For that matter, Coe was not "under investigation", and was not "proven corrupt", but was found to be a part of an organization structurally unable to check the corruption of its previous president.