In response to "You're bring a lot more to the table than the AAA outcomes though", you said "No I don't". If you had said "Yes but points 1-7 are in the report" then it makes sense. I also see from larkimm "I've read the AAA report quite fully and a) I agree with their outcomes and sanctions..." This seems like a natural transition, to comment on the AAA Panel decisions in the report, so I cannot fault larkimm for talking about "outcomes" of the report. And he said "nothing in there that gives me any hint", making it a statement about his own personal reception of the contents of the report. It would be a stretch to suggest he was lying about his own personal perception that these 7 points, along with the rest of the report, gave him something less than a hint.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
He did say "AAA outcome", which is much less than your 7 points would indicate.
Oh boy. My seven points were in response to:
larkimm wrote:
I've read the AAA report quite fully and a) I agree with their outcomes and sanctions but b) do not find it to be anything other than mistakes made when trying to operate close to the legal limit. I read nothing in there that gives me any hint that elite athletes at NOP were "doped".
He did say "AAA report", which is much more than my 7 points would indicate.
You should scold larkimm for changing the argument from AAA report to AAA outcome, and for lying about "nothing in there...". Where is your fair and logical approach?