More contradictions and hypocracy.
fangio wrote:Of course it's hypocrisy for the BOA to keep Miller banned and for UKA not to interfere with Morse being coached by a previously convicted drug cheat. No.....wait a second.......BOA.....UKA....two different organsiations. Wait another second.....being a drug cheat.....coahed bya drug cheat.....not the same situation.
No real hypocrisy here, can't see how two different organisations reacting to 2 different situations can be hypocrisy.
fangio wrote:So what were you calling hypocritical then?
I see you are playign the same game you always do. Post a link say very little and when you are called on the obvious inaccuracy of what you said, saying "I didn't mena that". It'sridiculous, say what you acatually mean then rather then posting up links with absolutely no clear poitn at all behind them. You appear to be just tryign to muddy the waterds when you sdo that, and your posts are quiter literally pointless.
For clarity, there are 2 positions mentioned only in the link, that of teh BOA and that of UKA. As these are teh only 2 positions mentioned they are the only two positions that could be compared for anyone to try to cite hypocrisy.
So please tell us all, what exactly were you calling hypocritical. Or was it an allegation without any reference at all to the link you posted?
fangio wrote:So, you are comparing UKA's position and BOA's position then. So why the "I was not comparing BOA with UKA;what on earth took your brain in that direction ?"
It is not hypocritical to have your own policies that are not exactly in line with another organisation's. It is not hypocritical to have your own rules, my club has it's own rules on behaviour, which can differ from those of UKA, or the IAAF, it's not hypocriticla to have your own set of rules when you can control the rules, but adopting the rules of others when you are on their turf and you can't set the rules. Where is the hypocrisy? Do you only follow rules that an employer lays down where they are set in the law of the country?
There simply is no hypocrisy.
The two situations, coaching and competing are not the same situation, so how is that hypocritical?
You hear about K Tyler, great so you are going to go on rumour and gossip not actual facts then. The enquiry which decided that Tyler had absolutely no case to naswer was the largest drugs in sport investigation in Canadian history and at the time the largest in the world. He had no case to answer, but you want to say you know better to besmirch someone. I would like you to withdraw your libelous allegation that Mr Tyler has a doping question as it has already been answered by a very thorough investigation, and this site is not here for you to libel others, no matter how big a chip you have on your shoulder.
You post something as a rumour and then try to put somebody else on the spot when they challenge what you have said!
You are nothing more than a troll who should be left to stew in your own bitter juices.
trickstat wrote:readtherules wrote:I hear rumours that K Tyler from coaching has a bit of a doping question as referenced by Dublin.
fangio wrote:I do nto see the relevance of your questions.
TO put this all in context you are saying one name in one list despite hours of questioning and a book, despite Francis not actually witnessing the drug taking of his athletes once they were referred to Aataphan is enough to have a question hanging over Tyler.
One mention of a name under oath without notes, when he did nto witness drug takign, and never mentioning Tyler again over the course of the Durbin inqury or in his book is enough for you to say there is a question.
You are truly mailicious, a very nasty peice of work. If I can get one person to say one thing about you without any corrobrating evidence that's enough to quesiton you. How about I get womeone to say you are a (insert horrible criminal activity here) I can then go around saying there is a question as to whether you are a (insert criminal activity here), adn that's fine by you.
Personally I think that a disgusting attitude to take, and one which shoudl land you in court for libel.
Have you even examined the evidence of Francis, Astaphan and the atheltes int eh group? Guess not, you just want to post up harmful allegations for your own sick reasons.
readtherules wrote:I would say that having your own rules is not hyprocracy but when you give public lip service to one set of zero tolerance morals but then act in a contrary way then it is hyprocracy.Simple enough.
BigGut wrote:What insult? Again you start saying I have insulted you without there actually being an insult.
I realise I have jumped the gun. When you said "I hear rumours that K Tyler has a bit of a doping question as referenced by Dubin" in direct connection with UKA employing coaches with a drug ban I thought you were actually making a point. But it seems no you were as usual just trying to post via suggestion and association.
Directlyon the point of Tyler you said:readtherules wrote:I would say that having your own rules is not hyprocracy but when you give public lip service to one set of zero tolerance morals but then act in a contrary way then it is hyprocracy.Simple enough.
How is employing a man who WAS NOT deemed by an enquiry to have been a drug cheat acting contrary to their stance on drugs? You appear to be saying that they should not have employed him because he was maligned by Francis. If that is not what you are saying then what point are you trying to make, assuming that you are actually trying to make a point rtather than just misdirecting people.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest