Search results

Generally I hope that things are banned now, because they're bad for you health. If there was something that was proved to help performance and not be bad for you, we should all take one a day - hurray for progress. But we don't want the athletes we look up to taking unhealthy steroids and...

I would love for him to be clean. https://medium.com/@tomnew/usain-bolt-lance-armstrong-and-the-duck-test-303b7b891e7e

Yes, I asked you a question, that's all. I didn't then reply to my own question, I replied to a different question asked by you.

No, libel lawyers try and prove or disprove libel when there's been libel they don't manage to convict libel when there's been none. But what I said was simply correct. 'Who knows?' 'He does'. It's clear. It wouldn't make any grammatical sense if it was supposed to mean something else. He does what?

Oh blimey, do we have to go back further?

No, because I didn't say that he has. When asked 'who knows' I said 'he does'. Although you may have jumped to conclusions, if you read what I wrote, it's clear that I didn't commit libel.

Good call.

You said you don't think he took drugs and asked 'who knows?', I replied 'he does'. He knows whether or not he took drugs. I don't intend to commit libel. I do know that a huge number or US athletes took drugs, and the US knew about it (prior to and following the '84 Olympics). Given the level...

He does.

Don't you think he took drugs?