Go away Eric Lindsey.
Go away Eric Lindsey.
Conte is now credible? wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ATH_DOPING_SUSPICIOUS_TESTS_COE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-04-15-53-34Coe fights back and I tend to believe him. More important than this Conte BS that the Brojos will try to highlight.
Coe is on the Nike payroll isn't he? This one is hitting a little too close to home for him.
asdfgh wrote:
There isn't any evidence that Conte and Salazar are "old buddies".
Except that there is...
I trust Conte more than I trust Sleazy, Diack, or Coe. Conte has lost everything. The others have everything to lose.
JeffBaker113434 wrote:
Look at their Twitter Page. Not one mention of the report that came out over the weekend. Total silence. Then they see an interview with Conte and they're all over it..."BREAKING"...is this really more important or pressing than what came out over the weekend?
Of course they post links to the articles on their homepage, thats how they make money. But do you see an in depth piece like they did EVERY TIME a story came out on Salazar? Do you see them starting a thread about anything like they do EVERY TIME something bad comes out about Salazar or NOP? I'm just asking for unbiased reporting.
How about a "BREAKING: UKA see's no sign of wrongdoing by Farah/Salazar" or "BREAKING: Mo Farah and Bolt have no abnormal blood levels". You will never see that on this site but those have been pretty damn important/breaking news.
I must just be a Freud drone though...
Or you could just be a tool for using Twitter as your barometer when there are plenty of discussions here involving them on, you know, their WEBSITE re: the Sunday Times findings.
Poor effort by Freud PR to deflect criticism to the Brojo's "reporting."
The article was published by The Japan Times. How on earth does this make Letsrun biased against Salazar? Letsrun didn't write the story. They mearly posted a link to it on thier website.
Radcliffe retired years ago and Americans need to dope to beat her? It's to beat the Kenyans and Epoians. If you need to get rid of the Radcliffe fetish maybe Suzy Favor-Hamilton is still working as a consort.....
Some people have a fetish... wrote:
Radcliffe retired years ago and Americans need to dope to beat her? It's to beat the Kenyans and Epoians. If you need to get rid of the Radcliffe fetish maybe Suzy Favor-Hamilton is still working as a consort.....
Huh?
JeffBaker113434 wrote:
You would sooner see Alberto suspended for passing inhalers around and having 4 TUES total in 5 years amongst 10 athletes
Four TUEs total? Now that is a fabrication.
Conte is now credible? wrote:
Coe fights back
Coe grandstands and campaigns
He'll have a new nickname: salabanned
asdfgh wrote:
Sleazy - major client of Conte wrote:Conte and Salazar are old buddies, so I assume Conte not only knows what he's talking about, but also know Sleazy's inclination to dope.
There isn't any evidence that Conte and Salazar are "old buddies".
There isn't any evidence that Conte and Salazar are NOT "old buddies."
From 2003: Salazar sleazing his way out of a his involvement with Conte to boost testosterone levels.
Alberto Salazar said he worked only briefly with Conte. "This was around 1985 and I was running poorly and he contacts me (through a coach) and says, 'We got this new tech of measuring your trace elements' and all this. So I sent him some urine," Salazar says. "That was the only time I did anything with them, other than buying some ZMA, but then everybody started making this stuff. They said people who were low on testosterone, it could help them. A lot of athletes took that. It's legal and there's nothing wrong with it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/steroid-scheme-flunks-test-bonds-associate-linked-hiding-athletes-article-1.521470How do you know that is a fabrication? Were you in the Oregon Project? We can only go based on what has been reported. If you go by what is said on here Alberto is a dope dealing child rapist and the Brojos invented the internet and can run a 2 Hour Marathon except they were going up against cheaters so they gave up the sport.
I guess we will find out when USADA/WADA finish their investigation.
If it is 4 TUE's as stated in the report and Alberto is found to have done nothing wrong I expect your comment will change to:
"USADA/WADA are in on it, they are paid off, Freud Drones"
Please elaborate.
How is Conte qualified to evaluate Salazar's state of mind? Just because Conte cannot think of another reason says more about Conte than Salazar.
What would be interesting is why Conte thinks USADA would ban Salazar. What does Conte think Salazar did that constitutes an anti-doping rule violation?
rekrunner wrote:
How is Conte qualified to evaluate Salazar's state of mind? Just because Conte cannot think of another reason says more about Conte than Salazar.
What would be interesting is why Conte thinks USADA would ban Salazar. What does Conte think Salazar did that constitutes an anti-doping rule violation?
Probably for using testosterone cream. Just a guess though.
It's not the first time Conte has predicted this for some coach...and then nothing happens. Victor misses the attention.
I'd still call specious reasoning on this.
By Conte's logic, one could claim I avoid annual physicals in order to cycle my EPO use without scrutiny or judgement. It might not be the reason but I've yet to have any suggestive blood values.
Alternatively I might be young, in good shape, capable of eating well and somewhat worry-free.
We're talking about a man whose state of mind has him convinced the faster bagger at the grocery store must be on steroids to be so.
Let's hear more about the German documentary, the one with actual evidence.
You are going to listen to Victor Conte and take his word seriously?
I thought you hated cheaters, dopers, and liars, yet you're using one as if he's a credible source.
You are such a bias piece of crap it's unbelievable. If anybody says anything remotely negative about NOP you put it on the front page of the site.
If Lance Armstrong came out and said he thought Froome was cheating, would you consider that "breaking", or would you consider it a washed up lying-cheater trying to grab some headlines?
Are You Serious? wrote:
If Lance Armstrong came out and said he thought Froome was cheating, would you consider that "breaking", or would you consider it a washed up lying-cheater trying to grab some headlines?
If I ran a cycling site, I'd link to it for sure, especially if it wasn't being picked up elsewhere.
I didn't post the headline, but I stand by it. The amount of attention it is getting and the fact it went super hot, without even being linked to on the homepage, shows it is something our visitors are interested in.
A lot of you all are clearly interested in this.
The use of the word "Breaking" gets it a bit of attention for sure, but clearly you all are interested in it.
When one of the biggest experts on cheating says he thinks Alberto Salazar will get banned it is a story. Obviously you can disagree with Conte and say he is a lying cheat but it is breaking news. You may not like what Conte says, but it still is news.