Victor Conte expects Alberto Salazar to be banned

Ben L Wrong wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Exactly. He is an excellent self-promoter. He doesn't know anything.

"Argumentum ad hominem": responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

Mr Obvious has now already given you a more thorough explanation, but his first answer was sufficient: no one cares (or should care) what Victor Conte thinks. He is simply using his documented history as a liar, cheat, and criminal as a resume in order to present himself a supposed expert on matters concerning PED's. He's not an expert, he's just a liar, cheat, and criminal, so why should we listen to him? We shouldn't. He wants to stay relevant, he isn't.

I'm not sure why you expect unbiased reporting from a website owned by two brothers. It's not a major news outlet with a board of directors.

The Brojos can print whatever the hell the want! Deal with it!

Even so, I'm not sure why you accuse the Brojos of bias. THEY DIDN'T WRITE THE ARTICLE!

Conte has nothing to lose. He lost everything after BALCO. He gave USADA some info about his regime. And after this, USADA catched many "big fishes". Jones, Montgomery, Gatlin, Giambi, Bonds, Regina Jacobs, Armstrong, etc.

So USADA (not me) took Conte's words very seriously after all. And Adam Silver should do that.

USADA is far the best national antidoping agency after 2003. The only one that actually catched some cheaters, not all the cheaters, but still...

Name me some national antidoping agencies with similar efforts. The old USOC? RUSADA? JADCO? UKADA? AEPSAD? Not even close.

Ben L Wrong wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Exactly. He is an excellent self-promoter. He doesn't know anything.

"Argumentum ad hominem": responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

Benny my boy, ad hominem doesn't apply here. In considering the validity/reliability of information obtained it is ABSOLUTELY appropriate to consider the source of said information. Something called credibility is required. Randomly and without basis attacking a person's character as opposed to the substance of their argument is a logical fallacy. However, calling attention to the FACTS that a person who is making an argument about a certain subject has a long history of repeatedly, cheating, lying, etc.about said subject SIGNIFICANTLY undermines their credibility and the consideration that should be given to their statement.

It can be reasonably argued that Conte has no credibility to speak on subject being discussed.

Ben L Wrong wrote:

Conte has nothing to lose. He lost everything after BALCO. He gave USADA some info about his regime. And after this, USADA catched many "big fishes". Jones, Montgomery, Gatlin, Giambi, Bonds, Regina Jacobs, Armstrong, etc.

So USADA (not me) took Conte's words very seriously after all. And Adam Silver should do that.

USADA is far the best national antidoping agency after 2003. The only one that actually catched some cheaters, not all the cheaters, but still...

Name me some national antidoping agencies with similar efforts. The old USOC? RUSADA? JADCO? UKADA? AEPSAD? Not even close.

Indeed Adam Silver should. I have friends in the NBA and know agents also. NBA players may be the biggest abusers of PED's and their testing program is a total sham. I have friends who have played or currently play in MLB the NFL and the NBA. Those who are involved w PED's (both the dealers and users) all know that the NBA is where there is virtually no chance of getting caught because of their testing. As a result, PED use is rampant there and no one would suspect because people mistakenly associate big muscle heads w PED use. As fans of athletics, we know this is not the case.

no, non sequitur wrote:

Ben L Wrong wrote:

"Argumentum ad hominem": responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

Benny my boy, ad hominem doesn't apply here. In considering the validity/reliability of information obtained it is ABSOLUTELY appropriate to consider the source of said information. Something called credibility is required. Randomly and without basis attacking a person's character as opposed to the substance of their argument is a logical fallacy. However, calling attention to the FACTS that a person who is making an argument about a certain subject has a long history of repeatedly, cheating, lying, etc.about said subject SIGNIFICANTLY undermines their credibility and the consideration that should be given to their statement.

It can be reasonably argued that Conte has no credibility to speak on subject being discussed.

Honestly, I don't think I made an ad hominem attack at all. I said Conte was an excellent self-promoter. I don't think that is an entirely negative thing. I just think it is a fact.

I also said he did not know anything. I think that is also not an attack.

I don't think the fact that he has a history as a doping enabler disqualifies him from having credible or relevant insights. It is very rare to get relevant information on clandestine activities from choir boys. Jose Canseco ended up giving more relevant information about doping in baseball than anybody else.

So, if Conte had first-hand knowledge of doping by NOP, I would find that relevant. If he had particular insights into the protocols based on the similarities to their own, then i would find that relevant. Conte has prvided some information about co-conspirators (Trevor Graham or Memo Heredia, for instance) that I find interesting.

It is just in this instance about the only insight he offered is that it appeared Salazar was using preemptive testing. Again, that is a conclusion that every bozo on Letsrun has already reached.

Let the investigation run its course. We will find out if enough athletes testify against the dopers.

The statute of limitations has run on filing charges against Salazar, even if they develop credible evidence. Conte should know this.

The statute of limitations gets tolled when a lie is made. Every time a form is filled out that lies about what an athlete is talking a tolling occurs. Liars never prosper, and that means old man Salazar.

Yes, having been an insider, much like former hackers or criminals, Conte could perhaps have useful insights. But where those folks may actually WORK within the new system to prevent cheating, Conti is able to make a living making arbitrary statements. He is not working within the system. He is now making his income as a commentator. The more controversial he is, the more he will be in demand. LRC believes in lifetime bans for cheats. Yet they quote him and give him lots of attention. Unless he were actually working for WADA or the like, I would ban his urge to keep himself in demand as well, by giving him attention, much like drug cheats. To me it's like letting someone on a life ban back into competition for no good reason.