flash19 wrote:
Ask yourself this, if he is lying, what good does that do him? Those who have been caught and exposed have nothing to lose, in fact, maybe they have something to gain by showing that other people are guilty as well.
Such a casual way to bump an ancient thread.
The USATF try really hard to avoid the finger being pointed at them, but the entire organization is corrupt.
Ive noticed since retro testing was introduced,its caught a lot of russians,ukranians ,belarussians and a kenyan or two,but ignores the real worst offenders.USA,ethiopia,jamaica,and to a lesser extent britain,plus many EU and western european countries who all have numerous obviously doped athletes.Why arent they being popped? i say the system is horribly corrupt.
Armstronglivs wrote:
If I happened to know your real name and searched online for any credible experience you have relating to the practice of doping I am sure I would find nothing. Basement dwellers tend not to have a profile. I'll take what Conte says over your drivel anyday.
Of course. I don’t practice doping, haven’t ever practiced doping on myself or others, and don’t support the practice. You won’t find anything online or offline.
I think Conte is counting on a significant following of doping worshippers to forego their own independent thought and choose a path of following and taking his beliefs on topics outside of his personal experience of doping sprinters in the ‘80s and ‘90s without giving it any thought.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If I happened to know your real name and searched online for any credible experience you have relating to the practice of doping I am sure I would find nothing. Basement dwellers tend not to have a profile. I'll take what Conte says over your drivel anyday.
Of course. I don’t practice doping, haven’t ever practiced doping on myself or others, and don’t support the practice. You won’t find anything online or offline.
I think Conte is counting on a significant following of doping worshippers to forego their own independent thought and choose a path of following and taking his beliefs on topics outside of his personal experience of doping sprinters in the ‘80s and ‘90s without giving it any thought.
Well, now that it is established that you have no experience of what you talk of. Conte does. So whose opinion should carry more weight on the subject?
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Of course. I don’t practice doping, haven’t ever practiced doping on myself or others, and don’t support the practice. You won’t find anything online or offline.
I think Conte is counting on a significant following of doping worshippers to forego their own independent thought and choose a path of following and taking his beliefs on topics outside of his personal experience of doping sprinters in the ‘80s and ‘90s without giving it any thought.
Well, now that it is established that you have no experience of what you talk of. Conte does. So whose opinion should carry more weight on the subject?
What do you mean with “what you talk of”? We haven’t established that I ever talk of “the practice of doping”.
In this thread, and in other interviews, Conte spoke of many other things, but not “the practice of doping”.
You were unable to answer what experience Conte has in these other domains.
The opinion that is most relevant is the one of the “high-ranking U.S. doping official” who said Conte has “no useful intelligence”.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Well, now that it is established that you have no experience of what you talk of. Conte does. So whose opinion should carry more weight on the subject?
What do you mean with “what you talk of”? We haven’t established that I ever talk of “the practice of doping”.
In this thread, and in other interviews, Conte spoke of many other things, but not “the practice of doping”.
You were unable to answer what experience Conte has in these other domains.
The opinion that is most relevant is the one of the “high-ranking U.S. doping official” who said Conte has “no useful intelligence”.
So to your mind this isn't a doping thread? Yet here you are - as you never fail to do, turning up like a bad penny time and again, doing everything you can to counter any suggestion the sport or a given athlete is dirty. But we "certainly haven't established that you ever talk of the practice of doping", as you say. That would require knowledge you clearly lack.
Conte has knowledge of the world of doping from the inside - which you can never have. Yet you continue to make a spectacle of yourself by trying to undermine his credibility as a witness to that side of the sport, when you have none.
But that is the only tactic apologists like yourself have on a thread like this, which is to attack the messenger because you have no other arguments.
Poor Victor keeps on shilling…hoping anyone will listen…
You better believe if he could make another undetectable he would, all he cares about is money…but that was Patrick Arnold’s work. He was just the sponsor…
No special knowledge or talents, besides shilling. Sad.
Armstronglivs wrote:
So to your mind this isn't a doping thread? Yet here you are - as you never fail to do, turning up like a bad penny time and again, doing everything you can to counter any suggestion the sport or a given athlete is dirty. But we "certainly haven't established that you ever talk of the practice of doping", as you say. That would require knowledge you clearly lack.
Conte has knowledge of the world of doping from the inside - which you can never have. Yet you continue to make a spectacle of yourself by trying to undermine his credibility as a witness to that side of the sport, when you have none.
But that is the only tactic apologists like yourself have on a thread like this, which is to attack the messenger because you have no other arguments.
I keep wondering if English is your first language. You ask me, is this a doping thread?
The subject is “Victor Conte Claims Huge Doping Cover Up At The 1988 Olympics With Flo-Jo And Others; Corruption In WADA”
Clearly, to native mother tongue English speakers, this thread was never about the “practice of doping”, but about a alleged cover-ups in 1988 (by the IOC?) and alleged corruption in WADA.
With respect to anti-doping practices in IOC and WADA, Conte is an outsider with no special knowledge.
Once again, a high ranking US doping official confirmed Conte has no “useful intelligence”.
Did you understand that? Do I need to translate that to your mother tongue? When it comes to anti-doping, despite his extensive knowledge and personal experience of doping from the inside, the conclusion of anti-doping officials is that “Conte never provided useful doping intelligence.”
If you want to establish Conte’s credibility in domains outside of doping a handful of sprinters 18-34 years ago, you cannot do that by criticizing me.
If you want to play “follow the leader” and chose as your leader someone with no “useful intelligence” who often speaks about domains outside of his experience, this has nothing to do with me.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Well, now that it is established that you have no experience of what you talk of. Conte does. So whose opinion should carry more weight on the subject?
What do you mean with “what you talk of”? We haven’t established that I ever talk of “the practice of doping”.
In this thread, and in other interviews, Conte spoke of many other things, but not “the practice of doping”.
You were unable to answer what experience Conte has in these other domains.
The opinion that is most relevant is the one of the “high-ranking U.S. doping official” who said Conte has “no useful intelligence”.
"high ranking U.S. doping official"? WTF!
I can tell you with the utmost certainty that Victor Conte knows his sh*t. Before you start talking out of your A** you better know what you're talking about. In case you DON'T know, Victor was approached by a group of sprinters and throwers back in the mid-1990's who asked him to put together a complex designer steroid program. At this time it was no secret that many of the world's best sprinters and throwers were doping, and arguably "All" of the Olympic and World Championship contenders. You simply could not compete with these athletes unless you were doping. Knowing this himself, Victor complied with the group and manufactured a batch of designer steroids (steroids that were not being tested for). Victor simply believed that he was leveling the playing field, and he was.
Victor knows more about this stuff than any doping official...PERIOD!
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So to your mind this isn't a doping thread? Yet here you are - as you never fail to do, turning up like a bad penny time and again, doing everything you can to counter any suggestion the sport or a given athlete is dirty. But we "certainly haven't established that you ever talk of the practice of doping", as you say. That would require knowledge you clearly lack.
Conte has knowledge of the world of doping from the inside - which you can never have. Yet you continue to make a spectacle of yourself by trying to undermine his credibility as a witness to that side of the sport, when you have none.
But that is the only tactic apologists like yourself have on a thread like this, which is to attack the messenger because you have no other arguments.
I keep wondering if English is your first language. You ask me, is this a doping thread?
The subject is “Victor Conte Claims Huge Doping Cover Up At The 1988 Olympics With Flo-Jo And Others; Corruption In WADA”
Clearly, to native mother tongue English speakers, this thread was never about the “practice of doping”, but about a alleged cover-ups in 1988 (by the IOC?) and alleged corruption in WADA.
With respect to anti-doping practices in IOC and WADA, Conte is an outsider with no special knowledge.
Once again, a high ranking US doping official confirmed Conte has no “useful intelligence”.
Did you understand that? Do I need to translate that to your mother tongue? When it comes to anti-doping, despite his extensive knowledge and personal experience of doping from the inside, the conclusion of anti-doping officials is that “Conte never provided useful doping intelligence.”
If you want to establish Conte’s credibility in domains outside of doping a handful of sprinters 18-34 years ago, you cannot do that by criticizing me.
If you want to play “follow the leader” and chose as your leader someone with no “useful intelligence” who often speaks about domains outside of his experience, this has nothing to do with me.
A "doping cover-up" is not a doping thread? English is not the problem. Your basic IQ certainly is. The more you write the lower it seems to fall. Forget about the "practice" of doping - however confused you are about that - you have made the practise of stupidity your raison d'etre. As Conte is making accusations against antidoping officials you can see no reason why they would say of someone who spent his career helping athletes duck doping enforcement that they would say he has "no useful intelligence" on that subject. Just as you have none.
Aouita 84 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
What do you mean with “what you talk of”? We haven’t established that I ever talk of “the practice of doping”.
In this thread, and in other interviews, Conte spoke of many other things, but not “the practice of doping”.
You were unable to answer what experience Conte has in these other domains.
The opinion that is most relevant is the one of the “high-ranking U.S. doping official” who said Conte has “no useful intelligence”.
"high ranking U.S. doping official"? WTF!
I can tell you with the utmost certainty that Victor Conte knows his sh*t. Before you start talking out of your A** you better know what you're talking about. In case you DON'T know, Victor was approached by a group of sprinters and throwers back in the mid-1990's who asked him to put together a complex designer steroid program. At this time it was no secret that many of the world's best sprinters and throwers were doping, and arguably "All" of the Olympic and World Championship contenders. You simply could not compete with these athletes unless you were doping. Knowing this himself, Victor complied with the group and manufactured a batch of designer steroids (steroids that were not being tested for). Victor simply believed that he was leveling the playing field, and he was.
Victor knows more about this stuff than any doping official...PERIOD!
Ah - but it was sprinters and as rekrunner knows, doping only works for sprinters. And Russian women on steroids. He has "facts" and "logic" on his side (words that as he uses them have lost all coherent meaning).
DOPED wrote:
Conte is a shill.
He used to shill drugs, now he shills conspiracies.
At least he was good at shilling drugs.
Doping may be rife, but poor old Victor is now just an outsider looking in, coasting on the coattails of his glory days…
Mate he's still an insider.
Aouita 84 wrote:
"high ranking U.S. doping official"? WTF!
I can tell you with the utmost certainty that Victor Conte knows his sh*t. Before you start talking out of your A** you better know what you're talking about. In case you DON'T know, Victor was approached by a group of sprinters and throwers back in the mid-1990's who asked him to put together a complex designer steroid program. At this time it was no secret that many of the world's best sprinters and throwers were doping, and arguably "All" of the Olympic and World Championship contenders. You simply could not compete with these athletes unless you were doping. Knowing this himself, Victor complied with the group and manufactured a batch of designer steroids (steroids that were not being tested for). Victor simply believed that he was leveling the playing field, and he was.
Victor knows more about this stuff than any doping official...PERIOD!
It’s a shame that Sports Illustrated’s Tim Layden didn’t seek out the opinion of “Aouita 84” in their extensive article about what the “schemer” Conte is “selling” now, after BALCO.
I don’t doubt Victor Conte knows his “stuff”, but he is not expressing opinions connected to doping a handful of sprinters decades ago with a drug developed by the real brains of BALCO. He is expressing comments and opinions about “other stuff” where his knowledge has yet to be established.
No one has answered how the experience of doping sprinters decades ago gives Conte knowledge and experience about Nike or WADA or anti-doping or Salazar or the business of TV networks. I have to conclude from this void that Conte’s credibility and authority on other topics which are not his “stuff” has not yet been established.
Armstronglivs wrote:
A "doping cover-up" is not a doping thread? English is not the problem. Your basic IQ certainly is. The more you write the lower it seems to fall. Forget about the "practice" of doping - however confused you are about that - you have made the practise of stupidity your raison d'etre. As Conte is making accusations against antidoping officials you can see no reason why they would say of someone who spent his career helping athletes duck doping enforcement that they would say he has "no useful intelligence" on that subject. Just as you have none.
Quite simply “doping” is not “anti-doping”. That’s why we have two different words in the English language. The prefix “anti-“ gives the word a vastly different meaning. Freeze is not anti-freeze. Body is not anti-body. Thesis is not anti-thesis. Biotic is not anti-biotic. Perspirant is not anti-perspirant. Dote is not anti-dote. Lope is not anti-lope.
Doping and anti-doping are related, but Conte has established experience in “doping”, and his experience in “anti-doping” is from his limited viewpoint as an outsider. Conte doesn’t even talk about how to avoid anti-doping, but instead, through a series of explicit “beliefs”, accuses the motivations of organizations like Nike and TV networks and the IOC and WADA and the IAAF and comments on Salazar and John Smith.
The main reason his cooperation with anti-doping officials quickly arrived at a dead-end was they quickly found he had nothing useful to offer.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ah - but it was sprinters and as rekrunner knows, doping only works for sprinters. And Russian women on steroids. He has "facts" and "logic" on his side (words that as he uses them have lost all coherent meaning).
The best male sprinters already have high levels of natural hormones.
I see performance as a system optimization problem, and not a single factor maximizaton problem.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Ah - but it was sprinters and as rekrunner knows, doping only works for sprinters. And Russian women on steroids. He has "facts" and "logic" on his side (words that as he uses them have lost all coherent meaning).
The best male sprinters already have high levels of natural hormones.
I see performance as a system optimization problem, and not a single factor maximizaton problem.
Do you any clinical data to substantiate that? That's like saying the best male supposedly "natural" bodybuilders already have high levels of natural hormones.
Former runner turned bodybuilder wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The best male sprinters already have high levels of natural hormones.
I see performance as a system optimization problem, and not a single factor maximizaton problem.
Do you any clinical data to substantiate that? That's like saying the best male supposedly "natural" bodybuilders already have high levels of natural hormones.
Optimizing running performance is not like bodybuilding.
By male sprinters, I mean comparing male sprinting/sprinters with female sprinting/sprinters. You can pick any published data on hormone levels, and see that the potential for increasing female strength is significantly higher, e.g.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323085#typical-testosterone-levelsOther informal cues:
- Sprinters tend to be more muscular than non-sprinters
- Testosterone deficiency is a common source of poor performance
Subway Surfers wrote:
DOPED wrote:
Conte is a shill.
He used to shill drugs, now he shills conspiracies.
At least he was good at shilling drugs.
Doping may be rife, but poor old Victor is now just an outsider looking in, coasting on the coattails of his glory days…
Mate he's still an insider.
Victor is no insider…not anymore. When BALCO crashed and burned and he turned state’s witness, he lost all his credibility.
So now, he’s a campaigner for “clean sport”…and people fall for it.
Once a doper always a doper? Well, once a doping shill, always a doping shill!
If he could make another undetectable he would, but he can’t. Patrick Arnold was the brains, Victor was just the sponsor.
There’s a lot of doping going on these days, and Victor knows nothing about it. Probably feels left out…
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
A "doping cover-up" is not a doping thread? English is not the problem. Your basic IQ certainly is. The more you write the lower it seems to fall. Forget about the "practice" of doping - however confused you are about that - you have made the practise of stupidity your raison d'etre. As Conte is making accusations against antidoping officials you can see no reason why they would say of someone who spent his career helping athletes duck doping enforcement that they would say he has "no useful intelligence" on that subject. Just as you have none.
Quite simply “doping” is not “anti-doping”. That’s why we have two different words in the English language. The prefix “anti-“ gives the word a vastly different meaning. Freeze is not anti-freeze. Body is not anti-body. Thesis is not anti-thesis. Biotic is not anti-biotic. Perspirant is not anti-perspirant. Dote is not anti-dote. Lope is not anti-lope.
Doping and anti-doping are related, but Conte has established experience in “doping”, and his experience in “anti-doping” is from his limited viewpoint as an outsider. Conte doesn’t even talk about how to avoid anti-doping, but instead, through a series of explicit “beliefs”, accuses the motivations of organizations like Nike and TV networks and the IOC and WADA and the IAAF and comments on Salazar and John Smith.
The main reason his cooperation with anti-doping officials quickly arrived at a dead-end was they quickly found he had nothing useful to offer.
So your best shot is to try to construct an argument on the use of prefixes. I hope you wiped your screen when you finished that masturbatory nonsense. Linguistic drivel is your repeated fallback position when an argument of substance fails you. I'm sure Koko the gorilla had more capacity with her sign language than you do with your dictionary.
Armstronglivs wrote:
So your best shot is to try to construct an argument on the use of prefixes. I hope you wiped your screen when you finished that masturbatory nonsense. Linguistic drivel is your repeated fallback position when an argument of substance fails you. I'm sure Koko the gorilla had more capacity with her sign language than you do with your dictionary.
This looks like a concession that once again, you cannot participate in arguments of substance, with substance.
No “useful intelligence” is not just my opinion or my drivel, but the conclusion of a highly ranked anti-doping insider quoted by a national sports magazine, with a decade of historical 20-20 hindsight. This is a fatal argument of substance you choose to dismiss.
I thought followers of leaders valued the statements of insiders.