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.