Breaking: Victor Conte Claims Huge Doping Cover Up At The 1988 Olympics With Flo-Jo And Others; Corruption In WADA

rekrunner wrote:

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.

So the "insider" is credible because you believe him - whereas Conte, who was also an insider, is not - because you don't, because you don't like what he says. The "insider" is also rejecting what Conte says because it reduces the credibility of people like him - the part you missed. What can be guaranteed is that you will reject anything that heightens the seriousness of the doping problem. Koko is smarter than you.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So the "insider" is credible because you believe him - whereas Conte, who was also an insider, is not - because you don't, because you don't like what he says. The "insider" is also rejecting what Conte says because it reduces the credibility of people like him - the part you missed. What can be guaranteed is that you will reject anything that heightens the seriousness of the doping problem. Koko is smarter than you.

I didn’t say “my insider” was credible or not credible — I said that “no useful intelligence” is not just the drivel an inexperienced basement dweller with no doping practice, but rather a substantive indictment from a high ranking anti-doping official. It is you who choose to ignore what you don’t like.

I consider Conte an “outsider” of the inner world of anti-doping, as no one has established his credentials or experience or authority.

Can't be bothered reading the whole thread and not going to say how, but I was involved at the time with the 88 Olympics and the word from a few very reliable sources was that FloJo's first sample was positive to the point where the B couldn't be anything but positive. Guess what...

Guess what... wrote:

Can't be bothered reading the whole thread and not going to say how, but I was involved at the time with the 88 Olympics and the word from a few very reliable sources was that FloJo's first sample was positive to the point where the B couldn't be anything but positive. Guess what...

You and Conte both. But as it hasn't been confirmed that must fall within rekrunner's description of "not very useful intelligence". Actually, even if it was confirmed it would still fall within that description for the board's resident denier.

I had the impression at the time that it was common knowledge amongst most there and the "few very reliable sources" just confirmed it.

But hey, whatever, all history now, factual or otherwise, plus she ain't around to tell the tale, probably due to the cocktail of PEDs.

Imagine being dumb enough to believe that one of Kersee’s girls would fail an in-competition test at the Olympics of all places…

That’s why Victor keeps shilling…people will believe anything…

Armstronglivs wrote:

Guess what... wrote:

Can't be bothered reading the whole thread and not going to say how, but I was involved at the time with the 88 Olympics and the word from a few very reliable sources was that FloJo's first sample was positive to the point where the B couldn't be anything but positive. Guess what...

You and Conte both. But as it hasn't been confirmed that must fall within rekrunner's description of "not very useful intelligence". Actually, even if it was confirmed it would still fall within that description for the board's resident denier.

Since it is not confirmed — your speculation is moot.

“No useful intelligence” is not my description — but confirmation from an “insider” in the world of anti-doping who didn’t buy what Conte was selling because it was an empty product.

1988 was another era, before the USATF, and before the creation of WADA, and the attempts at worldwide standardization of anti-doping. For context, the article also says: “In the United States, random out-of-competition drug testing was approved by the TAC and began in 1989.”

In 1988, Conte was an “outsider”.

Here is how he describes 1988: “Conte said he believes a coverup “all the way to the top” involved track and Olympic officials at the 1988 Seoul Games.”

His second-hand retelling of the anecdote of Gregg Tafralis happened in 1992.

For more recent examples of "squared off forehead" see Shelby Houlihan, Harry Kane, Harry Maguire, Novak Djokovic

"No useful intelligence" is best applied to any one of your doping denial threads. After reading them I feel the need for a vaccination.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"No useful intelligence" is best applied to any one of your doping denial threads. After reading them I feel the need for a vaccination.

My “doping denial threads” is an empty set.

I’m not really convinced you read any of these threads, judging from the substantive content of your posts.

I am also not surprised by your predictable “I’m rubber and your glue” level of intellect in this response.

It’s like you always feel an emotional need to say something, but can no longer respond with intellectual merit, so you reach in to your bag of dim-witicisms for inspiration.

One might mistake you for an eight year old on his mom’s computer again, if they didn’t know you are old enough to remember Lydiard athletes firsthand.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"No useful intelligence" is best applied to any one of your doping denial threads. After reading them I feel the need for a vaccination.

My “doping denial threads” is an empty set.

I’m not really convinced you read any of these threads, judging from the substantive content of your posts.

I am also not surprised by your predictable “I’m rubber and your glue” level of intellect in this response.

It’s like you always feel an emotional need to say something, but can no longer respond with intellectual merit, so you reach in to your bag of dim-witicisms for inspiration.

One might mistake you for an eight year old on his mom’s computer again, if they didn’t know you are old enough to remember Lydiard athletes firsthand.

I'm a little concerned about you

DOPED! wrote:

Imagine being dumb enough to believe that one of Kersee’s girls would fail an in-competition test at the Olympics of all places…

That’s why Victor keeps shilling…people will believe anything…

Except you either forget or didn't know the reason Ben Johnson failed his test was unbeknownst to most there was an updated version of the test that could detect steroids over a longer time period than the previous test.

mikehammer wrote:

I'm a little concerned about you

No need to be concerned.

rekrunner wrote:

mikehammer wrote:

I'm a little concerned about you

No need to be concerned.

In more than a little concerned

mikehammer wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

No need to be concerned.

In more than a little concerned

I appreciate the concern.

rekrunner wrote:

mikehammer wrote:

In more than a little concerned

I appreciate the concern.

I'm very concerned

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"No useful intelligence" is best applied to any one of your doping denial threads. After reading them I feel the need for a vaccination.

My “doping denial threads” is an empty set.

I’m not really convinced you read any of these threads, judging from the substantive content of your posts.

I am also not surprised by your predictable “I’m rubber and your glue” level of intellect in this response.

It’s like you always feel an emotional need to say something, but can no longer respond with intellectual merit, so you reach in to your bag of dim-witicisms for inspiration.

One might mistake you for an eight year old on his mom’s computer again, if they didn’t know you are old enough to remember Lydiard athletes firsthand.

I see you're reaching there into your own bag of dim-witticisms. You should stick to your doping denial; it doesn't require any kind of intelligence - and especially the "useful" kind.

mikehammer wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I appreciate the concern.

I'm very concerned

I understand your concern.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I see you're reaching there into your own bag of dim-witticisms. You should stick to your doping denial; it doesn't require any kind of intelligence - and especially the "useful" kind.

Who could have predicted you would take my phrase and change the subject, in an ever so clever reversal?

Foiled again by “I’m rubber and your glue”.

Is your bag of wit just a collection of all the comments you have ever received, just recycled with the names changed.