Regarding Victor Conte's So Called "Suspicions"

[Vadrigar.]

*Thread ended*

click on page 10 and continue reading for explanation:

focus on the conversation between me and "IMDAZED"

[| THE KING |]

Sorry but "suspicions" doesn't fit the bill.

There is no real hard evidence which can be used to accuse Pacquaio in the first place. He takes the default position of being a clean athlete. Positive real hard evidence has to be provided to put is default position in doubt.

It's up to the accusers to provide positive proof, not for the accused to bend to the accusers demands.

You don't ask pacquiao to prove that he's NOT on steroids, you as the accuser has to provide postive evidence to create reasonable doubts. Negative proofs are cannot be used.

Nowhere in Victor Conte's incoherent rambling did I see this evidence being presented. All he could come up with is circumstantial; evidence which is much less credible.

real hard evidence >> circumstantial evidence


Ok if you still don't understand lets take an example:

Say if I accuse you of being an ALT.

Now you find this absurd and ridiculous. You have never in your history of posting on NSB have been exposed and you are a reputable and respected poster.

You question me and ask me to provide evidence to show it.

I refuse to provide positive evidence to show that your an ALT.

Instead I ask you to prove that you NOT an ALT via negative evidence.

You'll probably laugh at me and call me an irrational idiot/******.

So the point I'm trying to make?

Good point! I get the point, but I'm sure it will go over the heads of certain posters.

[Kalion]

Sorry but "suspicions" doesn't fit the bill.

There is no real hard evidence which can be used to accuse Pacquaio in the first place. He takes the default position of being a clean athlete. Positive real hard evidence has to be provided to put is default position in doubt.

It's up to the accusers to provide positive proof, not for the accused to bend to the accusers demands.

You don't ask pacquiao to prove that he's NOT on steroids, you as the accuser has to provide postive evidence to create reasonable doubts. Negative proofs are cannot be used.

Nowhere in Victor Conte's incoherent rambling did I see this evidence being presented. All he could come up with is circumstantial; evidence which is much less credible.

real hard evidence >> circumstantial evidence


Ok if you still don't understand lets take an example:

Say if I accuse you of being an ALT.

Now you find this absurd and ridiculous. You have never in your history of posting on NSB have been exposed and you are a reputable and respected poster.

You question me and ask me to provide evidence to show it.

I refuse to provide positive evidence to show that your an ALT.

Instead I ask you to prove that your NOT an ALT via negative evidence.

You'll probably laugh at me and call me an irrational idiot/******.

So the point I'm trying to make?

[img]http://www.*************/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/victor-conte-steroids.jpg[/img]

^Sorry Conte but that's not going to help anyone.^

This is America,according to american law you dont need evidence to ACCUSE anyone of anything.

You only need reasonable doubt.

Evidence is require to convict, not accuse...


Understand that and youll understand both ends of the spectrum in the Pac Floyd saga...

[kadyo's]

Sorry but "suspicions" doesn't fit the bill.

There is no real hard evidence which can be used to accuse Pacquaio in the first place. He takes the default position of being a clean athlete. Positive real hard evidence has to be provided to put is default position in doubt.

The reason he takes the default position is due to the fact that he has never been exposed throughout all the years of his profession.

Where is is the BALCO scandal directly related to Pacqauio?

Can you show it to me please?

It's up to the accusers to provide positive proof, not for the accused to bend to the accusers demands.

You don't ask pacquiao to prove that he's NOT on steroids, you as the accuser has to provide postive evidence to create reasonable doubts. Negative proofs are cannot be used.

Nowhere in Victor Conte's incoherent rambling did I see this evidence being presented. All he could come up with is circumstantial; evidence which is much less credible.

real hard evidence >> circumstantial evidence


Ok if you still don't understand lets take an example:

Say if I accuse you of being an ALT.

Now you find this absurd and ridiculous. You have never in your history of posting on NSB have been exposed and you are a reputable and respected poster.

You question me and ask me to provide evidence to show it.

I refuse to provide positive evidence to show that your an ALT.

Instead I ask you to prove that your NOT an ALT via negative evidence.

You'll probably laugh at me and call me an irrational idiot/******.

So the point I'm trying to make?

[img]http://www.*************/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/victor-conte-steroids.jpg[/img]

^Sorry Conte but that's not going to help anyone.^

LOL

Is that really you in your avatar? you look like a tablique or something.

[Left Hook Tua]

conte is just sticking his nose in to get publicity.

why doesn't he talk about ward to all these writers?

isn't he working with ward or ward's people?

of course ward is clean right?

[BrushMyCage]

ward use alcohol to wash his body instead of soap

[Vadrigar.]

LOL

Is that really you in your avatar? you look like a tablique or something.

cracked me up.....

[Left Hook Tua]

ward use alcohol to wash his body instead of soap

what kind?

cognac? scotch? rum?

[Vadrigar.]

This is America,according to american law you dont need evidence to ACCUSE anyone of anything.

You only need reasonable doubt.

Evidence is require to convict, not accuse...


Understand that and youll understand both ends of the spectrum in the Pac Floyd saga...

Good point. Post edited.

[kadyo's]

This is America,according to american law you dont need evidence to ACCUSE anyone of anything.

You only need reasonable doubt.

Evidence is require to convict, not accuse...


Understand that and youll understand both ends of the spectrum in the Pac Floyd saga...

correction, this is the internet where anyone can accuse anyone on anything. Evidence go to hell.