Regarding Victor Conte's So Called "Su****ions"

[fabie]

If you continue reading from page 10 you will see why my argument was flawed in the first place.

Tell me what you think about the responses on that page.

Are you referring to the argument about 20 lbs difference in getting heavier ASAP?

I hardly call that as an "evidence" if at all! Evidence is a semantical issue. Much like a simple cough....

• a symptom of a common cold/ches congestion

or

• could be a major immune system diseases such as AIDS

And so what we need to understand is that every being is different. Our system cannot be "generalized", much so with the other factors such as emotions and our psyche.

All of these make up a being and how he lives his life. His attributes, demeanor, training and culture.

If everyone is the same, then getting a "specimen" and putting them in a lab with all the same conditions would amount to the same results right?

NOPE, not with people. A race (even a stereotyped black athlete) with a great coaching/training coaches, great attitude, work ethics cannot guarantee a Championship pedigree.

And so the semantical issues of what is an EVIDENCE is largely a subjective issue here. No one can really provide a "clout" or "doubt" legitimate enough to implicate or force a testing to validate Pacquiao as a clean fighter.

Much like accusing the President of the United States of ****...would there be enough evidence to go through the preliminary hearings before ending up in a real court case AND impeachment due to it?

NOPE. An accusation is just that...an accusation until proven guilty or at least have a reference point to begin with.

A "su****ion" is of a lesser degree because it is purely speculative.

There's not much weight in all of these and therefore not fair for Pacquiao to be put on a drug testing ordeal. (or the President to be put on a court due to some complaints).

Because if Pacquiao is "clean"...then what?

Also akin to the NFL in requesting a "instant replay" to overturn a field call, but if the field call is right, then the team requesting the replay loses a timeout.

There should be accountability and counter charges against false accusations.

[Vadrigar.]

Are you referring to the argument about 20 lbs difference in getting heavier ASAP?

I hardly call that as an "evidence" if at all! Evidence is a semantical issue. Much like a simple cough....

• a symptom of a common cold/ches congestion

or

• could be a major immune system diseases such as AIDS

And so what we need to understand is that every being is different. Our system cannot be "generalized", much so with the other factors such as emotions and our psyche.

All of these make up a being and how he lives his life. His attributes, demeanor, training and culture.

If everyone is the same, then getting a "specimen" and putting them in a lab with all the same conditions would amount to the same results right?

NOPE, not with people. A race (even a stereotyped black athlete) with a great coaching/training coaches, great attitude, work ethics cannot guarantee a Championship pedigree.

And so the semantical issues of what is an EVIDENCE is largely a subjective issue here. No one can really provide a "clout" or "doubt" legitimate enough to implicate or force a testing to validate Pacquiao as a clean fighter.

Much like accusing the President of the United States of ****...would there be enough evidence to go through the preliminary hearings before ending up in a real court case AND impeachment due to it?

NOPE. An accusation is just that...an accusation until proven guilty or at least have a reference point to begin with.

A "su****ion" is of a lesser degree because it is purely speculative.

There's not much weight in all of these and therefore not fair for Pacquiao to be put on a drug testing ordeal. (or the President to be put on a court due to some complaints).

Because if Pacquiao is "clean"...then what?

Also akin to the NFL in requesting a "instant replay" to overturn a field call, but if the field call is right, then the team requesting the replay loses a timeout.

There should be accountability and counter charges against false accusations.

I've read your post, but i want you to focus on the conversation between me and "IMDAZED". Continue reading through till you reach the end. He asks me questions and I answer them.

[ModernTalking]

The truth is that Conte just want in on the A-Side stuff.

[Vadrigar.]

The truth is that Conte just want in on the A-Side stuff.

Well he back stabbed many athletes.

[fabie]

I've read your post, but i want you to focus on the conversation between me and "IMDAZED". Continue reading through till you reach the end. He asks me questions and I answer them.

Ah, sorry...wrong one....kindly give me the link on that conversation?

[Vadrigar.]

Ah, sorry...wrong one....kindly give me the link on that conversation?

Here is the full conversation:

Me : Good point. But that case is not related to pacquaio.

But Roy Jones put on 20ib Do you think he was using PED's?

IMDAZED: We know he was. Just like we know Evander was. Man, a lot of people are. Your first post is a headscratcher. You're saying no one can ask Manny to take the tests? How ass backwards is that?

Me: They can't ask him based on mere unsubstantiated "su****ion". How is that backwards?

IMDAZED: Why can't they ask him to take a test based on a "su****ion?" The NSAC does it for no reason! That's NONSENSE, what you're saying.

Me: Those are standard tests. Pacquaio has to follow them.

IMDAZED: Yes and on what basis are they given?

Me: to detect banned substances.

IMDAZED: On what BASIS?

Me: To prove that you are not taking illegal substances.

IMDAZED: What su****ion do they base this on?

Me: PED's.......

IMDAZED: That's NOT a su****ion. See the hole you're digging? With what reasoning do they test athletes?

Me: gaining an unfair advantage?

IMDAZED: And what does the NSAC have to substantiate this su****ion of an unfair advantage?

Me: thread ended.