Rerun time wrote:
This is not new. The paper has been posted and debated repeatedly on LRC. Just look in the archives if you want to see everything anyone might say about it in this thread. Why are you posting it yet again? Do you have anything new to add or do you just like chewing your cud?
I think he's just chewing his cud.
Nothing to see here.
As has been pointed out in previous threads, the paper is from May 1999.
http://law.duke.edu/sportscenter/agenda/
You cannot know, almost 14 years later, whether Salazar still believes that it is "currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Hormone."
If you assume he still believes this, it still proves nothing. In the paper, Salazar never says that all of the top 5 people in the world are doping. He explicitly condemns doping. There is simply nothing in this paper that a non-paranoid person could read as an admission by Salazar that he is doping his athletes 14 years later.
You can't read wrote:
You cannot know, almost 14 years later, whether Salazar still believes that it is "currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Hormone."
No, I can't. That's why I started a "discussion" on a "discussion board." Can YOU read?
You can't read wrote:
There is simply nothing in this paper that a non-paranoid person could read as an admission by Salazar that he is doping his athletes 14 years later.
Which is why I DIDN'T say that he is doping his athletes. Again, can YOU read?
I said he either:
(a) Now believes it's possible WITHOUT doping, because his athletes have done what he previously said was impossible. In this case he owes an apology to the athletes and coachs he libelled.
(b) Still believes it's only possible WITH doping. In this case the implication of his own practice is clear.
It's a pretty obvious binary.
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
I said he either:
(a) Now believes it's possible WITHOUT doping, because his athletes have done what he previously said was impossible. In this case he owes an apology to the athletes and coachs he libelled.
(b) Still believes it's only possible WITH doping. In this case the implication of his own practice is clear.
It's a pretty obvious binary.
Since Salazar actually said in 1999 that it was "difficult" not "impossible," I stand by my name.
1. Olympic A standard times can't be achieved clean for most people
2. The USA has a large number of athletes across the full spectrum of events who've achieved Olympic A standard performances.
3. Therefore the majority of USA athletes take PEDs, not just Salazar's athletes. Take a look around at someone else for a change.
4. Salazar is doing nothing different than other USA/worldwide athletes. He's just doing it better than the rest.
5. Salazar = coaching legend.
Walt White wrote:
1. Olympic A standard times can't be achieved clean for most people
2. The USA has a large number of athletes across the full spectrum of events who've achieved Olympic A standard performances.
3. Therefore the majority of USA athletes take PEDs, not just Salazar's athletes. Take a look around at someone else for a change.
4. Salazar is doing nothing different than other USA/worldwide athletes. He's just doing it better than the rest.
5. Salazar = coaching legend.
Tenuous at best.
Randy, no one's stopping you from still believing in the Easter Bunny.
What's amazing about these threads is that it's the people with no proof that a particular athlete is doping who accuse others of believing in the Easter Bunny.
I don't have any proof that Rupp or any of Salazar's athletes are doping, and therefore without proof I don't make any assumptions about whether they are or aren't.
Believing that they are doping without any proof is believing in the Easter Bunny (believing Obama was born in Kenya, being a 9/11 truther, or whatever).
You can't read wrote:
What's amazing about these threads is that it's the people with no proof that a particular athlete is doping who accuse others of believing in the Easter Bunny.
I don't have any proof that Rupp or any of Salazar's athletes are doping, and therefore without proof I don't make any assumptions about whether they are or aren't.
Believing that they are doping without any proof is believing in the Easter Bunny (believing Obama was born in Kenya, being a 9/11 truther, or whatever).
People who bring your kind of logic to these doping arguments usually get shouted off the boards. Such is the punishment for being reasonable.
If everyone was thinking like you, maybe the world would be a better place.And Lance Armstrong would certainly be in a much better position!
You can't read wrote:
What's amazing about these threads is that it's the people with no proof that a particular athlete is doping who accuse others of believing in the Easter Bunny.
I don't have any proof that Rupp or any of Salazar's athletes are doping, and therefore without proof I don't make any assumptions about whether they are or aren't.
Believing that they are doping without any proof is believing in the Easter Bunny (believing Obama was born in Kenya, being a 9/11 truther, or whatever).
The difference with Lance is that there was tons and tons of evidence that he was a doper, going back over a decade. And that evidence wasn't just "he's good", either.
Ho Hum wrote:
The difference with Lance is that there was tons and tons of evidence that he was a doper, going back over a decade. And that evidence wasn't just "he's good", either.
The "evidence" with regards to Lance was not so heavy 10 years ago.
I still remember such debates on varius cycling and running message boards. There was far more deniers than informed guys. If noone had ever raised suspicion there would be no case.
There is quite abit of suspicios signs for Salazar.
Cooperation with Lance to begin with..
Connections to Balco...
+Many minor signs
All kinds of fancy equipment, do Salazar believe in it or is it to draw away attention?
Salazar has been linked to steroids during his own career.
Thyroid drugs.
Obsessed with control over his athletes.
Walt White wrote:
4. Salazar is doing nothing different than other USA/worldwide athletes. He's just doing it better than the rest.
Thanks, Lance!
Ho Hum wrote:
The difference with Lance is that there was tons and tons of evidence that he was a doper, going back over a decade. And that evidence wasn't just "he's good", either.
Was Salazar aware of this tons of evidence in 2011 and if so why did he choose to coach Lance and even praise his training philosphies?
...or have Lance write the forward to his book 14 minutes...
the bruh wrote:
Ho Hum wrote:The difference with Lance is that there was tons and tons of evidence that he was a doper, going back over a decade. And that evidence wasn't just "he's good", either.
Was Salazar aware of this tons of evidence in 2011 and if so why did he choose to coach Lance and even praise his training philosphies?
Using that link there is this, which seems to imply that the material by Salazar was written in 1988 or before:
Also, sijnce the world now is different than the world when this was written, things cannot be taken from here and be assumed to be his position. Furthermore, while it is interesting that in some cases he might have an exammple where there is a problem that the right (best) treatment cannot be applied, it is exactly the form of comment made by Jonathon Vaughters who (semi-)famously had to withdraw from the Tour because he had been stung in the face and his face swelled up - appropriate steroids would have treated it adequately but he could not get the ok to do so.
Duke Conference On Doping In Sport
Duke Conference on Doping in Sport
January 16, 1999 Task Force Meeting
May 7-8, 1999 Plenary Session
There is growing and substantial evidence that individuals across the spectrum of athletic competition - including children, collegians, Olympic performers and traditional professionals - are using drugs to enhance their training potential and ultimately, their chance of achieving competitive and financial success. The recent, highly-publicized drug busts at the Tour de France, the suspensions of Olympians Michelle Smith de Bruin, Randy Barnes and Dennis Mitchell, Mark McGwire's use of androstenedione and reports that sales of that substance surged as a result of his achievements are but the prominent tip of the iceberg.
"It is impossible to be a world class runner or to win Olympic medals without using performance-enhancing drugs."
- Alberto Salazar, coach of three Olympic medals