Shady McDreamy wrote:
What do you think the charges will be? Using more than 50mL? Unnecessary supplements that were going against the spirit of the sport rule?
The one leaked document had both Rupp and Centro return abnormal test results. They could have enough data to do a biological passport violation. Specially if Rupp has been taking Testosterone.
Troll_flower wrote:
Shady McDreamy wrote:What do you think the charges will be? Using more than 50mL? Unnecessary supplements that were going against the spirit of the sport rule?
The one leaked document had both Rupp and Centro return abnormal test results. They could have enough data to do a biological passport violation. Specially if Rupp has been taking Testosterone.
Farah is the missing piece. A thread previously stated he was moving out of the US. Maybe back to the UK, but more likely he will head to another country as a tax exile. Moving around will not save the Mobot.
it does wrote:
Kinda funny, 3 people close to me have had thyroid problems. I can see how it would impede you running to your capacity. But that could never be the case here, right? Everyone who runs decent has to be a cheater.
Ten or so world class athletes who train under the same coach and see the same doctor is a much smaller sample group than three people you personally know.
For example, three people you know have thyroid issues. Not a big coincidence. But what if those same three people worked in the same office, struggled with their weight for years, and were diagnosed with an under active thyroid after visiting a well-known doctor who "specializes" in weight loss. That would seem to be more than a coincidence.
Damn, Magness is going to get charges against him. Ouch..
The Gouchers, Magness, and Wetmore used Brown too.
Thyroid issues are not that common bud. Three people "close to you." Sure...sure.
it does wrote:
Kinda funny, 3 people close to me have had thyroid problems. I can see how it would impede you running to your capacity. But that could never be the case here, right? Everyone who runs decent has to be a cheater.
Gwalkerruns wrote:
The Gouchers, Magness, and Wetmore used Brown too.
Salazar REALLY used Brown. Cutting edge stuff.
rojo wrote:
I added in "Is Alberto Salazar next?" to the title as it seems hard that one would happen without the other unless Salazar claims Dr. Brown went rogue and did treatment that he thought should be kosher.
Wow - shocking! Paula Radcliffe was completely clean though Rojo. Moron.
How does USADA have authority over physicians?
The Russians are laughing at us.
How? wrote:
How does USADA have authority over physicians?
Indeed.
So Dr.Brown won't be representing us in the 1500m anytime soon? Pity.
There's not sufficient evidence for a conviction here.
It's not a slam dunk for USADA. Does anyone disagree? If Rupp was getting T rubs nightly that would be one thing but what they have here is so flimsy. Good luck USADA. Also they're cards have been shown by the leaked reports.
Yeah, does anyone know? Because USADA hearings are not criminal proceedings. The TX medical board could discipline him but I fail to see what USADA itself could do to him.
How? wrote:
How does USADA have authority over physicians?
Whatisthis wrote:
Yeah, does anyone know? Because USADA hearings are not criminal proceedings. The TX medical board could discipline him but I fail to see what USADA itself could do to him.
How? wrote:How does USADA have authority over physicians?
We'll all find out sooner rather than later. You sound like the types who as children wanted your dessert before eating your dinner.
No, Magness should be fine. Here's why:
Steve Magness, while at NOP, was an asst coach and was completing his PhD in sports science or whatever he has it in. He's not a clinical professional—not an MD or RN. He was an asst coach and all his own involvement in questionable doings at NOP were at the behest of Salazar. And Magness documented that because he came to believe some of Salazar's actions and protocols were shady. That's the info he finally shared with ProPublica and the BBC via David Epstein.
As long as Magness can show he was only following orders, he questioned those which seemed odd, he was reassured those orders were still valid and kosher—then he's in the clear. He wasn't a clinician, so he isn't bound by direct professional ethics to act as his own agent in such matters on a medical level.
In college I worked as a lab tech on clinical drug approval studies. Let's say one of the following things had happened:
1) One of my bosses—MD and PhD docs who ran the studies—told me to do something unethical and I smelled a rat and documented it and reported. Then, I would be in the clear: I did not act on my own motivation and I did report something that seemed even to lowly little me as wrong.
2) I did something—took some shortcut or whatever or manipulated data—on my own. They find out. Then I would be fired and the bosses would be left in the difficult position of reporting the misdeed to their corporate sponsor who was developing the drug and to the FDA both. The study might be in trouble and maybe even the lead PI (head boss of the study on the science side).
I stress neither case actually happened with me, but it goes to show how things work on this level. If a subordinate is not himself a licensed clinician, his ethical duty and thus his legal responsibility is greatly mitigated and instead reverts back to those who DO have that position. If he messes up, it's on them, but if they mess up, it's not really on him. Same deal with Magness. He had no clinical authority at NOP and he reported to Salazar. He also called things out and documented them. He will not be in much if any trouble.
Using that logic Salazar is also off the hook because he also had no clinical authority. Salazar was apparently acting on advice/information given him from the Doctor Nike had at the lab, the old guy who died (can't remember his name but you all know who I'm referring to.) That Doctor was the only one who was a clinical professional. Where it gets complicated is the old doctor was most likely reporting to Salazar and Salazar was in effect directing his research even if in a vague manner.
Salazar can say it was all the dead Doctor's doing. Everything. Salazar was just carrying out the Doctor's instructions, even after the Doctor passed away from old age Salazar was continuing with the protocol developed by the Doctor.
Those diabolical old doctors!
rojo wrote:
it seems hard that one would happen without the other
You couldn't put together two sentences without an egregious grammatical error with a hint of Freudian slippage.
How? wrote:
How does USADA have authority over physicians?
How could people/runners not know this. No runner is an island.
To fight doping by promoting the spirit of sport, the Code requires each anti-doping organization to develop and implement education and prevention programs for athletes, including youth, and athlete Support Personnel.
Brown is covered under athlete Support Personnel.
REFERENCE (p. 14*):
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf*PDF p. 16 for those who do not know how proper attributions are made.
A Florida Coach wrote:
No, Magness should be fine. Here's why:
Steve Magness, while at NOP, was an asst coach and was completing his PhD in sports science or whatever he has it in. He's not a clinical professional—not an MD or RN. He was an asst coach and all his own involvement in questionable doings at NOP were at the behest of Salazar. And Magness documented that because he came to believe some of Salazar's actions and protocols were shady. That's the info he finally shared with ProPublica and the BBC via David Epstein.
As long as Magness can show he was only following orders, he questioned those which seemed odd, he was reassured those orders were still valid and kosher—then he's in the clear. He wasn't a clinician, so he isn't bound by direct professional ethics to act as his own agent in such matters on a medical level.
In college I worked as a lab tech on clinical drug approval studies. Let's say one of the following things had happened:
1) One of my bosses—MD and PhD docs who ran the studies—told me to do something unethical and I smelled a rat and documented it and reported. Then, I would be in the clear: I did not act on my own motivation and I did report something that seemed even to lowly little me as wrong.
2) I did something—took some shortcut or whatever or manipulated data—on my own. They find out. Then I would be fired and the bosses would be left in the difficult position of reporting the misdeed to their corporate sponsor who was developing the drug and to the FDA both. The study might be in trouble and maybe even the lead PI (head boss of the study on the science side).
I stress neither case actually happened with me, but it goes to show how things work on this level. If a subordinate is not himself a licensed clinician, his ethical duty and thus his legal responsibility is greatly mitigated and instead reverts back to those who DO have that position. If he messes up, it's on them, but if they mess up, it's not really on him. Same deal with Magness. He had no clinical authority at NOP and he reported to Salazar. He also called things out and documented them. He will not be in much if any trouble.
So it looks like Dr. Brown and the dead Doctor who worked at Nike will end up as the fall guys in this scenario. Poor Dr. Brown, he should be more careful when choosing consulting clients!