bleu wrote:
Now that the dust has settled we are led to believe that Salazar actually coached a total of 2 athletes Rupp and Hasay.
And murphy...
And Kejelcha...
And Hassan...
bleu wrote:
Now that the dust has settled we are led to believe that Salazar actually coached a total of 2 athletes Rupp and Hasay.
And murphy...
And Kejelcha...
And Hassan...
sub sub elite local hobby jogger wrote:
bleu wrote:
Now that the dust has settled we are led to believe that Salazar actually coached a total of 2 athletes Rupp and Hasay.
Don't forget Hassan, KK, and Kejelcha. Probably coached them because no Americans that knew about the allegations and had a brain wanted to be coached by Salazar.
Koko is coached by Julian.
coaching rupp to nearly a 10k gold medal and bronze in the marathon, using only grey area stuff, is one of the greatest coaching feats of all time.
that said al sal deserves his holiday status.
realize 90 percent of the podium finishers also should be on a holiday ,....
Is that a math question? I'm happy with this classic definition: "A line is a straight one-dimensional figure having no thickness and extending infinitely in both directions." If you have any question about which "lines" Salazar pushed, I can only refer you to the well documented report of the decisions and reasoning from the AAA Panel, which can be found posted at USADA's website.
Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:
After they interview everyone , we will find out Al actually coached no one . lol I'm sure rekrunner will jump in a redefine what "a line " actually is .
rekrunner wrote:
Is that a math question? I'm happy with this classic definition:
"A line is a straight one-dimensional figure having no thickness and extending infinitely in both directions."
If you have any question about which "lines" Salazar pushed, I can only refer you to the well documented report of the decisions and reasoning from the AAA Panel, which can be found posted at USADA's website.
Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:
After they interview everyone , we will find out Al actually coached no one . lol I'm sure rekrunner will jump in a redefine what "a line " actually is .
Geez...you sure put a lot of trust & faith in that AAA report like it's Gospel or something. Do you ever think outside the box rekrunner? Do you really think they're going whack a world-renowned coach with a major 4-year ban for the benevolent violations listed in the report? Do you realize Russian coaches are hit with 4-year bans for doping their athletes with EPO, roids, HGH? There's got to be more to this story than what is being disclosed. Because if all Salazar did was provide the L-Carnitine to Magness and goof around with Androgel on his kid, and not dope up any of his athletes - then USADA looks like the world's biggest fools to hand out an aggressive ban like that instead of a warning or 6 months at the most.
Doping Nopers wrote:
Every NOPer is a doper.
You are almost correct.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, don't know, yes. I'm a big fan of a rich set of facts, logic, and reasoning. Thinking out of the box is great for creative thinking, but requires no facts, logic or reasoning, just imagination and fantasy.
There's something weird about this case wrote:
Geez...you sure put a lot of trust & faith in that AAA report like it's Gospel or something. Do you ever think outside the box rekrunner? Do you really think they're going whack a world-renowned coach with a major 4-year ban for the benevolent violations listed in the report? Do you realize Russian coaches are hit with 4-year bans for doping their athletes with EPO, roids, HGH? There's got to be more to this story than what is being disclosed. Because if all Salazar did was provide the L-Carnitine to Magness and goof around with Androgel on his kid, and not dope up any of his athletes - then USADA looks like the world's biggest fools to hand out an aggressive ban like that instead of a warning or 6 months at the most.
LetsRun.com wrote:
Jenkins said when he joined the NOP the BBC/ Pro Publica allegations were known and “Alberto did say these are just allegations and nothing will come of it.”
Despite something coming of it, Jenkins said he is not angry at Alberto. “I’m not mad at him. He was nice to me,” Jenkins said.
Maybe Alberto was nice, but he did lie to his incoming athlete. But then, that's Alberto we are talking about here.
LetsRun.com wrote:
Jenkins however fully understands why Alberto got banned. “He got banned, so clearly a lot of people thought he did something wrong… If they banned him they must have had some serious stuff,” Jenkins said. “One of the things that has been thrown around a lot is this grey area and maybe it’s not cheating… you’re getting into some weird morality issues with things in this area and I totally understand why he’d get banned.”
Jenkins added, “I’m sure if you ask Alberto [he’d say ] there is no such thing as a grey area, there is right or wrong.” Jenkins was not trying to imply that Alberto was on the right side of the line. “Alberto pushed the line and clearly he pushed it too far,” Jenkins said.
Well if Jenkins really "fully understands", then he certainly knows how to dodge the issue: Alberto got banned for three anti-doping rule violations, not for "grey area" or "some weird morality issues" or because he "pushed [the line] too far". Cheats out!
BS LRC wrote:
Context is everything, ahole.
He said this at a time when testing was very, very bad and tests for certain suspected PEDS did not yet exist.
I guess you're too stupid to understand the idea of context and timing.
Facts:
Most drug cheats still don't get caught.
Salazar also said that doping gives you two minutes in a marathon, and then he coached (lol) Rupp to an Olympic bronze and a majors win.
Right you are.
rekrunner wrote:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, don't know, yes.
I'm a big fan of a rich set of facts, logic, and reasoning.
Thinking out of the box is great for creative thinking, but requires no facts, logic or reasoning, just imagination and fantasy.
There's something weird about this case wrote:
Geez...you sure put a lot of trust & faith in that AAA report like it's Gospel or something. Do you ever think outside the box rekrunner? Do you really think they're going whack a world-renowned coach with a major 4-year ban for the benevolent violations listed in the report? Do you realize Russian coaches are hit with 4-year bans for doping their athletes with EPO, roids, HGH? There's got to be more to this story than what is being disclosed. Because if all Salazar did was provide the L-Carnitine to Magness and goof around with Androgel on his kid, and not dope up any of his athletes - then USADA looks like the world's biggest fools to hand out an aggressive ban like that instead of a warning or 6 months at the most.
More semantics - you don't apparently grasp that "thinking out of the box" is a metaphor for taking into account that which is less obvious but still relevant - something, in your rigidly linear fashion, you are unable to do. The world is not nearly arranged into categories and classifications; we put them there. All this merely disguises that your reasoning is weak; it consisists of arranging facts and arguments to suit your predetermined conclusions. That is when it can even be understood by anyone else. In reality, you are a portentous dullard.
rekrunner wrote:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, don't know, yes.
I'm a big fan of a rich set of facts, logic, and reasoning.
Thinking out of the box is great for creative thinking, but requires no facts, logic or reasoning, just imagination and fantasy.
Thinking out of the box does require "reasoning." It's done everyday with various professions throughtout the world. If you look at the totality of the circumstances and apply it to the reality of the current climate of doping in elite athletics - I don't think that's "creative thinking" but more of a realistic explanation as to why a certain action was done.
Along those lines, do you think it's at all possible that Salazar was experimenting with T-gel to determine thresholds amounts that would trigger a positive test so as to use T with some of his athletes for recovery?
Furthermore, I don't understand this "sabotage" theory of his: Is he worried that his athletes would go to some two bit message therapist who would just happen to have T-gel on hand, and not liking NOP athletes for some reason or another would apply the gel during their massage? That sounds as unrealistic as Jama Aden saying he was going to administer some of the doping products there in Spain to his athletes so as to determine thresholds levels in case any of them were ever sabotaged. Lol.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, don't know, yes.
I'm a big fan of a rich set of facts, logic, and reasoning.
Thinking out of the box is great for creative thinking, but requires no facts, logic or reasoning, just imagination and fantasy.
More semantics - you don't apparently grasp that "thinking out of the box" is a metaphor for taking into account that which is less obvious but still relevant - something, in your rigidly linear fashion, you are unable to do. The world is not nearly arranged into categories and classifications; we put them there. All this merely disguises that your reasoning is weak; it consisists of arranging facts and arguments to suit your predetermined conclusions. That is when it can even be understood by anyone else. In reality, you are a portentous dullard.
I'm not a big fan of the constant hostility on LetsRun, but this was fun to read!
Salazar has always been unusual, dramatic, and self-promoting. Drugs would be a better explanation of the vicissitudes he’s been through than “he ran himself into the ground and almost died,” boo-hoo.
Like FloJo, only she did die before running a fast marathon, her stated goal.
casual obsever wrote:
LetsRun.com wrote:
Jenkins said when he joined the NOP the BBC/ Pro Publica allegations were known and “Alberto did say these are just allegations and nothing will come of it.”
Despite something coming of it, Jenkins said he is not angry at Alberto. “I’m not mad at him. He was nice to me,” Jenkins said.
Maybe Alberto was nice, but he did lie to his incoming athlete. But then, that's Alberto we are talking about here.
LetsRun.com wrote:
Jenkins however fully understands why Alberto got banned. “He got banned, so clearly a lot of people thought he did something wrong… If they banned him they must have had some serious stuff,” Jenkins said. “One of the things that has been thrown around a lot is this grey area and maybe it’s not cheating… you’re getting into some weird morality issues with things in this area and I totally understand why he’d get banned.”
Jenkins added, “I’m sure if you ask Alberto [he’d say ] there is no such thing as a grey area, there is right or wrong.” Jenkins was not trying to imply that Alberto was on the right side of the line. “Alberto pushed the line and clearly he pushed it too far,” Jenkins said.
Well if Jenkins really "fully understands", then he certainly knows how to dodge the issue: Alberto got banned for three anti-doping rule violations, not for "grey area" or "some weird morality issues" or because he "pushed [the line] too far". Cheats out!
Okay, yes, rules are rules and Salazar broke rules.
If (and we will call this a big if) the report is gospel truth of all that occurred, and:
1. that the androgel was only used in good faith to prevent tampering (as the report concludes), and
2. that the one broken rule was running an infusion over the allowed limit on an assistant coach who was classified as an athlete, and
3. The substance administered in the above infusion was a vitamin which is not banned by any anti-doping agency, and
4. No actual, competing athlete broke any rule, then
Can you conceptualize why many people (and not just Nike shills) feel that it is strange to be tarnishing Alberto with the same brush as full on PED administering athletes and coaches? Louis CK is not Bill Cosby.
I can understand the rationale of people on this site condemning Salazar on the basis of an assumption that he was doing more than the report states. I hold similar thoughts. His history and explanations leave me wanting.
What I don’t understand is the chorus of Letsrunners shouting “DOPER” and “CHEAT” not just about Salazar, but about all NOP athletes and then gleefully holding up the USADA report when the ONLY broken rule (again, only going by the report) was giving too large a volume of a vitamin to a non-competing athlete (who is confusingly not banned for receiving this infusion?).
I look forward to the rational replies.
Djdjsbsbs wrote:
Can you conceptualize why many people (and not just Nike shills) feel that it is strange to be tarnishing Alberto with the same brush as full on PED administering athletes and coaches? Louis CK is not Bill Cosby.
Well, yes, but I don't believe in your "if" scenario, and let's not forget that there were more damning facts in the report than in the final judgment, and that USADA accused Salazar of quite a few more things in their Charging Letter.
Copy and paste some observations from the original Salazar was banned thread:
- Salazar estimating that doping gives you 2 minutes in the marathon
- Salazar’s athlete Decker banned for testo doping
- Salazar having testo cream in the athletes’ quarters despite not having a prescription
- Salazar’s testo level dropping after receiving increased testo prescription
- a witness reporting that "Alberto Salazar’s athletes" used "thyroid and testosterone therapy"
- Salazar banned for “Administration of a Prohibited Method (with respect to an infusion in excess of the applicable limit)”
- Salazar banned for “Tampering and/or attempted tampering with NOP athletes’ doping control process”
- Salazar banned for “Trafficking and/or Attempted Trafficking of testosterone”
- USADA’s “Charging Letter also included charges for the administration and attempted administration of testosterone”
- Nike dismantling NOP days after Salazar’s ban was announced
- Mo’s sudden rise from also-ran to unbeatable in 2011
- Mo not opening his door to the tester in 2011/2
- Mo lying about his association with drug cheat coach Aden
- Mo’s "likely doping" status in 2016
- Rupp’s certified “prednisone and testosterone medication”
- Rupp’s surprising rise to the top
- Rupp’s "likely doping" status in 2016
Agree the report isn’t gospel and people are targeted, but the other side is they judged him on incontrovertible & simple issues, implying that the infractions ran much deeper.
Are you suggesting that this popular idea of Salazar doping NOP athletes is "less obvious"? I've even seen it described as "common sense" -- which makes it like the opposite of "thinking out of the box". Wikipedia describes it as "a metaphor that means to think differently, unconventionally, or from a new perspective". From that description, compared to most posters here, I'm the one who is "thinking out of the box". What's interesting for me is to what extent any thinking contains facts, logic, and reasoning, whatever you want to call it. I'm able to do these things, and grasp these things, but consider they have little argumentative value beyond creativity. I will continue to classify "thinking out of the box" as lacking in facts, as a logical fallacy, and/or as imagination/belief/fantasy, when they are lacking in facts, a logical fallacy, and/or imagination/belief/fantasy, as applicable.
Armstronglivs wrote:
More semantics - you don't apparently grasp that "thinking out of the box" is a metaphor for taking into account that which is less obvious but still relevant - something, in your rigidly linear fashion, you are unable to do. The world is not nearly arranged into categories and classifications; we put them there. All this merely disguises that your reasoning is weak; it consisists of arranging facts and arguments to suit your predetermined conclusions. That is when it can even be understood by anyone else. In reality, you are a portentous dullard.
It’s also implied that dr brown and salazar changed Ritz’s medical records, because his papers didn’t match what brown/Salazar turned into USADA (they added a handwritten notation long after the fact). So likely they infused him with more than the legal limit. This is well documented, and it implies they lied to Ritz about how much was infused.
So you are in the camp that thinks this is more "common sense" and does not qualify as "thinking out of the box". Many things are "possible", but I think it is unlikely Salazar would have used T-gel on his NOP athletes. There are a lot of details about the sabotage theory in the report.
Let's think this one through wrote:
Thinking out of the box does require "reasoning." It's done everyday with various professions throughtout the world. If you look at the totality of the circumstances and apply it to the reality of the current climate of doping in elite athletics - I don't think that's "creative thinking" but more of a realistic explanation as to why a certain action was done.
Along those lines, do you think it's at all possible that Salazar was experimenting with T-gel to determine thresholds amounts that would trigger a positive test so as to use T with some of his athletes for recovery?
Furthermore, I don't understand this "sabotage" theory of his: Is he worried that his athletes would go to some two bit message therapist who would just happen to have T-gel on hand, and not liking NOP athletes for some reason or another would apply the gel during their massage? That sounds as unrealistic as Jama Aden saying he was going to administer some of the doping products there in Spain to his athletes so as to determine thresholds levels in case any of them were ever sabotaged. Lol.