New Allegations- "Salazar had bag of needles"

We're waiting Al wrote:

hayward102 wrote:

If you're talking about only this one item, I think a perfectly reasonable explanation is someone was more likely to be home for delivery at the Salazar house and/or there were other items of Salazar's in the shipment too. Alberto would have been seeing Galen daily. Was this during Galen's redshirt season where he was in Portland full-time? Either way, am I the only one that has had things shipped to my parents or a relative's house or work because I knew someone would be there to get the package which might not be the case at my house?

Not everything is sinister.

So?, Salazar needs to explain it, just like he needs to explain a lot of things.

I could care less if Salazar explains why they were shipped to him because that one item raises zero concerns with me. There is nothing unusual about it. Whatever the truth is, it is unrealistic to expect him to specifically address every single question someone on this board thinks is suspicious.

I have no problem looking objectively at both the big picture and individual items. What I do have a problem with is the parade of posters bringing up every little thing and implying that each item is proof of something when some of them really mean nothing. If you look at everything and it adds up to "guilty" that is fine, but when that leads you to stop looking objectively at anything and assume that any item that has any chance of being suspicious is sinister, you're as bad as the "fanboys" and "apologists".

There are several posters that are using the fact that stuff was shipped to Salazar as one more nail in the coffin when I can't even see how that is very suspicious and is so far down the list of answers I would like to get that I don't even care if it is addressed..

hayward102 wrote:

I have no problem looking objectively at both the big picture and individual items.

On the contrary, be assured that you have an undeniable and tremendous problem looking at this situation with even a sliver of objectivity. Anyone attempting to let Salazar off the hook at this point, be it at the level of details or in the grand scheme, is nothing more than a garden-variety idiot. Even some of the former unreasonable holdouts are relenting now.

allergenic wrote:

Honestly, it just doesn't seem that bad. I get allergy shots, with a needle, at my doctor's office every single Tuesday afternoon. [....] It would be pretty simple for me to administer the shots to myself if I had to, for example, if I was on the road all the time competing and training.

But you still go to get your shots at your doctor's office. Ask him / her why you cannot just take them at home, and you will be told that the risk of disastrous side effects (i.e. an allergic shock) mean that you must be monitored by a medical professional.

Given that Salazar is convinced that Rupp has severe allergies, I am inclined to believe that these vials were indeed allergy medication. However, that fits the picture of Salazar experimenting with supplements (e.g. carnitine, "testoboost") and prescription drugs (thyroid hormones, testosterone, prednisone, and apparently allergy medication). Whether or not these constitute anti-doping violations (and indeed whether they improve performance) isn't completely clear. However, they are clearly intended to boost performance, and would be against the spirit of fair sports. More seriously, since Salazar is not qualified to prescribe or administer drugs safely, or deal with the side effects, he would also be putting his athletes health and life at risk.

Issuer of corrections wrote:

hayward102 wrote:

I have no problem looking objectively at both the big picture and individual items.

On the contrary, be assured that you have an undeniable and tremendous problem looking at this situation with even a sliver of objectivity. Anyone attempting to let Salazar off the hook at this point, be it at the level of details or in the grand scheme, is nothing more than a garden-variety idiot. Even some of the former unreasonable holdouts are relenting now.

Show me one place where I have let Salazar off the hook and said I think he's innocent. I don't think most of the posters on here are giving any kind objective look at some of these items and are only looking at them through pitchfork and torch tinted glasses.

There are more than enough of the group above on here. I do like to point out alternative explanations for some items and bring up that some of the "proof" is just opinions, unsubstantiated statements, or people not considering any other alternative (allergy medicine might just be allergy medicine). That doesn't mean I'm guaranteeing it was allergy medicine, but it does mean if you completely discount that alternative, I don't think you're being objective either.

Plenty of people are pointing out legitimate issues that have been raised. I agree with many of those comments. I like to point out alternative explanations because I think that is always important when you're considering any set of information, and I firmly believe that some things are being presented as damning to Salazar that really aren't (where the vials were shipped, Mo missing a drug test before even working with Salazar). That doesn't mean I discount every counter-point or think that nothing points to suspicious activity.

Any case looks best when you've only heard the prosecution or defense case. Often the truth is somewhere in between the two sides of the case that are presented. I'm not letting Salazar off the hook. In fact, I think his reasonable time frame to counter the claims is on its last legs. It doesn't mean you've let someone off the hook by saying I'm not going to convict him on all counts before I hear his side of the story.

Sorry, I just can't get past "Albuterol Salazar"

LMAO

Mo also missed a drug test after joining Salazar.

If you don't like the speculation, just stick with the facts:

Rupp was on "testosterone medication" as a high schooler while being coached by Alberto.

Alberto has encouraged his athletes to actively seek out medication and take dosages above what was required by doctors.

Alberto and Rupp kept unlabeled substances in a training camp fridge and demanded it be shipped back to them.

Alberto kept hypodermic syringes at training camp.

Mo missed a drug test while being coached by Salazar.

Rupp has severe allergies, severe asthma, and hypothyroidism, but is somehow one of the best distance runners on the planet.

Alberto experimented with PEDs on his son.

Alberto experimented with PEDs as an athlete.

Alberto has circumvented the rules on several previous occasions when he found them not to his liking (i.e. the 2014 indoor championships.)

This info is corroborated by emails, documents, multiple independent and named sources, and sometimes by Alberto himself. I really don't know what else one needs at this point.

How much$ is true wrote:

The Daily Mail is notorious for paying for information.

Could someone get Stiner on record to confirm he has not been paid for his story by the Mail or others. Ask the question to Stiner if anyone has offered him money for information.

Can someone contact his wife for her statement as apparently they are no longer together. Since Stiner states she was a part of the process it would be interesting to get her take.

Does anyone have accurate background information on Stiner, history?He is fair game now that he chosen to be a public figure.

John Stiner told me today that he not been paid for any of his statements or stories. He wanted to make that clear.

This is absolute crazy. Epstein is lauded for his work on the Lance Armstrong and Alex Rodriguez investigations. Nothing he has done professionally suggests he lies. Should our assumption be 17 athletes (is that the number?) are all lying?

It is easier to assume they are telling the truth and trust BBC/ProPublica and wait for Alberto's response.

Epstein and the BBC reached out to Alberto and gave him weeks notice of the story. If there were numerous people refuting these claims my assumption is Alberto would have told them to the BBC and Epstein. I am going to assume that the BBC and ProPublica would print claims by Alberto refuting the allegations. Rupp could be innocent of doping. However, I am not going to make the conclusion BBC/ProPublica are out to slanger Alberto Salazar.

Totally possible that athletes could take stuff they don't know what it is.

I can't decide if you're naïve or an idiot, a bit of both I think.

hayward102 wrote:

What I do have a problem with is the parade of posters bringing up every little thing and implying that each item is proof of something when some of them really mean nothing. If you look at everything and it adds up to "guilty" that is fine, but when that leads you to stop looking objectively at anything and assume that any item that has any chance of being suspicious is sinister, you're as bad as the "fanboys" and "apologists".

You're contradicting yourself, you have a problem with "posters bringing up every little thing" but then say it's fine to "look at everything" so "it adds up to "guilty" ", you can't have it both ways. Bringing "up every little thing" to analyze it and ask questions is what investigations and investigative journalism are all about.

And you're wrong about "posters bringing up every little thing and implying that each item is proof", possible proof would be more accurate, or another brick in the wall to be analyzed.

Not a crime wrote:

Not a criminal defense lawyer wrote:

I'm not a criminal defense lawyer, but wouldn't mailing prescription drugs be a violation of federal law (the Controlled Substances Act)? Not sure if that would just subject Stiner/Magness to criminal liability, or if Salazar/Rupp could also be brought into the fray. Regardless, it seems like a pretty damning admission by those two. I certainly hope they get immunity so they can keep talking!

Most prescription drugs are not controlled substances under the CSA. The CSA only covers drugs that are likely to be abused, such as opiates and steroids.

My hunch is that mailing someone a prescribed drug they had left behind is unlikely to be prosecuted, unless the circumstances are shady.

There is also the matter of the statute of limitations, which is relatively short (3-5 years) for such minor crimes..

In most states, it is illegal to carry prescription drugs in a container other than the original container from the pharmacy. Goucher's story suggests that Salazar and she were probably in violation of state law at a minimum.

hayward102 sorry to prick your bubble pal but judging by the posts on this page alone you come across as verbose without actually saying anything or contributing much but love telling others what they should or shouldn't say. Just sayin'.

Issuer of corrections wrote:

hayward102 wrote:

I have no problem looking objectively at both the big picture and individual items.

On the contrary, be assured that you have an undeniable and tremendous problem looking at this situation with even a sliver of objectivity. Anyone attempting to let Salazar off the hook at this point, be it at the level of details or in the grand scheme, is nothing more than a garden-variety idiot. Even some of the former unreasonable holdouts are relenting now.

Just sayin'. sorry to burst your bubble pal but judging by your posts --using multiple nicks across multiple NOP topics-- you come across as a blind rat watching the Doped Ship Salazar going under. You really are completely blind, and are willing to access drug use, bending the rules, and manipulation of doctor's medical prescriptions, just so your favorite runner, Rupp, can continue to try to win metal. What a sad life you live.

Just sayin'. wrote:

hayward102 sorry to prick your bubble pal but judging by the posts on this page alone you come across as verbose without actually saying anything or contributing much but love telling others what they should or shouldn't say. Just sayin'.

I'm not sure why everyone here keeps saying that the two vials were "unlabeled", because that's not actually what Stiner is quoted as saying. He says that they were covered in white tape. Whether or not there was another label underneath the tape is unclear.

Based on all of the other information available my opinion is the following:

* NOP is abusing grey areas, but we have pretty much all known this forever

* Alberto Salazar will do anything he perceives as legal to win, although his definition of legal sometimes goes against the "spirit of the sport" and is therefore not actually legal in those circumstances

* I want to learn more about the Androgel and think it warrants an investigation, although I have a lot of trouble believing anything John Stiner says, even though I've heard he's an honest guy (just because of previous Facebook interactions)

* I think the allergy shots are allergy shots and don't see anything unusual about them other than the lack of a label, and I'm still waiting on hearing from my allergist over whether labeling regulations apply to allergy shots

I don't think the world is divided into "NOP fanboys" and everyone else, I think there are a lot of us somewhere in between who want more information.

I also don't think all doping is equal. I mean, it's all unethical, but different degrees of unethical. Outright using EPO or HGH or testosterone is really screwed up, but I could see how a coach and his athletes could convince themselves that maxing out any possible advantage available to them due to a condition (sometimes a condition that may be inflicted by training, though I think there's still a lot of research that needs to be done on whether overtraining can cause subclinical hypothyroidism) rather than just mitigating the condition is legal and ethical. At least that can be explained by cognitive dissonance rather than a total and complete lack of regard for others and for the sport.

Do you believe he has asked athletes to game the medical profession to obtain prescription medicines they should not be receiving? That's more than a TUE, gray area.

Good lord. Thank you for summarizing. Here is the deal. These guys are cheating. The real question is if it is a Lance Armstrong scenario or if it is a Ryan Braun scenario. Incidentally, both have ties to Nike. Seriously, Armstrong is a major a$$hole and eventually made too many enemies. He was the biggest start in a sport full of cheaters, yet he crossed too many people. Braun is also in a sport full of cheaters. But the market is pretty much saying, they don't really care that much. Slap on the wrist, carry on. So the real question isn't if NOP is cheating. The real question is if the sport of Track & Field cares and if it can survive with the reality that its top stars are doping.

What do you mean by "game the medical profession"? Like what specific example are you referring to?

I think the asthma test explained by Lauren Fleshman is actually much more reasonable for an elite athlete. My allergist/immunologist, the one who did his thesis in asthma and allergies in elite athletes, essentially told me that elite athletes with mild to moderate EIA will pretty much never show signs of asthma in classic EIA tests because the stimulus is not enough. I know I've only ever had asthma attacks after hard races or during hard workouts. I'm not going to get an asthma attack during a fifteen mile jog. I'm too fit for that and my asthma isn't that severe. And we all know I'm far from elite. To test for EIA he basically ordered the device and told me to blow into it while my lungs are fully functional and then blow into it when I feel symptomatic. Easy enough.

I am much more troubled by the suggestion he made to Kara Goucher post-pregnancy, but I'll start to take her seriously when she admits everything she knows, which I know she hasn't done yet. As much as I really admire her.

Salazar has his own stash of drugs in house. What he actually gives athletes is a mystery. The allergy shots were not allergy shots. That are something else Salazar concocted, or something manipulated.

To stop this madness coaches should be permanently banned if they ever see an athlete's test results. This will stop the use of labs that have the ability to do the same tests as WADA has done. Athletes should be required to report every blood test they submit to, and provide the information of who tested them to WADA. Any athlete caught giving a sample and not reporting should forced to provide an explanation, and if the explanation is not acceptable, face a ban.