The full USADA report on Alberto Salazar has been leaked - Here it is

Win_vs_Time wrote:

When you say that "they said no" could you share/post the email of their response to him?

It's true cuz.... cuz the USADA report sez. If u disagree u must be a doper.

"no" isn't a law wrote:

Let's just be clear that an administrator saying "no" does not in and of itself make something illegal. They can help you to interpret the regulation, but their word is not law.

I'm not picking a side on this particular issue, as I don't know the underlying law, but the mere fact that they were told "no" doesn't mean anything if that answer from USADA was not grounded in law.

Thank you! This is an important point, that most people here are ignoring. For example, very few people who claim that USADA has "proved" that NOP dopes mention Art. 3 of the WADA Code. That article is titled, "Proof of Doping." It says:

"The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation."

In other words, under the WADA Code, "no panel, no proof."

To find out what weight to give a USADA administrator who says "no," we would have to read the WADA Code (and perhaps other codes and supporting documents) to see what they about who gets to interpret rules.

As an aside, the issue of whether administrators can interpret law is very important in the real world. Much of the controversy over Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court had to do with his position on the "Chevron doctrine," which says judges should defer to agency interpretations of statutes.

It would certainly seem that this draft report is aimed at ultimately taking action, right? I don't know what other purpose it would serve.

USADA seems intent on proving that the greater-than-50-ml infusion in under 4 hours rule was willfully violated. Something like 60 percent of the pages in the report are devoted to the topic of the L-carnitine administration (I believe).

As to how "serious" this violation is, USADA can suspend athletes on the basis of any violations they want, as far as I know. I don't think they deal a lot in nuance when it comes to this issue because that would be a minefield -- things like "Well, OK, his T:E ratio was in the 'used T' range, but not by *that* much" would be cropping up everywhere.

The answers to those questions don't matter for present purposes. All that is at issue here is whether a doping violation was committed. Even if you could show that half of all MLB players use either steroids, hGH or some sort of amphetamine or other banned stimulant, this wouldn't get anyone off the hook.

True but not relevant. "Shoulds" do not enter into the equation here, do they?

Agreed, if they are telling the truth and were actually given banned substances and took them thinking they were on the level, then they have the bad luck of exercising apocalyptically shitty judgment. Does it really surprise you how many athletes try the "I didn't know" excuse, from Dieter Baumann and his spiked toothpaste to Gatlin and his saboteur-masseur? It's convenient if nothing else and muddies the legal waters nicely.

Again, a post hoc advisory to not do something shady is well-intentioned on your part, perhaps, but shallow. If you like, and assuming you believe that violations have indeed occurred, you can place most of the moral burden in this case on the coaches rather than on the athletes. Maybe even all of it. Besides, I think most people are more or less in agreement with you here anyway -- the prevailing sense I get is that the real villains here are more Salazar and the medical personnel in his orbit than the humans he's experimenting on. I think Salazar is about the worst thing that has happened to U.S. professional running in a long time, a sociopathic persona allowed to run riot over the sport thanks to having a supremely powerful organization to back him. All the money, protection, and misguided will in the world has created the perfect storm of pharmacological-athletic chaos. And I'll be astonished if the L-carnitine infusions turn out to be any less than a mere portal of entry for the authorities to become more strongly involved and start issuing subpoenas left and right.

I can't believe you can't see the difference here between a coach and/or doctor what looks to be willingly violating an anti-doping rule in order to get what they think is an advantage and an athlete slipping on the track, not getting an advantage that affected the outcome of the race.

John DiFool wrote:

You wonder what happened to Rowbury when she started running all weirdly in that indoor race? Mo Farah collapsing/passing out? Are you really that naive?

Which Rowbury race are you referring to? I'm definitely familiar with Farah passing out.

Yes the Colburn comparison is a false equivalency here.

One thing I'm not here for: nop or any of its members business as usual social media posts. Some of these folks need to start making statements. No way a couple pictures on instagram is going to make anyone forget this report

wejo wrote:

I can't believe you can't see the difference here between a coach and/or doctor what looks to be willingly violating an anti-doping rule in order to get what they think is an advantage and an athlete slipping on the track, not getting an advantage that affected the outcome of the race.

Yes, it is amazing how people can't see what you and Rojo are getting at, even though you both express yourselves so clearly in writing.

wejo wrote:

John DiFool wrote:

You wonder what happened to Rowbury when she started running all weirdly in that indoor race? Mo Farah collapsing/passing out? Are you really that naive?

Which Rowbury race are you referring to? I'm definitely familiar with Farah passing out.

I believe he is referencing the 2015 Millrose Games.

Quote from SR's instagram post later that night: "Ending my Millrose night with a post-race tempo. Body is healthy, the last 50m was just a lactic attack."

wejo wrote:

I can't believe you can't see the difference here between a coach and/or doctor what looks to be willingly violating an anti-doping rule in order to get what they think is an advantage and an athlete slipping on the track, not getting an advantage that affected the outcome of the race.

As I said, your brother said she did get an advantage. Maybe I misread him:

"I disagree that Coburn didn't gain anything? Yes she did. She ran less ground than she whouldn't have had she not stepped on the rail. This is very similar to what happened to Grant fisher indoors. Yes he slowed down. He and Coburn likely would have run faster had they not stumbled on the rail, but once they hit the rail, they ran faster than they would by stepping ont he infield."

Unfortunately for WADA/USADA the leaks have severely hurt their cause, athletes and coaches are entitled to due process.

GeezYouPeople wrote:

Yes, it is amazing how people can't see what you and Rojo are getting at, even though you both express yourselves so clearly in writing.

In other words, to understand what you read on LRC, you often have to look beyond the words on the page.

Nice point! wrote:

"no" isn't a law wrote:

Let's just be clear that an administrator saying "no" does not in and of itself make something illegal. They can help you to interpret the regulation, but their word is not law.

I'm not picking a side on this particular issue, as I don't know the underlying law, but the mere fact that they were told "no" doesn't mean anything if that answer from USADA was not grounded in law.

Thank you! This is an important point, that most people here are ignoring. For example, very few people who claim that USADA has "proved" that NOP dopes mention Art. 3 of the WADA Code. That article is titled, "Proof of Doping." It says:

1. According to WADA/sports federation rules, Salazar is running a doping organization. This is not ambiguous.

2. Even though USADA has shown that Salazar is doping athletes, they have no authority to sanction. The power to sanction lies with USATF or IAAF. We all know a sanction won't happen.

3. This is not "law." There's no legal anything. At all. The IOC is adamant about that. The reason they are adamant is it allows the sports federations to operate as the corrupt organizations they are. That includes permitting doping.

The whole reason the report was leaked was because the IAAF/USATF would not dare sanction Salazar for running a doping program.

More of the same Nike doping legacy and egregious IAAF/USATF corruption

John DiFool wrote:

I would consider you a cheater/doper/unethical/ at best maybe just a naive idiot, yes.

Please explain this to me. Why on earth would you consider a saline drip to be doping?

It's looking somewhat likely that the only person who might get a suspension out of this whole thing is Steve Magness.

oh, the irony! wrote:

It's looking somewhat likely that the only person who might get a suspension out of this whole thing is Steve Magness.

The ironyof it all.

jewbacca wrote:

John DiFool wrote:

I would consider you a cheater/doper/unethical/ at best maybe just a naive idiot, yes.

Please explain this to me. Why on earth would you consider a saline drip to be doping?

Because it's a prohibited method?

jewbacca wrote:

John DiFool wrote:

I would consider you a cheater/doper/unethical/ at best maybe just a naive idiot, yes.

Please explain this to me. Why on earth would you consider a saline drip to be doping?

If we are to follow the IAAF's own rule book, Chemical and Physical manipulation via intravenous infusion were outlawed in 2005. The exception is acute medical need.

Since this is Nike, there are no rules.

GeezYouPeople wrote:

wejo wrote:

I can't believe you can't see the difference here between a coach and/or doctor what looks to be willingly violating an anti-doping rule in order to get what they think is an advantage and an athlete slipping on the track, not getting an advantage that affected the outcome of the race.

Yes, it is amazing how people can't see what you and Rojo are getting at, even though you both express yourselves so clearly in writing.

Any time Nike is implicated in a doping scandal, Trolls show up to inject confusion and implausible deniability to varying effect.

Salazar, with Brown, are running another doping operation.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

jewbacca wrote:

Please explain this to me. Why on earth would you consider a saline drip to be doping?

Because it's a prohibited method?

By technicality because of masking drug use, correct? I'm asking how rehydration by IV doping could possibly confer an advantage.