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

anacondarunner wrote:

Wejo- the suspicious test result was reported in the Der Spiegel article about NOP from March. Center also had a suspicious result as well.

Here is the Der Spiegel article:

Der Spiegel had access to the 269 page report and you can tell emails as well. A bit surprised Fancy Bears didn't release everything publicly but maybe it is in their repository somewhere.

From Der Spiegel:

"On Jan. 14, 2016, USADA's science director, Matthew Fedoruk, received an email from his test results division. In it, a USADA employee noted of a test on Rupp that "T/E is elevated compared to athlete's previous pattern in samples." A strong imbalance between testosterone and epitestosterone is considered an indicator of possible doping. Fedoruk ordered further tests, but the outcome of those tests is not known. Rupp claims he has never taken testosterone.

A few weeks before the Olympic Games in Rio, USADA employees emailed back and forth about a sample provided by Centrowitz. At issue was his hemoglobin value and reticulocyte count. In a June 15, 2016 email, a USADA scientist wrote that the sample exhibited a "suspicious profile." The investigators agreed to test Centrowitz again "in the next week or two." The emails do not provide any indication of whether that happened."

celery wrote:

This just occurred to me that unless the NOP athletes explicitily signed over medical power of attorney to Salazer, Dr. Brown may have been in massive violation of HIPPA (Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act) when he frequently discussed health car information on the NOP athletes with Salazar. This might have been covered in the Nike NOP contract that the athletes had, but even if that is the case, it seems like there could still be room for a lawsuit that the athletes were essentially being coerced into signing over their privacy rights under federal law.

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer and don't know the intricacies of contract law, but I just wonder if this is an avenue the former NOP athletes could pursue against Nike...if they were so inclined.

I think it is pretty likely the NOP athletes signed a release to allow Dr. Brown to talk to Nike/Salazar/NOP personnel. That's all that would be needed, not any sort of medical power of attorney.

If not my guess is that it could amount of a claim against Dr. Brown but not against Nike. I'm not a lawyer either. I do have experience and knowledge of HIPPA generally.

celery wrote:

This just occurred to me that unless the NOP athletes explicitily signed over medical power of attorney to Salazer, Dr. Brown may have been in massive violation of HIPPA (Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act) when he frequently discussed health car information on the NOP athletes with Salazar. This might have been covered in the Nike NOP contract that the athletes had, but even if that is the case, it seems like there could still be room for a lawsuit that the athletes were essentially being coerced into signing over their privacy rights under federal law.

A HIPAA violation seems unlikely. If we can figure out HIPAA applies, so could Dr. Brown, who has a lot more to lose than we do.

I am not sure how the legal argument that athletes were coerced into signing these contracts would go. It's not coercion to say, "Waive your HIPPA rights, or you don't get the money." Lots of companies require drug tests as a condition of employment.

PS It's HIPAA -- the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act -- not HIPPA -- the Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act.

And what about Ari Lambie? Whose career ended because she was unable to figure out what was wrong with her. She was prescribed thyroid medication by Brown though she did not have a thyroid problem. She started feeling sick within two weeks and her health slid down and she never recovered it. She ended up retiring.

Really sad.

KMB, I am really not sure what you are talking about and I am not trying to argue. I don't even think we disagree as much as you think we do.

I'll put this another way. My sense is that this started mainly an investigation into whether Salazar is microdosing Rupp with testosterone. After testing him a lot and investigating, they don't have enough for a case. So the question is just out there.

Now the investigation has gone in a few other directions.

I am not entirely sure that the violations being described are serious or if the some of the medical practice are that unusual.

Maybe they are but, in that case, I think USADA should then officially report on it.

It seems like a lot of athletes are getting caught up in this and are being labeled dopers. That may not be fair, especially if they thought what they were doing was compliant. It's worse if they thought it was wrong and went along with it (some people may be somewhere in the middle) I am not sure why you are reacting so strongly to that last point.

I didn't know why the 50 ml rule exists. I had no idea. Never paid much attention to the doping code.

Come on people, this isn't that hard. For a long time, I've been hesitant to get Salazar on some sort of technicality on an IV if his stars don't also go with him. It makes no sense to put Salazar in jail for a parking ticket when that ticket has no way of explaining how Mo Farah suddenly became the world's best distance runner and Galen Rupp, who couldn't break 4:00 minutes in a mile for a long time, can now run a 3:50..

But after reading the report, I think Salazar should be banned as it's clear a) he wants his runners to get a chemical advantage that others don't have and b) he violated the doping rules.

You are narrowly defining the spirit of the doping law as being "What is the point of this 50 ml rule?" I'm thinking of it on a macro scale, "What is the whole point of having anti-doping rules? We don't want people trying to get chemical advantages that others don't have that are potential dangerous.

As I said earlier, I don't understand how anyone can read the report and not think he's violating both the spirit and letter of the doping rules. He wanted them to get a drug that no one else had access to as he thought it would take 2-3 minute off their marathon time, USADA said no and he did it anyway. Whether it helped the runners or not is now irrelevant to me. As someone said, if you take a gun into a bank, it doesn't matter if you actually rob the bank or not.

I don't have a problem with people using supplements. I had a private meeting with Salazar in the Nike building a number of years ago. When I left, I thought , "Wow that guy thinks about medicine very similar to me."

Salazar basically believed that he knows more than the doctors about what things are necessary for distance runners to run well. Take ferritin for example. 25 may not be low for most doctors but he wanted it over 100. If I saw a runner I was coaching at 25 sucking when I htought he was a star, I too would want it up.

When I was a competitor, there was an ad out for a supplement for PRO-HGH. I wrote USADA or USATF or someone and said, "Hey, Can I take this?" They looked at it and said I could. I never did. When I was in HS, John Kellogg wanted us to take something called Ginsana.

So I"m not opposed to supplements. I'm opposed to turning running into "who has the best doctor?"

I don't know about labels. I may not label you a doper, but I certainly think you should be sanctioned if it was more than 50 ml. You can't willfully violate a law and not be punished. Ethiopians training in some remote village don't have access to IVs - you shouldn't either particularly when they say it's not allowed unless it's a clinical study or hospitalization. If you are hospitalized, I've got no issue with it.

jewbacca wrote:

Garyb wrote:

From USADA - "WADA has justified the inclusion of IV infusions on the Prohibited List given the intent of some athletes to manipulate their plasma volume levels in order to mask the use of a prohibited substance and/or to distort the values in the Athlete Biological Passport. Further, it must be clearly stated that the use of IV fluid replacement following exercise to correct mild rehydration or help speed recovery is not clinically indicated nor substantiated by the medical literature. There is a well-established body of scientific opinion to confirm that oral rehydration is the preferred therapeutic choice."

Thank you. So in other words, a saline dripconfers no additional benefit in and of itself.

Without seeing or being there at time of infusion, how do we know if other electrolytes were not added or ordered to the infusion? If this was legitimately done in a medical office/facility, an order has to be prescribed to place an IV catheter and fluids/electrolytes. That's where documentation in a chart comes into play. If an IV and fluids was obtained outside of facility i.e. EMT on a emergency mission, they are certified and have to document the IV site, placement and what they gave.

Just giving plain normal saline via IV might not seem like a big deal but they better show documentation especially if an athlete can verify/verbalize he/she received it. Its called scope of practice.

I don't believe I've changed my logic. I didn't want Coburn busted on a technicality and for a long time and I haven't wanted Salazar busted on some IV technicality either. But when he is specifically told not to do it and then he goes ahead and does it as he thinks it will give him an advantage, then I want him busted.

If we are using Coburn as an example, it would be like she's leading USAs by a ton, and yells out to the head official mid-race, "Can I step on the rail?" They say no. She does it on purpose anyway. Then yes, I want her DQd whether it was the cause of her victory or not.

I just said it in the other post. After reading this report, I feel like the last thing we are doing is being a textualist and nailing Salazar on some obscure, small point. Salazar made it abundantly clear he wants his runners to get a 2-3 minute chemical advantage for something he was told not to do. How is that being a textualist?

It's like the exact opposite. Again, I'm not looking at the spirit of the 50 ml code, I'm looking at the whole point of the anti-doping rule book.

Rojo

PS. Looking back at the curb rule. The point of that rule is so you don't win by running less ground than someone. That's not why Coburn won.

Now for the individual athletes involved, I'm not sure they should get a lengthy ban - or any ban - for the IVs.

There's WAY TOO MUCH smoke for there not to be a FIRE. Having digested this saga over the past year in addition to taking a step back and trying to make sense of all the evidence and scenarios in an unbiased manner there is absolutely NO WAY that Alberto's ethics are legal and or above board. I feel sorry for the unknowing athletes who have been misled and or manipulated.

celery wrote:

This just occurred to me that unless the NOP athletes explicitily signed over medical power of attorney to Salazer, Dr. Brown may have been in massive violation of HIPPA (Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act) when he frequently discussed health car information on the NOP athletes with Salazar.

It's pretty simple. You get a release from the patient/athlete.

Salazar is a smart guy. I don't think you could try him for practicing medicine without a license. USATF isn't going to sanction the guy because Nike...

It's worth bringing up the infamous Dr. Fuentes. The guy was doping athletes just like Dr. Brown. He, more or less, got away on appeal and is still practicing medicine. That's as bad as it could ever get for Dr. Brown. You have the IOC to thank for fighting so hard to keep doping non-criminalized.

I'll say it once and I'll say it again--they need to make statements. The pre classic is coming up. The press is going to ask.

Also, I wonder if they'll be a follow up interview with ken goe and Galen rupps parents. It would be interesting to see their perspective now

Alberto is closer to the worst of the worst in the sport.

He is exactly what we want to get rid of to save this sport.

Please don't insist he is the norm. Reminds me of the Nike Armstrong story where the fallback excuse was yes, but everybody is doing it.

No, everybody isn't doing it.

Here is exactly what is going to happen in the next 6 months:

- NOP disbands.

- All the Athletes move and live in secrecy somewhere else out of the publics eye, still coached by Salazar.

-Hype dies down

-Rupp and others show up at races and still dominate everyone.

-Everyone cries still.

rojo wrote:

I didn't know why the 50 ml rule exists. I had no idea. Never paid much attention to the doping code.

You are hardly alone. I have talked to lots of professional baseball or football players. I have yet to meet one who has read the rule book. Yet they are all sure they know the rules.

From your grammar, I can't tell if you've started paying attention to the doping code. Have you?

dsrunner wrote:

Alberto is closer to the worst of the worst in the sport.

He is exactly what we want to get rid of to save this sport.

There is nothing to save.

Just like Armstrong, the sports federations know what is going on and permit the doping. It's good business.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Salazar is a smart guy..

HAHAHAHAHA. No he isn't.

dsrunner wrote:

Alberto is closer to the worst of the worst in the sport.

He is exactly what we want to get rid of to save this sport.

Please don't insist he is the norm. Reminds me of the Nike Armstrong story where the fallback excuse was yes, but everybody is doing it.

No, everybody isn't doing it.

How do you know what everyone else is up to? After all, Adam G's emails suggest that Alberto learned about Dr. Brown from Wetmore.

I know this is old news, but I it still seems surprising, even a little shocking.

Is this summary right? wrote:

It seems like a lot of athletes are getting caught up in this and are being labeled dopers. That may not be fair, especially if they thought what they were doing was compliant. It's worse if they thought it was wrong and went along with it (some people may be somewhere in the middle) I am not sure why you are reacting so strongly to that last point.

I am only suggesting that the athletes who have continued to stand by Salazar and his methods cannot possibly be as naive as you seem to think, given the sheer number who have 1) departed the program during their active careers, and 2) maligned the program after departing for the very same general reason.

Perhaps we are not in disagreement at all, and that you are suggesting only that athletes such as Ritz may have not been fully apprised, in real time, of the possible illegality of a treatment he or she received only once or twice (e.g., the infusion). This I have no quarrel with and in fact it makes perfect sense.

But when I look at the number of people who have left and gone on to offer virtually the same story -- varying degrees of "I started to get uncomfortable with what was happening, so we parted ways" (and you may or may not want to drop Farah, Cain or both into this category) -- I find it impossible to believe that the athletes who remain in the program are unified in their faith that everything their coach is doing is on the up and up. They may be unified in the belief that there will be no eventually negative consequences to themselves as a result, or that if there are, that these will be outweighed by the sum of the benefits.

These are people, not dogs or horses. Something tells me that amid all of the training and public statements and accolades and accusations, more than one of them on the current roster has done some research into their coach's past and happened across the idea that his reputation was far from sterling among his contemporaries going way, way back to his competitive days. They have plenty of time to dig around and all the contacts and motivation to do it. I think there's a very good chance that this sort of digging contributed in large measure to why some former NOPers are not current NOPers.

And sure, maybe this would all be much neater and so on if there were evidence of "hard" PEDs like testosterone and EPO so that this whole circus could end one way or the other. But the fact that the investigation expanded to focus on this infusion mess doesn't make it a lesser mess, really. I also wouldn't put all my money on USADA having no more than this to operate on merely because this is all that's in this one (albeit lengthy, though not be legal standards) document.