CAS UPHOLDS Alberto Salazar's four-year anti-doping ban

The Unkle wrote:

flyingfrog wrote:

Salazar was gaming the system, I always wondered with such a high range of Test. allowed why couldn't any athlete have their test. legally raised to the highest allowable value? Especially for women. If MB etc... can run w/10x the nat test of a women, shouldn't women be allowed to raise their levels to compete? I realize they may grow some facial hair but that should be their choice.

"The panel emphasised that none of the violations "directly affected athletic competition, and that there was no evidence put before the Cas as to any effect on athletes competing at the elite level within the NOP".

That seems like an exoneration to me.

By this logic, that means all coaches have a free pass to possess whatever banned (and maybe even illegal) substance they want. They can also get a doctor to lie and tamper with medical records. And athletes can IV as much as they want of some fluid with no regard to medical safety.

The Unkle wrote:

You left out the part where the panel concluded that none of the violations affected any athletic competitions.

LOL. I just answered your question ("And he was banned why?").

Ok, where is Jama Aden's ban?

Jonathan Gault wrote:

Salazar was banned in September 2019 and had his appeal heard by CAS in March 2021. CAS still hasn't released an official decision but the BBC and the Times are both reporting that Salazar's appeal has failed.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/58565774

So LRC is ecstatic about this but still thinks Shelby is innocent. How does that work exactly?

Mods deleted my original thread, then deleted my joke about them deleting it and a guy responding to me calling it hilarious

Anyways rip berto

Statement released today that confirms the BBC reporting and has some new details: https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10856875

FartKing69 wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

"The panel emphasised that none of the violations "directly affected athletic competition, and that there was no evidence put before the Cas as to any effect on athletes competing at the elite level within the NOP".

That seems like an exoneration to me.

By this logic, that means all coaches have a free pass to possess whatever banned (and maybe even illegal) substance they want. They can also get a doctor to lie and tamper with medical records. And athletes can IV as much as they want of some fluid with no regard to medical safety.

Why would a coach possess banned substances and tamper with records if none of the violations "directly affected athletic competition, and that there was no evidence put before the Cas as to any effect on athletes competing at the elite level within the NOP?

Where is the logic there?

Doping in professional athletics is equivalent to fraud.

It is stealing. And it can be significant sums of money.

Aiding athletes to this is participating in fraud.

It is a criminal offense and sooner or later a case will find its way to court. That will be interesting.

Handling substances for doping should be illegal. So should helping with other doping methods.

Athletes from countries were it is legal should not be welcome in IAAF sanctioned competition and spending time in

countries were it is legal should make athletes DQ from setting world records.

I guess that is far off. But I saw an interesting interview with an austrian xc skier that had been caught.

He was very open and made the conclusion that there must be enforced civil laws against doping if we want clean sport.

The Unkle wrote:

flyingfrog wrote:

Salazar was gaming the system, I always wondered with such a high range of Test. allowed why couldn't any athlete have their test. legally raised to the highest allowable value? Especially for women. If MB etc... can run w/10x the nat test of a women, shouldn't women be allowed to raise their levels to compete? I realize they may grow some facial hair but that should be their choice.

"The panel emphasised that none of the violations "directly affected athletic competition, and that there was no evidence put before the Cas as to any effect on athletes competing at the elite level within the NOP".

That seems like an exoneration to me.

Irrelevant

The statutes are clear. Trafficking is trafficking. Possession is possession.

Move on

The Salazar case is a demonstration of why we need to go beyond reliance on drug testing when trying to clean up the sport. Testing isn't enough, as Armstrong never got bored of saying, he never failed a test. Investigation is the way forward and if you consider the totality of the evidence, it's obvious Salazar was doing things that a coach should not be doing.

The unsatisfying part for many, is that it pushes the bounds of credibility to suggest he was doing this as an experiment or out of curiosity. There'll always be suspicion surrounding his elite athletes but I'm coming to th conclusion that we'll never see any evidence of this. The testing has never turned up anything, and the investigations seem to have run their course. Unless someone has a crisis of conscience, this is about the only resolution we'll ever get

Nike has issued a statement.

Nike said it had "supported Alberto in appeal because we understood, and the first panel found, that there was no doping".

The company added: "There was no finding that performance enhancing drugs have ever been used on Oregon Project athletes and the panel went out of its way to note Alberto's desire to follow all rules.

"We are glad to see that Cas reiterated this in their decision and stated that the way that the case was handled was disproportionate to the severity of the violations established.

"Alberto is no longer a contracted coach and we shuttered the Oregon Project almost two years ago."

Also Mark Daly says they won't be funding any more appeals.

https://twitter.com/BBCMarkDaly/status/1438561882730909697

Let me underscore this one more time to all of you whose skull to brain densities are dangerously out of balance

Salazar, with the help of Dr. Jeffrey Brown, were both gaming the TUE system and straight up drug trafficking prescription medications for off label, unapproved use for performance enhancing benefits. He effectively controlled their contracts and thus their careers, coerced his athletes into taking these medications. He has no scientific/medical/research training to any extent yet acted incredibly recklessly and told his athletes to take these regardless, often at levels where he had no scientific basis and were going by the seat of his pants. Salazar was directly risking the health of his athletes through coercion and deceit. His doping ban should be lifetime.

Ernest wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

It's just whatever at this point. As long as they are consistent on how they rule on these things, its fine.

the safesport thing, on the other hand........

Have to agree.

SafeSport's lifetime ban sets a low evidentiary bar - one which can never be consistently applied. If that net were cast, the haul would fill the holds.

I can think of many coaches who make Salazar look like a Saint.

i'll just leave this here because I hadn't heard this story before:

i think there is something there to the safesport violation even if they should be more transparent in their process. there have been enough instances like this.

Panthers vs. the field wrote:

Does this mean Saladbar has to stop coaching Sifan Hassan?

I am assuming you are being sarcastic

If you're going to cite someone on twitter it shouldn't be "The Hub" of distance running. Not quite a credible source IMO.

Do you suffer from selective reading? Did you missed this portion ?

The CAS Panel further ruled that Alberto Salazar had committed the following anti-doping rule violations, also as per the 2009 World Anti-Doping Agency Code (WADC):

• Possession (Art. 2.6) of testosterone;

• Complicity (Art. 2.8) in Dr. Jeffrey Brown’s Administration of a Prohibited Method;

• Tampering (Art. 2.5) with the Doping Control Process with respect to the issue of L-carnitine infusions/syringes.

Jeez!!

okaywantkababi wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

"The panel emphasised that none of the violations "directly affected athletic competition, and that there was no evidence put before the Cas as to any effect on athletes competing at the elite level within the NOP".

That seems like an exoneration to me.

Irrelevant

The statutes are clear. Trafficking is trafficking. Possession is possession.

Move on

It is irrelevant that they found "...none of the violations "directly affected athletic competition, and that there was no evidence put before the Cas as to any effect on athletes competing at the elite level within the NOP"?

Seems pretty important.

Why cheat if not to affect the athletic competition?

Something stinks here

The Unkle wrote:

FartKing69 wrote:

By this logic, that means all coaches have a free pass to possess whatever banned (and maybe even illegal) substance they want. They can also get a doctor to lie and tamper with medical records. And athletes can IV as much as they want of some fluid with no regard to medical safety.

Why would a coach possess banned substances and tamper with records if none of the violations "directly affected athletic competition, and that there was no evidence put before the Cas as to any effect on athletes competing at the elite level within the NOP?

Where is the logic there?

The logic is that possession is a violation, yes simple possession, intent becomes irrelevant as long as you are in possession of a banned substance. Can you process that?