Has U.S. Anti-Doping Agency dropped the Oregon Project investigation w/ Alberto Salazar?

Hippo wrote:

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/09/30/sports/30armstrong.600.jpg

Wonder what they talked about

All guilty!

This is a hollow hope wrote:

Clerk wrote:

One strand of thought many had from the Salazar case was to pursue legal action for the various ways he used or misused prescriptions and shipped medication. I didn't know enough about these areas to look into it, so I'm no help there.

This strand of thought was rightly dismissed the first time around.

NOPe. Why would you believe that shipping drugs to avoid detection is legal? Why would you believe that giving out other people's prescription drugs is legal? Prescription drugs are person specific. No one can use that drug except the one it is prescribed for.

Buck Wild wrote:

Hippo wrote:https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/09/30/sports/30armstrong.600.jpg

Wonder what they talked about

All guilty!

http://cdn.running.competitor.com/files/2014/07/Armstrong-Benoit-Sal-ElG-NYC06.jpg

There's a small corner of my brain - the rational part... - which acknowledges that this is almost certainly true. I try to ignore that part when it comes to Joanie, though. She rose to WR heights while running for AW when drug use was at its zenith there.

I think most fans are like me. Your post is the first one I've ever seen - in spite of the above - accusing Joan Benoit of drug use. God Help us all if she did.

Buck Wild wrote:

Hippo wrote:https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/09/30/sports/30armstrong.600.jpg

Wonder what they talked about

All guilty!

http://cdn.running.competitor.com/files/2014/07/Armstrong-Benoit-Sal-ElG-NYC06.jpg

It's a good thing there is no connection between Salazar and Armstrong. All these pics must be fake. The published news articles must also be fake. Everyone needs to be sued for liable for these.

PS. Not sure what the hand holding between Salazar and Armstrong means.

Link wrote:

There's a small corner of my brain - the rational part... - which acknowledges that this is almost certainly true. I try to ignore that part when it comes to Joanie, though. She rose to WR heights while running for AW when drug use was at its zenith there.

I think most fans are like me. Your post is the first one I've ever seen - in spite of the above - accusing Joan Benoit of drug use. God Help us all if she did.

Or I was suggesting that someone meeting, or even working out with, Lance Armstrong is not strong evidence that they are a doper.

For example:

or

or

or

I can't view the third link for some reason, but, with the possible exception of 'W' and the woman who I don't know in the second photo, all of the people posing with Lance in those links probably used PEDs! Are you being ironic about your ironic- er - ness??

Thanks. I thought I saw him in Nike Gear at Pre.

arnfz.d wrote:

John Miller, DT publicist wrote:

I think the 'Nike Lawyers argument' is being used as a big catch all for any instance when there are no details left to argue. Yes, Nike has resources that probably give their athletes an advantage but it is not like high profile Nike athletes have never been banned.

Gatlin, Jones, and Gay are way bigger names than all NOP runners combined ever will be. There are limits to what Nike can do. The best argument is that someone like Gay got a great deal from USATF but he was still busted and has a stained reputation. I don't want to see him or Gatline on any US teams anymore.

I actually completely agree with your post, but I just want to clarify that Gay was an adidas athlete when he tested positive, was subsequently dropped, and then signed by Nike.

Link wrote:

I can't view the third link for some reason, but, with the possible exception of 'W' and the woman who I don't know in the second photo, all of the people posing with Lance in those links probably used PEDs! Are you being ironic about your ironic- er - ness??

Ahem, only one of them was Armstrong's coach, and spent a lot of "training" time with him. Guess who?

The sports issue is whether the activity led to illegal performance enhancement. People are pointing out that the other issues may be violations of law but are minor ones that are not likely to be prosecuted. There are cases where threatened prosecution of illegal activity leads to discover and disclosure of cheating in sport. That does not appear to have happened here yet.

Hope Les wrote:

This is a hollow hope wrote:

This strand of thought was rightly dismissed the first time around.

NOPe. Why would you believe that shipping drugs to avoid detection is legal? Why would you believe that giving out other people's prescription drugs is legal? Prescription drugs are person specific. No one can use that drug except the one it is prescribed for.

And USADA is not a law enforcement agency.

NOPtorneys wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

From the public evidence, it's highly likely that USADA didn't find that a rule was violated by anyone subject to their rules. I'm not sure it even got as far as "Nike lawyers".

Public evidence is not legal evidence. There would be no Nike lawyers involved. NOP is owned by Salazar. Attorneys would be hired by Salazar and his athletes with the most to lose.

John Miller, DT publicist wrote:

The sports issue is whether the activity led to illegal performance enhancement. People are pointing out that the other issues may be violations of law but are minor ones that are not likely to be prosecuted.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Bans for sports drug use are not prosecutions.

There is no such thing as "illegal performance enhancement." The drug doesn't have to be proven to enhance performance. Go read the WADA rules and understand why a drug use ban can be given for drug use without proven performance enhancement: spirit of sport, detrimental to health.

And the bans they recommend are as good as law. See: Lance Armstrong's lifelong ban--he can't even run in a low-key charity event.

rekrunner wrote:

And USADA is not a law enforcement agency.

NOPtorneys wrote:

Public evidence is not legal evidence. There would be no Nike lawyers involved. NOP is owned by Salazar. Attorneys would be hired by Salazar and his athletes with the most to lose.

Go back to the beginning. No rule violation by anyone subject to these rules means no ban.No need for lawyers or the law.

running along now wrote:

And the bans they recommend are as good as law. See: Lance Armstrong's lifelong ban--he can't even run in a low-key charity event.

rekrunner wrote:

And USADA is not a law enforcement agency.

Poof!!!! wrote: the evidence is being collected to put them out of business.

That's not happening. Salazar does his homework and does it well. He tests exogenous T on his son, sends his athletes to the only endocrinologist in the U.S., Dr. Brown and exploits the TUE system like a champion. All within the rules.

It would have to be one of his athletes not following directions and failing an IQ test. And then we're assuming the federation wouldn't make it go away.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Poof!!!! wrote: the evidence is being collected to put them out of business.

That's not happening. Salazar does his homework and does it well. He tests exogenous T on his son, sends his athletes to the only endocrinologist in the U.S., Dr. Brown and exploits the TUE system like a champion. All within the rules.

It would have to be one of his athletes not following directions and failing an IQ test. And then we're assuming the federation wouldn't make it go away.

Not following directions? Do you mean like training on their own—far away from Salazar's watchful eyes—in countries with lax rules, with runners they claim they do not know, and doing who knows what of their own accord?

More than a coach wrote:

rojo wrote:

There is a connection. Armstrong went to Salazar for coaching advice.

It was more than coaching advice.

Lance Armstrong’s Coach [Salazar]: He Wants To Win An Ironman

http://triathlete-europe.competitor.com/2011/03/22/lance-armstrongs-coach-win-ironman

Lance Armstrong Turns To Legendary Running Coach [Salazar] For Ironman Advice

http://triathlon.competitor.com/2011/03/news/lance-armstrong-turns-to-legendary-running-coach-for-ironman-advice_24430

Salazar coaching Armstrong is not a doping violation. Unless there is some sort of smoking gun that isn't public (like Salazar telling Armstrong how to apply testosterone), there's nothing to punish Salazar for.

If USADA was in bed with Nike, then why did they go after Lance so hard? Lance was a Nike athlete, but they grilled his @$$...I don't think this is a Nike thing, I just don't think there was a smoking gun. You need solid proof...USADA was able to build a huge case against Armstrong so they went after him. They won't go after Salazar unless they have a bullet proof case.

urururoiroooror wrote:

More than a coach wrote:

It was more than coaching advice.

Lance Armstrong’s Coach [Salazar]: He Wants To Win An Ironman

http://triathlete-europe.competitor.com/2011/03/22/lance-armstrongs-coach-win-ironman

Lance Armstrong Turns To Legendary Running Coach [Salazar] For Ironman Advice

http://triathlon.competitor.com/2011/03/news/lance-armstrong-turns-to-legendary-running-coach-for-ironman-advice_24430

Salazar coaching Armstrong is not a doping violation. Unless there is some sort of smoking gun that isn't public (like Salazar telling Armstrong how to apply testosterone), there's nothing to punish Salazar for.

Morun. The comment is in response to the idiot who claimed Salazar and Armstrong were not connected. They are. You imply that if one dopes, then the other must dope, and they must know each other. Or, if one dopes and the other doesn't then they do not actually know each other. They know each other, and Salazar made statements to the press that he was Armstrong's running coach.

I believe 2 things.

1. Salazar's group is probably doping in some way, as are most other elite runners and cyclists for that matter. I still watch both cycling and running even though I know I'm watching dopers.

2. The "evidence" that was made public in this case by the Gouchers and Magness was laughably flimsy and never had a chance to draw sanctions. At best it was message board level speculation and could feed into the overall perception I described in #1. If Magness and the Gouchers thought they released a smoking gun, and didn't have any additional evidence that they didn't publicize, they are all complete morons. If Magness/Goucher/USADA have, or have since gained other evidence that wasn't released, then there may be a chance.