Eric Jenkins on Salazar: "I totally understand why he’d get banned...(He) pushed the line and clearly he pushed it too far."

rekrunner wrote:

Yes, yes, yes, yes, don't know, yes.

I'm a big fan of a rich set of facts, logic, and reasoning.

Thinking out of the box is great for creative thinking, but requires no facts, logic or reasoning, just imagination and fantasy.

There's something weird about this case wrote:

Geez...you sure put a lot of trust & faith in that AAA report like it's Gospel or something. Do you ever think outside the box rekrunner? Do you really think they're going whack a world-renowned coach with a major 4-year ban for the benevolent violations listed in the report? Do you realize Russian coaches are hit with 4-year bans for doping their athletes with EPO, roids, HGH? There's got to be more to this story than what is being disclosed. Because if all Salazar did was provide the L-Carnitine to Magness and goof around with Androgel on his kid, and not dope up any of his athletes - then USADA looks like the world's biggest fools to hand out an aggressive ban like that instead of a warning or 6 months at the most.

rekrunner wrote:

Are you suggesting that this popular idea of Salazar doping NOP athletes is "less obvious"? I've even seen it described as "common sense" -- which makes it like the opposite of "thinking out of the box".

Wikipedia describes it as "a metaphor that means to think differently, unconventionally, or from a new perspective".

From that description, compared to most posters here, I'm the one who is "thinking out of the box".

What's interesting for me is to what extent any thinking contains facts, logic, and reasoning, whatever you want to call it.

I'm able to do these things, and grasp these things, but consider they have little argumentative value beyond creativity.

I will continue to classify "thinking out of the box" as lacking in facts, as a logical fallacy, and/or as imagination/belief/fantasy, when they are lacking in facts, a logical fallacy, and/or imagination/belief/fantasy, as applicable.

Now that's telling it like it is wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Well, yes, but I don't believe in your "if" scenario, and let's not forget that there were more damning facts in the report than in the final judgment, and that USADA accused Salazar of quite a few more things in their Charging Letter.

Copy and paste some observations from the original Salazar was banned thread:

- Salazar estimating that doping gives you 2 minutes in the marathon

- Salazar’s athlete Decker banned for testo doping

- Salazar having testo cream in the athletes’ quarters despite not having a prescription

- Salazar’s testo level dropping after receiving increased testo prescription

- a witness reporting that "Alberto Salazar’s athletes" used "thyroid and testosterone therapy"

- Salazar banned for “Administration of a Prohibited Method (with respect to an infusion in excess of the applicable limit)”

- Salazar banned for “Tampering and/or attempted tampering with NOP athletes’ doping control process”

- Salazar banned for “Trafficking and/or Attempted Trafficking of testosterone”

- USADA’s “Charging Letter also included charges for the administration and attempted administration of testosterone”

- Nike dismantling NOP days after Salazar’s ban was announced

- Mo’s sudden rise from also-ran to unbeatable in 2011

- Mo not opening his door to the tester in 2011/2

- Mo lying about his association with drug cheat coach Aden

- Mo’s "likely doping" status in 2016

- Rupp’s certified “prednisone and testosterone medication”

- Rupp’s surprising rise to the top

- Rupp’s "likely doping" status in 2016

Wow!...that's quite a list there! I'd like to these paid Nike trolls try to rebut those facts!

rekrunner wrote:

Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:

I agree , in 2015 , this expert weighed in on his response to the leaked 2015 USADA report and Salazar's response letter , some of the funnier of past Letsrun posts ....

rekrunner wrote ... " on this subject is that there isn't enough accumulated evidence to show an anti-doping violation has yet occurred. EVERYONE's opinion on the subject is uninformed" .

All of these statements were true in 2015. There was not enough accumulated evidence and everyone's opinions were uninformed. Back then, like now, I was asking for which evidence forms the basis behind some of the many claims about Salazar and NOP and doping.

In 2015, we didn't know about infusions, or about an email calling infusions injections. This didn't come until two years later.

So on these two ADRV counts, everyone was "uninformed".

In 2015, we did know about the testosterone experiment, which in and of itself was not found to be a rule violation, but we did not know that Alberto used his personal supply, which was Count #3, found to be "trafficking".

So on this ADRV count, everyone was "uninformed".

Even now, post Salazar ban, with respect to Salazar doping NOP athletes, "there isn't enough accumulated evidence to show an anti-doping violation has yet occurred. EVERYONE's opinion on the subject is uninformed".

rekrunner wrote:

Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:

I agree , in 2015 , this expert weighed in on his response to the leaked 2015 USADA report and Salazar's response letter , some of the funnier of past Letsrun posts ....

rekrunner wrote ... " on this subject is that there isn't enough accumulated evidence to show an anti-doping violation has yet occurred. EVERYONE's opinion on the subject is uninformed" .

All of these statements were true in 2015. There was not enough accumulated evidence and everyone's opinions were uninformed. Back then, like now, I was asking for which evidence forms the basis behind some of the many claims about Salazar and NOP and doping.

In 2015, we didn't know about infusions, or about an email calling infusions injections. This didn't come until two years later.

So on these two ADRV counts, everyone was "uninformed".

In 2015, we did know about the testosterone experiment, which in and of itself was not found to be a rule violation, but we did not know that Alberto used his personal supply, which was Count #3, found to be "trafficking".

So on this ADRV count, everyone was "uninformed".

Even now, post Salazar ban, with respect to Salazar doping NOP athletes, "there isn't enough accumulated evidence to show an anti-doping violation has yet occurred. EVERYONE's opinion on the subject is uninformed".

Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:

But you don't know all the accumulated evidence now. You only know a bunch of summary reports .

You choose to say "ADVR count" , I call it extreme unethical behaviour , which the only decision is full 4 year ban .

Either way , Salazar is banned and out of the sport.

Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:

You seem to be hung up on Doping NOP athletes . You keep bringing this up. Salazar was banned based on USADA findings , AAA chose to soften it . Salazar also wasn't involved in Ben Johnsons ban , but who cares .

There's something weird about this case wrote:

... There's got to be more to this story than what is being disclosed. Because if all Salazar did was provide the L-Carnitine to Magness and goof around with Androgel on his kid, and not dope up any of his athletes - then USADA looks like the world's biggest fools to hand out an aggressive ban like that instead of a warning or 6 months at the most.

Finally tired of this wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Are you suggesting that this popular idea of Salazar doping NOP athletes is "less obvious"? I've even seen it described as "common sense" -- which makes it like the opposite of "thinking out of the box".

Wikipedia describes it as "a metaphor that means to think differently, unconventionally, or from a new perspective".

From that description, compared to most posters here, I'm the one who is "thinking out of the box".

What's interesting for me is to what extent any thinking contains facts, logic, and reasoning, whatever you want to call it.

I'm able to do these things, and grasp these things, but consider they have little argumentative value beyond creativity.

I will continue to classify "thinking out of the box" as lacking in facts, as a logical fallacy, and/or as imagination/belief/fantasy, when they are lacking in facts, a logical fallacy, and/or imagination/belief/fantasy, as applicable.

0/10. ?You're so full of arrogance it's unbelievable. Sad state of affairs with your constant imperious attitude. You're never open to anyone's else's ideas as if you "know-it-all" and have all the answers...pathetic!

Let's think this one through wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Yes, yes, yes, yes, don't know, yes.

I'm a big fan of a rich set of facts, logic, and reasoning.

Thinking out of the box is great for creative thinking, but requires no facts, logic or reasoning, just imagination and fantasy.

Thinking out of the box does require "reasoning." It's done everyday with various professions throughtout the world. If you look at the totality of the circumstances and apply it to the reality of the current climate of doping in elite athletics - I don't think that's "creative thinking" but more of a realistic explanation as to why a certain action was done.

Along those lines, do you think it's at all possible that Salazar was experimenting with T-gel to determine thresholds amounts that would trigger a positive test so as to use T with some of his athletes for recovery?

Furthermore, I don't understand this "sabotage" theory of his: Is he worried that his athletes would go to some two bit message therapist who would just happen to have T-gel on hand, and not liking NOP athletes for some reason or another would apply the gel during their massage? That sounds as unrealistic as Jama Aden saying he was going to administer some of the doping products there in Spain to his athletes so as to determine thresholds levels in case any of them were ever sabotaged. Lol.