ALBERTO SALAZAR BANNED FROM ATHLETICS FOR FOUR YEARS FOR DOPING VIOLATIONS

Yes, this case is complicated. If the appeal goes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, then Salazar will have a much better shot at getting it reversed than if it were, e.g., in federal court here in the States.

The following findings of fact and conclusions at para. 264 - 272 show the difficulty of this case for the arbitration panel, and potential routes for appeal:

As discussed with respect to the Administration charge, the L-carnitine infusion given to

Mr. Magness was a Prohibited Method under the Applicable Rules. Respondent’s

argument that he did not know Magness was considered an Athlete for purposes of the

Code is not sufficient to change Magness’ status. There is no requirement that Respondent

know that Mr. Magness is an Athlete subject to the Code. In any event, Respondent was

aware that Mr. Magness was training, and that he ran USATF races from time to time.

He asked Mr. Magness about his status, but in his enthusiasm about the potential benefits

of the L-carnitine, he did not follow up to determine the answer to that critical question.

Mr. Magness was an Athlete at the time of the 1000 mL infusion, thus this infusion was

an anti-doping rule violation, though unwittingly. The Panel has therefore disposed of

Question 2, as there was an anti-doping rule violation by another Person.

As reflected in the Panel’s finding with respect to the Administration charge, the Panel

finds that with respect to Question 1., Respondent actually was responsible for the

Administration, rather than the lesser threshold required of encouragement and other acts,

as prohibited by the Complicity Article. Specifically, he explicitly asked Magness (i.e.

more than encouraged him since Magness worked for him) to have the infusion by his

email of November 15, 2011. Though USADA asserts that this was with full knowledge

of the limit requirement, there was testimony by Dr. Brown that he was aware of the limit

requirement, but no evidence that Respondent knew the limit, until his email of December

2, 2011 to Noel Pollock asking about the volume limit. The knowledge of the limit was

confirmed in Respondent’s email to Mark Parker of December 12, 2011 which

specifically referred to the Magness infusion being one liter and which email was after

he had been advised by USADA on December 6, 2011 of the infusion volume limit.

Respondent did take the lead on communications with USADA about the infusions and

acted to cover up the volume of the infusions in his description to Mr. Frothingham by

email of December 3, 2011, wherein he omitted the volume of the infusion. The Panel

can infer from this behavior that Respondent at that point may have known of or suspected

there was a volume limit.

Nevertheless, as argued by Respondent, it is not an element of this Article that

Respondent specifically intended that Magness commit an anti-doping rule violation.

Rather, the Article requires that he engage in one or more intentional acts, such as

“assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of intentional

complicity” which involve an anti-doping rule violation.

The evidence shows that Respondent acted intentionally multiple times as required by the Administration article

to facilitate Magness to have the infusion, he tracked the effect of the infusion and the

test results and was excited about the results as reported to Lance Armstrong and Mark

Parker shortly after the infusion. In addition, he actively covered up the volume of the

infusion in his communications with USADA. All of these steps are part of the act of

Administration, whose elements are different from the intentional acts of

“encouragement, aiding and abetting” within the definition of Complicity.

Respondent’s argument that complicity requires a commercial benefit is not supported by

any citation to a Code provision or case. The Panel declines to find such a requirement.

The Panel finds that USADA has not met its burden of proof with respect to Respondent

committing a Complicity anti-doping rule violation with respect to the Magness infusion.

b. NOP Athletes

USADA relies on the same facts with respect to the Complicity charge as it does with

respect to the Administration charge. Further, USADA argues that Respondent acted in

bad faith by attempting to manufacture a story of compliance through the failure of Dr.

Brown to record contemporaneous infusion volumes, the instruction to the NOP Athletes

not to communicate with USADA about or ever disclose the infusions, the plan to

advance a false narrative related to infusions versus injections for the L-carnitine, the

alteration of patient records by Dr. Brown and the creation of false evidence and

advancing false testimony by Dr. Maguadog. These were steps USADA alleges

Respondent was taking to actively assist and cover up an anti-doping rule violation.

The Panel did not find USADA’s arguments helpful, as it is not at all clear that

Respondent engaged himself in the specific acts of which USADA accuses him. Instead,

the record as it involves Respondent is clear that he was trying not to have the NOP

Athletes commit an anti-doping rule violation. Rather than assisting, encouraging or

covering up, the record is very clear that Respondent was trying to have the L-carnitine

infusions after Mr. Magness’ be done in compliance with the Applicable Rules.

In any event, as discussed with respect to the Administration and/or Attempted

Administration of an anti-doping rule violation charge, there is no anti-doping rule

violation involved with the NOP Athletes, thus question number 2 in this analysis negates

the possibility of Complicity by Respondent with respect to the NOP Athletes.

Respondent appeared to have attempted to cover up what he thought were possible antidoping rule violations by insisting that the infusions be referred to as injections, but that

did not change the fact that a majority of the Panel found the infusions given to the NOP

Athletes were not a Prohibited Method. Respondent was specifically not assisting,

encouraging, aiding or abetting an anti-doping violation, as discussed above.

Nor does USADA’s argument about Respondent being in charge alter the finding by a

majority of the Panel that there was no Prohibited Method and thus no anti-doping rule

violation was involved for the NOP Athletes.

Thus, the Panel finds that USADA has not met its burden of proof with respect to the

Complicity charge as it relates to the NOP Athletes.

rojo wrote:

Down south wrote:

Summary: he got away with most of it but we caught him on some small stuff.

I got a text from a buddy, "Reminds of Al Capone - busted for tax evasion."

^

Also, probably some plea deal so all the Nike athletes don't go down.

None of this matters or tarnishes Al Sal’s legacy. Al Sal is still the GOAT Coach of the US and possibly the world.

Even if he won on appeal with CAS, his reputation won't be restored and the athletes that would leave between now and then won't come back.

rojo wrote:

Why would we ban all of Kenya? If yo ua re going to ban all of Kenya then why not ban all of American for sprinters like Jones, Gatln, flojo, etc.

You're giving 3 names there over 20 years, all sprinters. American sprinting clearly has had a doping problem for decades, and likely most of the world has. It might be fair to ban the USA from all distances under 400m for an Olympic cycle, but that would obviously be seen as 'racist'.

American testing is among the best in the world. Kenya has over 50 athletes currently serving suspensions, and that's despite the abysmal and corrupt doping testing standards there that are only now slowly getting fixed (one hopes). The doping spans Olympic champions such as Kiprop to those competing in small road races around the world. Multiple documentaries and undercover journalism has exposed how easy it is to get EPO there. The manager of the Rio Olympic team recently got banned for ten years for giving athletes advanced notice of tests (for cash). A German documentary last week claims to have filmed two top athletes being injected with EPO, and a Kenyan doctor claiming to be doping EIGHT athletes on the Doha team.

That's why we should ban Kenya, and why they might be banned in the coming days when the AIU reports back to the IAAF.

The Nike Androgen Project wrote:

Does anyone else find the given rationale for experimenting on the Salazar boys to be unconvincing? If I were concerned that someone had rubbed testosterone on Rupp, I would check Rupp's blood. God knows they were checking his blood testosterone level regularly anyway. And who's to say if a squirt of Androgel has the same effect on the Salazar boys as it does on Rupp? And why would a bad actor use Androgel at all, for that matter, instead of a more concentrated testosterone solution that would be less noticeable?

And leaving USADA a voice mail and sending an email about suspected sabotage? How about actually talking to someone, or was he just ensuring that there would be a record of the message because he knew that Rupp might get popped for his testosterone abuse?

Could be. Arbittrators seemed to believe him. Who knows. You either believe he's crazy paranoid or a crazy obsessive cheater. Could be both i guess as well.

What I find weird is they are emailing the Nike CEO. Are you kidding? Like why would he even care if Rupp was popped? With as many dopers that they have sponsored over the years, why would Nike care? That's what I couldn't understand.

Nike has never been a leader in the antidoping movement. Maybve this will be a wakeup call for them.

just remember all you LRers, i said rup was a 28 low 2:09 guy clean....and i got crucified lol now look at you all bashing al sal and NOP as if this was some huge revelation hahaha

+1

GOAT.HERDER wrote:

None of this matters or tarnishes Al Sal’s legacy. Al Sal is still the GOAT Coach of the US and possibly the world.

Yeah it does. Your training methods/reputation doesn't mean sh!* if they only work on dirty athletes.

*stipe wrote:

Also, probably some plea deal so all the Nike athletes don't go down.

If he decides not to appeal, I would agree with this, especially in light of the "it appears he didn't mean to dope when he was running doping tests on his son and assistant coach" BS from the decision. I could see part of the deal having been Salazar takes 4 years and no appeal if the decision doesn't implicate athletes and states there was no intent to cheat no Salazar's part. I think Nike learned a lesson from Armstrong -- people will forgive a well intentioned doper, but not an a-hole. I could also see them agreeing to that language if Salazar agreed to only appeal the length of the ban, not the actual violations.

Of course, if there is an actual appeal (f the violations, not just the length of the ban, then I don't think there was a plea.

Read this whole thing.

For as long as this has been going on and certain screaming fire this is just disappointing.

4 year wait for this? It's NOTHING.

Can we get a COLEMAN? here come on?

THIS IS BS!!!11111

Appeal, Alberto!

*stipe wrote:

rojo wrote:

I got a text from a buddy, "Reminds of Al Capone - busted for tax evasion."

^

Also, probably some plea deal so all the Nike athletes don't go down.

If Salazar made a plea deal then there is no further appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

It absolutely will not be. T&F is a small market for them, and in other far more profitable sports Nike is invested in -- like the NFL -- no one really cares about doping. So, Nike would risk sabotaging their primary sources of income by taking a hard-line stance against doping.

I'm betting that, for the most part, your typical American thinks the circumstances surrounding this recent USADA decision are somewhat silly. Nike would just appear to be silly themselves by being complicit with it.

This was a total softball by USADA and I think it is almost certain to get overturned or the suspension dramatically shorted. Given all the things they had available and could have gone after him for they chose accidental doping violation on a non-athlete with good intentions not to violate doping rules. They even threw in a nice note about Alberto's good intentions to ensure this gets overturned.

I think at this point I've completely given up on USADA and its time for them to clean house starting at the top. If this was legitimately all they had on Salazaar a 4-year suspension is absolutely not warranted. In fact, I'd be inclined to think no suspension with probation or something small. As an aside I don't believe for a second this is all Alberto and crew have been up to but they are way smarter and have way more resources than the fools at USADA.

To me this ruling has no substance. Alberto will likely be coaching NOP again by the start of 2020. That in the past few months we've seen the debacle that was Christian Coleman's missed test ban announced then dropped and the result of the Alberto/NOP fiasco shows the state of our anti doping agencies. The reality is the people cheating are smart than they are and more committed to not getting caught then agencies are to catching them.

GOAT.HERDER wrote:

None of this matters or tarnishes Al Sal’s legacy. Al Sal is still the GOAT Coach of the US and possibly the world.

GOAT = Gave One Athlete Testosterone

And he's currently at the track with a stopwatch. Ban my ass.

belial wrote:

It absolutely will not be. T&F is a small market for them, and in other far more profitable sports Nike is invested in -- like the NFL -- no one really cares about doping. So, Nike would risk sabotaging their primary sources of income by taking a hard-line stance against doping.

I'm betting that, for the most part, your typical American thinks the circumstances surrounding this recent USADA decision are somewhat silly. Nike would just appear to be silly themselves by being complicit with it.

I don't think the typical American even knows who Alberto Salazar is, or even what professional marathon running is for that matter. 49 nerds on here know, but the 47,900 runners at Chicago in two weeks won't know who Rupp or Hasay are.

That said, it is odd that the CEO of the company spent more than two seconds worrying about the affairs of Galen Rupp.. such a small speck on the map of Nike. They got through the Armstrong thing relatively unscathed as well.