Persona non grata at Doha WC. wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/01/sebastian-coe-athletes-links-alberto-salazar-banned#img-2
This is getting bad now. Salazar is quickly going from the penthouse to the outhouse.
The world's media is piling on:
https://apnews.com/6583ab5acd9744018f234113f0bd7f29
https://twitter.com/BBCScotNine/status/1179135418111004679?s=20
Can't Believe What I'm Hearing With Al Sal wrote:
Persona non grata at Doha WC. wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/01/sebastian-coe-athletes-links-alberto-salazar-banned#img-2This is getting bad now. Salazar is quickly going from the penthouse to the outhouse.
People have a tendency to forgive and forget. A lot of purists don't, of course, but the general public does. Don't be surprised if he comes back after the ban and gives it another go. He could never play the bad guy again, though, that's for sure. There would have to be some sort of repentant awakening and proclamation of sorts.
Everyone hates a winner in the USA.
I expect Salazar to crush Tygert and his one-man spiritual campaign to rid the world of evil.
Javman wrote:
This isn't over by a long shot, folks. Salazar released a statement indicating he and his lawyers will be appealing the decision. This ain't over. Also, the USADA reported that alleged violations were not of commission, only omission. This is KEY, and something that most of you retards on LetsRun will ignore because most of you are a bunch of vengeful asses.
Found one of the Nike accounts.
I mostly agree with this (below), and others like Hardloper that found the ruling "underwhelming", and others that found Salazar actually didn't look as bad as many feared, and still fear, and that Tygart comes off as possibly too aggressive. Yes, after reading 30 pages, it's obvious who has read the findings of the AAA panel, and who prefer to still wing it with their imagination. The AAA panel found Salazar guilty of: #1) Arranging a 1000ml infusion for Magness, which violates the 50ml/6 hour threshold for infusions. #2) Instructing athletes not to say "infusion" rather than "injection". #3) Arranging a testosterone experiment on his sons. One question I asked repeatedly over the course of the last few years, is, which NOP athlete has committed which Anti-Doping Rule Violation? This stlll seems like a relevant question, as the AAA Panel findings could not find any NOP athletes, apart from Magness, had ever received excessive infusions, and no NOP athlete received testosterone. With respect to #1, the perverse thing about this is that, according to the "WADA legal" email sent from Salazar to Magness, before his infusion, it was up to Magness to find a way to use L-carnitine in a "WADA legal" way. NOTE: Infusions are not performance enhancing, but the method is banned because thinning your blood is one way to circumvent hematocrit rules and the ABP, and obstruct the anti-doping process. NOTE: All discussions about L-Carnitine have no value, as it is not a banned substance in any amount, but it is the method of infusion itself which is restricted, regardless of (non-banned) substance. With respect to #2, it should be noted that the "instructions" were targeted towards an activity that the panel found was not an ADRV. There was no need to issue an instruction because, regardless of "infusion" or "injection" there was no ADRV for any NOP-athlete, apart from Magness. It was the instruction itself which was found to "thwart anti-doping". NOTE: Email instructions (or any other form) are not performance enhancing. With respect to #3, the panel found the sabotage story credible based on contemporaneous evidence. One minor disagreement with (below): I found #1 and #2 above rather petty, questioning if this was the most effective use of USADA funding, while being more disturbed by #3. But it seems that none of the competing NOP athletes were recipients of testosterone. One of the big winners here are the NOP athletes, where there is no finding that any NOP athlete took any banned substance to enhance there performance.
NOP fan wrote:
The vast majority of posts in this thread are ignorant nonsense. It's like nobody has bothered to actually read the AAA's report but are commenting on it anyway. Some thoughts on each of the charges...
Administration of a Prohibited Method (with respect to an infusion in excess of the applicable limit)
You are correcting regarding the L-carnitine infusions. The “athlete” who received the over-limit L-carnitine infusion was Steve Magness. He didn't race for a year following the infusion and didn't consider himself an athlete at the time. As you mentioned, there is zero evidence that any of the other NOP athletes received over-limit infusions, and in fact, all of the available information suggests they received 45mL infusions.
This entire charge hinges on whether Steve Magness should be classified as an athlete, yet people see "infusion in excess of the applicable limit" and immediately assume that most/all of the NOP athletes were receiving over-limit infusions which simply isn't the case. USADA got Salazar on a technicality here, nothing more.
Tampering and/or attempted tampering with NOP athletes’ doping control process
The tampering charge isn't much of a bombshell either. There was clearly confusion on Salazar's part regarding the difference between an infusion and an injection and the rules surrounding each. It's obvious from the emails he sent to USADA that he believed the transfusions his athletes received qualified as injections and thus did not require a TUE, nor did they need to be declared in the event of a drug test.
There's this notion that Salazar was secretive and attempted to hide things from USADA, but in fact he was in contact with them regarding rule compliance more than any other coach.
Trafficking and/or Attempted Trafficking of testosterone
The trafficking charge is perhaps the most minor. Salazar administered testosterone to his sons to ascertain whether someone could sabotage one of his athletes after a race. If you actually read the report, you'll see that the experiment wasn't conducted to determine how much testosterone could be applied to an athlete without triggering a positive test, contrary to the narrative that is typically promoted on this site. The only reason for this charge is that the experiment failed to meet the standard of "acceptable justification."
This whole thing has gotten blown way out of proportion. None of this is new information, but most people seem to be overreacting and speculating wildly instead of sticking to the facts. It's sickening to see people celebrating this news while all of the NOP athletes get needlessly dragged through the mud. I am hoping Salazar wins his appeal, and in the meantime, I wish NOP the best of luck during the remainder of the World Championships.
I don't think the USADA found Salazar's violations "underwhelming" - and nor, I would think, has Salazar - as he has been kicked out of the sport for 4 years. No athletes are permitted to associate with him. Disgrace is so "underwhelming".
El Keniano wrote:
The world's media is piling on:
https://apnews.com/6583ab5acd9744018f234113f0bd7f29https://twitter.com/BBCScotNine/status/1179135418111004679?s=20
Hilarious that Parker/Nike are playing the “he was doing research to protect his runners from being maliciously contaminated by others” card. This might be the most singularly stupid strategy they could possibly take. But then Nike has never been known to do what’s right when it comes to scandals involving its athletes and employees.
Which now brings to the for front, how clean was Rupp and Mo?
rekrunner wrote:
I mostly agree with this (below), and others like Hardloper that found the ruling "underwhelming", and others that found Salazar actually didn't look as bad as many feared, and still fear, and that Tygart comes off as possibly too aggressive.
The Letsrun.com collective is shocked, shocked to find out the rekrunner comes out sympathetic to the people found guilty of doping and critical of antidoping authorities. I would never have imagined...
One thing we haven't talked about because it isn't in the scope of the arbitration is that, aside from the medical ethics issues of Salazar playing doctor, HIPPA violations, prescribing meds the patients don't need, etc. it is undisputed in all that sworn testimony that Salazar literally violated state (and probably federal) controlled substance laws. If it was cocaine instead of celebrex, thyroid meds, and testosterone, he would have a drug felony charge. He doesn't seem worried that the authorities are going to care, though (and the statute of limitations has probably run on many of those charges). But still.
Creaky Bones wrote:
One thing we haven't talked about because it isn't in the scope of the arbitration is that, aside from the medical ethics issues of Salazar playing doctor, HIPPA violations, prescribing meds the patients don't need, etc. it is undisputed in all that sworn testimony that Salazar literally violated state (and probably federal) controlled substance laws. If it was cocaine instead of celebrex, thyroid meds, and testosterone, he would have a drug felony charge. He doesn't seem worried that the authorities are going to care, though (and the statute of limitations has probably run on many of those charges). But still.
I think people have commented on it extensively. It is beyond the scope of the arbitration. The panel pointedly decided that they were not going to regulate medical practice with respect to substances that were not banned under the WADA code.
Concentric Hero - Eccentric Zero wrote:
rojo wrote:
Amazing post on page 25. Amazing. ^^^^^ Very well put.
So why did the summary of the ruling basically apologize to Salazar? I've never seen anything like that where the summary of the sanction is something like, "Yes, he has a 4 year ban, but he consulted with us about 100 times and only messed up maybe 2 or 3. So we feel bad because that's a 97-98% which super admirable, but rules are rules and so we begrudgingly must give him 4 years of forced vacation before coming back." Maybe that's exaggerating a little, but did anyone else find that odd?
priv·i·lege
/ˈpriv(ə)lij/
noun
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
Creaky Bones wrote:
One thing we haven't talked about because it isn't in the scope of the arbitration is that, aside from the medical ethics issues of Salazar playing doctor, HIPPA violations, prescribing meds the patients don't need, etc. it is undisputed in all that sworn testimony that Salazar literally violated state (and probably federal) controlled substance laws. If it was cocaine instead of celebrex, thyroid meds, and testosterone, he would have a drug felony charge. He doesn't seem worried that the authorities are going to care, though (and the statute of limitations has probably run on many of those charges). But still.
Testosterone in all forms (injections, gels, patches, etc.) is listed as a schedule III controlled substance. So wouldn't it be a Federal violation to dispense a controlled substance to another person if not a physician or licensed medical practitioner?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone_(medication)Decisions about federal law would not be decided in this forum. This is one of the things Salazar was banned for as it is against the WADA code.
What's the deal with rubbing T on a youngster? wrote:
Testosterone in all forms (injections, gels, patches, etc.) is listed as a schedule III controlled substance. So wouldn't it be a Federal violation to dispense a controlled substance to another person if not a physician or licensed medical practitioner?
rekrunner wrote:
I mostly agree with this (below), and others like Hardloper that found the ruling "underwhelming", and others that found Salazar actually didn't look as bad as many feared, and still fear, and that Tygart comes off as possibly too aggressive.
Yes, after reading 30 pages, it's obvious who has read the findings of the AAA panel, and who prefer to still wing it with their imagination.
The AAA panel found Salazar guilty of:
#1) Arranging a 1000ml infusion for Magness, which violates the 50ml/6 hour threshold for infusions.
#2) Instructing athletes not to say "infusion" rather than "injection".
#3) Arranging a testosterone experiment on his sons.
One question I asked repeatedly over the course of the last few years, is, which NOP athlete has committed which Anti-Doping Rule Violation? This stlll seems like a relevant question, as the AAA Panel findings could not find any NOP athletes, apart from Magness, had ever received excessive infusions, and no NOP athlete received testosterone.
With respect to #1, the perverse thing about this is that, according to the "WADA legal" email sent from Salazar to Magness, before his infusion, it was up to Magness to find a way to use L-carnitine in a "WADA legal" way.
NOTE: Infusions are not performance enhancing, but the method is banned because thinning your blood is one way to circumvent hematocrit rules and the ABP, and obstruct the anti-doping process.
NOTE: All discussions about L-Carnitine have no value, as it is not a banned substance in any amount, but it is the method of infusion itself which is restricted, regardless of (non-banned) substance.
With respect to #2, it should be noted that the "instructions" were targeted towards an activity that the panel found was not an ADRV. There was no need to issue an instruction because, regardless of "infusion" or "injection" there was no ADRV for any NOP-athlete, apart from Magness. It was the instruction itself which was found to "thwart anti-doping".
NOTE: Email instructions (or any other form) are not performance enhancing.
With respect to #3, the panel found the sabotage story credible based on contemporaneous evidence.
One minor disagreement with (below): I found #1 and #2 above rather petty, questioning if this was the most effective use of USADA funding, while being more disturbed by #3. But it seems that none of the competing NOP athletes were recipients of testosterone.
One of the big winners here are the NOP athletes, where there is no finding that any NOP athlete took any banned substance to enhance there performance.
NOP fan wrote:
The vast majority of posts in this thread are ignorant nonsense. It's like nobody has bothered to actually read the AAA's report but are commenting on it anyway. Some thoughts on each of the charges...
Administration of a Prohibited Method (with respect to an infusion in excess of the applicable limit)
You are correcting regarding the L-carnitine infusions. The “athlete” who received the over-limit L-carnitine infusion was Steve Magness. He didn't race for a year following the infusion and didn't consider himself an athlete at the time. As you mentioned, there is zero evidence that any of the other NOP athletes received over-limit infusions, and in fact, all of the available information suggests they received 45mL infusions.
This entire charge hinges on whether Steve Magness should be classified as an athlete, yet people see "infusion in excess of the applicable limit" and immediately assume that most/all of the NOP athletes were receiving over-limit infusions which simply isn't the case. USADA got Salazar on a technicality here, nothing more.
Tampering and/or attempted tampering with NOP athletes’ doping control process
The tampering charge isn't much of a bombshell either. There was clearly confusion on Salazar's part regarding the difference between an infusion and an injection and the rules surrounding each. It's obvious from the emails he sent to USADA that he believed the transfusions his athletes received qualified as injections and thus did not require a TUE, nor did they need to be declared in the event of a drug test.
There's this notion that Salazar was secretive and attempted to hide things from USADA, but in fact he was in contact with them regarding rule compliance more than any other coach.
Trafficking and/or Attempted Trafficking of testosterone
The trafficking charge is perhaps the most minor. Salazar administered testosterone to his sons to ascertain whether someone could sabotage one of his athletes after a race. If you actually read the report, you'll see that the experiment wasn't conducted to determine how much testosterone could be applied to an athlete without triggering a positive test, contrary to the narrative that is typically promoted on this site. The only reason for this charge is that the experiment failed to meet the standard of "acceptable justification."
This whole thing has gotten blown way out of proportion. None of this is new information, but most people seem to be overreacting and speculating wildly instead of sticking to the facts. It's sickening to see people celebrating this news while all of the NOP athletes get needlessly dragged through the mud. I am hoping Salazar wins his appeal, and in the meantime, I wish NOP the best of luck during the remainder of the World Championships.
"One of the big winners here are the NOP athletes, where there is no finding that any NOP athlete took any banned substance to enhance there performance." This is the elephant in the room - why is everyone (particularly Rojo) ignoring this? Years of investigation yielded zero new findings and a love letter about how much Al Sal cared for his athletes and constantly checked in with USADA?
I think we should encourage Salazar to go back to Cuba. This is absolutely a disgrace to U.S. Athletics.
Also, if Nike is/was involved, they need to turn their sponsorship money towards cleaning up the sport offering rewards for turning cheaters in, instead of sponsoring and encouraging cheaters. Huge damage to their brand, so hopefully they’ll take a giant financial hit for it if they were actually involved.
rojo wrote:
Your ignorance is bliss wrote:
So you guys think that all of this is coincidental?
1) Salazar started using testosterone before he retired
2) Slaney got busted for doping with testosterone while Salazar was helping coach her
3) Charts show that Rupp was on testosterone medication from an early age after starting to work with Salazar
4) Trainers found hypodermic needles and testosterone gel in Salazar's room at training camp
5) Salazar would have trainers take days off to personally massage Rupp
6) Salazar tested the amount of testosterone it would take to trigger a positive test on his own son
Amazing post on page 25. Amazing. ^^^^^ Very well put.
Rojo - if you believe number 3 (after this has been proven false over and over and over and over again)...........I have some oceanfront property in Kansas for you.