Salazar got the rawest of deals from this sport

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Pescadom wrote:

Are you seriously denying long-standing systemic racism and discrimination against Hispanics/Latinos in the US? How does Houlihan negate that? Why are you so obsessed with denial?

Go ahead, keep believing in your little privileged world.

Salazar was very popular as a runner, received a high paying coaching gig, was the most famous coach in the world and had the opportunity to coach the best distance runners there are, but now that something bad has happened, he's suddenly the victim of racism?

Why are you so opposed to accountability?

That's how it works? List the achievements of a Person of Color and conclude they have never faced on racism nor will they ever face it in the future? How easy and convenient a test for you. Your den must be very proud.

So we have a prominent figure in the sport who has been found guilty of both a significant breach of the standards of sportsmanship (which many might refer to as his "doping" infractions) as well as unacceptable behaviour to female minors who were dependant on his guidance - which is the finding of SafeSport. What is remarkable is the number here who seek to excuse or defend him, and even deny the wrongs for which he has been accountable, rather than saying this sport is better off without him and those like him.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So we have a prominent figure in the sport who has been found guilty of both a significant breach of the standards of sportsmanship (which many might refer to as his "doping" infractions) as well as unacceptable behaviour to female minors who were dependant on his guidance - which is the finding of SafeSport. What is remarkable is the number here who seek to excuse or defend him, and even deny the wrongs for which he has been accountable, rather than saying this sport is better off without him and those like him.

What did he do?

Nobody knows

carmine9 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So we have a prominent figure in the sport who has been found guilty of both a significant breach of the standards of sportsmanship (which many might refer to as his "doping" infractions) as well as unacceptable behaviour to female minors who were dependant on his guidance - which is the finding of SafeSport. What is remarkable is the number here who seek to excuse or defend him, and even deny the wrongs for which he has been accountable, rather than saying this sport is better off without him and those like him.

What did he do?

Nobody knows

Not true. His doping infractions are on record and his abuses of young athletes are the result of an official investigation of which both he and the athletes concerned would be informed. To protect the athletes their identities and the details of their allegations are not made public but if the SafeSport findings are wrong they can be appealed, which Salazar has already done - unsuccessfully - and could also be taken to a court of law. I don't know of any SafeSport finding that has been so appealed, and overturned. So we have coach who has broken the anti-doping rules and been accordingly banned and now been found through an official inquiry to have treated some of his young female charges in a fashion deemed abusive. You might wish to know more of the details but that doesn't mean he has been treated unfairly. Only a successful appeal could show that. It won't happen.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So we have a prominent figure in the sport who has been found guilty of both a significant breach of the standards of sportsmanship (which many might refer to as his "doping" infractions) as well as unacceptable behaviour to female minors who were dependant on his guidance - which is the finding of SafeSport. What is remarkable is the number here who seek to excuse or defend him, and even deny the wrongs for which he has been accountable, rather than saying this sport is better off without him and those like him.

Once again you fail to grasp that there is a difference between defending people convicted and questioning the control systems that sit outside the normal jurisprudence.

I actually think that you do grasp the difference but take the view that it much easier and fun for you to throw persistent vile and violent abuse at those you see as supporting the accused or convicted.

Armstronglivs wrote:

carmine9 wrote:

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

So we have a prominent figure in the sport who has been found guilty of both a significant breach of the standards of sportsmanship (which many might refer to as his "doping" infractions) as well as unacceptable behaviour to female minors who were dependant on his guidance - which is the finding of SafeSport. What is remarkable is the number here who seek to excuse or defend him, and even deny the wrongs for which he has been accountable, rather than saying this sport is better off without him and those like him.

What did he do?

Nobody knows

Not true. His doping infractions are on record and his abuses of young athletes are the result of an official investigation of which both he and the athletes concerned would be informed.

What are those doping infractions?

What was his unacceptable behavior to female minors?

I don't know. The public does not know. And you don't know,

carmine9 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What did he do?

Nobody knows

Not true. His doping infractions are on record and his abuses of young athletes are the result of an official investigation of which both he and the athletes concerned would be informed.

What are those doping infractions?

What was his unacceptable behavior to female minors?

I don't know. The public does not know. And you don't know,

His doping infractions have been released in detail, even if you haven't read the decision. We also know that an official body has determined he has abused young athletes, even if we don't know the details of the charges. As I said - that is to protect those young athletes. No one at any level of the sport has said the SafeSport decision is not to be believed.

The raw deal started much earlier, as early as the 2015 BBC/Panorama documentary. Which other coach was the subject of such a documentary achieving worldwide publicity, during an on-going anti-doping investigation before any charges? Virtually everything in the documentary went nowhere, in some cases because it was not doping (e.g. Cytomel), except the testosterone experiment which he quickly confessed. (I didn’t rewatch it, but I don’t recall any L-Carnitine related accusations made public until the leaked 2017 document — another raw deal). How was Salazar not severely prejudiced by all of this bad publicity? The result of the lengthy and thorough investigation showed the only doped “athlete” at NOP was the whistleblower. That’s largely on Magness for two reasons: 1) “Strict Liability” 2) An explicit instruction from Salazar to find a “WADA legal” method This should be good news — after a 7 year investigative process, with 30 witnesses and documents and testimony, leaving no stone unturned, USADA, WADA, the AAA Panel, and the CAS appeal found no case against any NOP athlete, ever. Seems like a lot of disproportionate fuss over 1-liter of saline, “abuse” of WADA legal substances, and an (admittedly unethical) experiment on two non-athletes, with no resulting case showing that the sport was any dirtier with NOP. Regarding “sexual and emotional misconduct”, it seems appropriate that some consequences result from attempting to kiss one of your athletes, and for creating a hostile environment for several of your athletes to the point of self-harm. Maybe a “lifetime” ban is excessive, or maybe not, as I don’t know all the circumstances. Seems like a temporary ban, and being allowed to continue after the ban, e.g. with female assistant coaches and professional dieticians, etc. would address the issues. The only question I have is not the secret process or anonymized accusations (and putting aside which kind of “misconduct” violated which part of the code) how an organization can find code violations for events that happened before that organization, that Code, and any associated awareness training existed. Coaches can hardly be on notice of respecting the terms of a code that doesn’t yet exist.

more comfortable wrote:

For starters, Salazar was already serving a doping ban in which no actual doping violations were proven to have occurred.

Secondly, he is now banned for life by a secret process and the accusations are from anonymous plaintiffs.

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

His doping infractions have been released in detail, even if you haven't read the decision.

Post them then

I am neither too dumb to look into it (have an exercise science BS, an MD, and am a published researcher in both exercise physiology and lipid metabolism), but I will insult you.

1) I am not saying Salazar shouldn’t be banned. SafeSport is a credible organization and likely found very concerning things in their investigation.

BUT

2) You are no better than the hooligans who say “do your research” and reject the COVID vaccine because their preliminary internet search yielded information “far more legit” than the peer reviewed ACTUAL research conducted by epidemiologists, virologists, and clinicians. Your kind (the uneducated “experts”) are just THE WORST. All opinion, no credibility.

Learn a little physiology and biochemistry before you spew accusatory vitriol.

Large doses of vitamin D create a positive feedback cycle for ENDOGENOUS IGF and HGH action. You’ve even noted that yourself. This does NOT mean they were using vitamin D to boost illegal “microdosing”. I take a vitamin D supplement myself, as do many runners.

L carnitine is an essential component of the fatty acid shuttle, allowing fats to enter mitochondria (and BOOM make lots of ATP). The benefits of taking L carnitine are myriad, but they increase metabolism of many, many things, including ENDOGENOUS EPO. This does NOT mean they were administering exogenous EPO.

You can fabricate and suppose all you want, but what you’ve written here is a load of mularkey. As others have stated, not one of his athletes has ever been found guilty of doping.

If you’ve got a gripe, have it with the “grey area” the governing bodies of our sport have allowed to materialize. I can (if I wanted to) take literally hundreds of supplements all of which you would think are “cheating”, and yet wouldn’t be violating a single competitive rule.

TL;DR: banned I got was banned for a reason. Salazar is sleazy, but also got a raw deal from the public and from multiple governing bodies. Both can be true.

If there is anything intelligible to be taken from that it is that you don't accept SafeSport can make a credible determination of the kind it has about Salazar. That is despite that it was created by statute to determine matters of that nature, for which it has the compliance of the sports bodies affected, and that no one at any official level in the sport has protested its findings in respect of Salazar. It appears that in this all the world is wrong except for you.

rekrunner wrote:

The raw deal started much earlier, as early as the 2015 BBC/Panorama documentary.

LOL. 2015? In a just world, and a competent USADA, he would have been banned in 2010 for his testo experiment, not in 2019. Then, no Sir Mo, no Olympic medals for Rupp and Centro, no rumors of " severely prejudiced", possibly no forbidden method in 2011 etc.

And a lot less sexual misconduct! Let's hope he won't continue with his methods anywhere else either.

carmine9 wrote:

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

His doping infractions have been released in detail, even if you haven't read the decision.

Post them then

One of the many reports of the CAS decision. The full decision is available on-line but for some reason I couldn't post the link.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

The raw deal started much earlier, as early as the 2015 BBC/Panorama documentary. Which other coach was the subject of such a documentary achieving worldwide publicity, during an on-going anti-doping investigation before any charges?[quote]

Which other coach was the subject of an anti-doping investigation at that time? Which other coach had as high a profile? When have the media chosen to suppress information that connected a prominent public figure to allegations of wrongdoing? It appears Salazar was deserving treatment not accorded to anyone else in a comparable situation. Yet we see that far from eventually being exonerated he was found to have breached anti-doping rules. I suppose part of the "raw deal" is that this, too, was unfair.

So, let us be clear then, in your view Salazar should not have been convicted of anti-doping offences and should not have been banned, and he should have continued his untarnished career up to the point SafeSport intervened with another set of professional findings to his detriment?

You think a competent USADA should have spent scarce resources prosecuting the doping of non-athletes? Shouldn’t the priorities under the goals and missions of WADA and USADA focus on ensuring clean competition between athletes subject to WADA?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The raw deal started much earlier, as early as the 2015 BBC/Panorama documentary.

LOL. 2015? In a just world, and a competent USADA, he would have been banned in 2010 for his testo experiment, not in 2019. Then, no Sir Mo, no Olympic medals for Rupp and Centro, no rumors of " severely prejudiced", possibly no forbidden method in 2011 etc.

And a lot less sexual misconduct! Let's hope he won't continue with his methods anywhere else either.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Which other coach was the subject of an anti-doping investigation at that time? Which other coach had as high a profile? When have the media chosen to suppress information that connected a prominent public figure to allegations of wrongdoing? It appears Salazar was deserving treatment not accorded to anyone else in a comparable situation. Yet we see that far from eventually being exonerated he was found to have breached anti-doping rules. I suppose part of the "raw deal" is that this, too, was unfair.

So, let us be clear then, in your view Salazar should not have been convicted of anti-doping offences and should not have been banned, and he should have continued his untarnished career up to the point SafeSport intervened with another set of professional findings to his detriment?

You suppose the “raw deal” convictions were unfair? I wouldn’t go that far, but maybe you have a point.

Not just “at that time” — at any time. You refer to “comparable situation” — that was precisely the question — what other situation compares? Judging by your response, your answer is “none”.

I wonder what was the “opportunity cost” of using scarce resources to go after a coach, only to fail to find any NOP athletes ever doped.

Whether he should be convicted or not for any WADA rule violations, I question the priority of going after a coach who apparently only doped non-athletes, and was indirectly involved in the violation of an assistant coach. If no NOP athletes doped, the sport remains unchanged with his removal — not better.

Albis a bad person and deserves any punishment he gets. If nothing else the experimenting to see what he can get away with goes against the spirit of the rules. Don't look for marginal gains in the gray area and claim you "technically" didn't do anything wrong.

rekrunner wrote:

You think a competent USADA should have spent scarce resources prosecuting the doping of non-athletes?

Shouldn’t the priorities under the goals and missions of WADA and USADA focus on ensuring clean competition between athletes subject to WADA?

LOL. Wait. Didn't USADA spend a lot more resources later on? Had they quickly come in 2009, confirmed the testo experiment, and banned that cheat back then right there, they would have saved a lot.