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.
