Armstronglivs wrote:
over-limit infusion, tampering, testosterone trafficking wrote:
You are without question the dumbest person I have ever interacted with on these boards. The problem I have is not with the quotation you provided, but rather your interpretation of it. You have decided that "orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping conduct" amounts to "promoting doping" among athletes. Had you been responsible and actually read the AAA's report prior to forming this opinion, you never would have reached such an erroneous conclusion.
Based on the arbitration panel's findings that are delineated in the report you have thus far refused to read, please illustrate how Salazar promoted doping among his athletes. I don't expect a reply beyond the typical cheap insults and "witty" remarks that characterize the majority of your posts here, but maybe you'll surprise me.
Your inability to grasp what it means to "orchestrate and facilitate prohibited doping conduct", the description provided by USADA, shows glaringly that you are trying to depict Salazar's offending as other than what it was; unequivocal doping violations requiring a 4 year ban from the sport. Salazar was implementing a system that sought to apply illegal methods to his athletes (and often without their knowledge, according to Travis Tygart). End of story. Your cavilling at the use of the word "promoting" doping as against "orchestrating and facilitating" it (who was he doing it for if not for his athletes?) and your abuse at the use of the term is the rage of one cornered by an unacceptable fact that cannot be argued away, and above all demonstrates the desire to defend the indefensible. Views like yours perpetuate the cancer of doping in the sport. You are odious.
Are you trolling? I can hardly believe you are honestly this stupid. Of course Salazar was found to have committed doping violations. Not once have I disputed that, contrary to your claim that I am "trying to depict Salazar's offending as other than what it was." What you still don't understand (because you still haven't read the report) is that one can commit a doping violation and "orchestrate and facilitate prohibited doping conduct" without promoting doping to his athletes.
"A majority of the Panel finds that no substantial step was taken by Respondent with
respect to an anti-doping rule violation (i.e. the Use of a Prohibited Method/over volume
infusion) for the NOP Athletes and in fact, Respondent was explicit at the time in taking
whatever steps were necessary to avoid any such conduct." (pg. 72)
Does that sound like promoting doping to you?
I'll give you one more chance to defend your position, not because I expect you to produce what I am asking for, but because I want to ensure that anyone who reads this fully understands how much of an idiot you are.
Please illustrate how Salazar promoted doping among his athletes. That's all you have to do to prove your point. If you aren't going to do that, do me (and everyone else who has experienced the mental torture induced by reading your inane ramblings) a favor and stop speaking with authority on subjects that are clearly beyond your comprehension.
The full report, for whenever you decide to abandon your willful ignorance:
https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/Salazar-AAA-Decision-1.pdf