ALBERTO SALAZAR BANNED FROM ATHLETICS FOR FOUR YEARS FOR DOPING VIOLATIONS

rekrunner wrote:

These look like nice words on paper.

I enjoy our exchanges, but sadly you only bring imagination and analogies.

I cannot even accuse you of confirmation bias, because that would first require finding confirmation.

Keep trolling, doucebag.

Did you see this: "USADA’s investigation yielded a wide range of evidence referenced in the hearing, including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records. Between the two cases, USADA relied on more than 2,000 exhibits, which the AAA heard along with the defendants’ cases. In all, the proceedings included 30 witnesses and 5,780 pages of transcripts." USADA has been scrutinizing NOP since Dec. 2012, when Magness reported NOP. If Salazar was doping his athletes with banned performance enhancing substances, seems likely we should have seen some evidence indicating that by now. For example, when Tygart/USADA finally sanctioned Lance, four other riders served bans too. The "Androgel" story came out in 2015, and Salazar immediately confirmed it. I think he didn't think this would get him in trouble with USADA. "Doping coach" hides some of the complexity of the findings, particularly the fact that he was not found to have doped any athletes, except contributing to an excess infusion for Magness, the athlete.

Can coaches be this dumb? wrote:

So rekrunner do you think all of the NOP athletes are clean as a whistle? And if so, then an iconic, legendary coach of his status would be so stupid, so dumb, so dense to test his Rx Androgel on his son for "sabotage" fears (whatever the heck that means?) realizing how much trouble this could get him into with USADA . And now this iconic coach was handed a stern 4 year ban labeling him as a "doping coach" with his reputation tarnished forever.

You cannot be part of a serious discussion until you have read the report, and actually understood what was found and not found.

rekrunner wrote:

If Salazar was doping his athletes with banned performance enhancing substances, seems likely we should have seen some evidence indicating that by now. For example, when Tygart/USADA finally sanctioned Lance, four other riders served bans too.

1) USADA had to rely on documents delivered to them, and on witnesses coming forward without pressure. That's quite a contrast to the Lance scenario.

2) we actually "have seen some evidence indicating that by now":

- Salazar was seen with testo around his athletes in 2008 while not having a prescription

- Salazar's own testo levels went down after he obtained a larger testo prescription

- a witness reported that "Alberto Salazar’s athletes" used "thyroid and testosterone therapy"

- "a Galen Rupp medical record from 2002 that included the line “Presently on prednisone and testosterone medication”."

- Salazar routinely send the professional masseuse away to give Rupp private massages behind closed doors

1) Same scenario. Feds didn't help Tygart. Tygart complained about that. 2) Sigh: - "Seen with" does not indicate "athlete received" - ?? athlete? - "testosterone therapy" and "testosterone medication" ambiguous; evidence corroborating boosters like Testoboost and AlphaMale used in the group; no one corroborating Testosterone use in the group - massage is not doping

casual obsever wrote:

1) USADA had to rely on documents delivered to them, and on witnesses coming forward without pressure. That's quite a contrast to the Lance scenario.

2) we actually "have seen some evidence indicating that by now":

- Salazar was seen with testo around his athletes in 2008 while not having a prescription

- Salazar's own testo levels went down after he obtained a larger testo prescription

- a witness reported that "Alberto Salazar’s athletes" used "thyroid and testosterone therapy"

- "a Galen Rupp medical record from 2002 that included the line “Presently on prednisone and testosterone medication”."

- Salazar routinely send the professional masseuse away to give Rupp private massages behind closed doors

Rekrunner, you can downplay the evidence all you want, as is your motto for some reason, or question it because it wasn't "corroborated", but you simply can't claim that there is none. That's pushing the trolling.

And read up on the Armstrong case, if you want to keep bringing it up.

If we want to know what Alberto has been doing then we need look little further than Sifan Hassan.

How to duck the key issues. The only "serious discussion" is one where your view must be right. I don't think I'm going to meet that requirement.

The report raises more questions than it answers. Poring over its details doesn't change that.

I stand corrected: "If Salazar was doping his athletes with banned performance enhancing substances, seems likely we should have seen some stronger indications by now, after a lengthy "investigation yielded a wide range of evidence referenced in the hearing, including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records. Between the two cases, USADA relied on more than 2,000 exhibits, which the AAA heard along with the defendants’ cases. In all, the proceedings included 30 witnesses and 5,780 pages of transcripts.""

casual obsever wrote:

Rekrunner, you can downplay the evidence all you want, as is your motto for some reason, or question it because it wasn't "corroborated", but you simply can't claim that there is none. That's pushing the trolling.

And read up on the Armstrong case, if you want to keep bringing it up.

Reading the report would (presumably) stop you from repeating nonsense that is not in the report, or worse, debunked by the report. Going back to your Guardian article, the AAA Panel findings provides an authoritative basis for Radcliffe's and Coe's statements about NOP athletes, while the journalist has no basis for his opinion piece.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The report raises more questions than it answers. Poring over its details doesn't change that.

So we have a coach who has been committing doping violations - "orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping practices" - and yet, we are told, none of his athletes were doping. That's like a gunrunner who has no buyers. You'll pardon my scepticism.

rekrunner wrote:

Reading the report would (presumably) stop you from repeating nonsense that is not in the report, or worse, debunked by the report.

Going back to your Guardian article, the AAA Panel findings provides an authoritative basis for Radcliffe's and Coe's statements about NOP athletes, while the journalist has no basis for his opinion piece.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The report raises more questions than it answers. Poring over its details doesn't change that.

I'm quite happy to refer to the offical USADA statement, quoted in the Guardian, which encapsulates the issue - hardly "nonsense"- and which you adroitly sidestep to find refuge in selective reference to the fine print of the report. What part of USADA's statement about Salazar "orchestrating and facilitating illegal practices" do you find difficult to understand?

Armstronglivs wrote:

So we have a coach who has been committing doping violations - "orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping practices" - and yet, we are told, none of his athletes were doping. That's like a gunrunner who has no buyers. You'll pardon my scepticism.

I'll put that in actual words.

We have a coach we have found to be doping his athletes with 100% certainty and proof.

We know, that the athletes of this coach are doping (knowingly or not) under this coach and his doctors, but we cannot proof YET that they are.

What we should do as observers of this sport is to just not take performances of any athlete under Salazar/Nike seriously anymore. In trying to close the gap the genetic advantage of African runners created, our "flagship" team based in Oregon used methods and substances that FAR exceed of what we should have been doing to optimize the performance of our athletes. Who suffers from this the most? The observers of the sport, most who are too stubborn (stupid?) to realize of what's going on in their dream teams/athletes, and runners like Muir/Willis etc who are competing completely clean and getting destroyed time and time again but athletes who are not more talented or training harder, but simply using more methods/substances to artificially improve their performance.

I will not pardon your skepticism when it has been addressed in the report. Rather than creating a never ending list of failed analogies, read and understand the findings in the report, and use real examples. Skip the details if you must, and hop to the conclusions at the end of each section.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So we have a coach who has been committing doping violations - "orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping practices" - and yet, we are told, none of his athletes were doping. That's like a gunrunner who has no buyers. You'll pardon my scepticism.

Can you substantiate this?

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

We have a coach we have found to be doping his athletes with 100% certainty and proof.

Putting aside that USADA is one party in the dispute, I'm happy to accept, and I understand, "orchestrating and facilitating illegal practices". That is not the part that is in dispute.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm quite happy to refer to the offical USADA statement, quoted in the Guardian, which encapsulates the issue - hardly "nonsense"- and which you adroitly sidestep to find refuge in selective reference to the fine print of the report. What part of USADA's statement about Salazar "orchestrating and facilitating illegal practices" do you find difficult to understand?

rekrunner wrote:

Putting aside that USADA is one party in the dispute, I'm happy to accept, and I understand, "orchestrating and facilitating illegal practices".

That is not the part that is in dispute.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'm quite happy to refer to the offical USADA statement, quoted in the Guardian, which encapsulates the issue - hardly "nonsense"- and which you adroitly sidestep to find refuge in selective reference to the fine print of the report. What part of USADA's statement about Salazar "orchestrating and facilitating illegal practices" do you find difficult to understand?

Rekrunner, however much you refer to the report your argument depends on that part of the investigation that didn't find evidence that NOP athletes were doping. But that wasn't the focus of the investigation. Its purpose was to establish that the allegations made by the whistleblowers against Salazar were true. It did that. Hence the ban.

But the further question of whether Salazar's athletes were doping would have required an investigation into each and every one of them. This would have been enormously difficult logistically and would easily have run into legal obstacles. There is almost no evidence regarding individual athletes that would stand up before any tribunal unless it is failed tests, or 3 missed tests. Without that kind of evidence a case against any of the NOP athletes wasn't going to stack up. In the absence of such evidence, which of those athletes were voluntarily going to come forward and tell USADA that Salazar had been doping them? Given they had chosen to work with him, such an expectation would be naive to the point of absurdity.

The result then is an investigation that could prove very little, but still enough to impose a significant penalty on Salazar. But the elephant remains in the room: a coach who commits doping violations is doing that for his athletes. How can they not be involved? Lack of hard evidence doesn't resolve that question, it only points to the difficulties in answering it.

* I omitted to add a biopassport failure as evidence. But that wasn't going to happen with Salazar athletes.