LRC Exclusive: The latest on USADA's investigation into Alberto Salazar's Nike Oregon Project

RunningOregon wrote:

Sweet update on Salazar! He and his runners will be vindicated!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/sports/olympics/usada-doping-endocrinologist-investigation.html?_r=0

The ruling did not vindicate anyone. The decision in this case had nothing to with whether or not NOPers are dopers. The judge simply said that this aspect of the controversy is not the business of the Texas courts. Given the facts of the case, the judge might very well have ruled this way even if the USADA had bullet-proof evidence of NOP doping.

Of course, if the USADA had good evidence, they would not have tried such a desperate move. My hunch is the case is stalled, effectively leaving us with the Scots verdict: Case not proven.

Asking real questions wrote:

Rojo - serious question for you.

1) Are posts that are critical of the whistleblower group frequently deleted here?

Pretty much all of mine.. Whistleblowers have two things in common; They are in a group for a short time i.e. david torrence and are clean, and two they are part of training group for a long time i.e. yulyia stepanove and admit to doping. Both of those individuals have massive credibility in my book. When it comes to the NOP whistleblowers, the coaches and athletes were apart of the program for a really long time, before they blew the whistle. It begs the questions what are their motives and why didn't they come out with this stuff sooner?

Plus, just my opinion that the coach seemed so wishy washy, using words like maybe and it looks that way, not exactly inspiring confidence in their words. The athletes who left were also unconvincing IMHO.

cleans wrote:

If an athlete wins money at an event and subsequently tests positive for a banned PED, then I believe that this fits the legal definiton of fraud, which of course is a criminal offense.

Why stop with PEDs? What about pitchers who throw spitters, or safeties who use their hands on every play, knowing that refs can't throw the flag on every play? Or umpires who expand the strike zone in late innings when the game isn't close?

Yes the moderators and the Brojos are in on this.

Yes, the thread dies without the next 'super hot on Letsrun' and the mods posting under different names propping it up.

Same as a year ago.

Same exact thread.

Nothing happening here folks.

Move on down the sidewalk.

Go back to your parents basements and rage against the machine.

Bait go a Click wrote:

Yes the moderators and the Brojos are in on this.

Yes, the thread dies without the next 'super hot on Letsrun' and the mods posting under different names propping it up.

Same as a year ago.

Same exact thread.

Nothing happening here folks.

Move on down the sidewalk.

Go back to your parents basements and rage against the machine.

You're right. a year ago they did the same thing. I had a lawyer friend of mine poke so many holes the whistleblowers case against the NOP, all of it deleted. "Same exact thread"? But all of the deleted comments and threads means that there was never really a balanced discussion about the facts. Just saying

I was, and I did know about an additional 93.Is there a connection to USADA's investigation?

2008 and 2012 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

One year later, and it seems that USADA still cannot make the case

If you were paying any attention to the news you would know the 2008 and 2012 Olympians were popped for doping this year. More than 100 at last count.

What makes this whole NOP controversy absurd is that altitude tents are the most potent form of PED that NOP is known to use. But all the NOP accusers who say they want the sport totally clean apparently have no problem with altitude tents.

Why not leave NOP alone for awhile. Get it straight what is wrong and not wrong in enhancing performance before lobbing accusations.

cleans wrote:

Definitely a problem. The more resources USADA put into this sort of effort, without any result, the more disinclined they might be to do it next time round.

I guess USADA couldn't just ignore the allegations against Alberto, so had to do something.

You are assuming, without evidence, that the USA(DA) wants to bring down Nike's Oregon Project. But, is that a reasonable assumption? Why would they?

To me, it looks they merely run a pro-forma investigation, to pretend to the world that the US wants to play fair in athletics ("had to do something").

Points in case in addition to the lack of progress:

- conflict of interest

- Nike's sponsorship

- Gay

- Brock

- Mitchell

Of course the same behavior of other countries' NADOs (Baumann, Christie, Farah, ...) lends further credibility to this assumption.

I have posted on the topic in the past and sat this thread out. I'm a lawyer and there is nothing interesting to me. Just another letsrun attempt to smear NOP with innuendo, timed just before the Olympic games..........And no, you idiot, I do not work for Nike.

The answer to the question is "Yes" -- if the Nike Oregon Project actually did something that violates any anti-doping rules, it is reasonable to assume that USADA, especially Tygart, would be aggressive investigating this, based on past historical actions. There is no reason to assume USADA would behave otherwise.Unless there is some secret new evidence of substance, it looks like USADA's main barrier is establishing if NOP did anything USADA can prosecute. The fact that nothing has come yet from the investigations after all this time, is not a good sign that new, substantial, secret evidence exists.Not sure what you think the connection is between USADA and Nike, Gay, Brock (from Pokemon?), or Mitchell.I think the only outcome can be:- USADA lobbies for rule changes- Evidence against Salazar gets turned over to real authorities, for sending drugs by mail, or giving prescription drugs to athletes without a prescription- Maybe a ban for Dr. Brown for supporting testosterone experiments

casual obsever wrote:

You are assuming, without evidence, that the USA(DA) wants to bring down Nike's Oregon Project. But, is that a reasonable assumption? Why would they?

To me, it looks they merely run a pro-forma investigation, to pretend to the world that the US wants to play fair in athletics ("had to do something").

Points in case in addition to the lack of progress:

- conflict of interest

- Nike's sponsorship

- Gay

- Brock

- Mitchell

Of course the same behavior of other countries' NADOs (Baumann, Christie, Farah, ...) lends further credibility to this assumption.

rekrunner wrote:

There is no reason to assume USADA would behave otherwise.

Not sure what you think the connection is between USADA and Nike, Gay, Brock (from Pokemon?), or Mitchell.

One obvious reason is of course conflict of interest.

As for the connection, Gay got the easy way out because, well, I'd say conflict of interest, as usual. I also gave you Baumann, Christie, and Farah, so this conflict of interest scenario for NADOs is quite apparent, and nothing new. I don't think USADA is holier than the others. Going after a retired American cyclist was the only exception so far.

As for rest, note that I wrote USA(DA), because I see USATF in the same boat. It was the latter who allowed BLock to come back despite his ban and who continues to employ Mitchell as national coach. So USATF isn't holier than you either.

Finally, remember the USOC's attitude. Same old, same old, e.g. here:

"Newly disclosed documents prove long-held suspicions that the United States Olympic Committee covered up drug use by athletes"

IF one wanted to change this on an international level, one should put different NADOs in charge, ideally without too obvious allegiances. E.g. Brazil takes care of US, US of Kenya, Kenya of Germany, Germany of Russia, Russia of UK, UK of Brazil to close this loop. Then one would actually want to catch the drug cheats instead of protecting the national heroes.

In addition, criminalize the dopers, so raids can happen, and the courts feel responsible.

Where do you draw the line? wrote:

cleans wrote:

If an athlete wins money at an event and subsequently tests positive for a banned PED, then I believe that this fits the legal definiton of fraud, which of course is a criminal offense.

Why stop with PEDs? What about pitchers who throw spitters, or safeties who use their hands on every play, knowing that refs can't throw the flag on every play? Or umpires who expand the strike zone in late innings when the game isn't close?

Fair question. Many (most?) sportsmen and women push the boundaries of what they can get away with, and it is usually the job of a referee to moderate. Also, there is a line between gamesmanship and cheating. A hard one to mark out, but it is clearly there, otherwise there wouldn't have been so much noise over 'Deflate-gate'.

T&F is perhaps unique in that there is no referee or moderator to prevent cheating. Stay in your lane, don't beat the gun, and you are good.

Cheating in T&F largely means gaining an unfair advantage through PEDs. There aren't too many other ways to cheat.

If you take PEDs and win $500,000 at a marathon and the person who comes second didn't take PEDs, but spent tens of thousands of thousand dollars preparing for that race, then that person is going to be ticked off to say the least. That 500K should be theirs. The winner in my view has obtained the money by fraudulent means. The post-race drugs test is there for a reason.

If you're going to draw a line, you can't do it on the basis of what "seems" like a reasonable "line between gamesmanship and cheating." The line has to be based on the law. Fraud is a material misrepresentation resulting in harm. So some arguments you might make are:

- That the athletes affirmatively pledged not to use PEDs, but, for example, football safeties don't pledge not to use their hands.

- You can't prove that someone falsely represented that they would follow the rules if they later, in the heat of competition, decide to commit a sneaky foul. Representations about future intent are not fraudulent unless they were false at the moment they're made.

- Any misrepresentation about following the rules might not be material in the case of what you're calling "gamesmanship."

- Harm can't be proven because you would've won anyway.

- There's also typically an affirmative "knowledge defense" to fraud. If you pledge to follow the rules, but you can show that everyone knows there's elbowing in a 1500, then you should be off the hook.

ryan foreman wrote:

What makes this whole NOP controversy absurd is that altitude tents are the most potent form of PED that NOP is known to use. But all the NOP accusers who say they want the sport totally clean apparently have no problem with altitude tents.

People have no problem with it because it's not a drug and it's not illegal!

You might as well say that interval training is the most potent form of PED that NOP is known to use.

Incidentally, testosterone cream easily trumps altitude tents. Tents have been around for a while and the evidence about their use is still spotty. And if they do provide a benefit, they do so at the expense of further wearing the body down, just like other training stimuli. They aren't a magic machine; they're a modality that has to be carefully balanced with other modalities to allow for adaptation without a breakdown. Drugs do not have that drawback. In fact, they raise the capacity of the athlete to pile on the training and still adapt.

rekrunner wrote:

I think the only outcome can be:

- Evidence against Salazar gets turned over to real authorities, for sending drugs by mail, or giving prescription drugs to athletes without a prescription

It's likely the "real authorities" already have the evidence and decided not to prosecute. The evidence is weak, and these are relatively minor offenses that would get Salazar at most a slap on the wrist. Prosecutors have more important drugs to worry about, like meth and oxy.

On top of that, the statute of limitations for these crimes is relatively short.

rekrunner wrote:

I think the only outcome can be:

- USADA lobbies for rule changes

- Evidence against Salazar gets turned over to real authorities, for sending drugs by mail, or giving prescription drugs to athletes without a prescription

- Maybe a ban for Dr. Brown for supporting testosterone experiments

I think USADA already asked for thyroid hormone to be added to the banned list and were denied.

I don't think Salazar's alleged crimes are going to attract attention from anybody in the real authorities.

The testosterone experiments seem to me to be the only thing that is at all potentially actionable. I am not sure how they could act against Dr. Brown if they are not able or not willing to act against Alberto.

There are some differences. Dr. Brown might not fight against any ban or sanction. He does not, as far as I know, attend track meets or receive any sort of credential or funding. So a ban has exactly zero effect on his life.

It might prevent athletes under WADA authority from consulting with him. Possibly.

800 dude wrote:

If you're going to draw a line, you can't do it on the basis of what "seems" like a reasonable "line between gamesmanship and cheating." The line has to be based on the law. Fraud is a material misrepresentation resulting in harm.

That was the point I made in my first post.

It was the other poster who didn't see any difference.

Salazar pushes the envelop in everything he does. This is no exception. He wouldn't intentionally dope his athletes. He's not that stupid. However, he went after legal means of performance enhancing. Ethically he may be in the wrong, but when it comes out in the wash, he didn't break doping laws. The best thing to do is ban the hormone therapy.

Clerk got banned wrote:

Jon Orange wrote:

The amount of time, money, research, talking, writing etc that goes into this subject, compared to the actual awareness of how the human body actually, uses energy efficiently.

It's amazing, the complete obsession with the former, and the lack of interest in the latter?

Get out of this thread, troll.

Everyone else,, don't respond. Jon's only goal is to derail the conversation.

Not to derail the conversation at all. Just to point out the naivete of what is being discussed. All it does is increase the drugs hype. Here let me spell it out to you: The Mr. Mkay approach doesn't work. That's not trolling, you just can't accept that we don't all accept the druggie BS.