Yes, we know that. He was working on doping athletes and yet none were caught doping. As I said, it is virtually impossible now to catch dopers.
It looks like four anti-doping bodies rejected that possibility.
No, they didn't reject it as a possibility; they did not conclude there was sufficient evidence to confirm it. That isn't the same thing. But we are left with the conundrum that their coach was breaking the rules on doping and yet somehow no NOP athletes were implicated. So who was he working for?
From an article published in the scientific journal Nature in 2015.
"Although the stated goal of anti-doping agencies is to prevent prohibited drug use, they simply do not gather the data to enable evaluation of how effective their policies are. This is despite sporting bodies across the world spending an estimated US$350 million on drug testing each year."
So we see $350m is some distance from a falsely claimed 1 billion dollars.
Yet from anti-doping sources that include WADA there are estimates that the black market in doping products alone exceed a billion dollars each year. (Published by Al Jazeera) Yet very few dopers are caught, as only 1-2% of tests return a positive. Not quite a billion dollars of doping product in that paltry figure.
From an article published in the scientific journal Nature in 2015.
"Although the stated goal of anti-doping agencies is to prevent prohibited drug use, they simply do not gather the data to enable evaluation of how effective their policies are. This is despite sporting bodies across the world spending an estimated US$350 million on drug testing each year."
So we see $350m is some distance from a falsely claimed 1 billion dollars.
How can that be right when the major NAND’s alone come to that.
What is meant by drug testing as indicated in the Nature article you refer to… the tests alone.
You just refuse to contemplate that you may be wrong.
Like you refuse to admit that the standard of proof for conviction is not beyond reasonable doubt.
Can you begin to pull my estimates apart ?
If WA have a budget of $ 5 M what would be the global for IF’s ?
IOC is just Olympic sports, so excludes, for example, American sports like football, basketball, and baseball.
Amongst that piffle - anti-doping is openly and specifically budgeted for, yet there is no data that shows that a billion dollars or anything like it are spent on it each year. On the other hand, doping has to be estimated because it is a clandestine activity. That you see them as comparable yet again shows you have no grasp of the subject.
I didn't see anyone require "each year". Take the IOC estimate for what it is worth.
The IOC is only a partial estimate, and doesn't include most non-Olympic sports, or peripheral things like the cost for athletes to defend themselves to pay for lawyers and for scientific testing, which can easily run into 5 or 6 figures.
I don't say they are comparable, but that it is hypocritical to ask for that level of detail while never providing any level of detail when asked to support your baseless claims.
Maybe your doping industry estimate includes supplements and weight trainers at the local gym who don't compete professionally. No idea what Al Jazeera meant because they just throw out a figure without any explanation of what it represents.
From an article published in the scientific journal Nature in 2015.
"Although the stated goal of anti-doping agencies is to prevent prohibited drug use, they simply do not gather the data to enable evaluation of how effective their policies are. This is despite sporting bodies across the world spending an estimated US$350 million on drug testing each year."
So we see $350m is some distance from a falsely claimed 1 billion dollars.
Yet from anti-doping sources that include WADA there are estimates that the black market in doping products alone exceed a billion dollars each year. (Published by Al Jazeera) Yet very few dopers are caught, as only 1-2% of tests return a positive. Not quite a billion dollars of doping product in that paltry figure.
You avoid again, this is not about the spend on doping products. Why do you always spin away when exposed?
Amongst that piffle - anti-doping is openly and specifically budgeted for, yet there is no data that shows that a billion dollars or anything like it are spent on it each year. On the other hand, doping has to be estimated because it is a clandestine activity. That you see them as comparable yet again shows you have no grasp of the subject.
I didn't see anyone require "each year". Take the IOC estimate for what it is worth.
The IOC is only a partial estimate, and doesn't include most non-Olympic sports, or peripheral things like the cost for athletes to defend themselves to pay for lawyers and for scientific testing, which can easily run into 5 or 6 figures.
I don't say they are comparable, but that it is hypocritical to ask for that level of detail while never providing any level of detail when asked to support your baseless claims.
Maybe your doping industry estimate includes supplements and weight trainers at the local gym who don't compete professionally. No idea what Al Jazeera meant because they just throw out a figure without any explanation of what it represents.
Correct; no separation from the non sporting use from the sporting. A school child error… yet again.
It looks like four anti-doping bodies rejected that possibility.
No, they didn't reject it as a possibility; they did not conclude there was sufficient evidence to confirm it. That isn't the same thing. But we are left with the conundrum that their coach was breaking the rules on doping and yet somehow no NOP athletes were implicated. So who was he working for?
That sounds like exactly the same thing as Houlihan -- the CAS did not conclude there was sufficient evidence to meet the burden of establishing the source on the balance of probability.
There is no conundrum -- we know all the details of the Salazar case because there was a long investigation. We know all about the sabotage experiment, and the L-carnitine infusions, and the rest, from lengthy AAA Panel reports, and a follow-up CAS report.
CAS doesn't need to call her a doper; they convicted her of a doping offence that included using a banned drug. By definition - that is a doper. Not a jaywalker, shoplifter or anything other than a doper - one doping offence is enough to confirm that. They didn't need to say she knowingly doped but they found she "intentionally" doped, which is the same thing. They were enabled to that finding because she was unable to show accidental contamination. The banned drug was in her system; she was unable to furnish an accepted defence for how it got there so she was deemed responsible for its presence in her body. No one and nothing else was to blame but her. Hard for you to accept, I know.
This is your rationalization. It is correct for me to say what can be found in the report, and to reject your recharacterizations.
CAS doesn't need to call her a doper; they convicted her of a doping offence that included using a banned drug. By definition - that is a doper. Not a jaywalker, shoplifter or anything other than a doper - one doping offence is enough to confirm that. They didn't need to say she knowingly doped but they found she "intentionally" doped, which is the same thing. They were enabled to that finding because she was unable to show accidental contamination. The banned drug was in her system; she was unable to furnish an accepted defence for how it got there so she was deemed responsible for its presence in her body. No one and nothing else was to blame but her. Hard for you to accept, I know.
This is your rationalization. It is correct for me to say what can be found in the report, and to reject your recharacterizations.
So, Armstronglies, are you now saying that any doping offence creates a doper.
You seem somewhat confused in what your position is. Just like you did not know what the standard of proof for convictions was.
Again you demonstrate your lack of education in doping matters.Even if she could account, over a month later for what she ate, she would still be guilty.
From an article published in the scientific journal Nature in 2015.
"Although the stated goal of anti-doping agencies is to prevent prohibited drug use, they simply do not gather the data to enable evaluation of how effective their policies are. This is despite sporting bodies across the world spending an estimated US$350 million on drug testing each year."
So we see $350m is some distance from a falsely claimed 1 billion dollars.
How can that be right when the major NAND’s alone come to that.
What is meant by drug testing as indicated in the Nature article you refer to… the tests alone.
You just refuse to contemplate that you may be wrong.
Like you refuse to admit that the standard of proof for conviction is not beyond reasonable doubt.
Can you begin to pull my estimates apart ?
If WA have a budget of $ 5 M what would be the global for IF’s ?
Care to reply or are you too busy leaning what the standard of proof is😂
It looks like four anti-doping bodies rejected that possibility.
No, they didn't reject it as a possibility; they did not conclude there was sufficient evidence to confirm it. That isn't the same thing. But we are left with the conundrum that their coach was breaking the rules on doping and yet somehow no NOP athletes were implicated. So who was he working for?
Dude all she has to do is get tested once per week and come within 5 seconds of her times. That's it. It's really not that hard to do.
This is your rationalization. It is correct for me to say what can be found in the report, and to reject your recharacterizations.
So, Armstronglies, are you now saying that any doping offence creates a doper.
You seem somewhat confused in what your position is. Just like you did not know what the standard of proof for convictions was.
Again you demonstrate your lack of education in doping matters.Even if she could account, over a month later for what she ate, she would still be guilty.
No, they didn't reject it as a possibility; they did not conclude there was sufficient evidence to confirm it. That isn't the same thing. But we are left with the conundrum that their coach was breaking the rules on doping and yet somehow no NOP athletes were implicated. So who was he working for?
That sounds like exactly the same thing as Houlihan -- the CAS did not conclude there was sufficient evidence to meet the burden of establishing the source on the balance of probability.
There is no conundrum -- we know all the details of the Salazar case because there was a long investigation. We know all about the sabotage experiment, and the L-carnitine infusions, and the rest, from lengthy AAA Panel reports, and a follow-up CAS report.
That you think my comment was essentially the same as the CAS determination on Houlihan is a sad reflection on your intellect. There was no burden on CAS to establish the source of the nandrolone - it was found in Houlihan. The burden was hers, to show she hadn't doped. She couldn't. It furthermore shows how confused your thinking is if you think I am effectively saying that because a burden of proof was not met in the NOP investigation and also by Houlihan in her case the cases are therefore the same. Salazar engaged in doping practices but the evidence didn't extend to his athletes; Houlihan was found with a banned drug in her system but couldn't produce a source that would exonerate her. NOP showed how hard it is to pin doping on athletes without a failed test, while Houlihan showed a failed test is difficult to refute.
You have nothing worth saying about Salazar and the NOP investigation.
This is your rationalization. It is correct for me to say what can be found in the report, and to reject your recharacterizations.
So, Armstronglies, are you now saying that any doping offence creates a doper.
You seem somewhat confused in what your position is. Just like you did not know what the standard of proof for convictions was.
Again you demonstrate your lack of education in doping matters.Even if she could account, over a month later for what she ate, she would still be guilty.
So, Armstronglies, are you now saying that any doping offence creates a doper.
You seem somewhat confused in what your position is. Just like you did not know what the standard of proof for convictions was.
Again you demonstrate your lack of education in doping matters.Even if she could account, over a month later for what she ate, she would still be guilty.
That sounds like exactly the same thing as Houlihan -- the CAS did not conclude there was sufficient evidence to meet the burden of establishing the source on the balance of probability.
There is no conundrum -- we know all the details of the Salazar case because there was a long investigation. We know all about the sabotage experiment, and the L-carnitine infusions, and the rest, from lengthy AAA Panel reports, and a follow-up CAS report.
That you think my comment was essentially the same as the CAS determination on Houlihan is a sad reflection on your intellect. There was no burden on CAS to establish the source of the nandrolone - it was found in Houlihan. The burden was hers, to show she hadn't doped. She couldn't. It furthermore shows how confused your thinking is if you think I am effectively saying that because a burden of proof was not met in the NOP investigation and also by Houlihan in her case the cases are therefore the same. Salazar engaged in doping practices but the evidence didn't extend to his athletes; Houlihan was found with a banned drug in her system but couldn't produce a source that would exonerate her. NOP showed how hard it is to pin doping on athletes without a failed test, while Houlihan showed a failed test is difficult to refute.
You have nothing worth saying about Salazar and the NOP investigation.
Your views on all doping matters as you are seen as the man who has posted over 15,000 times still does not know what the burden of proof is for a conviction , ie worthless.
This is your rationalization. It is correct for me to say what can be found in the report, and to reject your recharacterizations.
So, Armstronglies, are you now saying that any doping offence creates a doper.
You seem somewhat confused in what your position is. Just like you did not know what the standard of proof for convictions was.
Again you demonstrate your lack of education in doping matters.Even if she could account, over a month later for what she ate, she would still be guilty.
Salazar engaged in doping practices but the evidence didn't extend to his athletes
There was actually plenty of evidence, just not enough evidence to ban any of them. For example, USADA tried to get Salazar also banned for giving too large infusions to Ritz, Rupp etc. AAA decides with a 2 : 1 vote:
A majority of the Panel finds that USADA has not met its burden of proof with respect to the Attempted Administration charge as it relates to the NOP Athletes
Apparently USADA had enough evidence to convince one of the three arbitrators. So a slightly different panel composition could have decided the other way...
There was also a witness statement (also detailed in the AAA report) that "Alberto Salazar’s athletes" used "thyroid and testosterone therapy", which couldn't be confirmed as the witness had died.
It claims that on 14 January 2016 Usada’s science director, Matthew Fedoruk, received an email from his test results division. In it, a Usada employee reportedly noted of a test on Rupp that “T/E is elevated compared to athlete’s previous pattern in samples”. The relationship between testosterone and epitestosterone is around 1:1 and when elevated it can be an indicator of possible doping.
And there was of course the likely doping status of both Farah and Rupp.
Salazar engaged in doping practices but the evidence didn't extend to his athletes
There was actually plenty of evidence, just not enough evidence to ban any of them. For example, USADA tried to get Salazar also banned for giving too large infusions to Ritz, Rupp etc. AAA decides with a 2 : 1 vote:
A majority of the Panel finds that USADA has not met its burden of proof with respect to the Attempted Administration charge as it relates to the NOP Athletes
Apparently USADA had enough evidence to convince one of the three arbitrators. So a slightly different panel composition could have decided the other way...
There was also a witness statement (also detailed in the AAA report) that "Alberto Salazar’s athletes" used "thyroid and testosterone therapy", which couldn't be confirmed as the witness had died.
It claims that on 14 January 2016 Usada’s science director, Matthew Fedoruk, received an email from his test results division. In it, a Usada employee reportedly noted of a test on Rupp that “T/E is elevated compared to athlete’s previous pattern in samples”. The relationship between testosterone and epitestosterone is around 1:1 and when elevated it can be an indicator of possible doping.
And there was of course the likely doping status of both Farah and Rupp.
And they would have used that to do a Carbon Isotope test and there was no positive from that.
Amongst that piffle - anti-doping is openly and specifically budgeted for, yet there is no data that shows that a billion dollars or anything like it are spent on it each year. On the other hand, doping has to be estimated because it is a clandestine activity. That you see them as comparable yet again shows you have no grasp of the subject.
I didn't see anyone require "each year". Take the IOC estimate for what it is worth.
The IOC is only a partial estimate, and doesn't include most non-Olympic sports, or peripheral things like the cost for athletes to defend themselves to pay for lawyers and for scientific testing, which can easily run into 5 or 6 figures.
I don't say they are comparable, but that it is hypocritical to ask for that level of detail while never providing any level of detail when asked to support your baseless claims.
Maybe your doping industry estimate includes supplements and weight trainers at the local gym who don't compete professionally. No idea what Al Jazeera meant because they just throw out a figure without any explanation of what it represents.
You didn't see anyone require an annual figure? You are really quite ridiculous. If it isn't an annual figure it is meaningless, because it could be spread out over any period - decades. No useful comparisons can be made if the expenditure isn't for a specified period. The figures provided for anti-doping are annual, as is the much greater amount spent on doping. The figure wasn't "just thrown out" by Al Jazeera, it was based on estimates from WADA and others involved in anti-doping.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.
Fill out a review to be entered into a drawing to win a free pair of shoes.