No. If journalists and athletes and fans were more accurate about what was found, and not found, we wouldn't be talking about whether athletes, as Kara described, outside the inner circles, were implicated or should be suspected.
Splitting Hairs? wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Salazar was not banned for "doping violations", but for committing "anti-doping rule violations".
Aren't you getting a little trivial there rekrunner? The title of the thread from LRC is banned for "doping violations."
This wasn't about Alberto's ban, but about NOP athletes. I accepted the findings and arguments from the AAA panel. I found the first two charges petty, and the last one to be the most serious, which alone is worth a 4-year ban.
Inquiring Minds Want To Know wrote:
Do you agree with the ban?
rekrunner wrote:
This wasn't about Alberto's ban, but about NOP athletes.
I accepted the findings and arguments from the AAA panel.
I found the first two charges petty, and the last one to be the most serious, which alone is worth a 4-year ban.
Inquiring Minds Want To Know wrote:
Do youagree with the ban?
the only bans gary agrees with is a LR poster being banned for arguing with him lolz...its not that hard to see why he is protecting al sal....well for one he is doping denier to the max and his star runner is mo...mo was coached by al sal. the last thing he wants is for al sal to spill beans. he spills beans then mo is tainted and gary has to find another cash cow....and who knows mabye al sal has info on paula... you never know
rekrunner wrote:
More off-topic nonsense.
Apparently Salazar admitted to taking testosterone as an athlete -- I consider this makes him a doper.
What I found persuasive was the AAA panel's findings, regarding both Salazar's motivations and the scope of the violations.
What I don't find persuasive are some of your imaginary assertions, both contradicting and lacking any grounding the AAA panel's report.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The sheer prolixity of your response aside, it is clear that you don't consider Salazar a doper. The USADA and the panel say you are wrong about that. Because none of his athletes were deemed to have doped then you must have become persuaded in your own mind that he was breaching the rules for his own private curiosity, without even possessing the intent of benefiting anyone else, let alone his athletes. You could have said that in a couple of sentences but then the "emperor's new clothes" would have been completely exposed and the absurdity of your position apparent to all.
So Salazar is only a doping cheat because of what he did years ago as an athlete and not for the violations he has committed as a coach. You dismiss these latter violations as some sort of technical infractions of the rules. Yet that is exactly what all offences are - however serious: they are technical infractions of the rules. Furthermore, you refuse to consider the intent and purpose behind those infractions, when it is obvious to anyone with an IQ approaching the average that a coach does not involve himself in "orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping practices" for his own needs. You are ludicrous. I wouldn't have picked wilful stupidity as a concomitant deficiency but your arguments have persuaded me.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
More off-topic nonsense.
Apparently Salazar admitted to taking testosterone as an athlete -- I consider this makes him a doper.
What I found persuasive was the AAA panel's findings, regarding both Salazar's motivations and the scope of the violations.
What I don't find persuasive are some of your imaginary assertions, both contradicting and lacking any grounding the AAA panel's report.
So Salazar is only a doping cheat because of what he did years ago as an athlete and not for the violations he has committed as a coach. You dismiss these latter violations as some sort of technical infractions of the rules. Yet that is exactly what all offences are - however serious: they are technical infractions of the rules. Furthermore, you refuse to consider the intent and purpose behind those infractions, when it is obvious to anyone with an IQ approaching the average that a coach does not involve himself in "orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping practices" for his own needs. You are ludicrous. I wouldn't have picked wilful stupidity as a concomitant deficiency but your arguments have persuaded me.
With respect to the infractions of the rules, I accepted the AAA panel findings.
With respect to the intent and purpose behind those infractions, including "orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping practices", I not only considered it, I accepted the AAA panel findings.
With respect to who benefitted, and who did not benefit, again, I accepted the AAA panel findings.
If you can find back any statement from me which contradicts the AAA panel findings, please point it out with specificity, and I will reconsider my statement.
Sorry, I can't believe for a second that Salazar is stupid enough to dope his athletes.
I believe that his philosophy was more in line with Team Sky in cycling - and that is to push the absolute boundaries of the rules.
philmw44 wrote:
Sorry, I can't believe for a second that Salazar is stupid enough to dope his athletes.
I believe that his philosophy was more in line with Team Sky in cycling - and that is to push the absolute boundaries of the rules.
Then that's still doping, but trying to do it legally or get away with it. But he broke the rules. And got caught.
philmw44 wrote:
Sorry, I can't believe for a second that Salazar is stupid enough to dope his athletes.
Some say the same thing about Aden. Lol.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So Salazar is only a doping cheat because of what he did years ago as an athlete and not for the violations he has committed as a coach. You dismiss these latter violations as some sort of technical infractions of the rules. Yet that is exactly what all offences are - however serious: they are technical infractions of the rules. Furthermore, you refuse to consider the intent and purpose behind those infractions, when it is obvious to anyone with an IQ approaching the average that a coach does not involve himself in "orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping practices" for his own needs. You are ludicrous. I wouldn't have picked wilful stupidity as a concomitant deficiency but your arguments have persuaded me.
With respect to the infractions of the rules, I accepted the AAA panel findings.
With respect to the intent and purpose behind those infractions, including "orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping practices", I not only considered it, I accepted the AAA panel findings.
With respect to who benefitted, and who did not benefit, again, I accepted the AAA panel findings.
If you can find back any statement from me which contradicts the AAA panel findings, please point it out with specificity, and I will reconsider my statement.
If you are supporting the panel's findings it has made a most unfortunate job of explaining itself. I'm waiting for you to argue that a 4-year ban is not in fact a 4-year ban, it is a "temporary involuntary absence from the sport for a coach's misinterpretation of the rules regarding athletes' nutritional supplements". Fortunately, no one ingested anything he devised, despite dramatic transformations in athletes' performances likely derived from pharmaceuticals he didn't give them.
You are flailing and bloviating because you haven't actually read the report.
rekrunner wrote:
You are flailing and bloviating because you haven't actually read the report.
I missed 44 pages but is Rekrunner on here still defending a known doper?
It appears to be a common trait to comment on what you have not read.
Subway Surfers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You are flailing and bloviating because you haven't actually read the report.
I missed 44 pages but is Rekrunner on here still defending a known doper?
Subway Surfers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You are flailing and bloviating because you haven't actually read the report.
I missed 44 pages but is Rekrunner on here still defending a known doper?
That and these paid Nike trolls running damage control for Sleazy Sal. Lol.
No. Not that.
Here's the deal wrote:
That and these paid Nike trolls running damage control for Sleazy Sal. Lol.
Yes. Using rekrunner's "there is no evidence" joke all over again. LOL.
Still waiting for the ridiculo "no case to answer" and "nothing to see here" though.
Interestingly, while Canova chimed in on the lastest Moroccan EPO positive, he remained silent on drug cheat Salazar. Fortunately Nike completely dismantled the cheating NOP.
rekrunner wrote:
You are flailing and bloviating because you haven't actually read the report.
Tell me which part of the report says Salazar hasn't been given a 4-year ban for doping violations?
Subway Surfers wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You are flailing and bloviating because you haven't actually read the report.
I missed 44 pages but is Rekrunner on here still defending a known doper?
That's what he does. Carved out quite a niche.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Subway Surfers wrote:
I missed 44 pages but is Rekrunner on here still defending a known doper?
That's what he does. Carved out quite a niche.
No, Rekrunner is more like "Juror 8" (Henry Fonda) in the Hollywood classic "12 Angry Men".
It's quite refreshing to read posts that try to be objective and aren't overly emotional or blinded by preconceptions.
Looks like you forgot the subject of your own conversation.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You are flailing and bloviating because you haven't actually read the report.
Tell me which part of the report says Salazar hasn't been given a 4-year ban for doping violations?
That's good -- it's a lot like that.
Lurker wrote:
No, Rekrunner is more like "Juror 8" (Henry Fonda) in the Hollywood classic "12 Angry Men".
It's quite refreshing to read posts that try to be objective and aren't overly emotional or blinded by preconceptions.