Alberto Salazar’s 4-Year Ban is Now Lifted. Does He Start Coaching Overseas?

1996 Runner's World interview: Salazar, Alberto, and Mary Slaney. "The Secrets of Mary Slaney." Runner's World, June 1996, pp. 54-58. Mary: "I've learned a lot from Alberto about training. He's a great coach."
2000 Sports Illustrated interview: Bosh, Mark. "Mary Slaney: In the Name of the Game." Sports Illustrated, August 7, 2000, pp. 76-82. Mary: "Alberto is a brilliant coach. He knows how to get the best out of his athletes."
2015 ESPN interview: Fainaru, Dan, and Juliet Macur. "Alberto Salazar's Methods Under Scrutiny." ESPN, February 22, 2015. Mary: "Alberto is one of the best coaches in the world. He's taught me so much about training and competing.""Mary Slaney's Coach Speaks Out About Her Doping Ban: 'She Was Betrayed.'" Runner's World, March 1, 2018. Dellinger: "Mary talked to Alberto all the time. She respected him and trusted him."

Dellinger's quote in Runner's World provides evidence that Slaney had a close relationship with Salazar and that she valued his opinion. This is relevant to the discussion of whether or not Salazar coached Slaney, as it suggests that Slaney was open to his influence.
I concede that this quote does not explicitly state that Salazar was Slaney's coach. However, it's certainly reasonable that the fact that they talked "all the time" suggests that Salazar had a significant influence on Slaney, whether or not he was officially her coach.

Circling back to your argument above, the statement "But again -- so what? None of your definitions suggest coaching means doping. The main point is that any suggestion of the coach doping her is pure unfounded speculation and innuendo" is categorically false.

While coaching does not necessarily mean doping, it is a significant factor in the context of Mary Slaney and Alberto Salazar. Slaney herself admitted to consulting with Salazar on her training, and her coach, Bill Dellinger, confirmed that she talked to Salazar "all the time."

This evidence suggests that Salazar had a significant influence on Slaney's training methods and supplement regimen. It is therefore entirely possible that Salazar could have doped Slaney, even if he did not explicitly force her to do so.

The fact that Salazar is known for his acceptance of doping measures to improve performance further strengthens the case that he may have doped Slaney. Salazar has been accused of using a variety of questionable and unethical methods to train his athletes, including blood doping, testosterone injections, and thyroid medication.

In addition, it is important to note that the reporters from the BBC, ProPublica, and Runner's World did not simply attribute their claim that Salazar was Slaney's coach to unnamed sources. To go to print with their editions, they based their reporting on a variety of evidence, including interviews with Slaney herself, her teammates, and her coaches.

It is also worth noting that Slaney denied that Salazar was her coach in a 2015 interview. However, this interview took place after Salazar had already been accused of doping athletes. It is possible that Slaney was trying to protect herself from these allegations by denying that Salazar was her coach.

Overall, the evidence strongly suggests that Alberto Salazar may have doped Mary Slaney. This is based on the following factors:

- Slaney herself admitted to consulting with Salazar on her training.
- Dellinger, confirmed that she talked to Salazar "all the time."
-Salazar is known for his acceptance of doping measures to improve performance.
- The reporters from the BBC, ProPublica, and Runner's World based their reporting on a variety of evidence, including interviews with Slaney herself, her teammates, and her coaches.
- Slaney denied that Salazar was her coach in a 2015 interview, after Salazar had already been accused of doping athletes.

While it is impossible to say for certain whether or not Salazar doped Slaney, the circumstantial evidence is very strong. It is therefore irresponsible to dismiss the suggestion of doping as "pure unfounded speculation and innuendo."

Does safesport not allow him to attend as a spectator? I couldn't find that anywhere, but maybe I missed it.

Man, four years flew by.

The rounding error for 11:1 comes from "too funny", but sure, correct me and not him/her/them.

You can presume 0 (ZERO) had a ratio of 11.6, but that would require seeing all the data that hasn't been made public. Otherwise that's just one more personal presumption. We only saw her data, as she was one of the few with the resources to challenge the tests scientifically.

But now that we know a lot more about how unreliable the T/E test was back in 1996, the 11.6:1 ratio becomes rather meaningless without more data, if the Epitestosterone excretion was suppressed due to a combination of a variety of factors, including birth control, and the day of the menstrual cycle, and the T and E values are so low, that they are at the limit of ability to detect it.

Since Slaney's conviction, anti-doping labs now have to confirm these high ratios with a GC/MS and a GC/C/IRMS test, often (84.6% of T/E above 6.0 and 94.5% of T/E above 4.0) finding the high values were in fact Normally elevated.

This not me "trolling", but the publicly available conclusions from the anti-doping researchers creating the tests.

Mods removed my post that mentioned that Athletics West has had multiple reputable people come forward about doping in the program. Go find the Canadian Ben Johnson documentary, that's a fun watch with one of the AW admins spilling the beans. One of the moderators here (hmmm, I wonder who) even admitted to taking steroids while on the team.

Anyway, Salazar was on that team, he coached Decker while on that team, and NOP was the spiritual successor to that team.

I cannot agree with all of your factors, nor that the evidence strongly suggests that Alberto Salazar doped Mary Slaney, nor that the circumstantial evidence is very strong.

In the very best case, even if Salazar was a coach, and helped coach Mary Slaney, as a great coach and mentor, this does not translate to doping by any definition of coach. That is just wishful thinking that I have to reject as baseless innuendo. It is not a significant factor in the context of Mary Slaney and Alberto Salazar.

After seeing some of the related research, I can't even agree that the T/E ratio of 11.6:1 is strong evidence of Slaney doping, as we lack the absolute values of "E", scientifically known to be suppressed by birth control and other factors (and for that matter, the value of "T"), and the results of the aforementioned GC tests, which have historically demonstrated that relatively few excessive T/E ratios (16.4% or 1 in 6) were considered positive. We have seen indications that the IOC lab reports showed "T" within normal ranges. These ratios may be useful as a screen to suggest better tests, as was put in place shortly after Slaney's conviction, but in and of themselves, have proven to be poor indications of testosterone doping.

Salazar is known by whom, for acceptance of doping measures to improve performance? Salazar is not known for giving his athletes steroids banned at all times. This looks more like exaggeration and extrapolation and more innuendo by those without any direct knowledge. Being known for something by those with no knowledge doesn't mean that it is true. Note that L-Carnitine and thyroid medication and supplemental products like Testo-boost and Alpha Male are not considered doping by WADA, nor is asthma medication, when taken according to WADA guidelines.

Salazar may have been accused of many things, again by people without direct knowledge, but outside the discussion of Slaney, the number of banned athletes subject to anti-doping rules known to be doped with a banned substance by Salazar is ZERO (also excluding Salazar's own case very late in his career, of himself being treated with hormone replacements, after the "Duel in the Sun").

I'm sure there are athletes somewhere who are prepared to explore every avenue to succeed. Some of them may be less inclined to a digital examination.

I always assumed Salazar was a guy willing to go into the gray zone of doping. But after reading K Goucher's book, man.. that guy has problems and sexual assault isn't something to be glossed over.

EVEN if you remove the hints at doping and the sexual assault I STILL would not want a child of mine to run for Salazar or a coach with his insane level of control.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Is her book any good? Is it worth a read?

Tell me you don't know what hearsay is without telling me you don't know what hearsay is.

You not trolling? Hahahaha that's new. OK I feed you once more.

First, you are the one always desperately trying to "correct" everyone, but when someone mistakenly rounds down from 11.6 instead of up, you not only ignore it instead of correcting it, you repeat it as fact just because it fits your agenda.

Second, you are lying again. We have actually seen lots of data (some of that actually explicitly mentioned by you!), not just hers (so much for your wrong "We only saw her data").

Third, you are doubly wrong with your 84.6% being "normally elevated": a) there was no proof of that; the CIR only showed that it might have been so; b) you yourself noted the tendency of the percentage going down from 4 - 6 to above 6, so obviously it will continue to go down (to an unknown extent) from 6 - 8 and then further from 8 - 10 and 10 - 12. But you had to pretend it's a 84.6% chance, right?

No brand or athlete in the states wants to be associated with him. Good riddance

I was going to say- the sport is better but Rupp isn't.

You still think Shelby doped? Lol.

LetsRun forums suck.

rekkie, your kinda full of gobsh!te, ace. your argument is weak and full of holes. you've been repeatedly backed into a corner and have relied on personal attacks, red herrings, cherry-picked "evidence", and straw man arguments to support your assertions. i think the nit-picking of other posters is just the insecurity you see in yourself.

Come on rekrunner, you are being ridiculous again.

BTW Salazar likely won Comrades in 1994 while doping, it was after he met that geriatrics doctor and spontaneously recovered from chronic overtraining syndrome.

There's a reason why the ban at Doha was so sudden and immediate and dramatic (despite the brojos whining in that documentary) it was four years overdue.

Regardless of safesport, have people even read the final summary?

1.
Trafficking testosterone by giving testosterone to Alex and
Tony Salazar on multiple occasions in 2009 as part of an
excretion study to determine whether and to what degree
application of testosterone was detectable in a urine test
2.
Administration of a prohibited infusion to Steve Magness in 2011
3.
Tampering with doping control, by instructing NOP athletes
not to inform USADA of the L-carnitine infusions Mr. Salazar
had arranged for them, including through an email sent to the
NOP athletes on 5 January 2012
4.
Complicity in trafficking testosterone to Alex and Tony Salazar
(being a lesser-included charge)
5.
Complicity in administration of a prohibited infusion to Steve
Magness in 2011 (being a lesser-included charge)
6.
Attempted tampering by instructing NOP athletes not to inform
USADA of the L-carnitine infusions (being a lesser included charge)
7.
Possession of excessive amounts of testosterone without
acceptable justification and in connection with athletes,
training and/or competition during 2008-2013
8.
Possession of testosterone in furtherance of the testosterone
excretion experiment without acceptable justification and in
connection with athletes, training or competition
9.
Administration and/or attempted administration of additional
over limit L-carnitine infusions to Mr Ritzenhein, Ms. Begay,
Ms. Grunnagle, Mr. Rupp and Mr. Horn during December 2011
through January 2012, and/or complicity in the foregoing infusions
10.
Additional instances of tampering or attempted tampering, including:
• Involvement, knowing USADA was investigating the
L-carnitine infusions, in a scheme to create a false
narrative that the infusions were administered via “special syringes”
• Deceitfully withholding relevant and requested
documents in advance of his 4 February 2016 interview with USADA
• untruthful testimony at his 4 February 2016 interview with USADA
• Submission to USADA by his counsel of a fraudulent
and misleading document labelled “Logged Formula
Worksheet” in March 2017
• Participation by him and his counsel in proffering false
testimony from Shannon Maguadog via affidavit and
hearing testimony
11.
Complicity violations in relation to the tampering or attempted
tampering violations of others, including:
• Complicity in relation to the creation, acquisition,
preservation, alteration, redaction and/or use of the
“Logged Formula Worksheet” (referred to as the “2013
LFW” or the “Unreliable Receipt”);
• Complicity in relation to the creation, acquisition,
preservation and/or use of the 29 June 2015 False Fax
• Complicity in relation to creation, acquisition,
preservation and/or use of the fraudulent affidavit given
by Shannon Maguadog and of his fraudulent testimony,
especially insofar as he repeated Mr. Salazar’s
misleading idea that all of the infusions came from
syringes;
• Complicity in relation to various acts of Dr. Jeffrey
Brown calculated to interfere with improperly, mislead,
obstruct or deter USADA in relation to the L-carnitine
infusions including the surreptitious alteration of
patient records and false testimony by Dr. Brown

Do you really believe in the Gouchers ? PLZ