Time Bomb wrote:
Wow, all this crap comes out and you think they are clean?
When did you start doubting Lance Armstrong?
When other athletes started saying "Lance asked me to dope," or "I saw Lance dope." Even though supposedly 17 (or is it 20?, does anyone actually know?) athletes and staff members have come forward, nobody is coming close to those statements.
n00f wrote:
The worlds biggest cleanest cycling team are known for the same things Alberto has admitted to, marginal gains. From what I know about dopers, which is much more than I want to know; those who dope the most are not at the top, those who 'take the most' are even further down the line. This has been the impact of introducing marginal gains to sport. Clean athletes can finally win, clean athletes can finally compete. I don't believe Alberto or Rupp to have done any wrong in track and field.
If you want someone to hang, if you want to find the drugs there are some very VERY obvious dopers competing today, they're just not winning.
Exactly. The only way to best dopers, who burn bright and fizzle out? Spend 10 years getting better every year doing every single small thing right. This is what salazar does, and what he is getting hung out for. Others want to believe they are "working just as hard" and that "they must be doping". Thats why everyone hates Salazar. He beats them by outworking them and outsmarting them in every way possible. And hes an a@@hole but thats another matter.
rojo wrote:
WADA could care less about you taking prescription drugs without a prescription as long as they aren't performance enhancing.
That is because federal agencies already have laws for taking prescription drugs without a prescription. WADA doesn't need to be involved with this. The USADA should coordinate efforts with federal authorities, and also the illegal shipping of prescription drugs internationally, and domestically.
ya..... wrote:
...and that "they must be doping".
Once again you proved you are a Brit. You'll be gone as soon as Freuds moves you to another project.
*Frued*
Sorry, chap.
Look Closer wrote:
facts > passion wrote:But it's hard to believe he suspected any wrongdoing with the pills in the book.
You aren't paying close enough attention. Sal's emails tell about sending nasal spray in a book while they were in England. Magness's report to the BBC was about sending pills in a book while they were in Germany.
They are two separate incidents. And we also know Alberto uses this trick all the time to bypass customs because he admits it.
Sleazy Sal is trying to pull another fast one here, just like he tried on Goucher & the prescription bottle - that happened in March, but he produced an email from August referring to a SEPARATE INCIDENT to distract away from what he did in the first one. No different here.
BS. The other incident has nothing to do with this. Salazar talks about both of them. Magness must have understood that the pills he saw weren't dope. Otherwise he's an idiot. He didn't even counter Salazar's comments.
Or is it "Freud"?
I'm not a Brit, so please excuse me for not knowing the spelling of your firm.
rojo wrote:
Mac Feet wrote:Thanks for the responses. I think that is a good way to look at it. To be fair in the same regard, while its not fair to get mad at Magness for not having more evidence, do you think it is fair to get mad at him for manipulating his testimony? Based on everything that has been presented by both sides, it seems to be far, far more probable than not that he lied in his testimony. He acted like he had no clue about why Rupp's urine sample was being tested by the Meyo clinic, claimed he found pills (which were Z pills in a magazine and nasal spray in the book) instead of the nasal spray, and may have been untruthful about his departure from NOP. All of the actual evidence that has been provided suggest that he was dishonest in those areas. Can't we be upset or question him for lying?
I think much of this idea that "Magness is lying' is based on false conclusions people made when reading the articles or by not reading them and Salazar's response closely.
1. Magness didn't act like he had no clue why the stuff was sent to the Mayo Clinic. Magness knew they didn't have a TUE and didn't want it in his system. He reported that and Alberto confirmed it.
I people are simply making way more of this based on the way it was written initially. I think you probably read too much into the line below of, "They did that to see if it tested positive," was an allegation of wrongdoing.
ProPublica wrote:
International anti-doping rules allow for expedited (and even retroactive) exemptions when acute medical problems need treatment, but Salazar and Rupp were unable to procure an exemption, Magness says. Rupp took the medication anyway, and while he flew ahead to Germany, Magness was directed by Salazar to fly to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota to have a bottle of Rupp's urine tested. "They did that to see if it tested positive," Magness says. "I hand-carried Galen's urine through the airport, onto the plane, and into my rental car and drove to this clinic and dropped it off, and that was it." He never learned the result of the test.
International anti-doping rules allow for expedited (and even retroactive) exemptions when acute medical problems need treatment, but Salazar and Rupp were unable to procure an exemption, Magness says. Rupp took the medication anyway, and while he flew ahead to Germany, Magness was directed by Salazar to fly to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota to have a bottle of Rupp's urine tested. "They did that to see if it tested positive," Magness says. "I hand-carried Galen's urine through the airport, onto the plane, and into my rental car and drove to this clinic and dropped it off, and that was it."
Magness and Salazar's stories are the same. It's just a matter of whether you think that's pushing the envelope or not.
Moving on to the pills. I will admit when I read Alberto's statement, I had the same thought as you. 'Wow, did Magness lie about the pills in the book?'
But not he did not. People simply misread what was written by both Epstein and Salazar. Here is what was written about the book by Epstein.
Epstein wrote:
Magness then flew to Dusseldorf to meet Rupp prior to the race. Soon after he arrived, Rupp told him he wasn't feeling well. Magness called Salazar, who he says told him to expect a package. Two days later, a box arrived at his hotel room. Inside it he found a paperback thriller. Confused, he flipped it open. A section of the pages had been hollowed out to form a compartment into which two pills were taped. "At that point," Magness says, "my mind was like, this is stuff you see in movies, this is extremely strange." He handed the pills to Rupp, who he says promptly swallowed them and laughed off the clandestine packaging as typical Salazar antics. Magness, who had been on the job less than two months, says he never asked what the pills were. At the end of the week, Rupp placed fourth in the 5K in Germany. Neither Salazar nor Rupp responded to questions about the hollowed-out book containing pills.
Everything up there is totally true. It's totally true that's it's extremely strange to get a package in a hollowed out book. It's totally true that Magness called Salazar to say he was sick. Epstein simply didn't mention that Magness did get some pills he was expecting before getting something he wasn't expecting. What he mentioned was that he wasn't expecting was the stuff in the hollowed out book.
Go back and re-read Albertos' response. The hollowed out book section comes after the other stuff with documentation that Magness expected it.
Mac Feet wrote:
ebruary 13, 2011: Magness emailed that Galen’s cough was worse after running and he has modified his workout to allow time for the “cough and such to settle down.” He further advised that Galen was on cough medicine and paracetamol. See Exhibit 7.
Galen emailed me the name of his cough medicine and that he and Magness did a USADA drug search to make sure it was ok. See Exhibit 8.
I emailed Galen that the FedEx package with the Z-Pak had cleared customs and he should receive it by noon the next day. I advised him to confirm that the front desk had both Galen’s name and Magness’ name on file so they would accept the package. See Exhibit 9.
February 14, 2011: Galen emailed that he received the Z-Pak and took the first dose at about noon. See Exhibit 9.
Magness emailed: “Got the medicine. No problems.” See Exhibit 10.
I sent Galen his Nasonex prescription. I put it inside a paperback book.
Reading that, it seems as if Alberto admits to sending additional medication after Magness expected it. And what he sent was in a hollowed out book.
But good questions as I had the 2nd part in my head for a brief while myself.
Thanks for the thorough explanation. Everything that you wrote make sense and that does make me look at Magness with less skepticism now. Also, it's clear you're looking at these things quite carefully.
hayward102 wrote:
Salazar's personal attacks were the worst part of his response and uncalled for. Magness, for the most part, didn't hit below the belt and deserves credit for that.
What both Magness and Epstein are both missing though is that confirmation of events occurring with no regard to context isn't support for their statements.
Does Magness expect us to believe his point about the Mayo clinic/Dusseldorf story was to show the lengths Salazar went to to avoid violating anti-drug rules?
Does he want us to believe his point about the pills and book was to show Salazar violated customs/drug shipping rules by shipping legal medication?
I know this argument cuts both ways, but I don't understand those, like Magness, who dismiss the sabotage basis for the testosterone test. Given we know Salazar is somewhat obsessive, paranoid, and a mad scientist type is it impossible to believe he might not explore a sabotage scenario? That could be used to support other non-legal scenarios, but I don't see how his explanation can be dismissed outright knowing what we do about his personality.
You may be surprsied, but think this is a very good post and fair statement for the most part. A great post that deserves to be considered.
My response is Magness told his story. The BBC and ProPublica edited and put it on tape /Internet . It came as part of larger BBC show on doping.
They never drew conclusions from their report. They simply reported it and the public concludes.
I think people are missing the point on focusing on just Magness just cause he didn't hide without using his name. 17 people have come forward.
Montesquieu wrote:
Yes, Rojo, Epstein is an investigative reporter; and yes, both with and without Selena Roberts, he has done important work in the past. But that he has, doesn't mean his work in the case at hand is good--indeed, I think it's part investigation and part advocacy, and the latter often undermines the former. Sy Hersh did extraordinary investigatory work at one point in his life. His most recent work on Bin Laden, as figures such as Peter Bergen show, did not live up to the high standards that he himself helped establish. Everything else notwithstanding, one thing that troubles me is how quickly he responded to Salazar. Anyone whose trade and craft is careful analytical thinking and writing takes time to construct any response to important criticism--and Salazar's response, however well or poorly it was constructed, is important. Second, at the end of his response, he tosses in gratuitously a remark of Areson that Salazar dispensed prescription drugs like candy. I'd like to know from Epstein whether he pressed her on that assertion and whether he thinks it at all credible. It struck me as absolutely incredible, and prejudicial. That causes me to doubt things in his original article. However, more to the point, as we are finding with all the responses and counter-responses, the same facts admit of various explanations. In science, often we are not interested in the overt facts: we are interested in how to explain them. The latter is very hard to do. Unfortunately, many on this board are not careful thinkers--duh, a bit obvious, no? But for those of us who are old, and go back to the days, first, of Ryun and Lindgren, and then Shorter and Billy R., but then the dark days of distance running in America when we couldn't even get one marathoner to meet the standard, and then we see what Salazar has done for running, including bringing Schumacher to Oregon, amazing things really (and if you don't realize the extent of his extraordinary influence in American distance running, both as a runner and a coach, you need to read a little bit), if he is guilty of cheating and malfeasance, the standards of proof must be pretty high, and it will be a very sad day in our sport, and not an occasion to celebrate, if indeed USADA and/or WADA find such to be so. In this regard, one should watch the film "12 Angry Men"--the original 1957 version.
I liked your post.
1)I don't have a problem with Epstein responding quickly. That being said, i'm sure him writing a running story is something that's much different than baseball. He's a fan of the sport so emotions get involved so you raise a good point there.
2) I don't give a rats ass about what Salazar has done for American running.
The standards for him are the same for everyone. If anything, I'd say he should be operating on a much higher plane than everyone else as he's the face of distance running in this country. To whom much is given, much is expected.
You act like him bringing Schumacher to Oregon is some great thing. You do realize the two men now can't stand each other, nearly came to physical blows, etc.
Let's get the BTC under oath with a pledge from Nike they won't lose their contracts and ask them what they about NOP and whether they are clean or not. Did you listen to Derrick's interview last night?
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6586140He clearly thinks they've crossed the ethical line.
I guess you can chalk it off as jealousy and some will but you also could say, they are right there, they know what humans are capable of, etc.
3) If Salazar is convicted,I would celebrate it for what it meant. To me, it would be a watershed moment in the doping fight. No one is untouchable. If Lance can go down, we've already proven that. IT would once and for all show to the TFN world that the 1970s80s and 90s over. No more wink wink.
I would be saddened for him personally that he felt the need to do it.
rojo wrote:
Salazar is clearly someone looking for a non training edge in running - whether that's drugs (definitely legal, perhaps illegal), treadmills, altitude tents, at all times. We know he'll use any legal means to win (masks, changing the location of races at the last minute, getting people DQd for non-infractions, etc).
One question. Ive seen several people mentioning the altitute tents as something negative Salazars athletes does, why is that? Phelps entire bedroom is an altitude room. Cabral slept in an altitute tent at college. Does anyone really care about this?
ya..... wrote:
Spend 10 years getting better every year doing every single small thing right. This is what salazar does
"Doing every single small thing right":
- Testing banned substances on son to determine detectable dose.
- Pressuring healthy athletes to illegally take other people's prescriptions.
- Illegally transporting controlled substances internationally.
- Fraudulently sabotaging standardized medical tests to gain TUEs for asthma.
- Giving a 16 year-old "testosterone medication" and not remembering the name of it. (Riiight.)
In 2002, the Oregon Project came under scrutiny from the United States Anti-Doping Agency, which formed a think tank to discuss the ethics of the high altitude house. The Agency's Senior Managing Director, Larry Bowers said, "The argument for altitude rooms is that they make up for those athletes that can't live high. What they don't take into account is that people living high don't get the benefits of training low." Alberto Salazar was confident the Anti-Doping Agency would ultimately approve the altitude house, saying that it's no different from other legal scientific advances like heart rate monitors and sports drinks.
In 2006, the subject was revisited more thoroughly by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which claimed that it could be equivalent to blood doping and therefore they should be banned.
rojo wrote:
Yes Ill explain what people mean when people say "Epstein never made those allegations."
A large part of Salazar's rebuttal was spent denying things never alleged by David Epstein. It was very clever by Salazar.
Salazar's rebuttal spent a long time talking about prednisone. For example he wrote:
Salazar wrote:The claims that Galen has been on prednisone continuously since he was 15 are absolutely false. The BBC and ProPublica “reporters” were informed that these allegations were completely false, and they should not have printed them. Printing false statements to harm Galen is irresponsible journalism that damaged an innocent athlete’s reputation.
But Epstein never said Rupp was on prednisone continuously since he was 15. Read the article and hit control F for prednisone:
https://www.propublica.org/article/former-team-members-accuse-coach-alberto-salazar-of-breaking-drug-rules
I do think this claim was generally made. Epstein's response said Salazar was addressing claims "that neither ProPublica or the BBC made...The story did not report allegations of continuous use nor cite the age 15."
This BBC article
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32883946has quotes from Stuart Eagon discussing training with Rupp in high school and the article clearly presents prednisone as a potential sinister performance enhancing drug and states I have heard from various sources that Rupp has used prednisone regularly, but he has asthma and allergies which could account for its use."
Yes, the age 15 was not mentioned, but high school was, and the claim was that he used it "regularly" not "continuously", but to claim that Salazar was addressing made up accusations about prednisone doesn't ring true to me.
hayward102 wrote:...
Another Brit Freud PR drone exposes themselves. Can not you blokes spell, write?
rojo wrote:
hayward102 wrote:Salazar's personal attacks were the worst part of his response and uncalled for. Magness, for the most part, didn't hit below the belt and deserves credit for that.
What both Magness and Epstein are both missing though is that confirmation of events occurring with no regard to context isn't support for their statements.
Does Magness expect us to believe his point about the Mayo clinic/Dusseldorf story was to show the lengths Salazar went to to avoid violating anti-drug rules?
Does he want us to believe his point about the pills and book was to show Salazar violated customs/drug shipping rules by shipping legal medication?
I know this argument cuts both ways, but I don't understand those, like Magness, who dismiss the sabotage basis for the testosterone test. Given we know Salazar is somewhat obsessive, paranoid, and a mad scientist type is it impossible to believe he might not explore a sabotage scenario? That could be used to support other non-legal scenarios, but I don't see how his explanation can be dismissed outright knowing what we do about his personality.
You may be surprsied, but think this is a very good post and fair statement for the most part. A great post that deserves to be considered.
My response is Magness told his story. The BBC and ProPublica edited and put it on tape /Internet . It came as part of larger BBC show on doping.
They never drew conclusions from their report. They simply reported it and the public concludes.
I think people are missing the point on focusing on just Magness just cause he didn't hide without using his name. 17 people have come forward.
Valid points Rojo. I realize I look at claims against Salazar and Rupp through a particular lens of wanting to believe they are innocent. I hope that does not mean that I am blind, but as I've read more statements last night and this morning, I'm realizing that almost everyone looks at both sides of this debate with some level of bias.
I agree with you that it is important for these things to come out and for there to be discussion about them. Clearly there is a lot of passion on both sides. My conclusion is we aren't talking about doping, as I would define it. However, are we talking about playing loose with prescription drugs? Are we talking about too much Dr. Salazar? Maybe, and I don't think Salazar has addressed these issues adequately. Wither it is cheating, or a grey area, if we don't know what we're talking about it is hard to have a discussion, so it is important that things are out in the open. As long as people aren't convicted by concerns/accusations, getting information out there and allowing for due process is always a good thing.
rojo wrote:But the reason why I get passionate is because Steve is doing something courageous and getting slammed by many on here and Alberto.
I don't see him as courageous at all. At the very best Magness was disingenuous in terms of allowing a very distorted picture to be painted in the documentary. Maybe he bought in a little too much into your idea that he could be a "hero" in bringing down Salazar, because it's been pretty convincingly demonstrated that he's shaded a lot of his testimony.
There's nothing at all wrong with Magness talking to USADA - I fully applaud that. But the allure of being a heroic star in a tv documentary seems to have gotten the better of him at least in this instance.
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
ya..... wrote:Spend 10 years getting better every year doing every single small thing right. This is what salazar does
"Doing every single small thing right":
- Testing banned substances on son to determine detectable dose. to test sabotage as stated by epstein
- Pressuring healthy athletes to illegally take other people's prescriptions. only alleged case of this proven false with evidence.
- Illegally transporting controlled substances internationally. true but has nothing to do with allegations and was explained rather than denied.
- Fraudulently sabotaging standardized medical tests to gain TUEs for asthma. proven false given a TUE is not even necessary.
- Giving a 16 year-old "testosterone medication" and not remembering the name of it. (Riiight.) multiple sources state this had nothing to do with salazar including galen and his mother.
ya..... wrote:
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:"Doing every single small thing right":
- Testing banned substances on son to determine detectable dose. to test sabotage as stated by epstein
- Pressuring healthy athletes to illegally take other people's prescriptions. only alleged case of this proven false with evidence.
- Illegally transporting controlled substances internationally. true but has nothing to do with allegations and was explained rather than denied.
- Fraudulently sabotaging standardized medical tests to gain TUEs for asthma. proven false given a TUE is not even necessary.
- Giving a 16 year-old "testosterone medication" and not remembering the name of it. (Riiight.) multiple sources state this had nothing to do with salazar including galen and his mother.
Nothing proven, just idiotic excuses given, and most are taking the bait...suckers! Can't wait for the TRUTH to be known...
ya..... wrote:
I work for Matthew Freud. Our firms makes 40million pounds per year. We have 200 employees who are experts in web-manipulation to get our client's the results they need.
LOL ... Brit PR drone. Were you part of Freud's 'talent' team when the firm was caught manipulating public website content on behalf of their clients? Do you know what wikiscanner is/was? The Frued firm learned to use VPN after that fiasco.