What the Salazar/NOP doping scandal really boils down to

Just curious. How will you explain things when the USADA concludes their investigation and finds that Salazar has not done anything seriously wrong? Maybe some "slap on the wrist" ethical issues but nothing illegal.

A common thread in all of Salazar's responses is that he was constantly vetting what he was doing with the USADA or WADA. At the same time, multiple athletes already have gone to the USADA to air their grievances before this story came out. The USADA did nothing. What does that tell you? Nike just announced it did its own internal review of NOP and found no wrong doing.

We'll see what the USADA investigation finds. But I think you are going to have to aim way higher than Salazar if you sincerely think there is wrongdoing here.

Who cares if Salazar gets a perma-ban. He gets a perma-vacation, that is all. His physicality is long passed away. Mentality, well he never had that. Unless you think warped is having it.

Two consenting adults can do whatsoever they want. The best way to get the max no-detect testosterone into a speedy runner is to rub it in carefully, lastingly, squeezingly, and softly into the runner's marble sack. The skin is thinner there. And, that's the closest spot were the T wants to be. Your coach has to do the rubbing for you cause they are the expert rubber. You're just an amateur and will mess up and get a oops-bad-test letter from the USADA.

Salazar have been playing the T-massage game long enough. It's too weird make sense of. Silver metal? Who cares. Weird is weird.

OK, dismiss the Gouchers for whatever reason. You've got another 15 people making similar claims to theirs. I've followed sports since the late 50s and I have never seen a situation where so many former athletes and associates have suggested that a coach is cheating as is happening here.

Ryan, that's bullshit. Please just think about this as if you're not working backward from the conclusion that Salazar's hands are clean.

The fact that Salazar was open with certain people about doing his tests does not speak to his motivation for doing them. Period. Chronic cheaters and rule-flouters like him are no strangers to covering their own asses.

Assume that Salazar was in fact microdosing at least one of his athletes with testosterone for years. Would it not make perfect sense to generate a record of supposedly messing around with Androgel for some comparatively harmless reason, in the event this athlete failed a drug test?

If I lived in a small town and had a habit of poaching deer or quail or other animals, and knew the cops might suspects as much, I could do one of two things. I could keep pluckin' away and hope to simply not get caught with any stray animal carcasses, or I could wander into the PD one sunny day and tell everyone on the force, "Hey, I've set up my own lighted target-shooting range on my property, so if anyone hears gunshots out there at odd times, that's just me practicing my marksmanship." I could even install such a thing. And if I continued jacklighting deer, if I were found out in the woods at night discharging a 30-ought-6, I could just behave as if I were following through on my earlier claim.

This is not convoluted or far-reaching.

Good one! You have a sense of humor after all.

Wait, didn't you just say that USADA "did nothing"? Now you're saying they're still working on this? How many USADAs are there?

This may seem like an unrelated question, but have you ever consulted a psychic or purchased "male enhancement" products?

Aren't you working "backward" from your conclusion that Salazar is a "chronic cheater and rule flouter"? It's no different. One person is giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has not been proven to be a cheater in any "beyond a reasonable doubt" manner, the other is taking lots of circumstantial evidence and convicting the person.

I don't think he was discussing the tests on his sons. He was talking about the legal, prescribed meds his athletes were on. His point was: Salazar seemed to want make sure that what he was doing was "on the up and up" in many instances, and wasn't taking chances or hiding many of these "gray area" actions. Sure, that doesn't mean there weren't other things he did, which he knew were against the rules, that he would not have mentioned, obviously, to the authorities. But I was simply clarifying what I took RF's meaning to be.

Yes, we know that's EXACTLY what you are doing in this debate.

You sure love analogies, don't you. Yes, what you said is reasonable. But what you are possibly missing is: if the person in your analogy knew his excuse for the gun sounds was strange/suspicious, and would only put more attention on him, why would he tell people about it? It wouldn't help cover his butt, it would bring suspicion on him. Salazar could have easily done the tests on his sons, and simply done the e-mails back and for forth with Dr to have a paper trail to attempt to cover his butt later. But why tell Magness? Why tell others? Telling others didn't cover his butt, it has brought more suspicion on him. So either Salazar is stupid (which I don't think you believe), or he was doing the tests for the reasons he gives.

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

...giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who has not been proven to be a cheater in any "beyond a reasonable doubt" manner, the other is taking lots of circumstantial evidence and convicting the person. ...

Fascinating, meaning your complete lack of legal knowledge. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And if you try it both ways, you find that things that seem bizarre or troubling when you assume (for argument's sake, not as a final "position") Salazar hasn't cheated begin to magically make sense when you assume that he has.

You must be right, actually, because in fact Salazar didn't keep USADA apprised of his Androgel machinations -- those didn't come to light until Magness started talking.

You say that as if it's somehow unreasonable. Take a step back and acknowledge that there is a huge difference between CONVICTING someone (as if anyone here has the means to do such a thing) and thinking, "Based on what I've seen I will be extremely surprised if it's somehow shown that Salazar hasn't been giving at least one of his athletes testosterone." Between his 2006 comments about Gatlin not matching his current stance, his comments about clean runners never being able to reach the very top in this sport, Salazar's own reported conduct surrounding PEDs, etc., etc., you can play the "there's no proof!" card to your heart's content, but you can't reasonably malign those who are rightly skeptical.

Not if he counted on the whole thing somehow being discovered. And he had to tell some people. If he was thinking that there was almost no chance anyone besides Jeffrey Brown would learn what he was up to, he might not have felt a backstory was needed. But if he reckoned that one day people like Magness might find out and be inclined to talk after leaving the program -- and remember, Salazar does not have a history of making lifelong or even long-term allies -- then he'd want a cover story.

It seemd clear that he was banking on people buying the "I'm paranoid guy and more so because of the Gatlin thing" rationale. And in fact, many people have. Some have grown quiet since Salazar's own 2006 words have come back to haunt him, though.

False dichotomy. Your either-or omits a whole range of alternate possibilities. Salazar may not be stupid, but he's certainly cocky and at times careless (as with leaving behind syringes and med vials in multiple hotel rooms and condos). And arrogant enough to think a bullshit cover story like the one he had in his pocket would work, and in the end more than anything else willing to take the risk because of the perceived rewards.

Chill out, I was just asking a question (which still stands btw). And was pointing out a fact that Salazar is asserting that he is always clearing things with the USADA. Therefore a lot of this stuff can be cleared up if the USADA backs check all of Salazar's claims that he got clearance with the USADA.

USADA had no choice but to launch investigation. You have very public allegations and BOTH Salazar and the probublica sources urging the USADA to investigate. Salazar is showing extreme confidence he will be exonerated.

My question stands: What will you think if the USADA exonerates Salazar or gives him a very minor "slap on the wrist"? Are you going to be shocked. Or is it all a part of the more grand conspiracy that Nike controls T&F agencies and has them bend the rules to their interests.

No one is going to be shocked if anyone exonerates Salazar. You know that. People who like what NOP is doing will be happy. People who think it's shady will think that he's covered his tracks well, that the standards for determining guilt have too many loopholes or are too low, that USADA isn't all that effective or is a puppet, etc.

Some of the reason for that reaction would be that people do have a tendency to believe the worst of those they dislike. Some of that reason for that reaction is because it's obvious that NOP pushes the chemical component a long way and that creates suspicion. Everyone knew that Dillinger was a gangster but all he ever could be convicted of was tax evasion.

Some people in this thread seem to sincerely expect the USADA to find some major violations and unethical conduct. btw, Capone was put away for tax evasion. Dillinger was killed outside a movie theater by the FBI. I hope you meant Capone, lol.

HRE wrote:

No one is going to be shocked if anyone exonerates Salazar. You know that. People who like what NOP is doing will be happy. People who think it's shady will think that he's covered his tracks well, that the standards for determining guilt have too many loopholes or are too low, that USADA isn't all that effective or is a puppet, etc.

Some of the reason for that reaction would be that people do have a tendency to believe the worst of those they dislike. Some of that reason for that reaction is because it's obvious that NOP pushes the chemical component a long way and that creates suspicion. Everyone knew that Dillinger was a gangster but all he ever could be convicted of was tax evasion.

My main stated opinion on this subject is that there isn't enough accumulated evidence to show an anti-doping violation has yet occurred. EVERYONE's opinion on the subject is uninformed, and is mainly a reflection of the prejudgement brought into it. The claim was quite specific, "Salazar has had a prescription for Androgel for as long as he's been coaching Rupp." The open letter talks about several medical issues (gonadal, pituitary, thyroid, and adrenal) treated by doctors in the last 25 years, but doesn't indicate any "prescription of Androgel" before 2003. I'm just wondering if there was "specific" evidence for that, or an unintended over-interpretation of what Alberto said in the letter.

It doesn't surprise me you have no idea. If Salazar doped his athletes with his own private stock, before 2009, it was without the dosage knowledge gained from the sabotage test, thereby rendering this "boiled down" claim inapplicable for a major portion of the NOP's existence.

Stay focused. Using supplements, giving massages, sharing a room, are not against the rules. The question is, if these things are uncommon, or otherwise unusual. Is this suspicious? Is Salazar the only coach dabbling with supplements?

So do you agree that the SI article is in fact irrelevant, because substances were not banned, or taken in a banned way? It seems to only support a conspiracy "smoke screen" theory.

See my response to your answer to number 2).

So the conclusion here, is that these 5 (+2) boiled down claims only permit is to THINK that Salazar is doping his athletes from his private stock, and not more. Many already thought that BEFORE the BBC/Propublica reports.

This is odd. Although you've continuously adopted a contradictory tone, you seem here to completely agree with me, when I say that more evidence needs to come out. If USADA has the same set of concerns that have been made public, there is no case against Alberto, and Rupp. The only thing USADA could possibly do is ban his two sons. I don't assume USADA doesn't have more evidence -- I say that more evidence is required to move past the existing public allegations.

If there is more evidence, then you should list it. I think you cannot for two reasons.

I'm not skeptical at all of his accusers. I don't think they are lying, and don't doubt that they are concerned. The issue is that these concerns are not doping, yet here we are in a thread called "NOP doping scandal". Imagine Kara crying "Alberto asked me to use 4 scoops of Gatorade powder, instead of 3 like it's written on the can. I loved him like a f-a-a-a-ther (sniff)". Cytomel is not banned, so USADA will do nothing for Kara, maybe except recommend a rule change. Maybe Aberto committed "mail fraud" and "impersonating a doctor", but this too is outside USADA's jurisdiction.

HRE wrote:

No one is going to be shocked if anyone exonerates Salazar.

Victor Conte was accused on 42 counts. After negotiating, only 2 was left, one was "money laundering" of a few hundred dollars.

If some government big shot wanted to take down Salazar, they could get him on circumventing customs, giving testosterone to his sons, and other minor things. But Salazar is not Conte, and Nike is not Balco. No one with any power wants to take down Nike.

Sleazy will go free.

Yeah, Capone. After I posted I thought it wasn't Dillinger. Thanks. I really don't expect one outcome or the other from all this but I do think there's enough to merit an investigation.

What you're stating is a fact is not even close to a fact. All you know is that Salazar has appeared to be up front about certain (legal) things, yet you are asserting that if he's cheating, he's "clearing" those things with USADA as well. It should be obvious to you why that's utterly mindless, but apparently it's not.

That's no different, and therefore no more intelligent, than saying that Salazar's letter both contained nothing but honest information and omitted nothing of consequence. The first idea is demonstrably false, the second inane.

You say this as though USADA is only looking into the allegations as a formality because of some random shit that landed on the BBC channel and an Internet site. Like you don't have two dozen people alleging that the guy is way, way out of line.

As far as Salazar's supposed confidence level, are you really that easily fooled? Can you imagine a scenario in which someone facing what he is facing would evince anything other than total confidence? He has nothing to lose by jettisoning such bluster.

Funny, that's not the same question you asked before. Putting an "if" in place of the "when" produces a qualitatively very different query.

Also "exonerates" and "very minor slap on the wrist" are very different things as well, with the latter including a large range of things.

Therefore, you're question is as goofy as the rest of what you've tossed out there. For what my opinion's worth to you, which should be zero given your strident disagreement with me at every turn, I will be shocked if Salazar emerges from this unscathed.

Right, because there are so many other treatments for hypogonadism besides medical (drug) therapy. And in case my sarcasm eludes you, anyone saying he's been treated by physicians for an endocrine condition involving underproduction of a hormone or hormones is saying he has received a prescription for that hormone or hormones. From the beginning.

Again, you're not merely being objective, refusing to "convict" on the basis of limited evidence. You are saying a great many blandly foolish things in an effort to deflect at all costs the idea that Salazar has engaged in bona fide doping.

As a result I won't waste time with you, except to highlight one example of silly thinking on your part.

You say this as if the idea that he'd already been conducting such tests is completely far-fetched. Or that he wouldn't have been willing to use testosterone on his athletes without such a test, based on knowledge gained from his own days as a doped athlete. Steve Magness is the one who brought up the 2009 tests. He was aware of those, but he wasn't around for the vast majority of the NOP's lifetime to date.

Christ, you are a nonpareil pedant. Who gives a shit what the thread title is?

Anyway, you really, really think that the Gouchers et al. would come forward with their accusations if all they had to go on was what the public has been made aware of so far? Really? That not one of the coupla dozen or so accusers ever stopped to think, "Well, technically all of the thyroid-inhalers-prednisone shit's within the rules"? How generous of you, though, to observe that these people weren't all lying -- they're all just wrong!

Unreal. And in a grim kind of way, hilarious.

Whether you know it or not I think you answered my question.

You have no questions. You can't handle the truth. Without superboi Rupp to cheer for what will you do with the rest of your life? That is your question.

Well, besides Androgel, there are patches, there is testosterone injection, there are pellets. Maybe he started treatment with tribulus terrestris. When I ask "are you sure?", I'm only trying to establish the level of certainty. We have written evidence that the Androgel prescriptions, filled at his local pharmacy, started in 2003. You might eventually be right that the Androgel prescriptions started earlier, maybe even as early as 1990, but the year of diagnosis of hypogonadism, and the nature of the treatment, if any, before 2003, cannot not found in the open letter, or its exhibits.I'm not deflecting at all costs the idea that Alberto has engaged in bona fide doping with his athletes. It's certainly remains a possibility that I have never excluded or denied. The key word for me is "IDEA". At this point in time, it is still only an idea, with a flimsy, if not non-existent, basis: an ambigous notation on a blood chart (where "testosterone" is an adjective, not a noun), and an unauthorized testosterone experiment on non-athletes. It's an idea that relies on prejudice and speculation to fill in the knowledge gaps. Even you seem to agree, clinging onto a hope that USADA has the "real" evidence that couldn't be made public yet. You think it's more likely that the BBC/Propublica, and all their sources, played their low cards first. If and when more evidence comes to light, I'm more than ready to escalate this idea past the baseless allegation phase.I think the reason you are wasting your time, and ours, is that you think things only start to make sense if we presume, for the sake of argument, micro-dosing testosterone, and doping. This presumption of guilt solves a problem for you that I don't have with a presumption of innocence. And it gets you past an evidential barrier that would be a hindrance with a presumption of innonence.Calling something a "doping scandal" is a serious accusation, that tarnishes careers and reputations, and one that shouldn't be made lightly. If no more evidence comes to light, and USADA does not sanction anyone, then this whole "scandal" will have unnecessarily and irreparably damaged innocent people. There is a reason USADA refuses to comment on on-going investigations. Mo wasn't even implicated, in fact he was explicitly excluded from suspicion in the BBC Panorama documentary, yet he already lost significant income related to the Birmingham Grand Prix.Since you asked, I really, really think that the Gouchers, and everyone else, have gone to USADA with their concerns about abusing non-banned prescription asthma and thyroid medication, and prescription pain-killers, and potential IV TUE abuse, and unusual lab tests. Anything more would be pure fabrication on my part. Kara Goucher is on the verge of tears because of a handwritten bottle of Cytomel, and not a personal Androgel massage. They believe that if what Salazar is doing, and the way he is doing it, is NOT against the rules, well then it should be. I believe they all have stories just like Lauren Fleshman's. I think Vin Lananna's description is all there is to it: it's probably not illegal, but he would do it differently.I don't mind being wrong now, if new evidence comes out later that contradicts me. But it would be foolish to change my mind now on pure hope.My prediction today for the future, if anything:- USADA/WADA push to tighten rules on "non-banned" prescription drugs, or IVs.- Salazar gets reprimanded for some "non anti-doping" crimes like dispensing prescription drugs without a valid prescription or trafficking prescription drugs across international borders.