Breaking: Adam Goucher says he thinks a resolution to the Salazar/NOP doping investigation is "coming very, very soon"

I'm not sure where you want to go with this. This only makes sense in a scenario where the "affair" is considered because there was no good faith or reasonable grounds for the doping allegations, just before closing the investigation. This is why we, the public, can ignore allegations of any alleged affair, because it only reinforces a conclusion that there was no NOP doping -- the only real consideration in a thread about alleged NOP doping.

Whatever. wrote:

Only WADA and USADA can give you a "concrete example".

WADA 'Whistleblowing Program' states the WADA Investigation Department will consider "if the Disclosure is made in good faith and on reasonable grounds". Still, if want to believe they wouldn't consider motive and/or revenge, etc in some cases, that's your prerogative.

Yes, but giving an interview and handing over some emails does not prove cooperation, as you well know.

Yes, NOP athletes who received their "treatment" from the doc on NOP retainer, instructed by the NOP assistant coach, who in turn was instructed by the NOP coach Salazar. Come on...

In theory, correct. But we also know that these data were looked at by a human, as the comments and number of follow-up tests show. And we know that it is quite common that the model does not catch hard core EPO users, see Poistogova's case and Ashenden's 2011 paper.

Yes. It's theory anyway.

Cute. Facts: WADA makes no difference between infusion and injection, and you yourself described it as "infusion" in this very post of yours:

Even if NOP found such a definition in a medical textbook somewhere (based on what?), what would be the point of Salazar's instruction to say no when asked whether one received an infusion? That was an obvious obfuscation, no surprise that you liked that so much.

A much better, cooperative, instruction would be to tell the athletes to please respond:

"No, not an infusion but an injection."

stfu JS wrote:

That is a good point. It has been a while since I read it, but if I remember correctly no evidence or paper work was ever found to indicate amounts (Didn't the doctor refuse to testify?). Is this the evidence the Goucher's hope to come out?

My recollection:

Yes, the Doc refused to testify.

In Magness' case, the violation (1 L in 4 hours) is well documented. The others received injections for a bit over 1 hour, and USADA argues that it's virtually impossible to only get the allowed 50 mL in 1 hour. Extrapolating from Magness' case would imply that they were given 250 mL, but that number has of course a high uncertainty.

In Ritz' case, the paperwork was doctored with, i.e. the original amount was erased, and 45 mL was written over it by hand.

Rupp, Ritz, Tara and Co. have chosen to not estimate the size of their infusion bag(s), to no one's surprise.

A brief summary, talking about these infusions (sic, rek) with more links is here:

Including hilarious statements such as:

"In a note in the USADA report, an official wrote that "Salazar's statement about always getting clearance with Usada 'before doing anything' is both ironic and inaccurate.""

Don't think this is correct. Ritz' copy of his medical records do not have any amount listed for the injection/infusion. Dr. Brown's copy of Ritz' medical records indicate that 45mL was the amount.

casual obsever wrote:

In Ritz' case, the paperwork was doctored with, i.e. the original amount was erased, and 45 mL was written over it by hand.

You would have to make both the link to criminal doping, and the link to NOP.

The "likely doping" in the leaked spreadsheet is not obvious that it comes from the treatment from the NOP doc described in the leaked document.

The treatment from the doc in the leaked document is not doping, per se, involving only non-doping substances, and only a strong belief that there was too much liquid.

As relevant as that may seem, in order to properly interpret "likely doping", it is crucial to know the step in the ABP process that found "likely doping".

We were talking about your conclusory statement "Salazar instructed his athletes to lie", not about WADA or me.

Any day now...very, very soon...

Breaking!

birds chirping wrote:

Any day now...very, very soon...

Did he qualify for BOSTON?

Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.