Craig Engels fires back at Simpson: "Jenny is just brutal... when she gets in front of a camera she gets on a high horse."

Jenny should be mad wrote:

I don't understand why Engels is being so nonchalant about his coach being banned. If it were me, I would be pissed! Jenny also has a right to be mad, cheating should enrage us all! it's ruining our sport. Jenny has had cheaters beat her and get caught later her whole career, it's no wonder she had such a visceral reaction.

Engels reaction is weird and doesn't sit right as genuine with me. If I were a clean athlete, I would be mad as hell....his reaction makes me even more suspicious of him because he is relying on character assassination as a defense, instead of also agreeing that "cheaters should be banned for life" and that cheating is absolutely wrong. He's deflecting the attention away from himself by vilifying someone else, and not really addressing the main issue (an easy tactic to see through). There's some big inconsistencies with his emotional response to this.

helping hand wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If Salazar wasn't doping his athletes then what he did was merely a technical infringement and doesn't affect anyone. But that isn't "orchestrating prohibited doping practices" (the description used by USADA) that would merit a 4-year ban. I think Simpson and quite a few other athletes (Willis, et al) get that. And now the IOC wants more answers to the question of whether Salazar's athletes were involved.

Reasons Salazar received a 4-year ban:

1. L-Carnitine – Administration – Magness Infusion

"The Panel finds that USADA has met its burden of proof to show that there was: 1. A

Prohibited Method, an infusion over the applicable limit; 2. Mr. Magness was an Athlete;

and 3. Respondent, specifically and aggressively, facilitated and otherwise participated

in Mr. Magness’ Use of the Prohibited Method. Respondent has committed a violation

of Article 2.8."

2. Tampering and/or Attempted Tampering - L-Carnitine

"Respondent thus positioned the infusions as injections and forcefully instructed the NOP

Athletes not to disclose them. Respondent’s argument that no doping controls actually

occurred and thus there was no instance where the instructions were followed is of no

relevance to the analysis. The Panel must determine whether Respondent engaged in

what he considered to be intentional or fraudulent conduct to alter results or prevent

normal procedures from occurring."

"A majority of the Panel finds that Respondent did deliberately engage in intentional

conduct to alter results or prevent normal procedures from occurring. He was clearly

operating under the impression that the NOP Athletes could be asked about infusions and

a majority finds he tried to prevent the normal procedure from occurring by instructing

the NOP Athletes that no declaration of use of LCarnitine was required and that they

should deny they had the L-carnitine infusion when asked about infusions when getting

drug tested in or out of competition."

Salazar's emails to Shelly Rodemer regarding the distinction between infusions and injections:

Jan 5, 2012 1:17 pm

Hi Shelly, this Globaldro link and the WADA link regarding

injections and infusions. From reading both of these we will

proceed with the following understanding: As long as an injection

into a vein using a standard needle or butterfly needle is under 50

ml and contains no banned substances, the athlete does not have

to apply for a TUE and should not consider it an infusion, and

should answer “NO”, if asked by drug testers if they’ve had an

infusion in the previous six months.

Is this correct? Thank you! – Alberto Salazar

Jan 5, 2012 2:53 pm

Hi Shelly, I just found this old email where Amy Eichner answered

my earlier question to you regarding whether an injection of under

50 ml should be declared when an athlete is asked when drug

tested. She says below that it’s not necessary so unless USADA’s

stance on this has changed, you don’t need to answer me back.

Thanks for all your help and have a great week! — Alberto

The email Salazar sent to his athletes which has resulted in him being charged with Tampering:

HI Dathan, Alvina, and Galen, For your interest. When asked

about an infusion, you are to say no. LCarnitine and Iron in the

way we have done it is classified as an injection. So no TUE’s and

no declaration needed, not online and not when asked about

infusions when getting drug tested in or out of competition..Thanks

– Alberto

3. Trafficking and/or Attempted Trafficking of Testosterone – Testosterone Experiment

"In any event, even reading the rule as the parties have done, the Panel does not find

Respondent’s conduct of an experiment using his two sons to be such an “acceptable

justification.” Respondent is an Athlete Support Person bound by the provisions of the

Code, the experiment was conducted at the lab of his employer, where his purpose is to

act in his capacity as an Athlete Support Person. In that capacity, there is no acceptable

justification to give any third parties a Prohibited Substance so he can conduct a test

related to his job."

"While it does not appear to the Panel that the Respondent was trying to intentionally

circumvent the applicable Code provisions, he is subject to a high standard under the Code, especially as a coach and an example to his athletes and the Athletics community.

Unfortunately for him, under the plain meaning of the relevant Code provision, as an

Athlete Support Person, Respondent is strictly prohibited from trafficking in testosterone

by giving it to third parties. The Panel therefore must find that he has violated this Article

in the context of the testosterone experiment."

"Here, the Panel found the following violations of the Code:"

See items 1-3 above

"Accordingly, the Panel finds that the period of Ineligibility shall be four years from the

date of this decision."

To your point about Salazar promoting doping and/or directly doping his athletes:

"...the evidence was that once Respondent had contacted USADA on

December 3, 2011 to seek approval of his “research” and Dr. Fedoruk responded very

specifically on December 6, 2011 that the limit of any infusion should be 50 mL,

Respondent instructed Dr. Brown and Mr. Magness that the infusions should in the future

be a maximum of 50 mL. All the contemporaneous email exchanges thereafter indicate

that the original plan was altered and the intention was to comply with the Code."

"There was plenty of credible testimony about Respondent’s intent concerning

athletes at the NOP not having any anti-doping rule violations or taking any

prohibited performance enhancing drugs."

"A majority of the Panel finds that no substantial step was taken by Respondent with

respect to an anti-doping rule violation (i.e. the Use of a Prohibited Method/over volume

infusion) for the NOP Athletes and in fact, Respondent was explicit at the time in taking

whatever steps were necessary to avoid any such conduct."

"A majority of the Panel finds that USADA has not met its burden of proof with respect

to the Attempted Administration charge as it relates to the NOP Athletes."

"...the record as it involves Respondent is clear that he was trying not to have the NOP

Athletes commit an anti-doping rule violation. Rather than assisting, encouraging or

covering up, the record is very clear that Respondent was trying to have the L-carnitine

infusions after Mr. Magness’ be done in compliance with the Applicable Rules."

"a majority of the Panel found the infusions given to the NOP

Athletes were not a Prohibited Method. Respondent was specifically not assisting,

encouraging, aiding or abetting an anti-doping violation,"

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/Salazar-AAA-Decision-1.pdf

The real Helping Hand wrote:

helping hand wrote:

Reasons Salazar received a 4-year ban:

1. L-Carnitine – Administration – Magness Infusion

"The Panel finds that USADA has met its burden of proof to show that there was: 1. A

Prohibited Method, an infusion over the applicable limit; 2. Mr. Magness was an Athlete;

and 3. Respondent, specifically and aggressively, facilitated and otherwise participated

in Mr. Magness’ Use of the Prohibited Method. Respondent has committed a violation

of Article 2.8."

2. Tampering and/or Attempted Tampering - L-Carnitine

"Respondent thus positioned the infusions as injections and forcefully instructed the NOP

Athletes not to disclose them. Respondent’s argument that no doping controls actually

occurred and thus there was no instance where the instructions were followed is of no

relevance to the analysis. The Panel must determine whether Respondent engaged in

what he considered to be intentional or fraudulent conduct to alter results or prevent

normal procedures from occurring."

"A majority of the Panel finds that Respondent did deliberately engage in intentional

conduct to alter results or prevent normal procedures from occurring. He was clearly

operating under the impression that the NOP Athletes could be asked about infusions and

a majority finds he tried to prevent the normal procedure from occurring by instructing

the NOP Athletes that no declaration of use of LCarnitine was required and that they

should deny they had the L-carnitine infusion when asked about infusions when getting

drug tested in or out of competition."

Salazar's emails to Shelly Rodemer regarding the distinction between infusions and injections:

Jan 5, 2012 1:17 pm

Hi Shelly, this Globaldro link and the WADA link regarding

injections and infusions. From reading both of these we will

proceed with the following understanding: As long as an injection

into a vein using a standard needle or butterfly needle is under 50

ml and contains no banned substances, the athlete does not have

to apply for a TUE and should not consider it an infusion, and

should answer “NO”, if asked by drug testers if they’ve had an

infusion in the previous six months.

Is this correct? Thank you! – Alberto Salazar

Jan 5, 2012 2:53 pm

Hi Shelly, I just found this old email where Amy Eichner answered

my earlier question to you regarding whether an injection of under

50 ml should be declared when an athlete is asked when drug

tested. She says below that it’s not necessary so unless USADA’s

stance on this has changed, you don’t need to answer me back.

Thanks for all your help and have a great week! — Alberto

The email Salazar sent to his athletes which has resulted in him being charged with Tampering:

HI Dathan, Alvina, and Galen, For your interest. When asked

about an infusion, you are to say no. LCarnitine and Iron in the

way we have done it is classified as an injection. So no TUE’s and

no declaration needed, not online and not when asked about

infusions when getting drug tested in or out of competition..Thanks

– Alberto

3. Trafficking and/or Attempted Trafficking of Testosterone – Testosterone Experiment

"In any event, even reading the rule as the parties have done, the Panel does not find

Respondent’s conduct of an experiment using his two sons to be such an “acceptable

justification.” Respondent is an Athlete Support Person bound by the provisions of the

Code, the experiment was conducted at the lab of his employer, where his purpose is to

act in his capacity as an Athlete Support Person. In that capacity, there is no acceptable

justification to give any third parties a Prohibited Substance so he can conduct a test

related to his job."

"While it does not appear to the Panel that the Respondent was trying to intentionally

circumvent the applicable Code provisions, he is subject to a high standard under the Code, especially as a coach and an example to his athletes and the Athletics community.

Unfortunately for him, under the plain meaning of the relevant Code provision, as an

Athlete Support Person, Respondent is strictly prohibited from trafficking in testosterone

by giving it to third parties. The Panel therefore must find that he has violated this Article

in the context of the testosterone experiment."

"Here, the Panel found the following violations of the Code:"

See items 1-3 above

"Accordingly, the Panel finds that the period of Ineligibility shall be four years from the

date of this decision."

To your point about Salazar promoting doping and/or directly doping his athletes:

"...the evidence was that once Respondent had contacted USADA on

December 3, 2011 to seek approval of his “research” and Dr. Fedoruk responded very

specifically on December 6, 2011 that the limit of any infusion should be 50 mL,

Respondent instructed Dr. Brown and Mr. Magness that the infusions should in the future

be a maximum of 50 mL. All the contemporaneous email exchanges thereafter indicate

that the original plan was altered and the intention was to comply with the Code."

"There was plenty of credible testimony about Respondent’s intent concerning

athletes at the NOP not having any anti-doping rule violations or taking any

prohibited performance enhancing drugs."

"A majority of the Panel finds that no substantial step was taken by Respondent with

respect to an anti-doping rule violation (i.e. the Use of a Prohibited Method/over volume

infusion) for the NOP Athletes and in fact, Respondent was explicit at the time in taking

whatever steps were necessary to avoid any such conduct."

"A majority of the Panel finds that USADA has not met its burden of proof with respect

to the Attempted Administration charge as it relates to the NOP Athletes."

"...the record as it involves Respondent is clear that he was trying not to have the NOP

Athletes commit an anti-doping rule violation. Rather than assisting, encouraging or

covering up, the record is very clear that Respondent was trying to have the L-carnitine

infusions after Mr. Magness’ be done in compliance with the Applicable Rules."

"a majority of the Panel found the infusions given to the NOP

Athletes were not a Prohibited Method. Respondent was specifically not assisting,

encouraging, aiding or abetting an anti-doping violation,"

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/Salazar-AAA-Decision-1.pdf

Post all the Information and emails that Alberto provided. Are you kidding me, this is the one side only. lol

sp2 wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

LRC note: Our story is now up on this here

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/10/craig-engels-defends-himself-nop-teammates-responds-to-jenny-simpson-people-have-a-moral-compass-besides-her/

Craig Engels just came through mixed zone and it was the most raw / entertaining interview of the Championships.

Worth listening to the whole video below as he likes Jenny and says 'she's been a great role model. She just needs to chill in front of the camera.' Engels clearly didn't like that they had breakfast together and she was nice to him and then blasted the group on camra. "Jesus Christ jenny what do you have against me?" he says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB-AXOQpqH8

Update:

Jenny has responded

https://youtu.be/5AVy_iAFniA

Wow, after actually listening to both interviews through (and to Jenny's from yesterday), I have to say I'm pretty damn impressed with both athletes.

Jenny's statements (yesterday *and* today) are careful, thoughtful, balanced, wise, principled, and generally pretty Goddamn great. She's got *nothing* to apologize for, and plenty to be proud of.

Engels actually impressed the hell out of me with his forthrightness, and willingness to stand there for ten minutes and answer every question in a fairly open and good-natured manner.

He really does seem like a decent, honest, and likeable kid.

The problem, though, is that he's still kind of an idiot to utterly *fail* to recognize that *choosing* to associate yourself and your career with someone like Alberto --with his decades-long record of bending, and playing with, and certainly sometimes breaking the rules-- *guarantees* that you will have to deal with the fallout of that association at some point.

Even if Craig, and Clay, and Jordan, etc. are clean as a Goddamn whistle, and have never been asked to anything dirty, and have never even *seen* anything dirty (which I'll stipulate IS possible), it doesn't change the fact that they CHOSE to affiliate themselves with this guy with this record of all this dirty, or (at minimum) semi-dirty, or *incredibly* questionable stuff.

Craig *admits* that Alberto's explanation of the testo-cream 'test' sounds *ridiculous*, but then tells us he basically chose to just accept it anyway.

Why would he do that? Cuz he wanted into the fanciest, most famous, most prestigious, most privileged, and (arguably) most successful group in the country.

He looked at all those guys have, and said I want some of that for me. He dreamed 'maybe *I* can be like Rupp and Mo and Centro,' and he *loved* the sound of that.

So he *chose* to overlook all the dirty history, all the ridiculous 'explanations,' all the taint, and all the *risk*.

Now he can't overlook it anymore, cuz it's (rightly) getting shoved in his face. After 3, 4, 5 times of having to do interviews like this one, he'll get really tired of it, and today's charm and forthrightness will turn to anger and frustration.

But it'll be his own fault. He needed to think it through honestly 2 years ago, and he didn't.

These guys all made their own beds, and now they've got to lie in them.

Craig seems like a good guy --and maybe he *is*-- but he chose to get himself into this, and he's gonna have to deal with the consequences.

In the next year, I'm guessing a bunch of these people will get really sick of what they've set themselves up for, and will quietly look to move elsewhere, and forget they ever knew the NOP.

That may not work out so great either, cuz a lot of top groups may not want them.

I'm sorry, Craig --I really am. But you *bought* this,... and now you *own* it.

Ripping Jenny S for telling the truth ain't gonna make it go away.