BREAKING - WADA TO INVESTIGATE ALL NOP ATHLETES

fortherecord wrote:

This entire thread is as useless as the article its about. Zero details or sources, zero proof that anything is happening, and absolutely nothing suggested hasn’t already been done.. if you are unaware, these athletes are drug-tested year-round at least one a month if not more. There’s no facts to support the idea that even a single NOP athlete is doping. You look stupid, and you’re going to continue looking stupid ranting about something that makes no sense. On another topic, is microdosing even a real thing? Has it ever even happened before?

Yes...it's a "real thing." It became a real thing as an anti-doping countermeasure to the implementation of the ABP in 09. There's microdosing with just about everything these days; EPO, testosterone, HGH, peptides and certain anabolic steroids.

That was more informative. No insults, no arrogance. Ignore the riff raff. Like Frozen, let it go.

The IOC and WADA are not in a jurisdictional 'competition' here. The IOC has effectively asked WADA to act as its agent in seeking to establish whether any NOP athletes have been doping in relation to Salazar's activities. Without seeing the specific terms of the investigation, it would suggest WADA could use whatever means are available to it to look into the question, including seeking the cooperation of sports bodies like the IAAF and of course the athletes involved. That could conceivably mean the retesting of samples but also would involve interviewing athletes and coaches. That said, it would be very difficult to show any individual athlete has doped, without further whistleblower evidence of clandestine activities (as occurred with the Russians) or undercover investigations of the kind that has been conducted in Kenya and Ethiopia. By definition, the WADA investigation cannot be 'undercover'.

there you go WADA needs more money.

there you go wojo brojo, how about a billion dollars toward your orwellian monitor every athlete on the globe scheme.

for the end result that the clean athletes get their ego worshiped?

and all of is it is just running around in circles. or from point a to point b?

your . letsrun and the rest, ethics are the fuel of staling and hitler.

the road to hell was paved with good intentions.

learn.

wise up

practical questions wrote:

You ruin every (bleep)ing thread you participate in. Thanks a lot.

That's an interesting potty-mouthed claim.

I think you should dig a little deeper to isolate the root of the problem.

It is not me that makes these threads about me.

Counting paper wrote:

Seems that there also might be some evidence somewhere of an NOP'er doing some dirty things:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7566649/EPO-linked-Nike-athlete-2011-Oregon-Project-overseen-Alberto-Salazar.html

"An athlete at the Nike Oregon Project (NOP) run by controversial coach Alberto Salazar provided an anomalous blood sample in the month of the 2011 Athletics World Championships in South Korea, indicating they may have been taking the drug EPO, Sportsmail can reveal. "

Bets on Kara? Still a NOP athlete at the time, links her allegations to this exact time period, possibily to create distance and plausible deniability when and if her anomalous results leaked?

rekrunner wrote:

practical questions wrote:

You ruin every (bleep)ing thread you participate in. Thanks a lot.

That's an interesting potty-mouthed claim.

I think you should dig a little deeper to isolate the root of the problem.

It is not me that makes these threads about me.

Actually, it kind of is - if you dig a little deeper.

More fantasy from La-La Land.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That's an interesting potty-mouthed claim.

I think you should dig a little deeper to isolate the root of the problem.

It is not me that makes these threads about me.

Actually, it kind of is - if you dig a little deeper.

rekrunner wrote:

More fantasy from La-La Land.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Actually, it kind of is - if you dig a little deeper.

Of course, it's always other people.

It's funny how you express statements with a sarcastic tone that are demonstrably true, and quickly debunked.

We can see in your very first post that 1) you trolled me, and 2) it was expressed sarcastically, and quickly debunked by the head of USADA himself.

It turns out even Tygart agrees that WADA will just be wasting their time, because USADA already did a full investigation, leaving no stone unturned.

Contrary to your explanation, Tygart confirmed that they already looked at the NOP athletes too. In fact, it would be hard to see how an investigation into Salazar doping his athletes would exclude looking also at NOP athletes as alleged beneficiaries.

This would have been more clear to you if you didn't consistently refuse to inform yourself of the available facts, and instead of supporting any of your statements with research and facts, you chose to ridicule others from a false platform.

It would save everyone a lot of time and grief.

I would think at some point you would get tired of being demonstrably wrong.

Nothing has been "debunked". Tygart stands by his investigation - as you might expect - he is partial to his own view - but the IOC and WADA are requiring further investigating all the same. The reason is simple: Tygart wasn't able to establish a doping link between Salazar and his athletes (even though that wasn't the purpose of his investigation) but a coach who breaks the doping rules isn't doing it for himself but his athletes. (If Salazar didn't extend these practises to his athletes then he failed in his purpose to benefit them. With the information emerging about how he directed and controlled female athletes we can see that he was anything but ineffectual.) This you are either unable to grasp or refuse to accept. That is because you will do anything to reduce or deny the incidence or existence of doping, wherever it becomes evident. Fortunately, others in official positions don't hold that view. It is clear that your unqualified endorsement of the AAA panel's findings and now Tygart's statements is because they say what you want to hear: athletes don't dope - even when their coach does.

You are mixing up the real world and la-la land.

I can grasp it all, but I only refused to accept la-la land.

What you describe for NOP athletes is not yet "evident" back here in the real world.

In the real world, the only thing "evident" was Magness had too much liquid infused, a few NOP athletes received an email, and Salazar's sons received T-gel.

rekrunner wrote:

You are mixing up the real world and la-la land.

I can grasp it all, but I only refused to accept la-la land.

What you describe for NOP athletes is not yet "evident" back here in the real world.

In the real world, the only thing "evident" was Magness had too much liquid infused, a few NOP athletes received an email, and Salazar's sons received T-gel.

But you think that must be the end of the story whereas those who actually live in the real world know it won't be. Everything Salazar does and has done as a coach - everything - was for the purpose of aiding his athletes. If you argue that wasn't so you have no rational basis for anything he was doing.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You are mixing up the real world and la-la land.

I can grasp it all, but I only refused to accept la-la land.

What you describe for NOP athletes is not yet "evident" back here in the real world.

In the real world, the only thing "evident" was Magness had too much liquid infused, a few NOP athletes received an email, and Salazar's sons received T-gel.

But you think that must be the end of the story whereas those who actually live in the real world know it won't be. Everything Salazar does and has done as a coach - everything - was for the purpose of aiding his athletes. If you argue that wasn't so you have no rational basis for anything he was doing.

However the story evolves, the continuation of the story won't be the one you predict.

In part because you generalize what really happened, reducing it to "aiding his athletes", then you decide that that means whatever suits you, to support a new chapter of fiction.

Salazar did act to benefit his athletes. With respect to the rule violations, here is who was being helped and how:

1) Magness infusion -- "L-Carnitine", a WADA legal substance, was intended to help athlete performance. No NOP athlete was helped by the infusion of excess liquid to Magness, nor was their sufficient evidence that others received an excessive infusion, nor would excess liquid help performance.

2) The "infusions are injections" email -- the purpose of this was to avoid unnecessary discussions about infusions, based on a series of misunderstandings. Infusions/injections are legal under 50ml, and become a "banned doping practice" above 50ml. (The rule has since been relaxed.) No NOP athlete's performance benefitted by the receipt of an email. No one benefitted in any way from the receipt email that in any case was not correct, nor relevant, nor applied.

3) The "trafficking" of testosterone -- According to the report, the testosterone experiment, performed on non-athletes, was intended to address a concern of post-race sabotage of NOP athletes. All athletes benefited indirectly from the knowledge that it would take a lot of cream, too much to go unnoticed, for sabotage to trigger a positive.

If you want to argue "aiding his athletes" you need to be less vague about what was shown and what that could mean, rather than blurring the meaning, and stretching it to mean what you want.

Your pretense to a concern with 'accuracy' let alone the truth is farcical. Every argument is a defense of Salazar, so that it appears he has done nothing that was really wrong. To you, he just fell foul of the rules. But the fact remains that his infractions were serious enough to draw a 4-year ban.

Your logical inadequacy is to maintain that lack of evidence by Tygart means Salazar's athletes weren't doping - which is little different from saying that the only athletes who are doping are those that test positive. We know that isn't true. 0.5% athletes are caught while up to 40% are estimated to dope. Evidence - and, in particular, the evidence that is accepted by a sanctioning body like the AAA panel - only tells us what we currently know, according to procedural criteria, and not what is else is likely or possible. As a student of logic, you flunk your own test. But you must, because you are not an objective analyst; you are only a propagandist - for the dopers.

Is it superior to be concerned with 'inaccuracy'? Seems like a concern for 'accuracy' and 'truth' would be a good definition of the opposite of propoganda. How is it a defense of Salazar to keep listing his "serious enough to draw a 4-year ban" violations. It's not even an argument, but a historical fact.

If I understood your previously munged up statement, you suggested that I did not believe Salazar rule violations were acting to benefit the NOP athletes, and therefore I had no rational basis to explain his behavior. To show how another one of your unfounded beliefs is also wrong, I have shown you how the L-Carnitine trials and the Testosterone experiment still benefitted the NOP athletes, without the NOP athletes having committed any rule violations, and that the "tampering" violation did not benefit the NOP athletes at all.

Falling foul of the rules is worth a 4-year ban (and even up to life). It's odd that you say "only tells us what we currently know" -- that is precisely what I am doing. Then you talk of likelihood and possibility. Possibility is a rather low bar, and likelihood will also be determined based on what we currently know.

You appeal again to some figures about doping tests to catch dopers, as if USADA and AAA only had doping test results. I must remind you the way to supplement these partial results is with non-analytical results (i.e. ABP) and investigations, and in this case we have an aggressive multi-year investigation into Salazar and NOP triggered by three whistle blowers with more than 2,000 exhibits, 30 witnesses and 5,780 pages of transcripts".

Again, if you want to start a discussion based on "aiding his athletes", you should spend less time attacking me with your false and unfounded ideas, and more time building the foundation for such a discussion.

American biggest coach falls for doping violations but no athletes are being suspended.

No wonder WADA will want to double and triple checks USADA findings as the probability of a murder without a victim are relatively small.

One of your jokes, right? That you continue to downplay this banned drug cheat's guilt, who apparently also abused a teenage girl, is no surprise but still ... (I'm too polite to continue this sentence):

Wow, just wow. In the real world, Salazar in fact committed multiple anti-doping rule violations, To be precise, USADA thought they had enough evidence to get him banned for life based on five violations, and AAA ruled that three of those were proven, handing out only a four-year ban, unfortunately.

The three proven ones were, and I cite word for word:

Sounds quite different than your apologizing statement "the only thing "evident" was Magness had too much liquid infused, a few NOP athletes received an email, and Salazar's sons received T-gel".

Remember that next time you want to argue against your label as drug cheat apologist.

I am saving this in case you want to delete that too.

I'm not downplaying. I'm removing ambiguity that enables exaggeration, imagination and fantasy.

a) Salazar's role in Magness excessive infusion was considered "Administration"

b) The email was considered attempted tampering with the process

c) Giving his son's testosterone was considered trafficking

While they may sound very different to you, these acts were the violations. The problem with listing just the titles of the articles violated, while ignoring the details, is the ambiguity it creates leads to imagination and fantasy, especially for those who have not read, and will not read, the report. We see this time and time again.

By enabling imagination, you end up with creative emotional analogies like "there was a murder but no victim". There was no murder. There was an excessive infusion, an email, and transfer of "T" to Salazar's sons (administration, tampering and trafficking), and the victims were Magness, doping control process, and Salazar's sons.

None of this falls under the category of "drug cheat apologist". The "drug cheat" recipients are Magness, and Salazar's sons, none of whom I'm apologizing for. In fact, contrary to "apologizing", I think Magness was also largely responsible for the "Administration" violation, as he was responsible for finding a "WADA legal" way.

You might say Salazar is a drug cheat, but I have not apologized for Administration, Tampering, or Trafficking, nor for his use of Testosterone without a prescription.

If you argue again "drug cheat apologist", I will question again your intelligence, and/or honesty.

And finally, I don't want posts deleted. Stop blaming me for something that was clearly due to others' lack of self-control.