rekrunner wrote:
It appears that your unique interpretations are not ones shared by WADA.
My "unique interpretations"? I understand that pro-dopers appreciate that USADA provides illegitimate courtesy calls ahead of ooc tests, and don't count all missed tests as missed tests, but based on which rules is that not "non-compliant"?
rekrunner wrote:
WADA was also asked by the IOC to review the NOP athletes after the Salazar decision.
It appears that the IOC does not trust USADA either.
Triple-Double twisted would suggest that Salazar himself secretly hired this guy to follow him so he could justify his paranoia. /s
sleazazar wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
LOL - not this again.
Facts:
- as an athlete, he doped himself with testosterone
- his first star pupil was banned for doping with testosterone
- as a coach, he is currently banned for three anti-doping rule violations, originally for life, then reduced to four years in arbitration
- as a coach, he is now also suspended for abuse.
Bump for those who continue to repeat the lie that Salazar has never been found to be engaging or implicated in doping.
Those first two are not facts. You’re just regurgitating USADAs talking points which were not even considered by AAA.
Facts according to the AAA who read all this and mountains of evidence: “Salazar did not cheat or try to cheat, but he made mistakes”
btc burrito wrote:
So the email chain where Magness says “Galen is sick” and Salazar says “I’m sending antibiotics” and then Magness says “Got em, Galen doing much better” is all some sort of conspiracy? And turns out Magness was also in on everything?
Does that really sound more plausible to you than Galen was sick and he sent him antibiotics?
Ya know what's plausible? Not admitting to doping in an email. Salazar went to the trouble of sending drugs to Rupp in a hollowed out book. You think he wouldn't go to the trouble of avoiding a paper trail that admits to doping?
btc burrito wrote:
sleazazar wrote:
Bump for those who continue to repeat the lie that Salazar has never been found to be engaging or implicated in doping.
Those first two are not facts. You’re just regurgitating USADAs talking points which were not even considered by AAA.
Facts according to the AAA who read all this and mountains of evidence: “Salazar did not cheat or try to cheat, but he made mistakes”
They absolutely are facts. Salazar himself admitted to taking testosterone as an athlete in 1991, and Mary Slaney most certainly did get busted for testosterone.
btc burrito wrote:
sleazazar wrote:
Bump for those who continue to repeat the lie that Salazar has never been found to be engaging or implicated in doping.
Those first two are not facts. You’re just regurgitating USADAs talking points which were not even considered by AAA.
Facts according to the AAA who read all this and mountains of evidence: “Salazar did not cheat or try to cheat, but he made mistakes”
. . . and the specific mistake made (as found by the AAA panel) was giving too much of an amino acid supplement to an assistant coach (Magness) who was still technically classified as an athlete.
Salazar now deemed Permanently Ineligible by SafeSport. Subject to appeal.
Finally.
AW Red and White wrote:
Salazar now deemed Permanently Ineligible by SafeSport. Subject to appeal.
Finally.
Excellent. Still hoping that CAS is extending his AAA (USADA) ban of only four years.
We neither need cheats nor abusers in our sport.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It appears that your unique interpretations are not ones shared by WADA.
My "unique interpretations"? I understand that pro-dopers appreciate that USADA provides illegitimate courtesy calls ahead of ooc tests, and don't count all missed tests as missed tests, but based on which rules is that not "non-compliant"?
Yes — your “unique interpretations”. I have seen no one else ever argue about Tygart and USADA like you do. And I have not seen WADA share your concerns about “courtesy calls” and “missed tests”.
The point is not how you interpret what constitutes a “missed test” or how you weigh“courtesy calls”, but whether WADA shares your unique interpretations and concerns and your ideas of the appropriate consequences.
If you think your interpretations are not unique, it is enough to show who else expresses these concerns calling for the same consequences. Perhaps you can point to precedents of other ADAs or ADOs being declared non-compliant by WADA for “courtesy calls” and not counting “missed tests”.
What is more likely is some kind of warning and probation period, giving the ADA or ADO a chance to rectify the situation. Again — is there any precedent that would demonstrate WADA shares your expressed concerns?
I note also that declaring USADA non-compliant would instantly exclude all US athletes from all Olympic sports, both national and international. Anti-doping enforcment under “casual obsever” would be very disruptive to Olympic sports.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
WADA was also asked by the IOC to review the NOP athletes after the Salazar decision.
It appears that the IOC does not trust USADA either.
Appearances can be deceiving.
At some stage, in order to demonstrate substance, we have to move beyond appearances to something substantial.
The IOC plays no further role, so there trust is inconsequential. They delegated any investigation to WADA.
sleazazar wrote:
btc burrito wrote:
Those first two are not facts. You’re just regurgitating USADAs talking points which were not even considered by AAA.
Facts according to the AAA who read all this and mountains of evidence: “Salazar did not cheat or try to cheat, but he made mistakes”
They absolutely are facts. Salazar himself admitted to taking testosterone as an athlete in 1991, and Mary Slaney most certainly did get busted for testosterone.
It is more accurate to say they are “half the facts”.
All of the “half the facts” put together are not conclusive.
rekrunner wrote:
sleazazar wrote:
They absolutely are facts. Salazar himself admitted to taking testosterone as an athlete in 1991, and Mary Slaney most certainly did get busted for testosterone.
It is more accurate to say they are “half the facts”.
All of the “half the facts” put together are not conclusive.
What about Alberto admitting taking testosterone in 1991 and Slaney testing positive for testosterone is not factual?
Nice try to deflect from USADA's sad history by making it personal, rekrunner. Of course you can't argue that courtesy calls are allowed, so you blame me for Wada letting USADA getting away with it (at least publicly). Fact 1: Wada says
4.6.2 Save in exceptional and justifiable circumstances, all Testing shall be No Advance Notice Testing:
a) For In-Competition Testing, placeholder selection may be known in advance. However, random Athlete/placeholder selection shall not be revealed to the Athlete until notification.
b) All Out-of-Competition Testing shall be No Advance Notice Testing save in exceptional and justifiable circumstances.
Yet Coleman received warning/courtesy calls up to seven hours ahead of "No Advance Notice " ooc tests.
Fact 2: Wada explanation about "The ‘Whereabouts’ rule":
If you are not where you say you are going to be during the daily one-hour window, you commit
a missed test.
Yet Simpson was followed into a different city to be tested there a couple of hours later - no problem.
"unique interpretations", lol. I am not sorry for factually pointing out that USADA has a history of breaking Wada rules.
But keep on fighting for the reputation of this despicable cheater and abuser. That reminds me: regarding "left no stone unturned"? Hahaha, Cain and SafeSport - who just banned Salazar for sexual and emotional abuse - said otherwise.
AW Red and White wrote:
Salazar now deemed Permanently Ineligible by SafeSport. Subject to appeal.
Finally.
By the “US Center for SafeSport”.
Does that mean he can coach for another country once his 4-year ban has completed?
sleazazar wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It is more accurate to say they are “half the facts”.
All of the “half the facts” put together are not conclusive.
What about Alberto admitting taking testosterone in 1991 and Slaney testing positive for testosterone is not factual?
I did not say they were not factual.
I said these facts are incomplete, therefore inconclusive.
casual obsever wrote:
Nice try to deflect from USADA's sad history by making it personal, rekrunner. Of course you can't argue that courtesy calls are allowed, so you blame me for Wada letting USADA getting away with it (at least publicly).
Fact 1: Wada says
4.6.2 Save in exceptional and justifiable circumstances, all Testing shall be No Advance Notice Testing:
a) For In-Competition Testing, placeholder selection may be known in advance. However, random Athlete/placeholder selection shall not be revealed to the Athlete until notification.
b) All Out-of-Competition Testing shall be No Advance Notice Testing save in exceptional and justifiable circumstances.
Yet Coleman received warning/courtesy calls up to seven hours ahead of "No Advance Notice " ooc tests.
Fact 2: Wada explanation about "The ‘Whereabouts’ rule":
If you are not where you say you are going to be during the daily one-hour window, you commit
a missed test.
Yet Simpson was followed into a different city to be tested there a couple of hours later - no problem.
"unique interpretations", lol. I am not sorry for factually pointing out that USADA has a history of breaking Wada rules.
But keep on fighting for the reputation of this despicable cheater and abuser. That reminds me: regarding "left no stone unturned"? Hahaha, Cain and SafeSport - who just banned Salazar for sexual and emotional abuse - said otherwise.
Speaking of deflection, the only question was whether your interpretations, concerns and expected consequences about USADA are unique to you, or shared by WADA.
Your facts are not in doubt, but they do not clear up either question.
But what you are saying is that “courtesy calls” are allowed by WADA if they can be justified.
In other words, no finding yet that USADA broke a rule.
Does following Simpson to another city mean it wasn’t counted as a “missed test”? Did she have two more “whereabouts failures”?
Similarly, no finding yet that USADA broke a rule.
Speaking of deflection, the Safesport ruling has nothing to do with USADA’s conduct or your interpretation of WADA rules and consequences.
I can totally believe that Salazar said many insensitive comments about body parts that collect fat, motivated by achieving best performances by becoming lean, and that that insensitivity emotionally bothered many of his female athletes — maybe some males too.
rekrunner wrote:
sleazazar wrote:
What about Alberto admitting taking testosterone in 1991 and Slaney testing positive for testosterone is not factual?
I did not say they were not factual.
I said these facts are incomplete, therefore inconclusive.
Thank you for admitting they are factual statements - something that "btc burrito" was not able to admit.
rekrunner wrote:
Speaking of deflection, the only question was whether your interpretations, concerns and expected consequences about USADA are unique to you, or shared by WADA.
Your facts are not in doubt, but they do not clear up either question.
LOL - that deflection might have been your "only question", actually after you falsely claimed my interpretation was unique, simply to deflect from the facts as per usual. If you would bother to recall the original discussion in the Coleman thread, you'd realize quickly that that was far from being a "unique interpretation".
But Salazar banned for life, finally! This is a great day for a cleaner and safer sport. But of course, you have to downplay the grounds for that decision too, you just can't help yourself:
rekrunner wrote:
I can totally believe that Salazar said many insensitive comments about body parts that collect fat, motivated by achieving best performances by becoming lean, and that that insensitivity emotionally bothered many of his female athletes — maybe some males too.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Speaking of deflection, the only question was whether your interpretations, concerns and expected consequences about USADA are unique to you, or shared by WADA.
Your facts are not in doubt, but they do not clear up either question.
LOL - that deflection might have been your "only question", actually after you falsely claimed my interpretation was unique, simply to deflect from the facts as per usual. If you would bother to recall the original discussion in the Coleman thread, you'd realize quickly that that was far from being a "unique interpretation".
But Salazar banned for life, finally! This is a great day for a cleaner and safer sport. But of course, you have to downplay the grounds for that decision too, you just can't help yourself:
rekrunner wrote:
I can totally believe that Salazar said many insensitive comments about body parts that collect fat, motivated by achieving best performances by becoming lean, and that that insensitivity emotionally bothered many of his female athletes — maybe some males too.
We weren’t talking about Coleman, but about Tygart.
You accused Tygart and USADA of serial incompetence, and we were talking about whether WADA shares your unique interpretations about any of USADA’s decisions — where WADA always has the last right of appeal.
Given that no NOP athlete was ever found to be doping, despite a lengthy investigation into NOP with 30 witnesses, is the sport any cleaner without Salazar? All the NOP athletes are still competing. Who did Salazar dope besides himself (no longer competing) and his sons (never competed)? Magness with a large infusion?