Salazar / Dr Jeffrey Brown CAS Statement Released Confirming Bans

why did usada try to help these cheats? poor look

ah, sorry, ignore that. good look.

pupil3142 wrote:

why did usada try to help these cheats? poor look

it's poor wording, but it's saying USADA actually worked against saladbar & jeffrey brown, they wanted the 4 year ban increased while Nike lawyers wanted it decreased. it's interesting that usada seemed to go to bat for Houlihan by at first turning the other way when she was entered in the olympic trials, but i guess because USADA were the ones that originally investigated the NOP in 2017 they had a bigger stake in this.

My observations:

- The events at issue only took place from 2009 to 2012, ending 3 years before the 2015 ProPublica expose that kicked off the investigation

- these were Dr Jeffrey Brown's rule violations:

•Complicity (Art.2.8) in Alberto Salazar’s possession of Testosterone;

•Trafficking (Art.2.7) of testosterone to Alberto Salazar;

•Administration (Art.2.8) of a Prohibited Method;

•Tampering (Art.2.5) with the Doping Control Process

- and these were Salazar's rule violations:

•Possession (Art.2.6) of testosterone;

•Complicity (Art.2.8) in Dr. Jeffrey Brown’s Administration of a Prohibited Method;

•Tampering (Art.2.5) with the Doping Control Process with respect to the issue of L-carnitine infusions/syringes.

- maybe I missed it but I'm confused about Dr Brown's "Tampering with the Doping Control Process", what is that a reference to? maybe giving fraudulent TUEs is considered tampering with the process?

- also, they notably did not charge alsal with rule violations for doping his son or steve magness with testosterone? i would have suspected those were bigger deals than the L-carnitine which most experts now believe doesn't even help that much

- if Nike really did spend $10 million on this defense, it makes sense why the hearings were so long as they note but i'm surprised they spent that much if they knew this was the most likely outcome.

- apparently "there was no evidence put before the CAS [by USADA] as to any effect on athletes competing at the elite level within the NOP." so it seems like USADA had no smoking gun or at least not one they wanted to reveal, which is why the athletes stayed safe.

- the 2nd to last paragraph as i read it is basically saying that these ADRVs were minor compared to the case USADA was trying to make against Salazar & Dr Brown. but they're still worthy of a 4 year ban, so hardly minor in that sense... I wonder if USADA tried to bring up the unmarked pills / etc and all of it was just too overwhelming / hard to prove so they stuck with what was listed above.

I can't wait until he's back and we are able to start winning again.

Imagine if some coach from who-cares-where was rubbing testosterone on his son and got banned.... if anything it would only get published in The Onion.

Nike has issued a statement.

Nike said it had "supported Alberto in appeal because we understood, and the first panel found, that there was no doping".

The company added: "There was no finding that performance enhancing drugs have ever been used on Oregon Project athletes and the panel went out of its way to note Alberto's desire to follow all rules.

"We are glad to see that Cas reiterated this in their decision and stated that the way that the case was handled was disproportionate to the severity of the violations established.

"Alberto is no longer a contracted coach and we shuttered the Oregon Project almost two years ago."

Also Mark Daly says they won't be funding any more appeals.

https://twitter.com/BBCMarkDaly/status/1438561882730909697

Some corrections:

- the USADA investigation started in Dec. 2012, when Magness wrote a letter to USADA, 3 years before ProPublica

- Dr. Brown’s tampering was likely the altering of records of the patients — he added text and numbers to records which did not appear on the copies possessed by the athletes

- Magness received a banned method — too much liquid too fast in an infusion. There was no accusation of testosterone for Magness.

- Doping his sons is serious in other contexts, and maybe even illegal, but his sons were not athletes or staff, so not bound by WADA rules

habs wrote:

- apparently "there was no evidence put before the CAS [by USADA] as to any effect on athletes competing at the elite level within the NOP."

This should comfort fans of the sport.

This reinforces a view of this being a trumped-up witch hunt:

"A request by Usada for their bans to be increased was also rejected."

What is USADA driving in that request? They aren't bound by WADA? By handing out maximum-possible sanctions, they got it wrong?

And, from the CAS release;

"the CAS Panel noted that the circumstances of this matter, the length of hearings and the allegations made at various stages of those hearings, as well as the way in which the case was conducted by USADA and that the evidence was presented and, in some cases, later abandoned, seemed to be out of proportion and excessive when compared to the severity and consequences..."

Ernest wrote:

This reinforces a view of this being a trumped-up witch hunt:

"A request by Usada for their bans to be increased was also rejected."

What is USADA driving in that request? They aren't bound by WADA? By handing out maximum-possible sanctions, they got it wrong?

And, from the CAS release;

"the CAS Panel noted that the circumstances of this matter, the length of hearings and the allegations made at various stages of those hearings, as well as the way in which the case was conducted by USADA and that the evidence was presented and, in some cases, later abandoned, seemed to be out of proportion and excessive when compared to the severity and consequences..."

In light of the “severity and outcomes”, it certainly does make me question whether USADA made the right choice in priorities when deciding to direct scarce funds and resources in a lengthy legal battle that found no NOP athletes ever competed against anti-doping rules.

I wonder what the opportunity costs were.