2nd Former Nike Oregon Project Massage Therapist Comes Forward And Admits He Had Grave Concerns - Went To USADA In 2012

Simple. Because like in a lot of real life cases, you dont always get a photo of the murderer wielding the axe while holding up a sign detailing his name, age and address.

In most cases it comes through weight of evidence. A clue here, a clue there. Are we going to see a photo of Salazar pushing a needle into Rupp with the word 'Testosterone' on it? Of course not, but when you have not 1, not 2, but up to 20 or more people, all involved in a number of ways with Salazars program, all pretty much saying the same thing, then suddenly you have to decide whether all 20 or more of those people are lying or whether you'd believe someone who has consistently played with drugs (bigging up the prozac by his own admission) as a runner. Stating at Duke Uni you couldnt win anything unless you were on drugs, then turning around years later saying anyone who says his runners are on drugs is because they are jealous. Hmmm, 20 or more people who seem reasonably sane or a man who flip flops depending on which side of the fence he needs to be on. I know which I choose.

Airing my own little conspiracy theory, which I'm sure someone else has thought of but I haven't seen posted:

Salazar's alleged "Don't let anyone touch my bags! I have my Androgel with me and I don't want them to become contaminated" was an attempt to plant an excuse should someone subsequently test positive. Multiple witnesses could then corroborate the story that the athlete must have been tainted by proximity to Salazar's medication.

Possible?

ryan foreman wrote:

Why?

I don't understand the romance analogy either. Salazar doesn't owe anything to LRC or its posters. His relationship is with the athletes he coaches, and his duty is to make them the best they can be under the rules in place, whatever they may be.

A much better analogy is the accounting one. Salazar is like that really aggressive tax accountant who scours the tax code to find whatever advantage he can so that his clients pay the least amount of tax. Some people will always complain that it's unfair and unethical, but it's very telling that there have already been a lot of 'whistleblowers' in this case who have told their stories to the relevant authorities long ago. The lack of sanctions speaks volumes to me.

I think it's way more likely that Alberto's outburst concerning the testo-cream was an honest reaction. However, I don't see that as a sign of him/them being clean. My hypothesis is that they've been microdosing testosterone to the point where it's very close to triggering a positive test. Being "contaminated" by the Androgel on Alberto's bags might lead to (at least in Alberto's twisted, paranoid mind) the athlete(s?) values of testosterone to transgress the limit where it actually triggers a positive

"A much better analogy is the accounting one. Salazar is like that really aggressive tax accountant who scours the tax code to find whatever advantage he can so that his clients pay the least amount of tax."

Except that Salazar has been pushing the code while exceeding the write-offs --only on days when he DNSes-- and is not claiming all of the income. What a tax cheat does in other words.

"My hypothesis is that they've been microdosing testosterone to the point where it's very close to triggering a positive test."

NOP has too many athletes dropping out of meets. If he is pushing the limit then there are days you go over the limit. No individual can cut close it so close in the drug use world that they get the same test result every time. There are other factors in play: hydration level, certain food taken, illness, etc.

One point I find a little confusing is how Salazar was always talking about his androgel and telling people not to touch his bag, etc. Is androgel radioactive or something? Do the tubes routinely explode? I'm just trying to imagine how I would behave if I had a medical need for androgel and carried it with me when traveling. I think it would get its own little compartment with my other toiletry kind of stuff. If I was the coach of a group of athletes, I don't think I would bother saying "Don't go rummaging through my luggage and squirting any cremes or gels you might find all over yourselves." It just seems like an entirely unnecessary precaution, sort of like telling them not to steal your wallet. Lots of people carry prescription medication around with them when travelling, but don't feel the need to warn everybody about them so that they don't accidentally steal them and ingest them.

So the "story" today is that someone in a position of authority told everyone that he was carrying something which would be illegal for them to come anywhere near, and so took precautions to ensure that they didn't.

And that is supposed to be evidence of doping?

Next we'll discover that Al Sal has walked through a shop which smelt like it might have had some illegal PEDs and didn't stop to buy any - which must conclusively mean he bought some and got some extra for Galen too...

Al Sal has his own secret stash: specially purchased, not traceable. No reason to buy anything in the open at a real store.

Be gentle with me wrote:

So the "story" today is that someone in a position of authority told everyone that he was carrying something which would be illegal for them to come anywhere near, and so took precautions to ensure that they didn't.

Since you're so smart, please tell us why Al Sal would carry illegal items with him all the time.

Man Overboard wrote:The lack of sanctions speaks volumes to me.

Because USATF/IAAF is okay with doping.

USADA has no authority to sanction anyone. Using Lance Armstrong as an example, USADA only recommended an Armstrong sanction to the cycling federation. It was up to the federation to authorize the sanction.

If the National Anti-doping Organizations had the authority to sanction, then many sports federations would panic.

Bad Wigins wrote:

jewbacca wrote:

I believe this is called libel, wejo.

For it to be libel, Salazar, a public figure, would have to prove that rojo knew it was false at the time yet reported it anyway out of malicious intent.

That's nearly impossible.

I think you are wrong. I could be mistaken, but you don't have to have malicious intent to be libelous. Or to know something was false before printing it.

If the brojos run a story they believe to be true (but was false) and cause damage to another party, they stand to be sued for libel. Any lawyers care to correct me?

This is why accusations are ALWAYS printed with conditional words like "allegedly." Otherwise if a criminal goes to court and is acquitted, they can sue the news agency for libel.

Salazar has evidently made some real enemies during his coaching career to have so many people suddenly coming forward in the last two weeks.

sheep f@#king never gets old

not that i like it

i just like the joke