People need to stop talking about anything "under oath" IT AIN'T HAPPENING!!

Why is everyone sooooooooo butt hurt over Salazar, Rupp. And NOP?

Get a life people!

The FBI got involved with the bust of some site that sold PEDs to age grouper triathletes and cyclists. There's enough smoke here for the FBI to start sniffing around and taking sound Salazar is something the Feds would like doing.

The only reason why Armstrong never got indicted was because someone very senior in the government (I've names from Hillary all the way to Obama) shut down the US Attorney out in California when he was close to indicting because Obama didn't want the negative publicity in 2012 of going after a very famous and still popular cancer survivor.

I'm just sayin!!! wrote:

USADA v. Hellebuyck.

"Athletes in AAA and CAS tribunals cannot be forced to testify against themselves, they can choose not to testify. However if they choose to testify before an AAA or CAS tribunal, they have a legal duty to testify truthfully."

(For those wondering, AAA is American Arbitration Association and CAS is Court of Arbitration in Sport.)

Exactly!

The important point is that arbitration comes at the end of the USADA adjudication process. First, the USADA must investigate, conclude the athlete or coach has doped, convene a review panel, and then issue the suspension. If, after all that, the athlete or coach disagrees with the USADA's ruling, she can take the USADA to arbitration. It is only at hat point that witnesses can be required to give sworn testimony.

The USADA talks to plenty of people during the course of its investigation. However, it has no power to put the people it talks to under oath.

This is all laid out very clearly in the USADA Adjudication Protocols. It's hardly captivating reading, but it is educational.

Then explain how this happened, you categorically sweeping cretin:http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/tourdefrance/2015/02/16/lance-armstrong-sca-promotions-ruling/23496931/

get real folks wrote:

No one has the power of subpoena, not USADA, not the Brojos, not Propublica, NO ONE! So stop analyzing people's reaction to the question. You can read into it all you want, but it's meaningless to the outcome of this whole thing. CONGRESS ISN'T GETTING INVOLVED!!! And even if they did, ever heard of the 5th amendment? How'd that go for baseball?

He said she said, and that's all it will ever be. Get used to it.

I'm just tellin!!! wrote:

Here is how things worked out poor old Eddy.

Eddy Hellebuyck in Homeless Shelter

July 13, 2012

http://www.runnersworld.com/newswire/eddy-hellebuyck-in-homeless-shelter

Eddy got it trouble because he confessed to doping. He thought he was in the clear because the statute of limitations had run on the stuff he confessed to. However, the USADA argued that he'd lied earlier about his doping. On the basis of those lies, they were able to toll (suspend) the statute of limitations retroactively. That in turn allowed them to use the acts he'd confessed to against him.

Cute, huh?

Nobody says the USADA plays fair. It does not. Ask Eddy.

Or ask the baseball players whose records were seized, by the feds even though the search warrant they used specifically said those players' records were not covered by the warrant. Those records couldn't be used in court, but somehow the names ended up in the press.

Evidently the government does not play fair, either.

"Hellebuyck told Runner's World that he's working three minimum-wage jobs while living at the Primavera Men's Shelter in Tucson, Ariz. Hellebuyck also said that, last year, his now ex-wife Shawn Hellebuyck spent $73,000 "to fight USADA [the United States Anti-Doping Agency], for a fight I didn't want."

"Over the last five weeks my life has changed dramatically. In a matter of hours, I went from living in a nice home and community to now living in South Tucson in a men's homeless shelter," Hellebuyck wrote.

Absolutely correct. I doubt anything would change if this matter somehow moved into the courts. It begs the question: if Kara Goucher is so keen to get everybody to spill their guys 'under oath', is she equally keen to be cross-examined? Because I can tell you right now, based on what I've seen and read of her statements any lawyer worth his salt would absolutely demolish her on cross (the same goes to a lesser extent, for Magness and the Propublica guys, and to a much lesser extent, to Salazar). Of course, it's just as meaningless, but it makes sense for the two to go hand in hand in the context.

Robert Harrington wrote:

Then explain how this happened, you categorically sweeping cretin:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/tourdefrance/2015/02/16/lance-armstrong-sca-promotions-ruling/23496931/

Did you read the article you cited? It has nothing to do with doping investigations. The case in that article involved a company that refused to pay Armstrong bonuses for winning the Tour. The company said it didn't have to pay because Armstrong cheated. In his original case against the company Armstrong said, while under oath, that he didn't cheat. When it later came out that he did cheat, the company was able to get its money back on the ground that Armstrong had lied under oath.

Again, what does this story have to do with the NOP investigations?

Everyone agrees that perjury plays a big role in cases such as this. Everyone agrees that if Salazar or Rupp lie under oath they could be in trouble. What we don't agree on is whether Salazar or Rupp are likely to be called on to give testimony under oath. It could happen, but the OP and his followers are giving lots of reasons why it is unlikely.

Ironically, the examples being given by people arguing that the NOPers are going to have to testify under oath simply provide more evidence that the OP is right. There is a slim chance that the NOPers are going to end up in the situations that led to Armstrong's problems.

As I said before, the saddest part of this pointless back and forth is that the truly important issues raised by the NOP case are being completely ignored.

FBI is on it wrote:

The FBI got involved with the bust of some site that sold PEDs to age grouper triathletes and cyclists. There's enough smoke here for the FBI to start sniffing around and taking sound Salazar is something the Feds would like doing.

.

Interesting. Do you have any more details?

Selling PEDs is not smoke. Selling PEDS is fire. And yes, when someone sees a fire, the fire men show up. That is the OPs point!

In this case, the only PED we've got for sure is Androgel. And all we know is that the guy with a prescription for the Androgel acts very oddly about his Androgel. That's not fire. He has a prescription FFS. It's not even smoke. It's just an odd guy being odd.

To repeat, Salazar very well could be doping. He might even be committing some serious crimes. But so far, there's not a lot of evidence that he is. At this point, there is not enough evidence for anyone to get a search warrant. It appears that getting enough evidence for a search warrant would take a lot of time and effort. Since that probably isn't going to happen, it looks like the investigation is stuck where it is right now, with lots of innuendo and bad feelings, but not a whole lot else.

Eddy's problem wrote:

Eddy got it trouble because he confessed to doping. He thought he was in the clear because the statute of limitations had run on the stuff he confessed to. However, the USADA argued that he'd lied earlier about his doping. On the basis of those lies, they were able to toll (suspend) the statute of limitations retroactively. That in turn allowed them to use the acts he'd confessed to against him.

Cute, huh?

Nobody says the USADA plays fair. It does not. Ask Eddy.

The USADA did play fair with Eddy, and with Lance. The tolling of statue of limitations for lying is a law that goes back to the 1940s. The tolling clock resets every time false paperwork is filed about drugs someone is using. Neat process isn't it. If you are honest you are fine. If you lie you have to keep lying until the day you die, hoping you are never caught.

The bottom line is: don't cheat, don't lie.

BTW, I don't have a registered name on this website. Against company rules, and all that.

Get real, part 4571 wrote:

BTW, I don't have a registered name on this website. Against company rules, and all that.

Freud?

When Salazar's former athletes start suing Salazar/Nike/Doctors because Salazar pushed them onto prescription Meds they didn't need and told them to use them in a way not recommended by a doctor, he will likely have to go under oath. Also, testing PEDs on his own children will likely cause him some grief with USDA. He's already admitted to that. Where did he get those drugs? Who were they actually for?

Lawyer Up Y'all wrote:

When Salazar's former athletes start suing Salazar/Nike/Doctors because Salazar pushed them onto prescription Meds they didn't need and told them to use them in a way not recommended by a doctor, he will likely have to go under oath. Also, testing PEDs on his own children will likely cause him some grief with USDA. He's already admitted to that. Where did he get those drugs? Who were they actually for?

Why are you bringing in the Department of Agriculture?

The DEA wrote:

The DEA is very interested in Salazar. Illegal shipment of drugs domestically and internationally. Obtaining drugs by illegal means from, most likely Asia. Having possession of other people's prescriptions and handing the drugs to whoever he pleases.

This game is over. Salazar needs to save his money in an attempt to save himself --he won't-- and to pay for the many lawsuits he will face afterwards.

First I've heard of illegal PEDs in this case. Troll me more.

He's talking about the illegal shipping of controlled substances, not the substances themselves. Custom's and shipping violations. Learn to read moron.

I think Lets Run should start one of those "prediction contests" concerning this controversy. Here are my predictions:

1. Although no drug enforcement agency will find a smoking gun, Nike will decide that the color grey is no longer fashionable, and Salazar will be forced to dissolve the NOP. He'll then move into doing beige color commentary on the twice a year NBC track telecasts.

2. The threats against Kara Goucher that she spoke of will be realized, especially the scarily whispered one "you'll never run fast in this town again" But it won't be agents of Salazar or Nike that cause this, but rather the far tougher "enforcers" employed by Father Time.

3. Steve Magness will be remembered not as a whistleblower, but as the last XC coach at University of Houston. The University will soon dissolve the program, citing the necessary expenses of paying its football players top dollar in order to ensure they don't transfer to UT or Baylor.

4. The Lets Run commentators who now are bitterly divided between the "pr drones" and the "witchhunters" will return to consensus on the "hotness" of Emma Coburn.

Randy Oldman wrote:

The DEA wrote:

The DEA is very interested in Salazar. Illegal shipment of drugs domestically and internationally. Obtaining drugs by illegal means from, most likely Asia. Having possession of other people's prescriptions and handing the drugs to whoever he pleases.

This game is over. Salazar needs to save his money in an attempt to save himself --he won't-- and to pay for the many lawsuits he will face afterwards.

First I've heard of illegal PEDs in this case. Troll me more.

Why did you chose to read "PEDs" in a post that did not use the term?

Thinking about the future wrote:

1. Although no drug enforcement agency will find a smoking gun, Nike will decide that the color grey is no longer fashionable, and Salazar will be forced to dissolve the NOP.

A smoking gun is not necessary for a conviction.

Nike does not own the "Oregon Project" (OP). Salazar owns it, and has an agreement with Nike to brand it the OP with it. Nike cannot stop the "Oregon Project" from living on after Nike dissolves the relationship with Salazar. Also, Salazar cannot be fired. He is not a Nike employee. He is a contractor/consultant.