My main stated opinion on this subject is that there isn't enough accumulated evidence to show an anti-doping violation has yet occurred. EVERYONE's opinion on the subject is uninformed, and is mainly a reflection of the prejudgement brought into it. The claim was quite specific, "Salazar has had a prescription for Androgel for as long as he's been coaching Rupp." The open letter talks about several medical issues (gonadal, pituitary, thyroid, and adrenal) treated by doctors in the last 25 years, but doesn't indicate any "prescription of Androgel" before 2003. I'm just wondering if there was "specific" evidence for that, or an unintended over-interpretation of what Alberto said in the letter.
It doesn't surprise me you have no idea. If Salazar doped his athletes with his own private stock, before 2009, it was without the dosage knowledge gained from the sabotage test, thereby rendering this "boiled down" claim inapplicable for a major portion of the NOP's existence.
Stay focused. Using supplements, giving massages, sharing a room, are not against the rules. The question is, if these things are uncommon, or otherwise unusual. Is this suspicious? Is Salazar the only coach dabbling with supplements?
So do you agree that the SI article is in fact irrelevant, because substances were not banned, or taken in a banned way? It seems to only support a conspiracy "smoke screen" theory.
See my response to your answer to number 2).
So the conclusion here, is that these 5 (+2) boiled down claims only permit is to THINK that Salazar is doping his athletes from his private stock, and not more. Many already thought that BEFORE the BBC/Propublica reports.
This is odd. Although you've continuously adopted a contradictory tone, you seem here to completely agree with me, when I say that more evidence needs to come out. If USADA has the same set of concerns that have been made public, there is no case against Alberto, and Rupp. The only thing USADA could possibly do is ban his two sons. I don't assume USADA doesn't have more evidence -- I say that more evidence is required to move past the existing public allegations.
If there is more evidence, then you should list it. I think you cannot for two reasons.
I'm not skeptical at all of his accusers. I don't think they are lying, and don't doubt that they are concerned. The issue is that these concerns are not doping, yet here we are in a thread called "NOP doping scandal". Imagine Kara crying "Alberto asked me to use 4 scoops of Gatorade powder, instead of 3 like it's written on the can. I loved him like a f-a-a-a-ther (sniff)". Cytomel is not banned, so USADA will do nothing for Kara, maybe except recommend a rule change. Maybe Aberto committed "mail fraud" and "impersonating a doctor", but this too is outside USADA's jurisdiction.