LRC Exclusive: The latest on USADA's investigation into Alberto Salazar's Nike Oregon Project

I concede that USADA does not have the power to compel testimony, and, that was the basis for the decision.

The rest of your argument is reflective of incredibly poor reasoning. Or, I suppose, it's reflective of really great reasoning but only if your argument is that no one should be compelled to testify about anything ever.

After all; who knows what the mean DA might ask you?

Link - please explain which part you disagree with.

Can't use Dr Brown wrote:

Lack of cooperation should be a ban from using a doctor who prescribes controlled drugs. Dr Brown can protect himself. The end result is he can no longer treat athletes.

What "controlled drugs" has he prescribed? He's Dr. Thyroid, and, as has been said endlessly, thyroid meds are not "controlled."

I'm curious how we are supposed to define "lack of cooperation." Refusal to answer any question from the USADA? I'm also curious as to the grounds for such a ban; the various WADA and USADA rules don't mention any obligation to cooperate.

In effective, you want the USADA to come up with a list of "approved doctors" who athletes can use. This seems like a bad idea on both practical and legal grounds.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

All things to think about.

Indeed. Thank you for posting that.

The rest of you should take a day before posting and read Section 2 of the WADA Code, especially 2.8-2.9. Then read the Part III of the International Standard for Testing and Investigation.

I think you all will be disappointed to see how little authority the WADA code gives the USADA to actually carry out investigations.

The words "oath," "swear," "sworn" and "testify" are never used. Testimony gets used four times, across both documents.

The only time the USADA rules even allow people to testify under oath is in appeals proceedings in front of arbitrators.

Link wrote:

it's reflective of really great reasoning but only if your argument is that no one should be compelled to testify about anything ever.

After all; who knows what the mean DA might ask you?

The DA can ask what she wants, but her power to compel answers is limited. She operates under a host of restrictions, such as the 5th Amendment. There are no such restrictions on investigators in the various WADA and USADA rules. This is one of the reason that many people are wary of the USADA.

The investigatory powers of the USADA are so minimal that it's rules do not allow it to swear in witnesses. This means the USADA does not have one of the most powerful tools available to DAs -- the threat of perjury.

Given the general disdain for groups like WADA and the USATF, I'm always surprised at how much power people want to give to the USADA. Why should we think they are any more able or upright than the rest of these clowns?

CGeorgeRun wrote:

But USADA is very limited in the methods which it can utilize to achieve its end goal.

Amen!

Why is this idea so hard for people here to grasp that the world just is not how they want it to be?

Anyway, thank you for the informative and thoughtful posts. They are appreciated.

PS Given the impossible task you have chosen -- to get people to understand the basic facts of the situation -- I think you should change your handle to CSisyphusPush.

They're Filthy wrote:

Doping NOPers wrote:

NOP gets away with their flagrant doping by doing experiments on children to test the threshold of testing positive. They don't answer the doorbell when the testers come over. They transport their PEDs in hollowed-out books. They use microdosing. They get doctors to prescribe phony TUEs. They send samples to the Mayo Clinic to make sure they aren't overly hot. They bribe the testers.

^^^^ All This !!!

The little NOP fanboyz can get all butthurt and rationalize the cheating to no end, but the truth is the truth. The truth is that NOP is a filthy program and Sleazy Sal will use each and every banned drug and new drug with impunity because Lord Coe and the USTAF have been paid off.

I am not American, and have no affiliation with Nike, NOP, or anyone involved in them.

Being an outsider, I've sort of walked into this unbridled hatred f NOP, Salazar, Rupp and Farah, scratching my head. We all know they are dirty, everyone says.

Then we get down to the nitty gritty of detail. Farah didn't answer a door. Salazar rubbed T gel onto his sons (something he volunteered too I believe), Farah knows someone who we think is dirty, but also hasn't been dirty.

I am no fanboy of anyone, but I will presume innocent until there is something more than innuendo and guilt by association. Farah not answering the door means exactly nothing, by the way.

rekrunner wrote:

I think you don't know what "conflict of interest" means.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry. As usual without any argument from you, while of course ignoring all mine.

You are the one, in support of Lord Coe, to keep denying all the obvious conflicts of interest, and then this? Right after you talked about:

rekrunner wrote:

USADA's conflicted interests with Alberto and the NOP

"conflicted interests" from the "expert", oh boy.

And then you lied so openly and stupidly:

rekrunner wrote:

I didn't say anything about dependencies.

Right after you wrote (and even cited yourself)

rekrunner wrote:

dependencies to other organizations

Good bye, troll. Try a new handle next time.

Karma Police wrote:

Then we get down to the nitty gritty of detail. Farah didn't answer a door. Salazar rubbed T gel onto his sons (something he volunteered too I believe), Farah knows someone who we think is dirty, but also hasn't been dirty.

I am no fanboy of anyone

If you are no fanboy, why do you downplay the facts, and leave several facts out?

We need some big changes wrote:

Can't use Dr Brown wrote:

Lack of cooperation should be a ban from using a doctor who prescribes controlled drugs. Dr Brown can protect himself. The end result is he can no longer treat athletes.

What "controlled drugs" has he prescribed? He's Dr. Thyroid, and, as has been said endlessly, thyroid meds are not "controlled."

Fool, athletes are required to obtain a TUE for certain drug use. Therefore the drug is controlled.

Controlled Drugs wrote:

Fool, athletes are required to obtain a TUE for certain drug use. Therefore the drug is controlled.

I just want to know the drugs did Dr. Brown prescribe for athletes? It can't be the ones he's famous for -- thyroid drugs -- because thyroid drugs don't require a TUE. So which ones is it?

FWIW, "controlled" is not a used by doping controllers. Their word is "prohibited." it's the "Prohibited List" not the "Controlled List."

FYI:

Karma Police wrote:Salazar rubbed T gel onto his sons

Hmm. Yeah, it's just an "experiment" to never test positive.

As for Farah, the stories of dirty athletes running away from their tests, AFTER the whereabouts data they posted are now legendary.

casual obsever wrote:

Karma Police wrote:

Then we get down to the nitty gritty of detail. Farah didn't answer a door. Salazar rubbed T gel onto his sons (something he volunteered too I believe), Farah knows someone who we think is dirty, but also hasn't been dirty.

I am no fanboy of anyone

If you are no fanboy, why do you downplay the facts, and leave several facts out?

There aren't any facts, that's my point. I'm impartial.

You should be looking in the mirror and asking yourself why you are certain they are guilty without decent proof.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Karma Police wrote:Salazar rubbed T gel onto his sons

Hmm. Yeah, it's just an "experiment" to never test positive.

As for Farah, the stories of dirty athletes running away from their tests, AFTER the whereabouts data they posted are now legendary.

So Farah is presumed guilty because of what other people did?

Do you really think Farah was on something and knew he would test positive, and his strategy was to avoid testers till his body had got rid of it? Does that really seem like a Salazar strategy?

Karma Police wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Hmm. Yeah, it's just an "experiment" to never test positive.

As for Farah, the stories of dirty athletes running away from their tests, AFTER the whereabouts data they posted are now legendary.

So Farah is presumed guilty because of what other people did?

Do you really think Farah was on something and knew he would test positive, and his strategy was to avoid testers till his body had got rid of it? Does that really seem like a Salazar strategy?

Farah was new to the program. He though he would test positive. Salazar assured him special lab testing indicated he would pass.

You should cry. I ignored all of your arguments, because there was very little of substance about USADA, NOP or Salazar.Your comical example of "conflict of interest" was that Edwin Moses used to be an athlete, used to be at USOC and is now at USADA. This is why you should cry -- because you actually think this is an intelligent response.The rationale seems to be "Of course Moses wants USATF to be successful, and Salazar unharmed", this is not a fact. This is:- something you just made up- in any case, not a conflict of interestA conflict of interest is when you wear two hats (with competing interests) at the same time, not change hats. If he were still a USATF athlete, and involved in his own drug testing, this would be a conflict of interest. If he wants USATF succeed, this is not a conflict with wanting them to succeed "clean".You are right, I did say you would fabricate dependencies with other organisations because you actually would be unable to make any arguments without it. Looks like I underestimated your inability to make arguments. You didn't so much fabricate dependencies, but simply stated the existence and took them for granted as "obvious", and then listed a bunch of names. When we add up the merit and substance of all your "arguments", and use standard definitions of the terms, we can still conclude that USADA is an independent organisation free of conflict of interests.What about all these great non-USADA examples and their connections to NADOs?Looks like, post investigations, that Coe was right about what the data could possibly show, and that at no time was Paula in need of any defense, presidential or otherwise.Of course, we could already infer this way back in Dec. 2014, when the IAAF said that the data was not collected according to the higher ABP standards that would allow reliable comparisons of two data points. We found lots of papers that confirmed the potential problems.Looks like UKAD acted properly with Farah's missed test. Farah doesn't need a doorbell, or any, excuse, as it takes 3 misses to get a ban. And then the doorbell excuse won't help. The "doorbell excuse" could never be an important factor in the decision to ban, but it makes for some great fodder for the mindless masses.Baumann was sanctioned. There is a strange story about toothpaste, but he was sanctioned just the same.Gay was sanctioned. Looks like it got reduced for substantial assistance against another coach. WADA can appeal.Block was banned for 10 years.Mitchell? He was also sanctioned.USOC covered up USA drug tests? That was another time, pre-WADA and pre-USADA.Where was Moses? He was proactive in setting up stricter anti-doping policies -- who knows, maybe as a response to these cover-ups.The only way you can reconcile all of these contradictory facts is to say that you are still right, despite all the contradictions, because everybody is in on it, and covering up the real truth, and offer tenuous links.Despite the volume of your "all over the place" fabricated connections, you have not given any substantial, intelligent reasons why anyone should doubt USADA wanting to "bring down" NOP or Salazar, assuming they have actually done something against anti-doping rules. On the contrary, history shows Tygart is aggressive and single minded prosecutor against doping.And you have completely ignored the main possibility why Salazar has not yet been "brought down" -- maybe USADA hasn't found anything yet. From the public information (and I assume we are both in the public), nothing that has come out has shown that at any moment in time, an NOP athlete subject to WADA rules, has committed any anti-doping rule violation.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I think you don't know what "conflict of interest" means.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry. As usual without any argument from you, while of course ignoring all mine.

You are the one, in support of Lord Coe, to keep denying all the obvious conflicts of interest, and then this? Right after you talked about:

rekrunner wrote:

USADA's conflicted interests with Alberto and the NOP

"conflicted interests" from the "expert", oh boy.

And then you lied so openly and stupidly:

rekrunner wrote:

I didn't say anything about dependencies.

Right after you wrote (and even cited yourself)

rekrunner wrote:

dependencies to other organizations

Good bye, troll. Try a new handle next time.

Karma Police wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

If you are no fanboy, why do you downplay the facts, and leave several facts out?

There aren't any facts, that's my point. I'm impartial.

You should be looking in the mirror and asking yourself why you are certain they are guilty without decent proof.

There are lots of facts - you yourself mentioned a few of them:

1) "Farah didn't answer a door. " True, that is a fact. Farah claimed that he couldn't hear the doorbell, and phone, for the full hour the tester was trying. That is not a confirmed fact, that is his claim. UKAD has judged that to be accidental, not on purpose - otherwise Farah could have received a ban for test evasion.

2) "Salazar rubbed T gel onto his sons" to check for its detection limits by his own admission. He claimed he did so to learn about possible sabotage - that is his claim, not a confirmed fact.

3) "Farah knows someone who we think is dirty, but also hasn't been dirty."

Not sure who you are talking about. Facts in that context: Farah has trained and dined with Driouch, a convicted drug cheat; Farah is training under Salazar, coach of convicted drug cheat Slaney and currently under investigation by USADA, Farah has trained under Aden, at minimum - according to UKAD - with Aden stopping Farah's workout times, who is currently under investigation by the Spanish police (who still has his passport) and IAAF.

Moreover, you left out the confirmed facts about Salazar having sent drugs in hollow books across the border, and Rupp getting "testosterone medication" which caused his T to increase. Then there are witnesses testifying that Salazar asked his athletes to pretend to get certain TUEs.

I don't need to look into the mirror - I see the facts and don't deny their existence. I also remember Salazar's "article" from the EPO times, see here:

"I believe that it is currently difficult to be among the top 5 in the world in any of the distance events without using EPO or Human Growth Hormone. While some of the top athletes may be clean, so many athletes are running so fast that their performances are suspect. This is compounded for me by the fact

that the times these athletes are running just happen to coincide exactly with what top exercise physiologists have calculated taking EPO would produce."

"While some of the top athletes may be clean" implies that in his opinion most top athletes are not clean. I concur with this opinion.

OK, perhaps I should have said relevant facts, or conclusive facts. Some of these are facts, but they don't prove anything.

Farah didn't hear the doorbell. This proves what? It was investigated and nothing happened.

Aden - who is alleged to be associated with drugs - once held a stopwatch for a session. His main coach used to coach someone who was found guilty for drugs.

Classic guilt by association.

Is there anything beyond that or innuendo?

Rupp got medication that wasn't mediaction. So why is he still running, if he's so guilty?

You hang your obviously guilty verdict on all these half baked inconclusive facts. Why are you so convinced they're guilty, or why do you want them to be? That's why you need to look in the mirror.

You are still ridiculing the facts. For example, Aden did more than just hold a stopwatch once. And we don't know what exactly Rupp's "testosterone medication" was, whether it contained T or not, or whether it was medication or not.

Farah's doorbell case (not for a couple of minutes, but at minimum for a full hour) wasn't really investigated, UKAD just chose to believe his excuse (while I don't).

But you are correct with your conclusion, imho: the currently known facts don't suffice to prove guilt.

However, I assume that "testosterone medication" includes testosterone, in particular when its usage caused a T increase as documented here, regardless of the statement of the accused.

Further, I believe that Salazar used Androgel on his son to learn about its detection limits, yes, but not to determine whether one can sabotage his athletes by touching them with a creamy hand. Remember in this context that Salazar himself had earlier ridiculed Gatlin's sabotage story.

As for your mirror: yes, Salazar and his group look guilty to me, based on the above and based on history. Usually in doping cases, we only see the top of the iceberg, not coincidentally caused irrelevant smoke.

Finally, you are wrong in assuming that I want them to be dirty. The opposite is true, but I try to look at this from the neutral perspective.