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

I think you are misconstruing what I wrote.

USADA wanted Dr. Brown to testify about patients who had not given permission to Dr. Brown to speak about their treatment.

I wrote that the reason Dr. Brown refused to testify voluntarily was to avoid getting sued by his patients and getting in trouble with his state medical board. His response to USADA's request something akin to - "either give me the signed authorization from each patient you want to ask about, or get a court order."

USADA went to the Court, seeking a Court Order.

The Court then said "NO" because USADA lacked standing to file any kind of litigation and therefore could not file for a Rule 202.

As for the notion that USADA then return to Dr. Brown and merely ask about the 7 athletes who gave permission - that may be an option. But at this stage in the game, based on how USADA has handled this so far, Dr. Brown could merely agree to answer questions without them being recorded because he is under no obligation to answer any question "under oath".

I know I am Monday Morning Quarterbacking this, but it may have been prudent for USADA to go to Dr. Brown and get the information it sought concerning the patients who gave permission. Obviously ask about others, but when refused, drop the issue temporarily. Then use what information you have gained to build foundation for an investigation or inquiry by a governmental entity that has subpoena power. Perhaps this is still an option.

And if you are the Nike athletes being investigated, be prepared to retain counsel to start filing sealed motions for protective orders.

CGeorgeRun wrote:

As for the notion that USADA then return to Dr. Brown and merely ask about the 7 athletes who gave permission - that may be an option. But at this stage in the game, based on how USADA has handled this so far, Dr. Brown could merely agree to answer questions without them being recorded because he is under no obligation to answer any question "under oath".

Moreover, even if Dr Brown wanted to answer the USADA's questions "under oath," he couldn't. The USADA has no procedure for taking sworn testimony on its own. Its rules only give it authority to take sworn testimony during arbitration hearings appealing an adverse finding.

This is why the USADA filed in Texas. Texas Rule 202 allows a Texas court to compel Dr. Brown to testify under oath. Since this rule is unique to Texas, it is the USADA's only chance to compel testimony under oath before it has enough information to file suit.

CGeorgeRun wrote:

As for the notion that USADA then return to Dr. Brown and merely ask about the 7 athletes who gave permission - that may be an option. But at this stage in the game, based on how USADA has handled this so far, Dr. Brown could merely agree to answer questions without them being recorded because he is under no obligation to answer any question "under oath".

Moreover, even if Dr Brown wanted to answer the USADA's questions "under oath," he couldn't. The USADA has no procedure for taking sworn testimony on its own. Its rules only give it authority to take sworn testimony during arbitration hearings appealing an adverse finding.

This is why the USADA filed in Texas. Texas Rule 202 allows a Texas court to compel Dr. Brown to testify under oath. Since this rule is unique to Texas, it is the USADA's only chance to compel testimony under oath before it has enough information to file suit.

My understanding based on an e-mail sent by the doctor's counsel was that USADA showed up at the doctor's office asking him to testify voluntarily, under oath, on camera. Who knows what the rules would have been for the testimony.... As a lawyer, there is no chance I would ever let any client, EVER, attend such an event. I can appreciate the search for truth and justice, and believe me, I want the investigation to be performed. But there are just too many ways the doctor could get himself in civil and criminal trouble, not to mention the potential impact on his professional license.

Doctor's e-mail, Copied from a post on Page 1:

Before USADA filed this petition, we met with Mr. Bock to find out what USADA wanted to question Dr. Brown about. It went far beyond these seven patients, and specifically included individuals for whom they have no release. They even went so far as to ask Dr. Brown to sign an agreement to appear and testify whenever they called him about anything or anyone they desired. Additionally, there are references in Mr. Bock’s affidavits to statements purportedly made that I know are not true and /or have been disavowed. We determined that Dr. Brown could not answer the questions they wanted to ask because of medical privacy laws. We informed Mr. Bock that was why Dr. Brown could not agree to answer their questions.

Talk about a screw up. I obviously forgot that the USADA could ask for sworn affidavits from people it talked to. But, as you say, those are voluntary; the USADA can't require anyone to testify under oath.

I'm with you that it would be foolish for Dr. Brown to submit an affidavit, or perhaps even to talk to the USADA investigators at all. Their filing in Texas, and the descriptions of their behavior, do not inspire confidence in their competence, or respect for basic rules of fairness.

I'd be curious to know if there is a USADA internal handbook setting guidelines for how to conduct "non-analytic" investigations.

FWIW, I have no dog in this fight. I just want to see evidence proving definitely who is, and who is not, doping. I hate not knowing, especially about my friends.

Ooops! What a screw up wrote:

FWIW, I have no dog in this fight. I just want to see evidence proving definitely who is, and who is not, doping. I hate not knowing, especially about my friends.

If you have no dog in this fight then you need to realize someone like you will never have definitive proof unless people like Dr Brown provide testimony.

Dog Fights wrote:

Ooops! What a screw up wrote:

FWIW, I have no dog in this fight. I just want to see evidence proving definitely who is, and who is not, doping. I hate not knowing, especially about my friends.

If you have no dog in this fight then you need to realize someone like you will never have definitive proof unless people like Dr Brown provide testimony.

Why should Dr. Brown provide testimony? He faces quite a bit of risk and has absolutely no obligation.

He has already provided the medical records of the individuals who requested he release them.

I would like to know who is doping as well, but there are so many unintended consequences in an action like this...

Just one...unequal enforcement...Texas is pretty much the only jurisdiction USADA could even try to compel this testimony in. What about the athletes who seek treatment from Doctors in other territories?

What about the patients of Dr. Brown who have absolutely no connection to elite sport?

casual obsever wrote:

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. .

1) Drugs Rupp was allowed to take

2) testo boost legally helps your body do what it should be doing.

3) Who was asked to pretend? People took legitament recognized tests to demonstrate whether that needed an inhaler which people on here thought was pretending.

al sal is gaming. point.

whatever drugs can be used that dont test or are not on the list are fair in his mind.

the whole process is moot because the powers that be are corrupt and semi dysfincyional to dysfunctional. time to start from scratch.

Then in your mind NOP will never be guilty because doctors didn't provide testimony.

A lot of energy has been wasted on the no-issues. The toughest issue is the testosterone test, which is odd and it would be interesting to see if USADA has a record of the call in 2009.Thyroid meds - lots of people take them (hall, Magness, Goucher) and no TUE is required.asthma - lots of asthmatics run well (Paula and Haile have asthmaTestosterone chart - this was described as Testoboost. That seems possible since other elites took it. Runners coming forward- the seems to be suspicion but, when you dig deeper, it is often speculation. Maybe there is more but we are a year in and nothing has been made public. And no one says they doped.I don't know about Farah's doorbell issue. Maybe there is something there but I would guess that a lot of people have missed a test. Right now, this does not compare to the situation involving Aden's athletes.

Mrr82 wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

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. .

1) Drugs Rupp was allowed to take

2) testo boost legally helps your body do what it should be doing.

3) Who was asked to pretend? People took legitament recognized tests to demonstrate whether that needed an inhaler which people on here thought was pretending.

Forgot one - the medicine in the hollowed out book. That was countered by contemporaneous emails. I don't think that the emails were countered.

Dog Fights wrote:

Then in your mind NOP will never be guilty because doctors didn't provide testimony.

The only way I see to compel doctors to testify is to criminalize doping. I know some people on here, and maybe you, support that.

I think that is the wrong way to go for a host of reasons I've detailed.

Dog Fights wrote:

If you have no dog in this fight then you need to realize someone like you will never have definitive proof unless people like Dr Brown provide testimony.

Believe me, I understand how hard it is for the USADA to find dopers under the current system.

The root problem is that it is very easy for dopers to evade the letter as well as the spirit of the rules. Dopers can fool drug tests by micro-doing, masking, etc. It is so easy that only dumb (or unlucky) athletes fail drug tests. As the throws guys say, ""drug tests are IQ tests."

Because drug tests are easy to run, and failures are damning, the USADA is set up to do drug tests. Because drug tests are easy to avoid, this means the USADA does not catch most dopers. And because the USADA is a private organization, it is basically powerless to find dopers any other way.

Without better tests, or more power to investigate, we are likely stuck. Like people here who deal with the legal system, I am wary of giving the USADA more power, say by criminalizing doping. I know enough about incompetence, corruption and abuse of power to want to know more before signing on.

When I say I have no dogs in this fight, I simply mean I suspect everyone. I hope everyone is clean, but I do know if anyone is.

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?

Yes. Absolutely Farah was on something and knew he would test positive. Not answering the doorbell was the strategy.