Doesn't sound good
Editor's note: The article is out but behind a paywall here
Full LRC recap of article and what we think is important here
-
https://twitter.com/davidcollinsst/status/835590902982795264
Doesn't sound good
Editor's note: The article is out but behind a paywall here
Full LRC recap of article and what we think is important here -
He's like Lance
-
Just because the Olympic gold medalists in the 1500, 5000, 10000 and Olympic silver medalist in the marathon all come from the same club People should not assume things. People are just jealous of Salazar. It was the same when everybody was jealous of Charlie Francis' group in the 80s. Just because a coach has unusual success, it does not mean that he is doing it illegally.
-
Maybe it doesn't sound good.
But it also sounds a lot like what Salazar has openly and publicly said he has been doing for years. There is a notable lack of the terms illegal ped use or microdosing in that tweet.
In any case. It sounds like this investigation is finally coming to a conclusion. That in itself should be good news to everyone. Whatever they think of Salazar. -
Tcdvftfffftvft wrote:
... It was the same when everybody was jealous of Charlie Francis' group in the 80s. Just because a coach has unusual success, it does not mean that he is doing it illegally.
You're using Charlie Francis' group as an example? LOL -
ryan foreman wrote:
Maybe it doesn't sound good.
But it also sounds a lot like what Salazar has openly and publicly said he has been doing for years. There is a notable lack of the terms illegal ped use or microdosing in that tweet.
In any case. It sounds like this investigation is finally coming to a conclusion. That in itself should be good news to everyone. Whatever they think of Salazar.
Investigations never close. The samples and data from prior testing are kept for years. Not until eight years after an athlete retires can they think they are clear. But if there was intentional cheating the investigation door never closes.
Salazar will have a cloud over his head his entire life. -
"Drug infusions" will get the headlines (hopefully).
-
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
"Drug infusions" will get the headlines (hopefully).
Salazar has been using other athlete's prescriptions for infusions to those without a prescription. Giving candy to those in need has always been Salazar's game. -
Yes. But for practical purposes does that matter? If they haven't found intentional cheating after two years, which should include looking at samples from more than 2 years ago, why would they find it after 8 years?
Point is, it sounds like there is finally going to be public feedback from USADA.
Never Closes wrote:
ryan foreman wrote:
Maybe it doesn't sound good.
But it also sounds a lot like what Salazar has openly and publicly said he has been doing for years. There is a notable lack of the terms illegal ped use or microdosing in that tweet.
In any case. It sounds like this investigation is finally coming to a conclusion. That in itself should be good news to everyone. Whatever they think of Salazar.
Investigations never close. The samples and data from prior testing are kept for years. Not until eight years after an athlete retires can they think they are clear. But if there was intentional cheating the investigation door never closes.
Salazar will have a cloud over his head his entire life. -
ryan foreman wrote:
Yes. But for practical purposes does that matter? If they haven't found intentional cheating after two years, which should include looking at samples from more than 2 years ago, why would they find it after 8 years?
Point is, it sounds like there is finally going to be public feedback from USADA.
Never Closes wrote:
ryan foreman wrote:
Maybe it doesn't sound good.
But it also sounds a lot like what Salazar has openly and publicly said he has been doing for years. There is a notable lack of the terms illegal ped use or microdosing in that tweet.
In any case. It sounds like this investigation is finally coming to a conclusion. That in itself should be good news to everyone. Whatever they think of Salazar.
Investigations never close. The samples and data from prior testing are kept for years. Not until eight years after an athlete retires can they think they are clear. But if there was intentional cheating the investigation door never closes.
Salazar will have a cloud over his head his entire life.
Yes, it does matter because over time the testing improves and they end up catching cheats. -
But we already knew this?
This is just USADA stating this is fact? Will there be sanctions or repercussions? -
Is this legit? Does anyone have any more details?
Not surprised after the accusations made previously. It'll be interesting to see who is implicated. -
I can't read the Times article without a subscription, can someone help.
-
hart crane wrote:
But we already knew this?
This is just USADA stating this is fact? Will there be sanctions or repercussions?
It says in the article that USADA believes the ORPJ violated anti-doping regulations. If that accurately represents what USADA thinks, don't they have to do something?
I freaking hate this sport sometimes. -
It's free to register to read the article. Apparently there will be more information available there midnight U.K. time (in an hour and a half from now)
-
Squeeky wrote:
I can't read the Times article without a subscription, can someone help.
You can make a free account. Some decent info in it. Steve Magness tested L-cartinine under Salazar and found it improved times equivalent to blood doping. -
"Lance call me asap. We have tested it and its amazing!" Salazar emailed Armstrong before the cycling star's downfall.
-
Oh you know wrote:
Squeeky wrote:
I can't read the Times article without a subscription, can someone help.
You can make a free account. Some decent info in it. Steve Magness tested L-cartinine under Salazar and found it improved times equivalent to blood doping.
Is L-Carnitine dangerous? The article states Mo's health was endangered. A substance doesn't have to be dangerous to be banned, if it gives an advantage and is injected. WADA guidelines call for banning a substance if two of the three are met:
1. Does the substance give a competitive advantage?
2. Is the substance dangerous to the user?
3. Is the substance administered in an unnatural manner? (Humans don't normally inject their meals)
