I’m not on starva and I already said who I was and where I went to college you worthless sh*t box
I’m not on starva and I already said who I was and where I went to college you worthless sh*t box
m!ndweak is excrement of the worst kind, a worthless individual who unfortunately pollutes a number of LR threads, he's nameless and shameless and hangs around certain threads like a bad smell.
m!ndweak is excrement of the worst kind. wrote:
m!ndweak is excrement of the worst kind, a worthless individual who unfortunately pollutes a number of LR threads, he's nameless and shameless and hangs around certain threads like a bad smell.
Rumors today that this thread is being evaluated by a high profile attorney out of Denver. Lots of pretty significant defamatory accusations and statements.
I've never heard of an athlete or coach found guilty of doping based on the evidence of motive and revenge.
Motive and revenge. wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I think we can ignore any wild theories about affairs, as 1) something that doesn't concern USADA, WADA, or the public, 2) something that is not banned or otherwise illegal, and 3) desperate clutching at straws, because there are not enough facts to talk about doping.
Wrong, ever heard of motive and revenge.
Stop making stuff up. USADA even complained about Magness not being cooperative enough, and Ritz and Co. pulled the good old I don't remember card. Tara outright lied about her infusion...
Hmmm, let's see what the experts say:
Interesting, "probable cause"...
justitia.com says
"A judge issues a search warrant to authorize law enforcement officers to search a particular location and seize specific items. To obtain a search warrant, police must show probable cause that a crime was committed and that items connected to the crime are likely to be found in the place specified by the warrant."
law.cornell edu says about that:
"Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). "
What we know:
- likely doping status of Rupp and Farah in 2016
- highly likely anti-doping violation by Magness, Tara, Ritz, Rupp in 2011/12
Are "likely doping" and "highly likely" enough for probable cause? Sounds like a reasonable basis for believing that doping occurred, wouldn't you say?
Remember that Jeptoo was banned for "likely doping" in Boston 2014 and EPO in Chicago 2014, so sometimes the IAAF takes that status seriously.
IF doping were a crime, then USADA - or rather, the police - could argue that there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed etc. to obtain a warrant.
It would also be irrelevant whether athletes are "subject to WADA", whatever and whoever you mean by that. In that context though, remember that even 50 and 60 year old athletes do get banned for doping.
Of course, as is, USADA has no means other than to beg athletes and support personnel to admit to their wrongdoings. Therefore this investigation was doomed from the start.
Interesting source. What did he really say?
"When asked about an infusion, you are to say no."
What did the WADA code say back then?
"An IV infusion or injection is the supply of fluid and/or prescribed medication by means of a syringe or “butterfly” needle, directly into a vein. Infusions or injections of 50 mL or less per a 6-hour period are permitted unless the infused/injected substance is on the Prohibited List."
Looks like a lie to me. But you will probably argue that Salazar used a different definition of "infusion" for days and days until I give up. Did they use a different needle? Go for it!
I find this interesting. Initially when I heard about NOP and the L-carnitine injections my thoughts were, if that's the worst they can find then they got nothing. Especially in comparison to a lot of the EPO busts that are happening in the last few years.
However, if there is a clear limit set and that limit was purposefully exceeded, that's cheating. The results may have been meaningless, but the intent was there. Doing something in violation of the rules in order to get an advantage over others. If they would've stuck to the legal limits, nobody would even talking about this right now.
I have always rooted for Rupp and I was of the opinion that a big deal was being made out of nothing. But that doesn't change the fact that the rules got purposefully broken.
Bummer :/
+1
Actually according to Magness it helped a lot. The others got "only" a quarter of his dose so presumably that helped less.
Still, going from 20x the allowed amount down to 5x the allowed amount is still cheating.
Interesting. What about the rest of the 19?
I saw USADA wrote that Magness was "helpful in many respects". I saw USADA complained about the time it took, at times, to turn over some of the data. I didn't see USADA complain about "not being cooperative enough". Did you make that up?
USADA wrote that they conducted "more than 40+ interviews", and "has reviewed many thousands of pages of emails, text messages, and medical records -- all provided voluntarily to USADA pursuant to information requests..."
You asked for "a raid of NOP", and then list individual athletes.
What we also know:
- the "likely doping" result "by the ADAMS mathematical model" can be overturned by expert review at many steps during the ABP process for non-doping reasons. A judge familiar with the many steps of the ABP might not be swayed by this initial flagging of values by software, not yet reviewed by any human expert.
- "highly likely" was an expression of a strong belief of USADA. Convincing a judge would depend on the strength of the data and arguments supporting this strong belief, and not the belief itself, balanced against protecting an entity against an unconstitutional search and seizure. We know this argument was not convincing enough to sway the Texas Medical Board to compel production of medical records.
It also raises the question, that if doping becomes a crime, would this reasonably also include violating a method for infusions of non-criminal substances?
If so, for the sake of argument, it would not be enough to satisfy your idea of "likely doping" and "highly likely" -- you'd have to show why NOP likely caused the likely rule violation, to argue for a "raid of NOP". We have already seen email evidence to the contrary, as, from the very beginning, Salazar tasked Magness to find a way to use L-Carnitine that was "WADA legal, of course".
I'd say the main reason it was doomed, is because many of the allegations are not even allegations of doping. Mailing drugs, prescription drug abuse, and doping experiments on your sons (which might already be crimes, or at least illegal), are not doping allegations against NOP athletes. After 40+ interviews, USADA wrote that they were still investigating whether an ADRV had occurred, except, tragically, for the very first whistle-blower.
No need to explore alternate definitions of "infusion".
What ELSE did he really say? "L-carnitine and iron in the way we have it done is classified (technically) as an injection."
Even Magness in his initial email complaint said "legal injections under 50ml instead of infusions".
Looks like technically "injections" was considered the right word -- no need to play with definitions of infusions.
You might argue that this technicality is a lie, and that Alberto lied to his athletes, giving a technically wrong explanation.
Assuming you could do this successfully -- this is different than asking his athletes to lie to USADA.
Your initial thoughts are not yet wrong. "Purposefully exceeded" are big words. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to go back and re-read the 269 page leaked document, but my recollection is: No one has shown that the WADA limits were exceeded, or, if so, exceeded on purpose. My recollection is that the only documented evidence on exceeding the limit is with Magness, with a 1 liter 4 hour infusion. Salazar expressly tasked Magness to find a "WADA legal" method. Tragically and ironically, both of these situations look worse for Magness than Salazar or NOP.
stfu JS wrote:
I find this interesting. Initially when I heard about NOP and the L-carnitine injections my thoughts were, if that's the worst they can find then they got nothing. Especially in comparison to a lot of the EPO busts that are happening in the last few years.
However, if there is a clear limit set and that limit was purposefully exceeded, that's cheating. The results may have been meaningless, but the intent was there. Doing something in violation of the rules in order to get an advantage over others. If they would've stuck to the legal limits, nobody would even talking about this right now.
I have always rooted for Rupp and I was of the opinion that a big deal was being made out of nothing. But that doesn't change the fact that the rules got purposefully broken.
Bummer :/
rekrunner wrote:
Your initial thoughts are not yet wrong. "Purposefully exceeded" are big words.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to go back and re-read the 269 page leaked document, but my recollection is:
No one has shown that the WADA limits were exceeded, or, if so, exceeded on purpose.
My recollection is that the only documented evidence on exceeding the limit is with Magness, with a 1 liter 4 hour infusion.
Salazar expressly tasked Magness to find a "WADA legal" method.
Tragically and ironically, both of these situations look worse for Magness than Salazar or NOP.
That is a good point. It has been a while since I read it, but if I remember correctly no evidence or paper work was ever found to indicate amounts (Didn't the doctor refuse to testify?). Is this the evidence the Goucher's hope to come out?
Complete supposition. There is no evidence either way that the Texas Medical Board has or hasn't compelled production of medical records. A federal court declined to force Dr. Brown to testify under oath.
rekrunner wrote:
- "highly likely" was an expression of a strong belief of USADA. Convincing a judge would depend on the strength of the data and arguments supporting this strong belief, and not the belief itself, balanced against protecting an entity against an unconstitutional search and seizure. We know this argument was not convincing enough to sway the Texas Medical Board to compel production of medical records.
Does USADA check in with the Gouchers before they resolve an investigation? If not, how the hell does Adam know ANYTHING about it?
No they do not.
He doesn't.
rekrunner wrote:
I've never heard of an athlete or coach found guilty of doping based on the evidence of motive and revenge.
Motive and revenge. wrote:
Wrong, ever heard of motive and revenge.
And you won't, but you also won't find USADA or WADA ignoring the possibility either, what's one of the first things thought of when a whistle blower comes forward?, motive and revenge. Also, this isn't just implicating an individual it's also implicating the an influential organisation of wrongdoing.
So no, you can't "ignore any wild theories about affairs", especially concerning a coach and athlete, history tells us that.
I'm pretty confident that neither USADA nor WADA ever considered the possibility. It's simply not an anti-doping rule violation, and such consideration cannot help establish one. But maybe you can bring a concrete example.
Wild maybe, but they still have to be considered. wrote:
And you won't, but you also won't find USADA or WADA ignoring the possibility either, what's one of the first things thought of when a whistle blower comes forward?, motive and revenge. Also, this isn't just implicating an individual it's also implicating the an influential organisation of wrongdoing.
So no, you can't "ignore any wild theories about affairs", especially concerning a coach and athlete, history tells us that.
Have it your way: - "highly likely" was an expression of a strong belief of USADA. Convincing a judge would depend on the strength of the data and arguments supporting this strong belief, and not the belief itself, balanced against protecting an entity against an unconstitutional search and seizure. There is no evidence that the Texas Medical Board was swayed enough by USADA's belief to compel production of medical records.
Liar wrote:
Complete supposition. There is no evidence either way that the Texas Medical Board has or hasn't compelled production of medical records.
A federal court declined to force Dr. Brown to testify under oath.
rekrunner wrote:
- "highly likely" was an expression of a strong belief of USADA. Convincing a judge would depend on the strength of the data and arguments supporting this strong belief, and not the belief itself, balanced against protecting an entity against an unconstitutional search and seizure. We know this argument was not convincing enough to sway the Texas Medical Board to compel production of medical records.
Nice name calling, bumwipe.
Post a picture of yourself so we can comment on your looks with derision.
I don't think the Gouchers were concerned about excessive infusions of L-carnitine. They were concerned about prescription drugs like Cytomel. The original BBC Panorama/Propublica story did not concern infusions of non-doping substances beyond the allowed limit. Which brings me right back to your initial thought...
stfu JS wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Your initial thoughts are not yet wrong. "Purposefully exceeded" are big words.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to go back and re-read the 269 page leaked document, but my recollection is:
No one has shown that the WADA limits were exceeded, or, if so, exceeded on purpose.
My recollection is that the only documented evidence on exceeding the limit is with Magness, with a 1 liter 4 hour infusion.
Salazar expressly tasked Magness to find a "WADA legal" method.
Tragically and ironically, both of these situations look worse for Magness than Salazar or NOP.
That is a good point. It has been a while since I read it, but if I remember correctly no evidence or paper work was ever found to indicate amounts (Didn't the doctor refuse to testify?). Is this the evidence the Goucher's hope to come out?
rekrunner wrote:
I'm pretty confident that neither USADA nor WADA ever considered the possibility.
It's simply not an anti-doping rule violation, and such consideration cannot help establish one.
But maybe you can bring a concrete example.
Wild maybe, but they still have to be considered. wrote:
And you won't, but you also won't find USADA or WADA ignoring the possibility either, what's one of the first things thought of when a whistle blower comes forward?, motive and revenge. Also, this isn't just implicating an individual it's also implicating the an influential organisation of wrongdoing.
So no, you can't "ignore any wild theories about affairs", especially concerning a coach and athlete, history tells us that.
Only WADA and USADA can give you a "concrete example".
WADA 'Whistleblowing Program' states the WADA Investigation Department will consider "if the Disclosure is made in good faith and on reasonable grounds". Still, if want to believe they wouldn't consider motive and/or revenge, etc in some cases, that's your prerogative.
Wild maybe, but they still have to be considered. wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I've never heard of an athlete or coach found guilty of doping based on the evidence of motive and revenge.
And you won't, but you also won't find USADA or WADA ignoring the possibility either, what's one of the first things thought of when a whistle blower comes forward?, motive and revenge. Also, this isn't just implicating an individual it's also implicating the an influential organisation of wrongdoing.
So no, you can't "ignore any wild theories about affairs", especially concerning a coach and athlete, history tells us that.
This message board Theory that there was an affair, is...insane,
Kara is happily married, and very focused on having a child and then raising that child.
Salazar is very dictated by his religion when it comes to marriage; just because we live in a culture where many men and women have affairs, it's stupid to cast this asperion at a coach of Salazar's age. Kara, no doubt would have found the idea of sleeping with her coach digusting and creepy. For her, he ls a Old Man. This affair brush is just the wankings of idiots on a message voard.