ALBERTO SALAZAR BANNED FROM ATHLETICS FOR FOUR YEARS FOR DOPING VIOLATIONS

There's facts and there's facts. wrote:

wejo wrote:

Jon just asked me why I’m trying to catch up on this thread. Because of posts like this one. Very informative

Agree Wejo, but it would be nice if someone with the appropriate expertise could fact check it, Dr Ross Tucker, Science of Sport maybe?

You don't have to fact check with someone like Ross Tucker. All you need to do is read what this person linked. 58% of dialysis patients did not respond to the l-carnatine iv administration. Those that did respond, however, responded BIG TIME. Interestingly, not a single one of the studies referenced in that article are less than 20 years old, so this is not new information in the dialysis world where EPO is used extensively.

Maybe if you wrote a little more coherently and less abrasively then people would latch onto your message and you wouldn't get banned?

banned i got wrote:

There's facts and there's facts. wrote:

Agree Wejo, but it would be nice if someone with the appropriate expertise could fact check it, Dr Ross Tucker, Science of Sport maybe?

or you could accept that its prob TRUE, then google it for yourself....or believe the likes of gary and renato and EPO and PEDs dont work.

I think you missed the "appropriate expertise" bit, expertise is appropriate when researching bio tech whether it be by via Google or any other way. Plenty of keyboard warriors come on here and are instant experts because they've Googled something.

By the way, what's your expertise and qualifications.

There's facts and there's facts. wrote:

banned i got wrote:

or you could accept that its prob TRUE, then google it for yourself....or believe the likes of gary and renato and EPO and PEDs dont work.

I think you missed the "appropriate expertise" bit, expertise is appropriate when researching bio tech whether it be by via Google or any other way. Plenty of keyboard warriors come on here and are instant experts because they've Googled something.

By the way, what's your expertise and qualifications.

Expertise and qualifications don't mean anything to others with expertise and qualifications without studies to back it up.

Not looking good for Sal, Coe, Mo and Crammy in UK:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-7526311/Mo-Farahs-link-notorious-doper-leaves-asterisk-name.html

The IOC isn't convinced the athletes aren't involved.

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/03/ioc-investigation-alberto-salazar-athletes

El Keniano wrote:

The world's media is piling on:

https://apnews.com/6583ab5acd9744018f234113f0bd7f29https://twitter.com/BBCScotNine/status/1179135418111004679?s=20

Ha,ha,ha, it's like a new Mexican drug lord contacting EL Chapo on how he found a new smuggling route into California....

Reasons Salazar received a 4-year ban:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. L-Carnitine – Administration – Magness Infusion

"The Panel finds that USADA has met its burden of proof to show that there was: 1. A

Prohibited Method, an infusion over the applicable limit; 2. Mr. Magness was an Athlete;

and 3. Respondent, specifically and aggressively, facilitated and otherwise participated

in Mr. Magness’ Use of the Prohibited Method. Respondent has committed a violation

of Article 2.8."

2. Tampering and/or Attempted Tampering - L-Carnitine

"Respondent thus positioned the infusions as injections and forcefully instructed the NOP

Athletes not to disclose them. Respondent’s argument that no doping controls actually

occurred and thus there was no instance where the instructions were followed is of no

relevance to the analysis. The Panel must determine whether Respondent engaged in

what he considered to be intentional or fraudulent conduct to alter results or prevent

normal procedures from occurring."

"A majority of the Panel finds that Respondent did deliberately engage in intentional

conduct to alter results or prevent normal procedures from occurring. He was clearly

operating under the impression that the NOP Athletes could be asked about infusions and

a majority finds he tried to prevent the normal procedure from occurring by instructing

the NOP Athletes that no declaration of use of LCarnitine was required and that they

should deny they had the L-carnitine infusion when asked about infusions when getting

drug tested in or out of competition."

Salazar's emails to Shelly Rodemer regarding the distinction between infusions and injections:

Jan 5, 2012 1:17 pm

Hi Shelly, this Globaldro link and the WADA link regarding

injections and infusions. From reading both of these we will

proceed with the following understanding: As long as an injection

into a vein using a standard needle or butterfly needle is under 50

ml and contains no banned substances, the athlete does not have

to apply for a TUE and should not consider it an infusion, and

should answer “NO”, if asked by drug testers if they’ve had an

infusion in the previous six months.

Is this correct? Thank you! – Alberto Salazar

Jan 5, 2012 2:53 pm

Hi Shelly, I just found this old email where Amy Eichner answered

my earlier question to you regarding whether an injection of under

50 ml should be declared when an athlete is asked when drug

tested. She says below that it’s not necessary so unless USADA’s

stance on this has changed, you don’t need to answer me back.

Thanks for all your help and have a great week! — Alberto

The email Salazar sent to his athletes which has resulted in him being charged with Tampering:

Jan 5, 2012 3:27 pm

HI Dathan, Alvina, and Galen, For your interest. When asked

about an infusion, you are to say no. LCarnitine and Iron in the

way we have done it is classified as an injection. So no TUE’s and

no declaration needed, not online and not when asked about

infusions when getting drug tested in or out of competition..Thanks

– Alberto

3. Trafficking and/or Attempted Trafficking of Testosterone – Testosterone Experiment

"In any event, even reading the rule as the parties have done, the Panel does not find

Respondent’s conduct of an experiment using his two sons to be such an “acceptable

justification.” Respondent is an Athlete Support Person bound by the provisions of the

Code, the experiment was conducted at the lab of his employer, where his purpose is to

act in his capacity as an Athlete Support Person. In that capacity, there is no acceptable

justification to give any third parties a Prohibited Substance so he can conduct a test

related to his job."

"While it does not appear to the Panel that the Respondent was trying to intentionally

circumvent the applicable Code provisions, he is subject to a high standard under the Code, especially as a coach and an example to his athletes and the Athletics community.

Unfortunately for him, under the plain meaning of the relevant Code provision, as an

Athlete Support Person, Respondent is strictly prohibited from trafficking in testosterone

by giving it to third parties. The Panel therefore must find that he has violated this Article

in the context of the testosterone experiment."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Here, the Panel found the following violations of the Code:"

See items 1-3 above

"Accordingly, the Panel finds that the period of Ineligibility shall be four years from the

date of this decision."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those with concerns regarding Salazar promoting doping and/or directly doping his athletes:

"...the evidence was that once Respondent had contacted USADA on

December 3, 2011 to seek approval of his “research” and Dr. Fedoruk responded very

specifically on December 6, 2011 that the limit of any infusion should be 50 mL,

Respondent instructed Dr. Brown and Mr. Magness that the infusions should in the future

be a maximum of 50 mL. All the contemporaneous email exchanges thereafter indicate

that the original plan was altered and the intention was to comply with the Code."

"There was plenty of credible testimony about Respondent’s intent concerning

athletes at the NOP not having any anti-doping rule violations or taking any

prohibited performance enhancing drugs."

"A majority of the Panel finds that no substantial step was taken by Respondent with

respect to an anti-doping rule violation (i.e. the Use of a Prohibited Method/over volume

infusion) for the NOP Athletes and in fact, Respondent was explicit at the time in taking

whatever steps were necessary to avoid any such conduct."

"...the record as it involves Respondent is clear that he was trying not to have the NOP

Athletes commit an anti-doping rule violation. Rather than assisting, encouraging or

covering up, the record is very clear that Respondent was trying to have the L-carnitine

infusions after Mr. Magness’ be done in compliance with the Applicable Rules."

"a majority of the Panel found the infusions given to the NOP

Athletes were not a Prohibited Method. Respondent was specifically not assisting,

encouraging, aiding or abetting an anti-doping violation,"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/Salazar-AAA-Decision-1.pdf

"Promoting doping to his athletes" is your statement, and your burden. To your credit, you have recognized this and in doing so, you have so far relied on Tygart and now Bach. However, inexplicably, you continue to ignore the findings, with regard to "to his athletes", of the AAA panel, the authority charged with evaluating Tygart's accusations, Tygart's evidence, the applicable rules, and issuing binding judgements. In a dispute between Tygart and Salazar, Tygart is hardly a neutral party. Bach, just like the rest of us, is an outside party, so has no special knowledge on the topic. Indeed, asking WADA to investigate is a sign that Bach and the IOC would not now conclude that Salazar promoted doping "to his athletes", until after such investigation has been completed.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The IOC isn't convinced the athletes aren't involved.

USADA busted Salazar on what was possible and likely to get an actual CONVICTION.

Al Capone and Al Salazar now have something in common, they both got busted on something other than the actual BIG crime.

Nice to hear from NOP. "Doping? What doping?"

rekrunner wrote:

In a dispute between Tygart and Salazar, Tygart is hardly a neutral party.

Lol - you used to pretend to trust USADA. But of course when he fights against cheating, you have to try to smear him.

You just can't yourself, you simply must always side with the cheats, whether it's Baumann, Decker, Jeptoo, Kiprop, or Salazar with Farah, Rupp and Co.

rekrunner wrote:

Bach, just like the rest of us, is an outside party, so has no special knowledge on the topic.

Indeed, asking WADA to investigate is a sign that Bach and the IOC would not now conclude that Salazar promoted doping "to his athletes", until after such investigation has been completed.

Bach, like so many of us, is - after reading the whole decision - likely shocked that

- Salazar was a testo cheat as athlete

- Salazar coached testo cheat Decker

- Salazar was seen with testo around his athletes in 2008 while not having a prescription

- Salazar's own testo levels went down after he obtained a larger testo prescription

- a witness reported that "Alberto Salazar’s athletes" used "thyroid and testosterone therapy"

- "a Galen Rupp medical record from 2002 that included the line “Presently on prednisone and testosterone medication”."

- Salazar routinely send the professional masseuse away to give Rupp private massages behind closed doors

I could go on, for example about the other drugs, but given that this too will get deleted soon, I'll go for a run instead.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know wrote:

Any reason given why the Brojo's are deleting or allowing the deletion of threads?

Of course not, this is letsrun after all.

But this time, even the brojos were (or acted) upset after all the deletions in the first 24 hours after the announcement of Cheat Salazar's ban. Yet the deletions ever so mysteriously and surprisingly continued...

Salazar emailed:

HI Dathan, Alvina, and Galen . . .

When asked about [doping], you are to say no . . .

Where is that email from Amy Eichner telling him that the L-Carnitine infusions didn't need to be reported?

From Page 41 of the report:

"At 2:50 p.m. on January 5, 2012, Respondent forwarded Dr. Eichner’s December 22, 2010 email regarding Ms. Goucher’s iron injection to Dr. Brown with the following

message (See Paragraph 127): “Hi Dr. Brown, Eureka!! I have an old email where they

clarified this. No TUE and no declaration needed. – Alberto”.

"At 2.54 p.m. on the same date, without waiting for a reply from Ms. Rodemer, Respondent emailed Dr. Brown and said, “Hi Dr. Brown, Now unless she contradicts the earlier email, we have our fallback if ever questioned! – Alberto.”

Unfortunately for Salazar, Dr. Eichner didn't give him the blanket approval for non-reporting of infusions that he claimed that she did. From Page 42:

"Dr. Eichner testified that Respondent’s reliance on her December 22, 2010 email is wrong and that Respondent misconstrued her email."

"Q: Do you believe that your prior email to him regarding Ms.

Goucher receiving an iron injection in December of 2010 is

responsive to the question he posed on January 5, 2012 to Ms.

Rodemer? "

"A: No. Because they’re different questions, and my answer

regarding the iron injection was made very specifically referring

only to that particular circumstance. "

Anyone who thinks this report exonerates Alberto in any way is deluded. He very clearly didn't want an answer from Shelly Rodemer because he had already given the infusion(s) and USADA was already asking questions about it.

"This just occurred with Dathan regarding

an infusion back in June during surgery, and now one week before

the Olympic Marathon Trials they ask us what the infusion was

for! Scared the crap out of us, but I learned from it, don’t put

anything down that you don’t have to."

So he writes to Rodemer with a misleading email (lie) saying that her colleague has already told him that he doesn't need to report any infusion under 50ml when being drug tested, and tells her that "unless the policy has changed" that she need not respond. In fact, the policy hadn't changed. He just misrepresented what the policy was and hoped that she didn't question it.

"Hi Shelly, I just found this old email where Amy Eichner answered

my earlier question to you regarding whether an injection of under

50 ml should be declared when an athlete is asked when drug

tested. She says below that it’s not necessary so unless USADA’s

stance on this has changed, you don’t need to answer me back.

Thanks for all your help and have a great week! — Alberto"

You see things in strange ways, trying to reduce it to black/white no exception soundbites like "pretend to trust USADA". I apply trust on a case by case basis, based on the circumstances for that case. I trust Tygart to be aggressive, maybe to a fault. I tried to keep my expressed opinions close what exists in the AAA panel finding, although someone wrote in this thread about a judge commenting on Tygart in the Armstrong case being too aggressive. And recall I didn't trust Tygart's interpretation of a head nod. You think I side with "Baumann, Decker, Jeptoo, Kiprop, or Salazar with Farah, Rupp and Co", but the reality is that I dig to find out the circumstances for each case, and don't let blind trust blind my judgement. You think that if I attack someone attacking a doper, that I'm defending a doper, when in reality I'm attacking a faulty argument, or pointing out something contradictory, or trying to find out circumstances. As compelling as your list is, Salazar was only found guilty of excessively infusing Magness, giving bad advice in a situation not needing it, and conducting a steroid experiment on his sons. In the case of Salazar, I was convinced that he likely broke local, state, national and federal laws, but always struggled to see which ADRVs were committed by Salazar and/or any NOP athletes. I trust that the AAA panel correctly evaluated the evidence and interpreted the rules.

rekrunner wrote:

You think that if I attack someone attacking a doper, that I'm defending a doper, when in reality I'm attacking a faulty argument, or pointing out something contradictory, or trying to find out circumstances.

Again, posing that you are a neutral poser of questions. The reality, based on thousands and thousands of posts on here, is that your skepticism and attacking faulty arguments only ever cut one way. In favor of the dopers.