ALBERTO SALAZAR BANNED FROM ATHLETICS FOR FOUR YEARS FOR DOPING VIOLATIONS

Nice find, Armstronglivs. Coe, Cram, Farah and Radcliffe in the line of fire? That too will upset rekrunner greatly.

And thank you for the laugh, Texas.

And from the pages of the Guardian above. Too good not to share.

"Everybody knew that there was cheating going on and people getting away with it. It was seriously affecting the credibility of the sport.” The uncompromising words, there, of Paula Radcliffe. But not this week. That was Paula Radcliffe, zero-tolerance author of Paula: My Story So Far, in a chapter called “Taking on the cheats”.

That version of Radcliffe, a kind of anti-doping Che Guevara, has apparently been decommissioned. It has been replaced by the version that appeared this week on the BBC to offer up an interview of vomit-inducing faux piety during which she saw, in Salazar, a coach who was guilty of no more than “overstepping the line”, of wanting to win – sigh – too much, whose doping violations were, you know, kind of OK.

“Have real anti-doping rules been transgressed by athletes? I don’t think so. Otherwise we would have seen athletes banned at this point,” Radcliffe announced, the same Radcliffe who wrote in her own book that “Everybody knows the tests are not guaranteed to expose the cheats.” Which one is it! This is confusing!

Instead Radcliffe, fearless crusader for the truth, suggested it had been a waste of money to expose the doping violations of the sport’s most high-profile coach. A bit later she pulled an improvised foil helmet out of her holdall and implied the entire investigation was designed to distract from the recent Christian Coleman case, despite predating it by four years, a suggestion so asinine it is probably an affront to the word “asinine” to align the two.

The one thing Radcliffe didn’t offer up during this stream of thought-blurts was the fact that she is herself an ambassador for Nike. Similarly Steve Cram, so eloquent in his condemnation of Justin Gatlin, so resolute on the mass-banning of Russian athletes, was silent on his own ties to Nike, all the while insisting this week that there should be no guilt by association for those associated with a guilty coach.

Lol yes. The concurrent Betsy/Paula thread is also fun. Paula is such a pathological liar....

@rekrunner

"I do not dig for mitigating factors but insist on preserving intellectual integrity."(quote)

Your oft-stated intention is to hold to lofty standards of dispassionate intellectual discourse but your method is little distinguishable from defense counsel striving to show that the man holding the gun has no connection with the dead body in the room. Much of your argument appears to have less to do with science than "confirmation bias". You always find what you are looking for, and the dopers know that in you they have a fine advocate. They are never guilty as charged and there are always good and fine reasons for what they do. But keep protesting that is the furthest thing from your mind, by all means.

Yes that is a rare find. It's unusual for a British journalist to be ignorant, dishonest, and hyper-critical of national heros.

casual obsever wrote:

Nice find, Armstronglivs. Coe, Cram, Farah and Radcliffe in the line of fire? That too will upset rekrunner greatly.

And thank you for the laugh, Texas.

These look like nice words on paper. I enjoy our exchanges, but sadly you only bring imagination and analogies. I cannot even accuse you of confirmation bias, because that would first require finding confirmation.

Armstronglivs wrote:

@rekrunner

"I do not dig for mitigating factors but insist on preserving intellectual integrity."(quote)

Your oft-stated intention is to hold to lofty standards of dispassionate intellectual discourse but your method is little distinguishable from defense counsel striving to show that the man holding the gun has no connection with the dead body in the room. Much of your argument appears to have less to do with science than "confirmation bias". You always find what you are looking for, and the dopers know that in you they have a fine advocate. They are never guilty as charged and there are always good and fine reasons for what they do. But keep protesting that is the furthest thing from your mind, by all means.

jeff tallon wrote:

im suprised epo hasnt been found.surely its a better drug for distance runners than testosterone pills.the epo must have either been used up,or hidden.

Isn't it funny how IOC has a tougher stance on this compared with the IAAF? How corrupt is the sport when the IOC looks a more credible organization?

rekrunner wrote:

Yes that is a rare find. It's unusual for a British journalist to be ignorant, dishonest, and hyper-critical of national heros.

casual obsever wrote:

Nice find, Armstronglivs. Coe, Cram, Farah and Radcliffe in the line of fire? That too will upset rekrunner greatly.

And thank you for the laugh, Texas.

Seriously does the IAAF pay well? I'm looking to change jobs.

The Mail nails it again. wrote:

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 Daily Mail has been smearing Farah long before Salazar stories or even his missed test.

Farah is everything that the Mail and it's readers hate: an immigrant to the UK who has turned successful.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Isn't it funny how IOC has a tougher stance on this compared with the IAAF? How corrupt is the sport when the IOC looks a more credible organization?

So true. And if there is to be any hope of a clean(er) sport, the IAAF has be dismantled and reorganized from top to bottom.

Seb Coe has a lifetime contract with Nike. He has agreed to not accept any money while serving in his role at IAAF but he will go back to his $100k the day he leaves.

Well Said wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

Isn't it funny how IOC has a tougher stance on this compared with the IAAF? How corrupt is the sport when the IOC looks a more credible organization?

So true. And if there is to be any hope of a clean(er) sport, the IAAF has be dismantled and reorganized from top to bottom.

+1

I have been saying that for years.

How corrupt? Well, when the big corruption style broke, with not only the corrupt IAAF's president but also its Council involved, they simply promoted the VP (long time friend of course) to president, a clear sign that nothing would change. Some old, same old. That that anti-transparency president now defends this cheater coach and group, in line with his personal ties to them and their sponsor, was to be expected, and is peanuts in comparison.

rekrunner wrote:

Yes that is a rare find. It's unusual for a British journalist to be ignorant, dishonest, and hyper-critical of national heros.

casual obsever wrote:

Nice find, Armstronglivs. Coe, Cram, Farah and Radcliffe in the line of fire? That too will upset rekrunner greatly.

And thank you for the laugh, Texas.

And then there are those journalists, like this writer, who will be right on the money. I understand however that an opinion piece like this will not reflect your rather different view of reality.

I don't really feel imagination is the deficiency you seem to think it is; joining the dots would be difficult to achieve without it. You also underrate yourself: I receive confirmation of what I think whenever I read what you have to say.

Any opinion piece carries little weight with me, even opinions I agree with, unless there is a demonstrated foundation based in reality. It receives a negative value when it contradicts known realities.

Apparently this journalist, and you, are unaware that there were accusations involving athletes, and this was discussed at length, and the AAA panel finding was that no NOP athletes were implicated, apart from Magness and his excessive infusion. This is not just the result of no failed tests, but:

"USADA’s investigation yielded a wide range of evidence referenced in the hearing, including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records. Between the two cases, USADA relied on more than 2,000 exhibits, which the AAA heard along with the defendants’ cases. In all, the proceedings included 30 witnesses and 5,780 pages of transcripts."

I appreciate imagination when I watch Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Star Wars.

Joining dots is also difficult when you have no more dots to join.

So rekrunner do you think all of the NOP athletes are clean as a whistle? And if so, then an iconic, legendary coach of his status would be so stupid, so dumb, so dense to test his Rx Androgel on his son for "sabotage" fears (whatever the heck that means?) realizing how much trouble this could get him into with USADA . And now this iconic coach was handed a stern 4 year ban labeling him as a "doping coach" with his reputation tarnished forever.

Lack of evidence isn't proof that an offence never occurred. In organised crime, for example, one of the hardest things to do is to prove the guilt of the principals. They are never the ones who pull the trigger. Yet there may be little doubt the offences occurred, even while the perpetrators aren't identified. Sports doping has more in common with the Prohibition era than meets the eye - a highly organised black market (both involving organised crime) where enforcement by the authorities was - is - always behind.

Today we have a leading coach who has been found to have been involved in doping - and likely for many years, as the investigation itself has taken several years - and yet you, and others, hold to the belief that none of his athletes were involved, because the investigation didn't produce that evidence. So why was Salazar bending and breaking the rules if not for his athletes? If none benefited from his stratagems then he was incompetent as well as nefarious. Ineffectuality is not what anyone has accused Salazar of, seeing the extraordinary results of his athletes.

If the purpose of the USADA investigation was to bring Salazar to book that is also not an investigation aimed at bringing his athletes to account - if any were doped with his assistance. Nailing a bent coach for his methods was likely a more achievable goal for USADA than trying to do the same to a whole stable of athletes. The relative low strike date of WADA-IAAF testing shows how difficult it is to catch individual athletes who are doping, and even when an athlete, like Coleman, ostensibly incurs a violation by missing 3 tests we have seen there is still a way out.

If a coach like Lydiard had committed doping violations as Salazar has I am sure we would view the accomplishments of his great NZ athletes (as well as the Finns he later aided) in a rather different light - and for good reason, even if we couldn't see the trail that implicates the athletes in their coach's actions.

What a great job has wada , iaaf and seb done in keeping you clueless .

salazar is simply taking a hit for team to keep this s*** show on the road for as long as can .

l carnitine and microdosing to very little , that is unless already doping and steamroling it .

Nop stand out performers built on untested / undectable epo / nike sauce and the speed peptide at very least .

anything else they are building a mystic and have you running in circles .

the winners are usally choosen and the best doping regimes decide winner .

galen was always playing secong fiddle to sir mo , as this all this current doping regime stems from brits .

all tests by wada / iaaf designed to allow this . to stop most dopers but still dope likely few .

keep believeng this s*** show . fools .

My GOD how dirty is track and field .

the base dope , for many and any athlete of note in athletics .

we now got the brasilian and columbians jumping on bandwagon .

part of the juiced ball situation have in baseball at moment , and nobody apartently knowes about it .

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ...................................................................................................

The Speed Peptide , IGF -1 lr3 ............................................................................................................