ALBERTO SALAZAR BANNED FROM ATHLETICS FOR FOUR YEARS FOR DOPING VIOLATIONS

Armstronglivs wrote:

* I omitted to add a biopassport failure as evidence. But that wasn't going to happen with Salazar athletes.

Well, both Farah and Rupp were found to be likely doping by the IAAF in 2016.

Moving forward: if the IAAF had nothing to hide (lol), and were interested in a clean transparent sport (ROFL), they could publish their findings, revisit the likely doping anomalies, and have all of Farah's and Rupp's samples since 2012 re-tested, including CIR tests in independent labs outside of the UK and US.

But we all know that at best there will be another internal cover-up "investigation".

rekrunner wrote:

There is nothing else in the report, suggesting and NOP athletes were otherwise subjected to banned substances or methods by Salazar.

Why do you keep repeating this lie? There was a witness, as well as a medical report, documenting testo usage. Both is explicitly spelled out in the report, as you have seen. It's like talking to a wall here with all the NIKE PR:

1) Salazar was a testo cheat as athlete

2) Salazar coached testo cheat Decker

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

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

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

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

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

Those are more than just suggestions of testo usage. Unfortunately that evidence wasn't sufficient for a conviction because the witness died and couldn't get questioned.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If we want to know what Alberto has been doing then we need look little further than Sifan Hassan.

Why not look more closely at what Rupp and Mo are up to or do they get a free pass?

+1

Advantage given to you in this debate. I don't know why rekrunner is ignoring and not acknowledging the information from the report you have posted. I'm disappointed - I thought rekrunner was more thorough and precise when he reads these reports. He doesn't have to agree with the findings and can interject his usual "mitigating" factors - but he should acknowledge it from the report. This sounds like cherry picking (which he accuses us of doing on many occasions). What does he say all the time about being intellectually honest? Lol.

logicdictates wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If we want to know what Alberto has been doing then we need look little further than Sifan Hassan.

Why not look more closely at what Rupp and Mo are up to or do they get a free pass?

No reason not to but one good example can be enough, particularly as Hassan's performances go through the roof at the same time he gets busted. Excellent timing.

I did not say "suggestions of testo usage" but "NOP athletes (given) banned substances or methods by Salazar". There are three elements to that. If there was "a medical report, documenting testo usage", of an NOP athlete, this would be sufficient evidence for a sanction. As there was no sanction, I guess this is not an accurate description. I thought I addressed these points but here we go again: 1) Doesn't help. Missing "NOP athlete". 2) Decker said she self-doped (took birth control). Salazar's role not clear. 3) Is "seen with" a suggestion? 4) And what about the "NOP athletes"? 5) and 6) Ambiguous. I did not consider these a "medical document" or "testo usage", in light of evidence corroborating legal supplements to boost testosterone. 7) A massage is not testo. Perhaps "suggests" is the wrong word for me to use, as I carelessly forgot that thresholds of what constitutes a "doping suggestion" varies widely. For some, an NOP athlete just winning a race is sufficient to suggest Salazar doped his athlete. Let's reorder the words: Any suggestion in the report that Salazar doped NOP athletes adds up to nothing.

This is not an USADA report, but an AAA panel report. In this dispute between Salazar and USADA, I give the most weight to what the AAA panel wrote, as they looked at all the evidence over two years, as well as the applicable rules, and are in a better position to judge than "rekrunner" or "casual obsever". I do not give much weight to previous "evidence" that existed, if it was not important enough to be a part of an accusation the AAA panel decided on, or if it was part of an accusation that was not upheld by the panel. One of the things that weighed strongly in Salazar's favor, with me, is the AAA panel's admiration of the length that Salazar went to, e.g. confirming with USADA about each thing, to ensure NOP athletes did not commit a doping violation. If we want to conclude what the AAA panel report suggested about Salazar doping his athletes, this is probably the most relevant statement in the report.

Well Done wrote:

I don't know why rekrunner is ignoring and not acknowledging the information from the report you have posted. I'm disappointed - I thought rekrunner was more thorough and precise when he reads these reports. He doesn't have to agree with the findings and can interject his usual "mitigating" factors - but he should acknowledge it from the report. This sounds like cherry picking (which he accuses us of doing on many occasions). What does he say all the time about being intellectually honest? Lol.

We are getting closer, nice. I'll refer to 316 in the next post.

rekrunner wrote:

1) Doesn't help. Missing "NOP athlete".

2) Decker said she self-doped (took birth control). Salazar's role not clear.

3) Is "seen with" a suggestion?

4) And what about the "NOP athletes"?

5) and 6) Ambiguous. I did not consider these a "medical document" or "testo usage", in light of evidence corroborating legal supplements to boost testosterone.

7) A massage is not testo.

1) Establishes that Salazar was a testo cheat.

2) Establishes that a Salazar athlete was a testo cheat.

3) Establishes opportunity. Establishes that Salazar was cheating the system.

4) Raises suspicion that Salazar's testo was used for somebody else.

5) "testosterone therapy" does not sound ambiguous to me.

6) "prednisone and testosterone medication" does not sound ambiguous either (testoboost is not a medication), but apparently even some physicians agree with you here (others do not) - see below.

7) Raises suspicion because the professional masseuse should be better at messages, and why else the secrecy?

But yes, the evidence didn't lead to a conviction.

Ad 6)

And really, birth control for Decker? Last time you wrote "menopause hormone treatment"!

rekrunner wrote:

I do not give much weight to previous "evidence" that existed, if it was not important enough to be a part of an accusation the AAA panel decided on, or if it was part of an accusation that was not upheld by the panel.

Here is what USADA thinks about Salazar giving testo to his athletes:

316. USADA charged Respondent with the following Code violations based on Respondent’s

personal use of testosterone:

• Possession

• Trafficking

• Administration and/or Attempted Administration

In its post-hearing submissions, USADA did not pursue the Administration or Attempted

Administration of Testosterone. Consequently, the Panel finds that USADA abandoned

that charge and, further concludes that USADA has not proven facts sufficient to prove

Administration or Attempted Administration of testosterone

So, not no evidence or no suggestion, but "not proven facts sufficient to prove Administration or Attempted Administration of testosterone". That's quite a difference.

- LateRunnerPhil .... go see the "other Phil" .... Dr. Phil you need some meds.

It looks like it led to an abandoned charge.

Maybe both are true? I'm not a doctor, but here is a statement from Wikipedia:

"Decker and her lawyers contended that the T/E ratio test is unreliable for women, especially women in their late 30s or older who are taking birth control pills."

"USADA did not pursue" doesn't sound too different than "no evidence".

"The Panel finds that USADA abandoned that charge." Did they withdraw their "suggestion"?

Oh fúck, another thread rekrunnered.

I am sure the AAA's "admiration" for Salazar "weighed strongly in his favour" with you. Your sympathies for those caught doping are transparent. As is your relief that a doping coach somehow never managed to dope his athletes. You might wonder why Salazar would have taken the risks that resulted in his ban if none of his athletes gained from any of it. But the report does it least help you preserve your Pollyannish view of the sport.

The AAA panel is in the best position to judge. I don't wonder anything because I have read the AAA panel report. Correction: I do wonder why you won't read it.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am sure the AAA's "admiration" for Salazar "weighed strongly in his favour" with you. Your sympathies for those caught doping are transparent. As is your relief that a doping coach somehow never managed to dope his athletes. You might wonder why Salazar would have taken the risks that resulted in his ban if none of his athletes gained from any of it. But the report does it least help you preserve your Pollyannish view of the sport.

That's a good thing.

Please stop!!! wrote:

... another thread rekrunnered.

hi how are you i am here today because my gandmother has suffered from hip pain and we have found something that has helped tremendously and we want to help other people so here is what helped her bit.ly/fixhipproblems i hope this helps. much love to all.

rekrunner wrote:

You cannot be part of a serious discussion until you have read the report, and actually understood what was found and not found.

You're a second rate troll. Stop acting like you get to decide who can and can't be part of a serious discussion.

This post nails it.