ALBERTO SALAZAR BANNED FROM ATHLETICS FOR FOUR YEARS FOR DOPING VIOLATIONS

rekrunner wrote:

That's a good thing.

Please stop!!! wrote:

... another thread rekrunnered.

it hasnt been fully rekrunnered just yet....that only happens when everyone who is crushing his pathetic excuses gets deleted, then he mocks everyone, the thread is completely gutted, then the brojos lock the thread and the only person who can post is rek....then it is rekrunnered.

as i have tried to explain multiple times, gary is very tight with the brojos ever since the paula WR run where they paced her. so gary gets a free pass on here. why is gary defending NOP and sal? cause gary coaches Mo, and Mo used to be coached by Al Sal.

this is also great for the brojos cause being on both sides of doping/antidoping circus they get all sorts of hits this way!

rekrunner wrote:

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.

What you don't seem to get is that Salazar is like someone who has been found guilty of a crime and was sentenced for it; for most of us it is enough to know that he committed the crime for which he was charged and that he received an appropriate penalty. He is a convicted doper. The detail of what he did and how he did it is only of interest to those who are interested in the methodology of doping, or who wish to relitigate the matter to argue that he didn't really do anything wrong. You give the impression of falling into the latter group.

But what must be obvious, to anyone, is that a coach doesn't commit doping violations for himself; he is doing it for his athletes. However, because there was insufficient evidence on this latter point you accept the panel's assurances that none of his athletes were doping. Yet it surely defies an understanding of his violations , and indeed of the coach/athlete relationship, to believe Salazar did not involve his athletes in any way. He didn't begin doping last week. In my view, the problem is a deficiency of evidence, because the inquiry wasn't directed at trying to catch the athletes. Salazar was netted, which was the objective of the investigation, but his athletes get a complete free pass. It is significant the IOC is not convinced of this and has sought further investigation. I find it implausible that Salazar should have been trying to find ways to dope his athletes and to enable them to get away with it - which is his "orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping practices", as USADA said - and yet none were doped. There are others who agree. Laura Muir is one of them. She has said that the 1500 race would be "under a cloud" because of Salazar's ban. We have seen Nick Willis's and Jenny Simpson's comments also. Athletes are justifiably concerned.

Sorry, stopped reading there.

Armstronglivs wrote:

But what must be obvious, to anyone, is that a coach doesn't commit doping violations for himself; he is doing it for his athlete.

rekrunner wrote:

Sorry, stopped reading there.

Armstronglivs wrote:

But what must be obvious, to anyone, is that a coach doesn't commit doping violations for himself; he is doing it for his athlete.

Of course you did.

rekrunner wrote:

old man rekkie he just keeps trolling along wrote:

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

I'm not old, I'm first rate, I'm not a troll, and I'm not acting. Otherwise, great contribution.

I take your rebuttal as seriously as all of your other "contributions."

I don't why rekrunner doesn't see it that way - he's a pretty logical guy (sometimes I think rekrunner likes to choose the opposite side of majority opinion just for the sake of argument which he loves to do. ?).

I think when you apply the common sense doctrine that post pretty much sums it up.

That Just About Sums It Up wrote:

This post nails it.

I don't why rekrunner doesn't see it that way - he's a pretty logical guy (sometimes I think rekrunner likes to choose the opposite side of majority opinion just for the sake of argument which he loves to do. ?).

I think when you apply the common sense doctrine that post pretty much sums it up.[/quote]

He doesn't see it that way because he is a TROLL! It has nothing to do with logic or argument. He is trolling you.

Yes, he either is a moderating troll or a trolling moderator.

Good for business I suppose...

That Just About Sums It Up wrote:

dsgfasdgadd wrote:

This post nails it.

I don't why rekrunner doesn't see it that way - he's a pretty logical guy (sometimes I think rekrunner likes to choose the opposite side of majority opinion just for the sake of argument which he loves to do. ?).

I think when you apply the common sense doctrine that post pretty much sums it up.

What way do you think I see it?

Of the three charges, the testosterone experiment is the one I find most serious.

I have said many times, Salazar probably broke several laws.

My only doubts before the verdict was whether it fell under USADA's jurisdiction.

Now if you are asking me to choose between some anonymous poster's "straight face test" and what the AAA panel wrote, I think it's clear which one I choose and why.

old man rekkie he just keeps trolling along wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I'm not old, I'm first rate, I'm not a troll, and I'm not acting. Otherwise, great contribution.

I take your rebuttal as seriously as all of your other "contributions."

Another great contribution. I was wondering how you would take it. Now I can sleep well tonight. Thanks.

rekrunner wrote:

Now if you are asking me to choose between some anonymous poster's "straight face test" and what the AAA panel wrote, I think it's clear which one I choose and why.

While I'm not sure that's a s clear as you think given the politics involved (particularly in this case where, as the AAA panel notes "the experiment was conducted at the lab of his employer [i.e., Nike], where his purpose is to act in his capacity as an Athlete Support Person"), burdens of proof, and due process requirements, you do realize that the AAA panel deemed that a violation, right?

"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. "

Yes I do realize that the AAA panel deemed that a violation.

For the avoidance of doubt, I choose the AAA panel over the fears and fantasies and ignorance of anonymous posters.

rekrunner wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Now if you are asking me to choose between some anonymous poster's "straight face test" and what the AAA panel wrote, I think it's clear which one I choose and why.

Yes I do realize that the AAA panel deemed that a violation.

For the avoidance of doubt, I choose the AAA panel over the fears and fantasies and ignorance of anonymous posters.

Good, I'm glad you are aware that Salazar committed violations and deserves this ban.

This is not going away. Too many people involved and a medical Doctor also employed by Nike is banned, too. Were Nike mere innocent providers of the very expensive facilities and staff? They clearly must must have been aware that Salazar and Dr. Brown were looking to push the legal limits to the edge but were they also aware that quite feasibly, they might also be looking to go beyond the limits and remain undetected? And /or go "legally" beyond the limits by the use of TUE's which only Dr. Brown, in sports medicine, seems to think in many cases really are medically required and therefore within the rules? A lot more is going to come out.......... Perhaps Farah and Rupp and a few others may have cause for some sleepless nights?

John Bicourt wrote:

This is not going away. Too many people involved and a medical Doctor also employed by Nike is banned, too. Were Nike mere innocent providers of the very expensive facilities and staff? They clearly must must have been aware that Salazar and Dr. Brown were looking to push the legal limits to the edge but were they also aware that quite feasibly, they might also be looking to go beyond the limits and remain undetected? And /or go "legally" beyond the limits by the use of TUE's which only Dr. Brown, in sports medicine, seems to think in many cases really are medically required and therefore within the rules? A lot more is going to come out.......... Perhaps Farah and Rupp and a few others may have cause for some sleepless nights?

What the fuck are you talking about with TUEs? Thyroid medication does not require a TUE. Nothing that is in the report or part of the testimony requires a TUE. Please stop with this, it discredits your whole argument.

He wasn't finding ways to dope his athletes. He was finding ways to ensure that his athletes were NOT doped and weren't vulnerable to someone else trying to dope them.

He orchestrated and facilitated prohibited doping practice by trafficking and applying testosterone to his son. This was done not to dope his athletes, but to ensure that nobody else could dope them or sabotage them.

oilklkjlkjlkjkl wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Yes I do realize that the AAA panel deemed that a violation.

For the avoidance of doubt, I choose the AAA panel over the fears and fantasies and ignorance of anonymous posters.

Good, I'm glad you are aware that Salazar committed violations and deserves this ban.

I think that is almost unanimously agreed upon.

LM wrote:

He wasn't finding ways to dope his athletes. He was finding ways to ensure that his athletes were NOT doped and weren't vulnerable to someone else trying to dope them.

He orchestrated and facilitated prohibited doping practice by trafficking and applying testosterone to his son. This was done not to dope his athletes, but to ensure that nobody else could dope them or sabotage them.

Come on, you don't really believe this, do you? You're not actually this stupid, are you?

oilklkjlkjlkjkl wrote:

LM wrote:

He wasn't finding ways to dope his athletes. He was finding ways to ensure that his athletes were NOT doped and weren't vulnerable to someone else trying to dope them.

He orchestrated and facilitated prohibited doping practice by trafficking and applying testosterone to his son. This was done not to dope his athletes, but to ensure that nobody else could dope them or sabotage them.

Come on, you don't really believe this, do you? You're not actually this stupid, are you?

It's the most believable version of the story when you look at it in full context. The alternative is that Salazar is such an insane criminal (or at least doping genius) that he has been planting tiny seeds and faking a person for years just to rub a little testosterone on Galen.

And this is precisely what I mean by people's inability to be rational and set aside their emotions. Yes we know Salazar is shady, and we also know he is a major a$$hole. The narrative has long been that he is doping. Under that narrative, it's very easy to reach your conclusion. However, you didn't set aside impartiality and consider the evidence:

1) Salazar has a long history of being a uniquely paranoid individual. This is not an atypical level of paranoid, as it is for most. I think this is hard for many people, because it's difficult to see things from POV of someone else, and they can't relate to someone who is like this, but it's clear Salazar is.

2) Salazar did not express any known concern to anyone, until Galen mentioned something about being rubbed, at which point Salazar flipped his sh1t and expressed sentiment to several members of OPJ about his concern (in publicized report). This is remarkably consistent his history of paranoia. All of the testosterone testing begin quickly and hastily following this.

For this to be doping related, he would have had to be crafty enough to have told Rupp ahead of time to say something to him about being rubbed, in order for him to then have an "alibi" to begin the androgel tests.

3) Salazar immediately ceased testing Androgel when it was clear that any amount rubbing would not cause problems. This is not consistent with someone who is looking to dope his athletes. He would have wanted to have seen just how far he could go, and would have begun applying cream, even if the benefits were not massive.

4) Salazar was in constant communication with USADA asking which substances were appropriate to use and asking for guidelines on how to use them ethically. This is not consistent with someone wanting to dope.

5) No active athletes have reported any suspicious behavior of Salazar with regards to cream or androgel. There was mention of Salazar being "big on supplements", but supplements are legal, and no evidence was presented to the panel suggesting that any supplements were used

6) No athlete, including the ones with clear axes to grind, has actually come forth with any substantial claims that Salazar doped themselves or anyone else. Kara, Magness, Adam, Dathan, etc. have NEVER claimed that Salazar told them to dope, or that they saw Salazar doping anyone. That suggests that, at a minimum, Salazar is doping his athletes secretly, without their knowledge and consent.

7) TWO seperate arbitration panels both mentioned how impressed they were at the degree Salazar was trying to ensure his athletes were safe, and playing by the rules. This is not the kind of statement you make about a coach who you're suspect is doping his athletes. The opinion of one person, or panel, or multiple panels of course is not gospel. That said, it is yet another piece of interest especially considering they were privy to FAR more evidence and testimony that we have not seen or heard, and still reached that conclusion.

Any of these pieces, taken by themselves, isn't much. Taken together, it points a very clear picture of either:

A) Salazar as a paranoid coach with a "world out to get us" mentality (no surprise from a paranoid a$$hole very good at making enemies) very concerned about maximizing potential without breaking any rules

B) A doping mastermind, executing elaborate plots and schemes years in the making all boiling down to being able to dope his athletes.

Not only is B ridiculously anti Occam's Razor and sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I just flat out don't think Salazar is exceptionally smart or clever. A good coach, yes. He is not the kind of clever orchestrator to pull off something as elaborate as B.