ALBERTO SALAZAR BANNED FROM ATHLETICS FOR FOUR YEARS FOR DOPING VIOLATIONS

kettlepot wrote:

Aden found with performance enhancing drugs at camp - he's shady and all his athletes are doping.

Salazar found with performance enhancing drugs at camp (that he took as an athlete, is obsessed with, and had an athlete test positive for) - he's clean as a whistle and cares about his athletes more than any coach ever.

Aden has had athletes he coached test positive, and was damn near indicted.

Salazar has not had any NOP members test +. He also has has two panels suggest he worked hard to follow the rules.

NOP isnt off the hook, but definitely less sus than Adens group.

LM wrote:

kettlepot wrote:

Aden found with performance enhancing drugs at camp - he's shady and all his athletes are doping.

Salazar found with performance enhancing drugs at camp (that he took as an athlete, is obsessed with, and had an athlete test positive for) - he's clean as a whistle and cares about his athletes more than any coach ever.

Aden has had athletes he coached test positive, and was damn near indicted.

Salazar has not had any NOP members test +. He also has has two panels suggest he worked hard to follow the rules.

NOP isnt off the hook, but definitely less sus than Adens group.

Slaney tested positive for testosterone while Salazar coached her. What makes him so much less suspect than Aden?

kettlepot wrote:

LM wrote:

Aden has had athletes he coached test positive, and was damn near indicted.

Salazar has not had any NOP members test +. He also has has two panels suggest he worked hard to follow the rules.

NOP isnt off the hook, but definitely less sus than Adens group.

Slaney tested positive for testosterone while Salazar coached her. What makes him so much less suspect than Aden?

Slaney was pre NOP, and was being coached by Dellinger I think it was with Salazar just as an advisor.

Aden was found with syringes and all kinds of things in that bust and literally arrested as a result. He had multiple, not one athlete caught. He did not have multiple panels find him to be very concerned with not trying to dope his athletes.

LM wrote:

kettlepot wrote:

Slaney tested positive for testosterone while Salazar coached her. What makes him so much less suspect than Aden?

Slaney was pre NOP, and was being coached by Dellinger I think it was with Salazar just as an advisor.

Aden was found with syringes and all kinds of things in that bust and literally arrested as a result. He had multiple, not one athlete caught. He did not have multiple panels find him to be very concerned with not trying to dope his athletes.

It is very clear that Salazar was helping coach Slaney when she was busted for testosterone. Look back through the archives. Aden has had what, two athletes busted for doping?

Salazar was found with syringes and all kinds of things at training camp, just like Aden.

kettlepot wrote:

LM wrote:

Slaney was pre NOP, and was being coached by Dellinger I think it was with Salazar just as an advisor.

Aden was found with syringes and all kinds of things in that bust and literally arrested as a result. He had multiple, not one athlete caught. He did not have multiple panels find him to be very concerned with not trying to dope his athletes.

It is very clear that Salazar was helping coach Slaney when she was busted for testosterone. Look back through the archives. Aden has had what, two athletes busted for doping?

Salazar was found with syringes and all kinds of things at training camp, just like Aden.

Exactly. And history matters.

I'm one of those lazy pricks who hasn't read the report so this is my question:

Was the Rupp hat exchange included in the report? After all, from the first post to last it raised many possible nefarious issues and went to 23 pages.

This from the very first post:

"Without questions Galen Rupp was given materials other than water at the support stations and we're interested in finding out the ruling on this issue. It was hushed up when raised by NBC announcers."

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7623648

IDGAF about Salazar handing Rupp chilled hats. I care about his rife history of testosterone fixation and abuse.

kettlepot wrote:

LM wrote:

Slaney was pre NOP, and was being coached by Dellinger I think it was with Salazar just as an advisor.

Aden was found with syringes and all kinds of things in that bust and literally arrested as a result. He had multiple, not one athlete caught. He did not have multiple panels find him to be very concerned with not trying to dope his athletes.

It is very clear that Salazar was helping coach Slaney when she was busted for testosterone. Look back through the archives. Aden has had what, two athletes busted for doping?

Salazar was found with syringes and all kinds of things at training camp, just like Aden.

I think Aden has up to four of his athlete's serving bans now. Musaeb Balla, who was arrested at the Sabadell doping training camp with Aden, was recently handed at 4-year doping ban for possessing a box of EPO found in his suitcase. Lol.

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.

You haven't addressed the question, if Salazar was committing prohibited doping practices who was he doing it for? Secondly, why did no one benefit from what he was doing? And what does that suggest about his efficacy as a coach?

On the contrary, I have addressed the question multiple times, and grew tired of addressing it. I'm loath to address it again, as the question is fundamentally wrong, itself based on missing or wrong foundation, directly attributable to your not bothering to learn the available facts, coupled with your strong desire to replace the few facts that you might be aware of with your own repeatedly demonstrated uninformed imagination. I'm also to loath to respond, as a surprisingly lot of misinformation, expressed and implied, can be crammed into a few briefly expressed questions, and addressing the misinformation, both express and implied, requires 10x the words to lay the proper foundation, and debunk wrong ideas not expressed -- one of the reasons for my lengthy posts. If you would just read the report with an open and receptive mind, you would learn: 1) Salazar did not "commit" these doping practices, but was found to have orchestrated and facilitated one instance of one doping practice. The "orchestra" in this case was Dr. Brown and Steve Magness. The practice in this case was an excessive rate of infusion. Despite an earlier email tasking Magness with finding a "WADA legal, of course" way to use a non-banned substance, Salazar was nevertheless found to have committed important steps to cause Magness, still an athlete subject to WADA, to coordinate with Dr. Brown and violate a WADA anti-doping rule. 2) The practice in this instance was an excessive infusion of a non-banned substance. What makes it prohibited is the volume of inert liquid in the short time frame exceeding the allowed rate. The substance itself, being non-banned in any quantity, is not relevant to the practice of excessive infusions being banned. 3) Excessive infusions are not banned but because of any direct potential performance enhancement benefit, but for its ability to thwart anti-doping controls, i.e. by reducing blood values like Hematocrit, thwarting 50% no-start rules and the ABP. No NOP athlete is known to have benefited from thwarting anti-doping controls as a result of excessive infusions. 4) The recipient of the excessive infusion, was Steve Magness. 5) According to testimony from Ritz, Steve Magness did benefit from the infusion, that placed an important amount of a non-banned substance into his system. Magness was able to keep up with others in a long tempo run. It was kind of annoying. 6) No one else is likely to have "benefited" because no one else was shown to have received an excessive infusion. After they double-checked the legality, the record shows that there was a raised concern about exceeding the limited rate, and steps were taken to alter the protocol to be "WADA legal" for the remaining NOP athletes who received infusions. 7) It says nothing about Salazar's efficacy as a coach. I wonder if you see yourself as "learned"? On second thought, no I don't. This is exchange is only made possible by your stubborn lack of will to inform yourself.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Sorry, stopped reading there.

You haven't addressed the question, if Salazar was committing prohibited doping practices who was he doing it for? Secondly, why did no one benefit from what he was doing? And what does that suggest about his efficacy as a coach?

Rekrunner: If the outcome of this investigation is so benevolent,then why was Salazar hit with a 4-year ban? - the same given to an athlete who is busted for doping for a first offense. They could have given him a 1 year or 6 months ban or even a warning with censorship. But they hammered him with a major 4-year ban. His reputation is now ruined, he'll be laughed at by many, he'll be the brunt of jokes, he'll be labeled as a doping coach, and he won't be taken serious anymore. Every great performance by any of the athletes he coached will be looked at through a skeptical eye - that's usually what happens when your coach is banned for "doping violations."

One of the prominent coaches from Russia, Valery Volkov, was hit with a 4-year ban for "doping violations." Same 4 year ban that Salazar received. Elite coaches who are banned for "doping violations" doesn't go over real good with public. You'll say it's different with Salazar than with the Russians. But the reality is that in today's anti-doping climate, people won't care because "doping violations" and "coaches" are a bad combination whether it coaches from Russia, China, USA or Timbuktu.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1TE2CU

I didn't say the outcome was "benevolent". If i clarified that a bank robber did not commit murder, that does not make bank robbery "benevolent". My response to you is one I have given several times -- the answer to "why" is explained by the AAA panel. You can find a copy of it linked at USADA's website. Salazar was not banned for "doping violations", but for committing "anti-doping rule violations". I do not deny, and cannot help what goes over well with the general public, but I can say to which extent they are supported by conclusions in the AAA panel report.

rekrunner wrote:

Salazar was not banned for "doping violations", but for committing "anti-doping rule violations".

I do not deny, and cannot help what goes over well with the general public, but I can say to which extent they are supported by conclusions in the AAA panel report.

You could, theoretically, but of course, you can't help yourself as pathological drug cheat apologist to leave out two of the three violations this drug cheat got banned for. And of course you continue to ignore all the evidence for more violations.

But, despite all the propaganda: bye NOP!!!

kettlepot wrote:

Aden found with performance enhancing drugs at camp - he's shady and all his athletes are doping.

Salazar found with performance enhancing drugs at camp (that he took as an athlete, is obsessed with, and had an athlete test positive for) - he's clean as a whistle and cares about his athletes more than any coach ever.

Yes. Sad, isn't it?

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

I didn't say the outcome was "benevolent". If i clarified that a bank robber did not commit murder, that does not make bank robbery "benevolent".

My response to you is one I have given several times -- the answer to "why" is explained by the AAA panel. You can find a copy of it linked at USADA's website.

Salazar was not banned for "doping violations", but for committing "anti-doping rule violations".

I do not deny, and cannot help what goes over well with the general public, but I can say to which extent they are supported by conclusions in the AAA panel report.[/quite]Do you agree with the ban?

The sheer prolixity of your response aside, it is clear that you don't consider Salazar a doper. The USADA and the panel say you are wrong about that. Because none of his athletes were deemed to have doped then you must have become persuaded in your own mind that he was breaching the rules for his own private curiosity, without even possessing the intent of benefiting anyone else, let alone his athletes. You could have said that in a couple of sentences but then the "emperor's new clothes" would have been completely exposed and the absurdity of your position apparent to all.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Salazar was not banned for "doping violations", but for committing "anti-doping rule violations".

I do not deny, and cannot help what goes over well with the general public, but I can say to which extent they are supported by conclusions in the AAA panel report.

You could, theoretically, but of course, you can't help yourself as pathological drug cheat apologist to leave out two of the three violations this drug cheat got banned for. And of course you continue to ignore all the evidence for more violations.

But, despite all the propaganda: bye NOP!!!

I was only asked to comment on "facilitated and orchestrated prohibited doping practices", which is the first of the three violations. The other two violations, and more evidence, was not part of the question.

rekrunner wrote:

Salazar was not banned for "doping violations", but for committing "anti-doping rule violations".

Aren't you getting a little trivial there rekrunner? The title of the thread from LRC is banned for "doping violations."

And BBC.com: "doping violations:"

And Propublica:

And The Guardian:

More off-topic nonsense. Apparently Salazar admitted to taking testosterone as an athlete -- I consider this makes him a doper. What I found persuasive was the AAA panel's findings, regarding both Salazar's motivations and the scope of the violations. What I don't find persuasive are some of your imaginary assertions, both contradicting and lacking any grounding the AAA panel's report.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The sheer prolixity of your response aside, it is clear that you don't consider Salazar a doper. The USADA and the panel say you are wrong about that. Because none of his athletes were deemed to have doped then you must have become persuaded in your own mind that he was breaching the rules for his own private curiosity, without even possessing the intent of benefiting anyone else, let alone his athletes. You could have said that in a couple of sentences but then the "emperor's new clothes" would have been completely exposed and the absurdity of your position apparent to all.