rekrunner wrote:
That's good -- it's a lot like that.
Lurker wrote:
No, Rekrunner is more like "Juror 8" (Henry Fonda) in the Hollywood classic "12 Angry Men".
It's quite refreshing to read posts that try to be objective and aren't overly emotional or blinded by preconceptions.
Is that your post under a different handle? ?
Um, no.
philmw44 wrote:
I believe that his philosophy was more in line with Team Sky in cycling - and that is to push the absolute boundaries of the rules.
Or to just get fake TUEs to allow the team to take doping products unpunished.
rekrunner wrote:
Looks like you forgot the subject of your own conversation.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Tell me which part of the report says Salazar hasn't been given a 4-year ban for doping violations?
Once again, you will do anything to avoid facts you can't explain away. But that's ok. It shows that nothing you have to say about doping in sport is of the slightest relevance - except to another apologist like yourself.
rekrunner wrote:
That's good -- it's a lot like that.
Lurker wrote:
No, Rekrunner is more like "Juror 8" (Henry Fonda) in the Hollywood classic "12 Angry Men".
It's quite refreshing to read posts that try to be objective and aren't overly emotional or blinded by preconceptions.
Think more Adam Sandler. The Water Boy.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Looks like you forgot the subject of your own conversation.
Once again, you will do anything to avoid facts you can't explain away. But that's ok. It shows that nothing you have to say about doping in sport is of the slightest relevance - except to another apologist like yourself.
I remind you again, the questions you asked me to address were:
"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?"
If it seems like I'm avoiding the fact of a 4-year ban, it is because you avoided asking me to address it.
But even this seeming allegation is wrong, because here is what I said about a 4-year ban a few posts above yours:
"I found ... the (testosterone experiment finding) to be the most serious, which alone is worth a 4-year ban"
Contrary to defending Salazar, as suggested by Subway, who didn't know anything because he "missed" 44 pages, and a couple other bandwagon hoppers, I accepted the AAA panel findings against Salazar, as well as the lack of AAA findings against any NOP athletes.
One of the reasons I'm loath to respond to you is that your inability to make your own affirmative arguments, means you must resort to personal attacks rather than providing substance, and I have to defend myself against things I did not say, or point out that I already addressed that which you say I did not address or try to avoid, or you change the subject.
The offer still stands -- if you find any statement from me that contradicts an AAA panel finding, please highlight it with specificity, and I will consider it further.
The offer still stands -- if you find any statement from the AAA panel supporting that one or more of Salazar's anti-doping rule violations implicates any NOP athletes, please highlight it with specificity.
rekrunner wrote:
The offer still stands -- if you find any statement from me that contradicts an AAA panel finding, please highlight it with specificity, and I will consider it further.
You are bluffing! I've found so many, but most of my posts got deleted when I pointed that out.
Nope. Not bluffing.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The offer still stands -- if you find any statement from me that contradicts an AAA panel finding, please highlight it with specificity, and I will consider it further.
You are bluffing! I've found so many, but most of my posts got deleted when I pointed that out.
Jordan said she's never had a tue in her runnersworld interview. Do you have a source for information that disproves this? Or are you just another run of the mill dumbbass blabber?
we may choose to disagree on how to spell dumb ass but get to the point
Where you were wrong? Where to begin... how about admitting that Salazar was Decker's coach, instead of - as per usual - falsely accusing me to have the facts wrong.
How about admitting that several violations occurred, instead of "they are still investigating whether a violation has occurred." You wrote that in 2017, when those facts were already known, but you were still denying them as per usual.
You were wrong in claiming that’s not USADA’s/WADA’s business when Salazar doped Magness.
You were wrong in claiming that’s fine to give testo to your sons as head coach of NOP.
You were wrong in claiming that there’s no evidence for the involvement of other athletes.
You were wrong in claiming that AAA decided to have Salazar’s bans run in parallel. As I correctly wrote, they treated the three violations as one (although they were quite different, involved different people and substances, and occurred in different years), and therefore gave him only one 4-year ban. I hope that CAS will see that differently, but I’d bett that Salazar and Nike won’t go for an appeal. In fact, that Nike finally dismantled NOP speaks for itself.
Since you are allegedly so well informed, I wager that you wrote that nonsense for either PR or, more likely, trolling reasons.
casual obsever wrote:
Where you were wrong? Where to begin... how about admitting that Salazar was Decker's coach, instead of - as per usual - falsely accusing me to have the facts wrong.
How about admitting that several violations occurred, instead of "they are still investigating whether a violation has occurred." You wrote that in 2017, when those facts were already known, but you were still denying them as per usual.
You were wrong in claiming that’s not USADA’s/WADA’s business when Salazar doped Magness.
You were wrong in claiming that’s fine to give testo to your sons as head coach of NOP.
You were wrong in claiming that there’s no evidence for the involvement of other athletes.
You were wrong in claiming that AAA decided to have Salazar’s bans run in parallel. As I correctly wrote, they treated the three violations as one (although they were quite different, involved different people and substances, and occurred in different years), and therefore gave him only one 4-year ban. I hope that CAS will see that differently, but I’d bett that Salazar and Nike won’t go for an appeal. In fact, that Nike finally dismantled NOP speaks for itself.
Since you are allegedly so well informed, I wager that you wrote that nonsense for either PR or, more likely, trolling reasons.
The challenge was to find contradictions with the AAA panel findings.
But let's give your points due consideration, as promised:
According to Mary Decker in 2015: "Mary Slaney also denied reports that Salazar was her coach in 1996. She said she was training with Bill Dellinger,"
--> Did the AAA panel find differently? This seems unimportant.
USADA said "they are still investigating whether a violation has occurred" in an official statement in 2017. If that was a lie then, you should address that with USADA. In 2017, what you call "known facts" were not yet found to be violations.
--> Two years later, the investigation is no longer in progress, and the AAA panel has rendered its findings. I will update my statements in the future to reflect this evolution in progress.
--> As far as admissions, I have already said repeatedly, in this thread, I accept the AAA Panel findings.
I'm sure I did not say that Magness' infusion was not USADA/WADA's business. On the contrary, once I learned that Magness was still an athlete, I was sure that Magness could be banned by USADA, and noted the tragic irony on many occasions.
--> I did doubt that they could sanction Salazar for this, particularly given the email from Salazar to Magness to find a "WADA legal, of course" way to administer the non-banned substance. In the future, I will not express this doubt.
I'm sure I did not say "it’s fine to give testo to your sons as head coach of NOP".
--> I will not consider any statements I did not make.
I already considered your "evidence" of any NOP athletes earlier.
--> Your list of "evidence" seems sufficient to warrant an investigation. Let me know how that works out.
--> The AAA panel found that USADA abandoned this charge. In the future, I will say "weak to non-existent" and "ambiguous" and "uncorroborated", as appropriate.
So it's not 3 bans concurrently, but one ban for three violations? Good point.
--> It looks like a common practice to treat multiple violations with one hearing as a single violation, out of fairness to the athlete/coach being sanctioned. I won't make that mistake again.
I am well informed about what has been made public. As you can see, most of what I said was true at the time, often according to official sources, and the rest were doubts I expressed, mainly concerning the jurisdictional reach of USADA. Some of your observations only become nonsense when you put it in your own words.
Oh man, do I really have to google everything? Takes too much time, but these came up during the first 10 minutes: That was wrong:
rekrunner wrote:
Testo experiments — illegal experiments on non-athletes; no jurisdiction for USADA, WADA, or IAAF
That was wrong:
rekrunner wrote:
Alberto's sons are not US athletes subject to USADA/WADA's rules. At worst, if they are considered "support staff", Alberto's sons will be banned, but not Alberto (who has a prescription), or any athlete (who were not part of the experiment).
That was wrong:
rekrunner wrote:
Lots to talk about - great for a bar room discussion between drunken mates - but nothing that clears the higher bar of linking Salazar to an actual anti-doping rule violation. Looks like lots of smoke and mirrors.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Once again, you will do anything to avoid facts you can't explain away. But that's ok. It shows that nothing you have to say about doping in sport is of the slightest relevance - except to another apologist like yourself.
I remind you again, the questions you asked me to address were:
"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?"
If it seems like I'm avoiding the fact of a 4-year ban, it is because you avoided asking me to address it.
But even this seeming allegation is wrong, because here is what I said about a 4-year ban a few posts above yours:
"I found ... the (testosterone experiment finding) to be the most serious, which alone is worth a 4-year ban"
Contrary to defending Salazar, as suggested by Subway, who didn't know anything .
Finally, we have something in common.
Not really, lol. But yeah... however all of that will get deleted in 3, 2, 1, ...
not really wrote:
Oh man, do I really have to google everything?
Takes too much time, but these came up during the first 10 minutes:
That was wrong:
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Once again, you will do anything to avoid facts you can't explain away. But that's ok. It shows that nothing you have to say about doping in sport is of the slightest relevance - except to another apologist like yourself.
I remind you again, the questions you asked me to address were:
"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?"
If it seems like I'm avoiding the fact of a 4-year ban, it is because you avoided asking me to address it.
But even this seeming allegation is wrong, because here is what I said about a 4-year ban a few posts above yours:
"I found ... the (testosterone experiment finding) to be the most serious, which alone is worth a 4-year ban"
Contrary to defending Salazar, as suggested by Subway, who didn't know anything because he "missed" 44 pages, and a couple other bandwagon hoppers, I accepted the AAA panel findings against Salazar, as well as the lack of AAA findings against any NOP athletes.
One of the reasons I'm loath to respond to you is that your inability to make your own affirmative arguments, means you must resort to personal attacks rather than providing substance, and I have to defend myself against things I did not say, or point out that I already addressed that which you say I did not address or try to avoid, or you change the subject.
The offer still stands -- if you find any statement from me that contradicts an AAA panel finding, please highlight it with specificity, and I will consider it further.
The offer still stands -- if you find any statement from the AAA panel supporting that one or more of Salazar's anti-doping rule violations implicates any NOP athletes, please highlight it with specificity.
You continue to say you accept the findings of the AAA panel but when pressed to explain what they mean it would be utterly different to what others understand them to mean and likely what the panel also meant to say. If we stripped away the verbal foliage you hide behind we would see that you do not accept its necessary conclusion that Salazar committed serious doping infractions. Your apologism for doping practices - whoever commits them - is your only consistency.
New development: an unnamed NOP athlete may have been taking EPO
My thoughts:
- Salazar unnecessarily pushed into the gray areas with nothing to show for it. Salazar's personality rubs people the wrong way and for good reason. He can be an as*hole.
- Magness and the Gouchers are driven more by recognition and emotion over facts. In Magness case this is extremely disappointing because it's now hard to take him seriously as a "scientist" of the sport.
- Salazar athletes have never taken PEDS.
- Letsrun is the foxnews of all of this. Encourages gossip and name calling for hits, not concerned at all with facts. They treat everything black and white, good versus evil, and to hell with the facts. I have no respect for this website masquerading as a news site.
What next:
- Salazar needs to dial it back and show some acknowledgement that he pushed himself and athletes unnecessarily in an unhealthy way.
- Gouchers I hope stay involved in running and continue to give back in some way, perhaps coaching because they must have a wealth of knowledge.
- Magness has potential to do something great but needs to overcome his undisciplined approach to science and coaching. I'll be following his career and wish him the best.
- I hope Letsrun can be better than it is currently.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Where you were wrong? Where to begin... how about admitting that Salazar was Decker's coach, instead of - as per usual - falsely accusing me to have the facts wrong.
How about admitting that several violations occurred, instead of "they are still investigating whether a violation has occurred." You wrote that in 2017, when those facts were already known, but you were still denying them as per usual.
You were wrong in claiming that’s not USADA’s/WADA’s business when Salazar doped Magness.
You were wrong in claiming that’s fine to give testo to your sons as head coach of NOP.
You were wrong in claiming that there’s no evidence for the involvement of other athletes.
You were wrong in claiming that AAA decided to have Salazar’s bans run in parallel. As I correctly wrote, they treated the three violations as one (although they were quite different, involved different people and substances, and occurred in different years), and therefore gave him only one 4-year ban. I hope that CAS will see that differently, but I’d bett that Salazar and Nike won’t go for an appeal. In fact, that Nike finally dismantled NOP speaks for itself.
Since you are allegedly so well informed, I wager that you wrote that nonsense for either PR or, more likely, trolling reasons.
The challenge was to find contradictions with the AAA panel findings.
But let's give your points due consideration, as promised:
According to Mary Decker in 2015: "Mary Slaney also denied reports that Salazar was her coach in 1996. She said she was training with Bill Dellinger,"
--> Did the AAA panel find differently? This seems unimportant.
USADA said "they are still investigating whether a violation has occurred" in an official statement in 2017. If that was a lie then, you should address that with USADA. In 2017, what you call "known facts" were not yet found to be violations.
--> Two years later, the investigation is no longer in progress, and the AAA panel has rendered its findings. I will update my statements in the future to reflect this evolution in progress.
--> As far as admissions, I have already said repeatedly, in this thread, I accept the AAA Panel findings.
I'm sure I did not say that Magness' infusion was not USADA/WADA's business. On the contrary, once I learned that Magness was still an athlete, I was sure that Magness could be banned by USADA, and noted the tragic irony on many occasions.
--> I did doubt that they could sanction Salazar for this, particularly given the email from Salazar to Magness to find a "WADA legal, of course" way to administer the non-banned substance. In the future, I will not express this doubt.
I'm sure I did not say "it’s fine to give testo to your sons as head coach of NOP".
--> I will not consider any statements I did not make.
I already considered your "evidence" of any NOP athletes earlier.
--> Your list of "evidence" seems sufficient to warrant an investigation. Let me know how that works out.
--> The AAA panel found that USADA abandoned this charge. In the future, I will say "weak to non-existent" and "ambiguous" and "uncorroborated", as appropriate.
So it's not 3 bans concurrently, but one ban for three violations? Good point.
--> It looks like a common practice to treat multiple violations with one hearing as a single violation, out of fairness to the athlete/coach being sanctioned. I won't make that mistake again.
I am well informed about what has been made public. As you can see, most of what I said was true at the time, often according to official sources, and the rest were doubts I expressed, mainly concerning the jurisdictional reach of USADA. Some of your observations only become nonsense when you put it in your own words.
You were dead wrong on these points . You also question the jurisdiction reach of the USADA , when you didn't know it yourself. USADA had the ability for this sanction ,as the sanction happened, but you thought different , in which you were 100% wrong .
not that it matters because no one cares wrote:
My thoughts:
- Salazar unnecessarily pushed into the gray areas with nothing to show for it. Salazar's personality rubs people the wrong way and for good reason. He can be an as*hole.
- Magness and the Gouchers are driven more by recognition and emotion over facts. In Magness case this is extremely disappointing because it's now hard to take him seriously as a "scientist" of the sport.
- Salazar athletes have never taken PEDS.
- Letsrun is the foxnews of all of this. Encourages gossip and name calling for hits, not concerned at all with facts. They treat everything black and white, good versus evil, and to hell with the facts. I have no respect for this website masquerading as a news site.
What next:
- Salazar needs to dial it back and show some acknowledgement that he pushed himself and athletes unnecessarily in an unhealthy way.
- Gouchers I hope stay involved in running and continue to give back in some way, perhaps coaching because they must have a wealth of knowledge.
- Magness has potential to do something great but needs to overcome his undisciplined approach to science and coaching. I'll be following his career and wish him the best.
- I hope Letsrun can be better than it is currently.
"Salazar athletes have never taken PEDS." Okay...I feel better now that this is an established fact - so I take it that no one should be casting any suspicion on any of them?
What about Salazar? Was USADA too hard on him? Maybe a warning or short ban at the most would have been more appropriate?
Can he appeal and maybe get the ban dropped? If he were to win the appeal could he sue USADA for millions for all the hardship and embarrassment they've caused him?
And since there's no evidence that he doped any of athletes, shouldn't he be permitted to continue to coach some of his athletes?
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
Do "running influencers" harm the competitive nature of the sport?
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford
Caitlin Clark thinks she can beat Eagles draft pick Cooper Dejean in 1 on 1