ALBERTO SALAZAR BANNED FROM ATHLETICS FOR FOUR YEARS FOR DOPING VIOLATIONS

I was wrong about jurisdiction. I did "question the jurisdiction reach of the USADA , when you didn't know it yourself". When you don't know, it is appropriate to ask questions. To be more clear, I did not question the jurisdiction over the infusions, but rather I questioned if this wasn't 100% Magness's own self-inflicted fault, as Salazar instructed Magness to find a way that was "WADA legal, of course". My expressed doubts about jurisdiction were regarding the "testosterone experiment", something Alberto conceded in his response happened. I thought it violated local, state, and/or federal laws -- I still do -- outside the umbrella of USADA given that Salazar had a valid prescription and his sons were not athletes subject to WADA. The AAA panel did not agree with me, and I have accepted their findings. Regarding the rest, you are dead wrong: - I was not wrong about Mary Decker's coach, according to Mary Decker herself, in a 2015 interview. - I was probably right to say "casual obsever" got the facts wrong. He is too blinded by his bad faith. - I was completely right about what I wrote in 2017, and thereafter, when referring to the latest statement from USADA. - I never claimed that Magness's infusion was not USADA's business. - I never claimed that the testosterone experiment was "fine". - I guess I'm wrong about a 4-year ban not being multiple concurrently served bans, but only a single ban from multiple violations.

LordEric44 wrote:

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 .

LoneStarXC wrote:

New development: an unnamed NOP athlete may have been taking EPO

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7566649/amp/EPO-linked-Nike-athlete-2011-Oregon-Project-overseen-Alberto-Salazar.html

Interesting, so who was it? Let's speculate just to irritate Rekrunner some more. Was it Mo, Rupp, Ritz or Kara??? Interestingly Mo failed answer his doorbell around this time ?

If pressed to explain, I will defer the AAA panel's clear explanations. I cannot vouch for "what others understand them to mean" or if that understanding is "likely what the panel also meant to say". Contrary to your imaginary beliefs: I accepted that the testosterone experiment was a serious infraction. I do not apologize for not medically necessary excessive infusions, or testosterone experiments.

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

The article says they know the name, and it was not Mo. An "anomalous blood sample" would not be all that different than the leaked list of "suspicious" athletes, something we already had. If new information surfaces that confirms an NOP athlete took EPO, that would be more than USADA was able to find. I would be curious to find out why, if this sample is so damning, USADA (or the IAAF) did not act on this anomalous sample, by this time a proven path to conviction, but instead preferred to launch a massive 6-10 year investigation to get Salazar for his facilitating role in Magness' infusion, for bad advice on something that was WADA legal, and for a testosterone experiment he freely conceded happened the way it was described.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Interesting, so who was it? Let's speculate just to irritate Rekrunner some more. Was it Mo, Rupp, Ritz or Kara??? Interestingly Mo failed answer his doorbell around this time ?

rekrunner wrote:

I would be curious to find out why, if this sample is so damning, USADA (or the IAAF) did not act on this anomalous sample, by this time a proven path to conviction, but instead preferred to launch a massive 6-10 year investigation to get Salazar for his facilitating role in Magness' infusion, for bad advice on something that was WADA legal, and for a testosterone experiment he freely conceded happened the way it was described.

Well from the sounds of it (ret about 2.7), it probably led to yet another ABP violation and thus a "likely doping" status for a NOP athlete.

But "for bad advice on something that was WADA legal"? Nice words for participating in falsifying medical records.

In fact, USADA explicitly called it a violation, and wanted Salazar convicted for that violation too, so the opposite of "WADA legal" according to USADA, but AAA didn't consider the evidence to be convincing enough for a conviction. So at best, likely not WADA legal.

rekrunner wrote:

If pressed to explain, I will defer the AAA panel's clear explanations.

I cannot vouch for "what others understand them to mean" or if that understanding is "likely what the panel also meant to say".

Contrary to your imaginary beliefs:

I accepted that the testosterone experiment was a serious infraction.

I do not apologize for not medically necessary excessive infusions, or testosterone experiments.

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

The fundamental weakness in your position is to separate each item of evidence against Salazar, picking choosing according to what you see as their relative degrees of seriousness or its lack, as though they are all unrelated, when they have to be understood in their totality - as would be so in in any case. To you, the tree looks smaller than it is because you choose to only see the branches. Taken as a whole the necessary conclusion is of a consistent and practised lack of sporting ethics that in certain instances were in outright violation of the rules. That is why the panel accepted the USADA view of the seriousness of Salazar's wrongdoing by according with the 4-year penalty imposed.

You also presented this as a " fact" on the leaked report , when it was just an very wrong opinion . (2015 )

Salazar doesn't need to offer more. In fact, he could have offered much less. (Who cares about Adam Goucher, or why Magness left NOP?)

The matters left unaddressed don't matter.

rekrunner wrote:

I would be curious to find out why, if this sample is so damning, USADA (or the IAAF) did not act on this anomalous sample.

I wondered about that as well. I went back and re-read the article, and am not clear on who performed the original blood test. Like you, I originally thought the results came from an official test, but the wording in the article is so vague and unspecific that I am not sure anymore. After re-reading the article, I think it's possible the original test was performed prophylactically by NOP. They did the test to make sure the athlete wasn't going to glow in Daegu. If these were indeed NOP's own tests, that could explain why the USADA didn't act on them -- they didn't have them.

Even if USADA had them, it seems likely they investigated and couldn't get the evidence to charge the athlete. If they got them from Magness, maybe he's releasing them now to keep the pressure on. And if they got them from an official source, maybe an insider is releasing them to keep the pressure on.

It'd be nice if the Daily Mail had said who performed the original tests. Maybe they feel they can't without exposing their source.

Then they shouldn't have even posted a story like this in the first place. This is bad journalism - a freshman journalism major wouldn't do something as foolish as this.

The AAA Panel looked at the totality of "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." Based on that comprehensive view of the greater than the individual sums of the separate parts, the AAA Panel explained why they imposed a 4-year penalty. I defer to the detailed findings and explanations provided by the AAA panel, which you can find as a link on Page 1 of this thread. As you make more clear with each post, you still have not read the report, and yet you still try to describe three saplings as a forest of mighty oaks, while calling my position weak for saying your imaginary landscape is photo-shopped. That you consistently create new analogies, without ever discussing specific details, and often contradicting specific details, only highlights that you are unable to connect your imagination to reality. If I were forced to chose between you and the AAA Panel, I chose reality over imagination.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The fundamental weakness in your position is to separate each item of evidence against Salazar, picking choosing according to what you see as their relative degrees of seriousness or its lack, as though they are all unrelated, when they have to be understood in their totality - as would be so in in any case. To you, the tree looks smaller than it is because you choose to only see the branches. Taken as a whole the necessary conclusion is of a consistent and practised lack of sporting ethics that in certain instances were in outright violation of the rules. That is why the panel accepted the USADA view of the seriousness of Salazar's wrongdoing by according with the 4-year penalty imposed.

Generally, if we look long enough, everyone here has "wrong opinions" about something. But with your specific example, I don't see which fact or opinion is wrong. First, it's a bit unfair to pluck a quote out of context, and even worse to describe the context wrongly as a "leaked report". The context here was two documentaries: A BBC Panorama report and a Propublica piece, followed by Salazar's lengthy rebuttal, and then Epstein's, Mark Daly's, Goucher's, and Magness's rebuttal of the rebuttal. Nothing legally or formally obliged Salazar to address the allegations in documentaries. What mattered in the AAA arbitration was two points not covered by the documentaries, and a third point which Salazar addressed, admitted, and conceded in his rebuttal happened as described in the documentaries. Putting aside whether it is fact or opinion, this still looks right today: "Salazar doesn't need to offer more. In fact, he could have offered much less. (Who cares about Adam Goucher, or why Magness left NOP?) The matters left unaddressed don't matter."

LordEric44 wrote:

You also presented this as a " fact" on the leaked report , when it was just an very wrong opinion . (2015 )

Salazar doesn't need to offer more. In fact, he could have offered much less. (Who cares about Adam Goucher, or why Magness left NOP?)

The matters left unaddressed don't matter.

It's misleading to call it an ABP violation if it did not result in an anti-doping rule violation. It would also be incorrect to rule out altitude, as you did in another thread, or other external circumstances. The "bad advice" were words for the email calling a WADA legal "infusion" an "injection". I am largely uninterested in what USADA called it, when we have the findings of a higher authority that judged what USADA called it. The AAA Panel rejected many of USADA's interpretations. Here's something I thought about to illustrate the AAA panel findings. If: 1) Magness had followed Salazar's email guidance, to find a "WADA legal" way for infusions (i.e. not more than 50ml), 2) Salazar had not sent the email calling the WADA legal "infusions" as "injections", 3) Salazar/NOP had conducted the testosterone experiment in slightly different circumstances without using Salazar's personal supply of testosterone, then Salazar would still not be banned, and the "totality" of all the circumstances that Armstronglivs imagines would be a small figure close to zero, and we could say that "AAA didn't consider the (totality of evidence from a lengthy 10-year investigation) to be convincing enough for a conviction".

casual obsever wrote:

Well from the sounds of it (ret about 2.7), it probably led to yet another ABP violation and thus a "likely doping" status for a NOP athlete.

But "for bad advice on something that was WADA legal"? Nice words for participating in falsifying medical records.

In fact, USADA explicitly called it a violation, and wanted Salazar convicted for that violation too, so the opposite of "WADA legal" according to USADA, but AAA didn't consider the evidence to be convincing enough for a conviction. So at best, likely not WADA legal.

If it did not occur as an official test under controlled circumstances, then for ABP purposes, this value does not exist. It is not ethical journalism for the Daily Mail to highlight one value completely out of context and make a suggestion that it is linked to EPO. Such a high RET% value would surely have been flagged and reviewed by an expert, or a panel of experts. There are many reasons such a review would not result in an ABP sanction.

rekrunner wrote:

Such a high RET% value would surely have been flagged and reviewed by an expert, or a panel of experts. There are many reasons such a review would not result in an ABP sanction.

Many reasons? Well, we are talking about 2011, when the corrupt IAAF used to not sanction positive tests in exchange for cash.

Right! Back then, you argued that that email was perfectly fine that he instructed his athletes to lie.

Right again! That's why I was hoping for an appeal, but alas, Nike rather closed its NOP.

1) That email came after Magness' infusion, i.e. too late, and it was with regards to Ritz;

2) Cheats will be cheats;

3) That would have to be very different to make it WADA legal;

4) We would still have the falsifying of medical records.

You keep maintaining the detail of the report makes it somehow different from how it has been widely reported - and generally understood. It is only different according to how you have chosen to interpret it, and under your analysis it virtually disappears. It must - because your mission is always to reduce the serious of doping in running whenever it shows its unmistakable presence.

Did I say "perfectly fine" and "he instructed his athletes to lie"? These sound like your words.

It sounds more like me to ask if what he instructed was, in your words, a lie.

I did find back that I referred to a "letsrun" writeup that said: "he was not instructing them to lie as a message board headline said".

For the avoidance of future doubt, the AAA panel found the email instruction was not OK, lie or no lie, despite the finding that the subject infusions/injections were considered WADA legal, and despite the assertion that no athlete was ever asked about infusions/injections.

1) Really? The email was sent September 28, 2011, and in 247) "These emails all predated the November 28, 2011 dextrose and L-Carnitine injection / infusion to Mr. Magness". Was there an earlier Magness infusion?

2) And tautologically non-cheats will be non-cheats.

3) The finding was trafficking because Salazar used his own supply. One small change and there is no trafficking, regardless of "WADA legal" status.

4) This sounds serious, but to my knowledge was not found to be a violation.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Such a high RET% value would surely have been flagged and reviewed by an expert, or a panel of experts. There are many reasons such a review would not result in an ABP sanction.

Many reasons? Well, we are talking about 2011, when the corrupt IAAF used to not sanction positive tests in exchange for cash.

As you already know, we can find many of these reasons in Ashenden's research, which predate 2011.

As you also know, the WADA IC conducted an independent review of the complete IAAF blood database (not the incomplete one that Ashenden/Parisotto used), finding that the IAAF reasonably followed up on suspicious values.