ALBERTO SALAZAR BANNED FROM ATHLETICS FOR FOUR YEARS FOR DOPING VIOLATIONS

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

Generally, if we look long enough, everyone here has "wrong opinions" about something.

Nothing legally or formally obliged Salazar to address the allegations in documentaries.

You are changing the context again , you alway do this instead of just saying you were dead wrong . Salazar open letter was based on the Fancy Bears leaked USADA report . This is what he was responding too.

Subway Surfers wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You are flailing and bloviating because you haven't actually read the report.

I missed 44 pages but is Rekrunner on here still defending a known doper?

Isn't that all he does on this board?

LordEric44 wrote:

You are changing the context again , you alway do this instead of just saying you were dead wrong . Salazar open letter was based on the Fancy Bears leaked USADA report . This is what he was responding too.

Maybe we are talking about different contexts. Here is the timeline I have in mind:

~June 3rd, 2015: BBC/Panorama and Propublica break the Salazar/NOP scandal

~June 23rd, 2015: Salazar responds in an open letter

by June 24th 2015: Epstein, Daly, Magness and Goucher respond

July 3, 2015: I posted what you quoted "Salazar doesn't need to offer more..."

... one and a half years pass ...

Feb 25, 2017: The Sunday Times receives a leaked USADA Report From 2016 from Fancy Bears, and publishes a story about Dr. Brown and infusions

Are you suggesting both Salazar and I were talking about a Fancy Bears leak that wouldn't happen until more than one and a half years later? I can't imagine having the ability to see that far in the future, and still being dead wrong.

Since I allegedly changed the context again, what is the context exactly?

And in any context, how is anything I said even wrong?

hszggrsg wrote:

Subway Surfers wrote:

I missed 44 pages but is Rekrunner on here still defending a known doper?

Isn't that all he does on this board?

Yes it isn't.

I like how I am just "imagining" Salazar committed serious doping infractions. A 4-year ban says you are wrong.

When the USADA uncovered a methodology of doping by Salazar, referring to his "facilitating prohibited doping practices", it is utterly naive to believe this would have been confined to what it was able to prove in its investigation and there would not have been more violations in a 30-year career. Salazar committed multiple proven doping and ethical violations - that was his method - and what we have seen revealed would only be the tip of a rather grubby iceberg.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

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.

None of that is true, but by all means, keep standing up for all these cheats.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I like how I am just "imagining" Salazar committed serious doping infractions. A 4-year ban says you are wrong.

"serious doping infractions" lacks specificity, and I don't know what that means to you.

I know what the AAA Panel decided, and why.

Armstronglivs wrote:

When the USADA uncovered a methodology of doping by Salazar, referring to his "facilitating prohibited doping practices", it is utterly naive to believe this would have been confined to what it was able to prove in its investigation and there would not have been more violations in a 30-year career. Salazar committed multiple proven doping and ethical violations - that was his method - and what we have seen revealed would only be the tip of a rather grubby iceberg.

Rather than setting this up as a false dichotomy choosing between fantasy or naivety, why not learn the facts to build a solid foundation, and use reasoned logic to form opinions?

The theologian Emmanuel Kant thought he could prove the existence of God through logic. We know he didn't. There are limits to what logic can tell us but you and Kant seem to have something in common; you both think you can prove through logic what you wish to believe. Your deductions are no more substantial than Kant's. But you, too, are a theologian of sorts; a religious believer in a clean sport - well, almost clean.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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.

None of that is true, but by all means, keep standing up for all these cheats.

I started both statements with "as you know" -- is that what makes both statements not true? You simply don't know all of the historical facts and findings?

I know you consistently stand firmly behind half the facts, forcing me to shine a light on the facts you ignore, but frankly I don't see how that is possible that you are unaware of the scope and content and conclusions of the body of Ashenden's research, and the WADA IC reports.

If you can actually show that someone cheated, I will not stand up for their cheating. Here, Alberto has been found guilty of muliple ADRVs, but no NOP athlete has. I do not challenge the AAA panel's findings against Alberto, but such findings do not extend to violations he did not commit, or to any NOP athletes not found to have committed any violations.

I'm impressed at how well informed you are on all topics, except the ones you want to speak about here. You will not become more informed by making up beliefs about me.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The theologian Emmanuel Kant thought he could prove the existence of God through logic. We know he didn't. There are limits to what logic can tell us but you and Kant seem to have something in common; you both think you can prove through logic what you wish to believe. Your deductions are no more substantial than Kant's. But you, too, are a theologian of sorts; a religious believer in a clean sport - well, almost clean.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote the Critique of Pure Reason, a huge book that deals with the limits of logic and reason, i.e. he thought that both were considerably more limited than many earlier thinkers (like Leibniz) had claimed. Kant was one of the most prominent critics of arguments for the existence of God. His contemporary Moses Mendelssohn called him the "destroyer" of such proofs.

Maybe I gave you too much credit.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm impressed at how well informed you are on all topics, except the ones you want to speak about here.

You will not become more informed by making up beliefs about me.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The theologian Emmanuel Kant thought he could prove the existence of God through logic. We know he didn't. There are limits to what logic can tell us but you and Kant seem to have something in common; you both think you can prove through logic what you wish to believe. Your deductions are no more substantial than Kant's. But you, too, are a theologian of sorts; a religious believer in a clean sport - well, almost clean.

Your first statement was:

I am indeed not aware of any reason, other than extreme coincidence with a chance of less than 1 : 10.000, why someone would get a ret count of 2.7.

Many? Why don't you prove your statement by providing me with, say five such reasons from Ashenden's pre-2011 research, along with the respective sources.

Your second statement was:

That is wrong for the following reasons:

1) WADA's committee, hand-picked by WADA, and led by its former president, was not exactly independent, and directly involved in IAAF's shenanigans during the time in question, as the IAAF reported to WADA on those, with the very same now former president in charge.

2) WADA's committee, consisting of two lawyers and one cop or something, did not have the expertise to have "conducted an independent review".

3) WADA's committee could only see whatever IAAF handed over to them, however incomplete.

You don't stand up for their cheating, but you routinely stand up for them by downplaying the charges, in this case for example by changing:

into:

You also routinely argue that the cheat in question, whether Jeptoo or Kiprop or Sumgong or Salazar, didn't benefit from their violations.

casual obsever wrote:

I am indeed not aware of any reason, other than extreme coincidence with a chance of less than 1 : 10.000, why someone would get a ret count of 2.7.

Any reason other than doping...

Jo72 wrote:

The philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote the Critique of Pure Reason, a huge book that deals with the limits of logic and reason, i.e. he thought that both were considerably more limited than many earlier thinkers (like Leibniz) had claimed. Kant was one of the most prominent critics of arguments for the existence of God. His contemporary Moses Mendelssohn called him the "destroyer" of such proofs.

Not entirely. While Kant did not accept the traditional arguments that sought to prove the existence of God, he made his own arguments that effectively offered a moral proof. Kant argues that morality requires belief in the existence of God, a priori. In essence Kant assumes the existence of God in order to solve a contradiction or paradox. He claims that human reason faces contradiction unless it believes in the existence of God.

rekrunner wrote:

I'm impressed at how well informed you are on all topics, except the ones you want to speak about here.

You will not become more informed by making up beliefs about me.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The theologian Emmanuel Kant thought he could prove the existence of God through logic. We know he didn't. There are limits to what logic can tell us but you and Kant seem to have something in common; you both think you can prove through logic what you wish to believe. Your deductions are no more substantial than Kant's. But you, too, are a theologian of sorts; a religious believer in a clean sport - well, almost clean.

You can make no factual assertion here that isn't disputed - which is ironic given that you see yourself as the champion of accuracy - but it does show that debating the facts with you is an exercise in futility. You alone decide what are the "true" facts. Were I to debate the detail of the Salazar report with you we would fail to agree on the meaning of a preposition.

casual obsever wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

I am indeed not aware of any reason, other than extreme coincidence with a chance of less than 1 : 10.000, why someone would get a ret count of 2.7.

Any reason other than doping...

That ret count is extreme erythropoiesis (normal range: 0.5% to 1.5%) And the 1:10,000 comes out to the IAAF's 99.9% specificity level. Minus any pathological reasons (e.g., hemolysis anemia, GI bleed or trauma related blood loss, etc.) that probability level can lead to a ABP ban.

hey armstronglivs.....

rekrunner is kicking your ass. by now you could have read the report.

hasay etc need to travel with a 3 x 5 card that explains the key points of the actual report . which they can hand to reporters. vrs this "widely reported" bullshit version. perpetuated by idiots like randomblabblabx who have never read more than a bold faced misleading headline and gone with their superstitions and prejudices. nike could put the basic clarification on a t shirt.

trafficking means- gave testosterone, which alberto had from his own prescription, to a person who did not have a prescription for testosterone. alberto gave it to his sons. this simple fact needs to be in every story which refers to the "trafficking" charge. or imaginary -"widely reported" bullshit encourages the history to be rewritten without evidence. rekrunner simply kicks your ass armstronglivs. go read the report and tap out. what could have been has yet to be proven. it must be proven before peoples lives are ruined by misleading hype. if you can prove it, prove it.

the main thing this report proves is the media is massively irresponsible in it's story telling ways.

secondarily the report indicates that the mayo clinic has better tests for testosterone than etc etc. and that less than 4 squirts of etc etc wont etc etc for some men etc etc...

as an aside. when it comes to endocrinologist connections. it could be interesting to read page 183 to 193 of coes -running my life. and ask him what is meant by the line "this was the turning point. i'd stopped feeling tired all the time." since he leaves things a bit vague. but somewhere between tired and not was the endocrinologist. though there were other things as well. sort of funny to put out there the possibility of coe as a missing link. when he admits to not reading the report. but spends time in his book expressing dissatisfaction with the crap strategies of the media...giving us this quote....which im too lazy to find precisely at this moment- its the reporters duty to separate the wheat from the chaff and the editors duty to publish the chaff.