I don't know what "widely reported" or "generally understood" means to you -- can you provide specificity?
I have offered for you to highlight any contradictions, with specificity, so that I can correct any mis-interpretations -- and you responded with a tree analogy.
I have already updated some proven wrong ideas about jurisdiction.
You throw out vague conclusory allegations like "my mission is ... to reduce the serious (sic) of doping in running", when the AAA Panel did not find that any "doping in running" of any NOP athlete occurred, beyond one training session of Magness.
If you want to rely on the AAA panel's findings to support your constant and relentless attacks on the sport, and clean and dirty athletes, the least intellectually honest thing you can do is read the AAA panel findings you rely on.
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 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.[/quote]