ALBERTO SALAZAR BANNED FROM ATHLETICS FOR FOUR YEARS FOR DOPING VIOLATIONS

I'll answer your questions.

Q. I'm fine with advocating for clean sport, but how is pointing the finger at innocent athletes part of advocating for clean sport?

A. It's nice to know you're 'fine' with advocating for clean sport. You speak again of innocence like this is a court. It is not.

We do explicitly know the findings of the panel and the details of the ban. There is a lot we explicitly do not know. We are all welcome to come to our our conclusions and opinions based on what is and is not known. My stance is an ethical one where I am 100% of the opinion that even IF no rules have been found to be broken, that doesn't make what is known to be happening right. My opinion.

Q. Doesn't advocating for clean sport also mean protecting the reputations of clean athletes?

A. Clean is in the eye of the beholder, again, it's an interpretation. Sport to me isn't just winning and losing, it's also about an ethical right and wrong, it's about sportsmanship, it's about health, it's about participation. You argue semantics like this is a court where the only wrong is if a rule is found to be broken. That broken rule you're looking for is issued by a governing body which has financial stake. Can you not see a conflict right there? Continuing to argue as you do strengthens the agenda of everything is okay as long no rules of that governing body are found to be broken. I do not agree with this.

Here are my questions you did not answer:

Can you straight faced say you feel good about what is explicitly known to be taking place in this sport? Do you find that because no NOP athlete has been 'caught,' what they are doing is right for the sport?

You didn't really answer my questions, but rather said "this is not a court" as a semantic shield for not answering the questions, then accused me of arguing semantics. I'm not really sure we are participating in the same conversation. It's fine advocating for a clean sport, and having your own opinions. But this wasn't really about you or your stance or your right to opinions. If you are responding to me -- and you were -- then I was talking about how it would be unfair to judge NOP athletes based on the convictions of Salazar that implicated no NOP athletes, adopting a principle of "guilt by association" rather than a principle of "presumption of innocence". To answer your questions, I can say all of this with a straight face: - The first one is too broad, given the many things we explicitly know. I'm fine with most things we know. I'm indifferent to some. I'm uncomfortable with some. I'm opposed to some. Some of these violate anti-doping rules. Some of these violate laws. Some are unethical. - I don't think any NOP athlete has done anything wrong for the sport.

Thank you for your answers. I apologize if mine were not clear, and for expressing my general grievances with what I find would make our sport better in the long term.

Perhaps we need a definition of ‘innocence’ because that seems our separation on opinion. Your opinion is because no rules have been found to be broken by NOP outside of Alberta, all is okay. My opinion is we are all, including you, free to speculate based on what is and is not known. Personal opinions are all we have here. If you have information that is not public at this time that can change opinions, please do share.

You cannot keep injectIng with that we all need to take innocence until proven guilty as an inalienable right in this context. It simply does not matter here. Are we clear there?

To clarify my answers, based on what we know, there have been no found rules violations outside of a Alberto in regards to the contexts of this thread. This does not mean we cannot have suspicions and ‘’point fingers.’ At the same time, you and anyone else are free to take it as face value. Your answer to the NOP question is clear here.

I’m glad you acknowledged ‘unfair’ in your response. At least now it’s clear you’re talking fair/unfair vs. what you or I can actually prove. Enjoy your speculations and I’ll enjoy mine.

That was a fairly imaginative response in your part but not overly factual. Really, you simply dismiss opinions that don't accord with your own as a variety of fantasy. That makes you feel better but it isn't convincing.

I haven't given an argument as to why I doubt that the panel findings about athlete involvement aren't the end of it. I havent done that because I'm not interested in writing chapters on the subject, which is what it would probably take. It still wouldnt persuade you if I tried - so rather a pointless exercise.

But I have made the effort to point out that in formulating your own views you have been reliant on rights-based and procedural arguments that have no relevance in a discussion of this kind. Others have recognised the same.

More fantasy. I actually haven't dismissed anyone's opinion, but just highlight when it is not based on "what the facts tell us", or contradicts findings and opinions of a lengthy report based on a long look at "what the facts tell us". I agree you have not given an argument, and it is clearly not what you are interested in. Before you launch any argument about your doubts regarding NOP athletes, I would first like to see the foundation for such doubts. I can save you time and confirm that, given your past track record, your argument would be a waste of your time and mine and anyone inclined to read them, as I would first look for any bases for such arguments, and assuming that I can find any, will draw my own conclusions, based on "what the facts tell us". Whether you agree or not, what was presented in whistle-blower documentaries, Fancy Bear leaks, and a lengthy AAA Panel report was a rather comprehensive look at NOP resulting from what was a rather open-ended investigation into Salazar and NOP, with testimony from several dozens of former and current NOP athletes and coaches. (Well they are all former now.) The point here is that we are way beyond Lance's mythical defense of "never tested positive", and we have an AAA panel finding it credible that Salazar was genuinely motivated and acted so that NOP athletes were not committing rule violations. We can view the AAA Panel findings swinging the weight of probabilities one of three ways: 1) Positively: NOP athletes survived a much higher standard of scrutiny than "testing", so should be viewed as "clean", adopting principles like "presumption of innocence" and "benefit of the doubt" 2) Negatively: Salazar is now officially a "doping coach", so NOP athletes are now tainted by "guilt by association" 3) Panel findings were neutral with respect to NOP athletes. You have shown that my views are formed on the basis of principles, while I have shown that yours are based on a logical fallacy arising from an incomplete understanding of the facts. I stand by Tygart's statement to the general public. He has also said "It is grossly unfair and reckless to state, infer or imply differently", a sentiment I have expressed and share.

Armstronglivs wrote:

That was a fairly imaginative response in your part but not overly factual. Really, you simply dismiss opinions that don't accord with your own as a variety of fantasy. That makes you feel better but it isn't convincing.

I haven't given an argument as to why I doubt that the panel findings about athlete involvement aren't the end of it. I havent done that because I'm not interested in writing chapters on the subject, which is what it would probably take. It still wouldnt persuade you if I tried - so rather a pointless exercise.

But I have made the effort to point out that in formulating your own views you have been reliant on rights-based and procedural arguments that have no relevance in a discussion of this kind. Others have recognised the same.

Here is what I said, as late as July, regarding NOP athletes:

"I think the strongest factor in the neutral observer's assessement of presumed innocence is, based on the sum total of "all we know today", and not more, we are unable to determine if any NOP athlete committed an ADRV at any time, except for one event involving "the whistleblower", who Salazar understood was "not competing anymore".

This statement is still true today, after the AAA panel judgements against Salazar.

Another thing I recalled in July is the involvement of the FBI in the investigation, giving USADA's ability to investigate more weight:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/03/07/fbi-joins-probe-mo-farah-coach-alberto-salazar/

I, nor you (well, maybe you if you have info not already made public), can verify we're not dealing with dirty athletes. I think it fair to say Tygart has to choose his wording to protect a business against what could be seen as defamation and/or slander.

Can you understand why what is said here is not in the same realm, and why using his statements as a means to your proof of opinion is irrelevant here? Ascertaining we must maintain innocence until guilt carries as much wait as me saying you must accept guilt by association.

Now let't talk those facts. You keep saying they are on you side, but here are three examples from just your past two posts that say you don't understand fact.

Example 1:

You state "a rather comprehensive look at NOP resulting from what was a rather open-ended investigation into Salazar and NOP," while USADA states "USADA announced today that two independent three-member panels of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rendered their decisions in the cases of Alberto Salazar and Dr. Jeffrey Brown."

You've added "NOP" where as the USADA overview specifically states the scope of investigation was limited to Alberto and Brown. Now we have the IOC investigation into NOP.

EXACT STATMENTS

Your Quote: Whether you agree or not, what was presented in whistle-blower documentaries, Fancy Bear leaks, and a lengthy AAA Panel report was a rather comprehensive look at NOP resulting from what was a rather open-ended investigation into Salazar and NOP, with testimony from several dozens of former and current NOP athletes and coaches

ADVERTISEMENT

Quote from USADA website in regards to investigation: USADA announced today that two independent three-member panels of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rendered their decisions in the cases of Alberto Salazar and Dr. Jeffrey Brown, determining that each should receive a 4-year sanction for orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping conduct while acting, respectively, as head coach of the Nike Oregon Project (NOP) and as a paid consultant for the NOP on performance enhancement and as physician for numerous athletes in the NOP.

Example 2:

You cite an article which does no confirm your statement in regards to FBI involvement, let alone scope of involvement. Can you cite proof of FBI involvement and specifically the scope of their involvement?

EXACT STATMENTS.

Your Quote: Another thing I recalled in July is the involvement of the FBI in the investigation, giving USADA's ability to investigate more weight:

Quote from FBI within the article you provided: The FBI, meanwhile, told Telegraph Sport: “We cannot confirm our involvement or the existence of an investigation.”

Example 3:

You state what Salazar "understood" as an argument for your position vs. what the panels position determined. This is a contradiction. This is the same panel you take as the whole truth, while at the same time here you are applying your own version of it. Which way do you want it? Did you read the whole findings?

EXACT STATEMENTS

Your Quote: "I think the strongest factor in the neutral observer's assessement of presumed innocence is, based on the sum total of "all we know today", and not more, we are unable to determine if any NOP athlete committed an ADRV at any time, except for one event involving "the whistleblower", who Salazar understood was "not competing anymore".

The actual USADA finding:

USADA’s position is that:

(a) it is not relevant whether or not Respondent thought Mr. Magness was only a

recreational runner. 193

(b) “calling someone a recreational athlete does not exempt them from the antidoping rules.”194

(c) “[o]f course, neither, the subjective beliefs of Mr. Magness or Respondent

regarding Mr. Magness’s status within sport are controlling.” Rather, USADA

contends that the key question is whether Mr. Magness was an “Athlete”

within the meaning of the Code and the USADA Protocol.195

(d) based on the provisions of the Code and the USADA Protocol, Mr. Magness

was plainly an Athlete covered by the anti-doping rules and that his over-thelimit IV infusion violated the Code.196

(e) “Respondent submitted no rationale for concluding the infusion given to

Magness was not a rule violation other than his erroneous claim Mr. Magness

was not an athlete at the time of the infusion.”1

Furthermore, you pick and choose specifics to fit your narrative (example below, please go on and provide reasons for every athlete you're defending). My brush stroke is much broader and generalized to what I find to be unethical. I'm not sure if you're just an NOP fan, or a warrior for all social justice. If it's the later, please start defending all those that have and continue to lose out finically to cheats.

Your Quote: After having seen the Alberto ban, do you find it appropriate to point a finger at, for example, Hassan? She was not there for the infusions, L-Carnitine, or the testosterone experiment. There is no testimony or evidence that she is getting private massages, or taking infusions, l-carnitine, asthma or thyroid medication. Any finger pointing toward Siffan Hassan is almost completely based on things not "explicitly known", combined with guilt by association with a coach who was not found to have doped any if his NOP athletes after a lengthy investigation.

And yup, I failed at proofing... your, let’s, latter, yada yada yada...

It sounds you are in complete agreement with me, yet you worked hard to fabricate a contradiction which does not exist.

In a nutshell:

I said "we are unable to determine if any NOP athlete committed an ADRV at any time", and your rebuttal is the same thing just reworded: "I, nor you (well, maybe you if you have info not already made public), can verify we're not dealing with dirty athletes."

Example 1:

"Investigation" is not "charge" or "case", and I did not restrict the investigation to just USADA. Marc Daly (BBC Panorama) and David Epstein (Propublica) also investigated Salazar and NOP.

Your rebuttal is that, as a result of a broad investigation with 30 witnesses, ..., USADA only brought (and the AAA panel decided) cases against, Salazar and Brown.

Where is the contradiction?

Furthermore, I don't see how an investigation into allegations of the head coach of NOP doping NOP athletes, can be so surgically precise as to insulate and exclude investigating some of the NOP athletes. We've also seen evidence of Nike executive involvement in these cases against Salazar and Brown.

Putting these two together the implication is that USADA could not bring a case against any NOP athletes due to insufficient facts.

But there are facts from the AAA Panel regarding one anti-doping violation allegation.

While the charges and the cases were limited to Salazar and Brown, the panel decision included allegations of anti-doping violations of several NOP athletes, with the panel concluding USADA provided insufficient facts, and contemporaneous evidence suggested to the AAA Panel, that NOP athletes were not subject to the banned method.

So we are both right -- we cannot determine -- and neither I nor you can verify -- regarding NOP athletes.

Example 2:

This is not my statement, but the Telegraph's: "Exclusive: FBI joins probe into Mo Farah coach Alberto Salazar"

My statement was introductory, and I provided the link for completeness, as-is. The Telegraph confirmed it, while the FBI did not:

"Telegraph Sport can reveal that the United States Anti-Doping Agency has enlisted the assistance of America’s national intelligence and law-enforcement service"

"News that the FBI, which brought Fifa to its knees, is working with Usada chief executive Travis Tygart, who brought down Lance Armstrong, emerged"

The FBI gave a stock response. I think it fair to say the FBI has to choose their wording to protect their business.

Example 3:

Which way do I want it? All of them. Salazar understood Magness was not an athlete. Salazar's understanding was wrong, and also irrelevant. I did not argue this, and my position does not depend on it, but presented it as plain fact, that that is what Salazar said he understood. My argument and my position is that, with respect to Magness the athlete, Salazar's understanding was wrong and irrelevant, and USADA's understanding, the AAA Panel findings, were right.

Where is the contradiction?

In any case, Salazar's understanding is also not relevant to the main point of the quote, that we cannot make a determination regarding NOP athletes.

Finally, I provided the example of Hassan, as one example, because that actually happened, with a Nick Willis tweet admitting he didn't know her situation, but proceeding to point the finger anyway. This is the kind of example, using Tygart's words, that I find "is grossly unfair and reckless to state, infer or imply differently".

I wasn't using Hassan to fit a narrative, but explicitly asking you if you find this specific example appropriate, as a result of the AAA panel findings and the Salazar ban. You did not answer this question.

I have already provided reasons for every NOP athlete I'm defending:

1) Insufficient facts to determine the contrary, even after the brighter light of multi-year investigations of the press and USADA, and reportedly involving FBI cooperation.

2) Principles that favor the athlete in light of lack of facts to the contrary.

3) "Guilt by Association" is a well known logical fallacy.

Again, this wasn't about you and your broad brush strokes of ethics. I'm not interested in your arbitrary version of what you consider ethical, but would only be interested in your basis for such arbitrary opinions. I am a fan and a warrior for intellectual justice.