If you think Salazar is guilty as hell, you can read the facts that way. If you think he want deep into the gray, you can read it that way. All these athletes and executives are issuing comments like there is some new information or a decision that concluded actual, real NOP athletes are/were dirty. I must have read a different decision.
-
My issue is that much of the internet/twitter reaction (even those in the elite running world) seem to be based on headlines and a ban and not the actual report and decision. There is really nothing new in this new information. There is no conclusion that Salazar doped NOP athletes (there is certainly a lot of information in this realm, but this is not like Lance or Balco where this decision includes definitive information that athletes doped).
If you think Salazar is guilty as hell, you can read the facts that way. If you think he want deep into the gray, you can read it that way. All these athletes and executives are issuing comments like there is some new information or a decision that concluded actual, real NOP athletes are/were dirty. I must have read a different decision. -
I disagree: he was trying to boost his athlete's performances, within the detection boundaries of any known testing protocoles, with very little regard for either their long term health or their willingness to actually compete fairly and stay clear from "grey area". There also are testimonies of ex-athletes, ex-assistant coaches, and ex-physio therapists, that as the boss he would bully the ones with a different kind of moral compass than his own into doing whatever he decided they should do or resigning.
In my book, this cannot equate to "trying to help his athletes in any way within the rules". -
+1. This is what gets me the most. The reactionary comments based on the headline and ‘4-year ban’. In my opinion is makes it sound way worse than what was actually wrote in the report, but most people have done/will do little to no reading of the actual findings.
-
canspo wrote:
If you think he want deep into the gray, you can read it that way.
No. The 4-year ban proves that he went into the dark, not gray.
canspo wrote:
All these athletes and executives are issuing comments like there is some new information or a decision that concluded actual, real NOP athletes are/were dirty. I must have read a different decision.
Read the part where USADA alleges to have enough evidence for Ritz, Tara and Rupp having committed ADVRs (starting around page 60). They, and Salazar, got lucky that the American judges voted 2 : 1 against that. Otherwise there's be bans for athletes coming up now. Will be interesting to see how the CAS judges will vote on that part.
Also interesting to note that USADA screwed up by delivering some of their evidence too late, so it was judged to be inadmissible after long complaints from NOP's lawyers. In other words, NOP benefited from USADA's incompetence.
Not sure whether CAS will be able and willing to look at all evidence in the appeal... -
casual obsever wrote:
They, and Salazar, got lucky that the American judges voted 2 : 1 against that.
"Luck" is an interesting way of saying that a majority of the judges didn't think there was legal standing for the particular part of the case. -
canspo wrote:
My issue is that much of the internet/twitter reaction (even those in the elite running world) seem to be based on headlines and a ban and not the actual report and decision. There is really nothing new in this new information. There is no conclusion that Salazar doped NOP athletes (there is certainly a lot of information in this realm, but this is not like Lance or Balco where this decision includes definitive information that athletes doped).
If you think Salazar is guilty as hell, you can read the facts that way. If you think he want deep into the gray, you can read it that way. All these athletes and executives are issuing comments like there is some new information or a decision that concluded actual, real NOP athletes are/were dirty. I must have read a different decision.
amen -
just my opinion wrote:
New theory - the anti-NOP anonymous letsrun posters are pro athletes. The rest of us are fine with ethical grey area coaching.
The verdict actually makes me like Salazar better. He was trying to help his athletes in any way he could within the rules. He made mistakes, but his mistakes did not directly affect any athlete and he was only trying to protect them (like trying to make sure Galen couldn't be sabotaged). He was not the intentional, undercover rule-breaker like some letsrun posters insinuate.
This is the rubbish argument. There is no cheating within the rules. You seem to think that a lot of drug is illegal, but a little bit, managed artfully, is ok.
Its not.
And he was absolutely planning his actions to avoid criticism or capture. He is a cheat. He's been caught. And as in any elite organization, those who work with him and around him know it.
You spectators are more naive. Or uncaring -
there is no grey in cheating.
If you seek an advantage by chemical means, with banned substances that you try to mask, then you are a cheat.
No grey about that at all.
A cheat.
Salazar got caught cheating.
He's done. -
Thanks, I've read the tweet thread but didn't see any link to anything. Oh well, i'd probably ignore it anyway, especially if it's true that she sought out salazar herself, as a previous poster mentioned. That would take some big balls to be so hypocritical, haha!
The Vegan wrote:
She has a 7 part tweet , linking her 6 page blog . -
law-breaker rule maker wrote:
mwebsters wrote:
And when you break anti-doping rules, that means you are doping, not performance enhancing.
wow someone missed the point.
The anti-doping rules are completely arbitrary. Altitude training is technically doping, using caffeine is ok . While I agree that rules should be followed, the actual creation of those rules is not based in anything.
Of course they are arbitrary. "So is the length of a meter Steve, does that make a 100m race unfair?"
How did I miss the point? Breaking anti-doping rules is, by definition, doping. -
Just for my information. Cheruiyot, Manangoi, Kwemoi. I can't find anything on them, and since your question is rhetorical it would be nice with some facts.
-
Jenny Simpson is closely associated with Wetmore, who sent athletes to Dr. Brown - who is banned.
By her (illogical) thinking, I should be able to point a finger at her and say she doped. And she shouldn't feel bad about that.
Again, these are professional athletes, not professional thinkers. -
L-Carnitine wrote:
Jenny Simpson is closely associated with Wetmore, who sent athletes to Dr. Brown - who is banned.
By her (illogical) thinking, I should be able to point a finger at her and say she doped. And she shouldn't feel bad about that.
Again, these are professional athletes, not professional thinkers.
Her logic does not allow you to point a finger at her and say she doped for being coached by Wetmore. Swing and a miss. -
wejo wrote:
Same here ` wrote:
The whole thing from the start has made me much more supportive of Salazar.
He used to share many of the NOP's workouts, and then stopped doing that because of the constant attacks.
Not surprisingly, several of the athlete's negative reactions are from Wetmore's group, who've been active in the process.
I think it's a bit unfair to make it sound like only one group of athletes is critical of Salazar.
Nike athletes in the steeple here at Worlds criticized Salazar.
Sounds like Wejo is a snowflake. Awww -
Her illogical statements talk only about close associations.
Clearly you're not a professional thinker either. That's okay. No doubt a lack of nuance makes life nice and simple. -
L-Carnitine wrote:
Her illogical statements talk only about close associations.
Clearly you're not a professional thinker either. That's okay. No doubt a lack of nuance makes life nice and simple.
There's nothing illogical in her statements. She's never been closely associated with Brown's falsifying of documents. You can play six degrees of separation to try to implicate any athlete to obfuscate from the inappropriate actions of NOP, but you aren't able to point out any real hypocrisy. People see through the BS of trying to blame other athletes of being skeptical of those coached by Salazar. -
L-Carnitine wrote:
Her illogical statements talk only about close associations.
Clearly you're not a professional thinker either. That's okay. No doubt a lack of nuance makes life nice and simple.
Says the ignoramus with a drug name for a handle. Stay in your mommies basement. -
low expectations wrote:
L-Carnitine wrote:
Her illogical statements talk only about close associations.
Clearly you're not a professional thinker either. That's okay. No doubt a lack of nuance makes life nice and simple.
There's nothing illogical in her statements. She's never been closely associated with Brown's falsifying of documents. You can play six degrees of separation to try to implicate any athlete to obfuscate from the inappropriate actions of NOP, but you aren't able to point out any real hypocrisy. People see through the BS of trying to blame other athletes of being skeptical of those coached by Salazar.
I did point out the hypocrisy. She's playing 6 degrees of separation to say that people should point the finger at all NOP athletes. I can play 6 degrees of separation to say that people should point the finger at her.
Feel free to point out where the Panel decision found any doping violations for NOP athletes (Magness doesn't count). Then again, if your reading ability is as solid as your grounding in logic, it may take a while for you to read it. I'll save you the trouble. Nada. -
Stay on the sidelines small brain wrote:
Says the ignoramus with a drug name for a handle. Stay in your mommies basement.
Oh no, insults. Whatever will I do?
