Nike will back Alberto Salazar Appeal , the gloves are coming off.

Salazar doped his son to see what would trigger a test. But he wasn't doing this to see what level of doping his athletes could get away with. He would never do that - would he? No, it was to devise a way of protecting his athletes from doping "sabotage". So, which is the more likely - that coaches and athletes are doping, or someone is trying to "fix" them for doping?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Salazar doped his son to see what would trigger a test. But he wasn't doing this to see what level of doping his athletes could get away with. He would never do that - would he? No, it was to devise a way of protecting his athletes from doping "sabotage". So, which is the more likely - that coaches and athletes are doping, or someone is trying to "fix" them for doping?

This is the vague part of the investigation. Salazar documented the testing and why he was doing it .The appeal will be interesting .

I get it now. The private massages A S gave Rupp were to put a protective shield , a testosterone repellant on him.

JUSTICE FOR ALBERTO!

M.A.G.A.

Ernest wrote:

"Trafficking" makes it sound like Salazar was flipping dime bags on the corner.

If any high school or college coach was caught doing what he did, they'd be fired on the spot, at the very least. Willingness to give prescription T to the wrong person may be a little thing for regular people, but in coaching ethics, hell no, a coach can't be doing that.

So Nike is backing Salazar. How surprising that a brand is in reputation damage control.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So Nike is backing Salazar. How surprising that a brand is in reputation damage control.

Alberto was only in the grey area. Nike is doing the right thing, Alberto is the man. One more negative thing and I will have this thread deleted.

Fiying Carpet Salesman wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So Nike is backing Salazar. How surprising that a brand is in reputation damage control.

Alberto was only in the grey area. Nike is doing the right thing, Alberto is the man. One more negative thing and I will have this thread deleted.

How is a violation a "gray" area? There's either a breach of the rules or there isn't.

dude - you are f^%$$$$ re$###%^. God I wish I could live in your state of utterly blissful ignorance.

Taro wrote:

the testosterone-sabotage test he conducted on his sons was reasonable in light of the Gatlin case.

what about toothpaste? If he wants protection against saboteurs, he needs to find out how much testo-toothpaste will trigger a positive too. Feed them Mexican beef next. Saboteurs are tricky.

Face facts: a coach who violates controlled substance law with T hasn't got the ethics to coach. Quit bloviating about it not being done on athletes. No athletes were banned. But coach is gone, and should be.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Fiying Carpet Salesman wrote:

Alberto was only in the grey area. Nike is doing the right thing, Alberto is the man. One more negative thing and I will have this thread deleted.

How is a violation a "gray" area? There's either a breach of the rules or there isn't.

I am the OP and that's how I see it. He didn't go that far over the limits if any at all. He's innocent compared to what others are doing. He's done great things for distance running and the Gouchers only complained after they were dropped by Nike.

Fiying Carpet Salesman wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

How is a violation a "gray" area? There's either a breach of the rules or there isn't.

I am the OP and that's how I see it. He didn't go that far over the limits if any at all. He's innocent compared to what others are doing. He's done great things for distance running and the Gouchers only complained after they were dropped by Nike.

USADA: Salazar "orchestrated and facilitated prohibited doping practices". Your definition of what is over the limits doesn't count. Legally speaking, he drove through a stop sign - he didn't "sort of" or "maybe" and it's really a "grey area". You won't get far arguing that in a courtroom - you either did or you didn't. You don't think it's serious? A 4-year ban says otherwise. It doesn't matter that others might have done something worse. That doesn't let you off a violation.

Nike has just said it is closing down NOP. That's sure showing support. A bit like the way Trump shows support for the Kurds. Alberto is now a commercial liability to Nike. Watch this space.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Nike has just said it is closing down NOP. That's sure showing support. A bit like the way Trump shows support for the Kurds. Alberto is now a commercial liability to Nike. Watch this space.

Fiying Carpet Salesman wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

How is a violation a "gray" area? There's either a breach of the rules or there isn't.

I am the OP and that's how I see it. He didn't go that far over the limits if any at all. He's innocent compared to what others are doing. He's done great things for distance running and the Gouchers only complained after they were dropped by Nike.

Then why was he hit with a 4-year ban? - the same given to an athlete who is busted for doping for a first offense. They could have given Al Sal a 1 year or 6 months ban or even a warning with a censorship. But they hammered him with a major 4-year ban. His reputation is now ruined, he'll be laughed at by many, he'll be the brunt of jokes, he'll be labeled as a doping coach, and he won't be taken serious anymore. Every great performance by any of the athletes he coached will be looked at through a skeptical eye - that's usually what happens when your coach is banned for "doping violations."

I think Riz and Kara were correct about the whole NOP project . It went off the rails , unchecked and AlSal put everyone in a bad position with his careless experiments . No grey area involved , Alsal crossed the line and the 4 year sanction was warranted .

Fiying Carpet Salesman wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

How is a violation a "gray" area? There's either a breach of the rules or there isn't.

I am the OP and that's how I see it. He didn't go that far over the limits if any at all. He's innocent compared to what others are doing. He's done great things for distance running and the Gouchers only complained after they were dropped by Nike.

The OP is "Flying Carpet Salesman" ,... you Are F i y ing Carpet Salesman . You are an imbecile.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Face facts: a coach who violates controlled substance law with T hasn't got the ethics to coach..

What "controlled-substance law" did he violate?

He used a commercially available testosterone supplement on his son(s) to find out how much was needed to produce a positive doping test, according to the arbitration panel, which didn't accuse him of breaking any laws.

So, Mr. Prosecutor, what is the charge?

As I understand it, athletes get a 2-year suspension for their first offense and 4 years for the second. I'm not sure whether it was the arbitration panel or USADA that decided Salazar's penalty, but they need to explain why they gave him a punishment usually given to actual recidivist dopers.

major 4-year ban.

Only by the some of the shadier members of the press, who will go out their way to libel him. They're very predictable. They'll follow the playbook they used in smearing Justin Gatlin by calling him a "2-time drugs cheat," which is patently false. Whatever it takes to get a visceral response from the reader.

Anger and outrage sell. That's why 60 Minutes has been on the air for more than 50 years in the U.S. Americans love to be outraged. And judging by the tripe dished out by rags like The Telegraph and The Sun, Brits do too.

Must be that "special relationship."

Not by those who bothered to read the arbitration panel's report and therefore know better. And lazy, uniformed opinions that just parrot mob outrage don't carry much weight anyway.