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

Taro wrote:

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.

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, . . .

They'll follow the playbook they used in smearing Justin Gatlin by calling him a "2-time drugs cheat," which is patently false.

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.

casual obsever wrote:

Taro wrote:

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.

You understand wrong, as above poster already pointed out.

Also, AAA decided the penalty, as AAA clearly wrote, and AAA explained why they gave this punishment, as AAA wrote in the same document.

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, . . .

Yes.

They'll follow the playbook they used in smearing Justin Gatlin by calling him a "2-time drugs cheat," which is patently false.

That is not "patently false".

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.

Oh the irony. Why didn't you read the report? Didn't Nike give you enough money to read up on the facts before coming here to defend NOP?

Armstronglivs wrote:

What amuses me about those whose mantra is, "read the report", is that they think if you do so you will immediately grasp the true situation, which is that Salazar is not really a doper, that the AAA banned him from the sport for 4 years for not really doing anything wrong, and that he has actually been exonerated from any serious misdemeanour. Because it is all in the report - if you read it. The panel has thus done a brilliant job of conveying the exact of opposite of what it meant to say, because most would have simply accepted that Salazar had been caught and duly punished for engaging in illicit doping practices - or at least the ones USADA was able to persuade the panel of. In truth, the report is really the Salazar case for the defence. But only those who read it will know this.

Armstronglivs wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

You understand wrong, as above poster already pointed out.

Also, AAA decided the penalty, as AAA clearly wrote, and AAA explained why they gave this punishment, as AAA wrote in the same document.

Yes.

That is not "patently false".

Oh the irony. Why didn't you read the report? Didn't Nike give you enough money to read up on the facts before coming here to defend NOP?

What amuses me about those whose mantra is, "read the report", is that they think if you do so you will immediately grasp the true situation, which is that Salazar is not really a doper, that the AAA banned him from the sport for 4 years for not really doing anything wrong, and that he has actually been exonerated from any serious misdemeanour. Because it is all in the report - if you read it. The panel has thus done a brilliant job of conveying the exact of opposite of what it meant to say, because most would have simply accepted that Salazar had been caught and duly punished for engaging in illicit doping practices - or at least the ones USADA was able to persuade the panel of. In truth, the report is really the Salazar case for the defence. But only those who read it will know this.