Ritzenhein finally speaks out and says USADA made right call to ban Salazar: "I stand behind the findings of the panel."

Seems like a guy with lots of integrity. Works hard and cares a lot about the sport. I'm sure its been a hard process for him.

semi_pro wrote:

Seems like a guy with lots of integrity. Works hard and cares a lot about the sport. I'm sure its been a hard process for him.

LOL

Here comes the horde of NOP d!ck riders to bash Ritz.

semi_pro wrote:

Seems like a guy with lots of integrity. Works hard and cares a lot about the sport. I'm sure its been a hard process for him.

Hilarious. Notice everyone who goes against Alberto does so after they leave Nike and go to a competitor. Not one person has said anything and about Nike that has retired. Only people who move to another company or are fired.

Laughablee wrote:

semi_pro wrote:

Seems like a guy with lots of integrity. Works hard and cares a lot about the sport. I'm sure its been a hard process for him.

Hilarious. Notice everyone who goes against Alberto does so after they leave Nike and go to a competitor. Not one person has said anything and about Nike that has retired. Only people who move to another company or are fired.

Um, yeah. I'd get a new job before trashing my boss. Duh.

Plus, he was cooperating with a legal proceeding. It wasn't like he went out of his way to get famous by bashing Salazar. It seems totally reasonable to me that someone would join NOP expecting amazing support for her/his career, find out things are not what they expected morally/legally/whatever, and then move on. If you really think this is so weird, you're out of touch or just trolling.

Laughablee wrote:

semi_pro wrote:

Seems like a guy with lots of integrity. Works hard and cares a lot about the sport. I'm sure its been a hard process for him.

Hilarious. Notice everyone who goes against Alberto does so after they leave Nike and go to a competitor. Not one person has said anything and about Nike that has retired. Only people who move to another company or are fired.

Yeah you have to have another job lined up - would you burn your current employer? It's not hilarious its real life.

Burn bridges while you're there - no chance he gets another 'job'.

Laughablee wrote:

semi_pro wrote:

Seems like a guy with lots of integrity. Works hard and cares a lot about the sport. I'm sure its been a hard process for him.

Hilarious. Notice everyone who goes against Alberto does so after they leave Nike and go to a competitor. Not one person has said anything and about Nike that has retired. Only people who move to another company or are fired.

I'd love to know if Nike offers a retirement bonus/NDA combo!

LetsRun.com wrote:

https://twitter.com/djritzenhein/status/1181348000762912770

Why can't we say what really happened here.

Ritz was offered a deal to give as much info as possible or go down with a ban for himself.

He has to support USADA given the alternative.

So, if this was a vigorous and comprehensive process, does that mean that all the athletes are clean?

Because, of course, otherwise the process wasn't comprehensive if they missed doping athletes. Because, of course, Ritz also stands behind the panel findings that Salazar unwittingly broke the rules while trying to be careful.

I swear, professional athletes should take remedial logic courses before speaking in public. It'd be good for the sport.

^attacking right on cue^

Tell like it is wrote:

Why can't we say what really happened here.

Ritz was offered a deal to give as much info as possible or go down with a ban for himself.

He has to support USADA given the alternative.

You have to wonder. I haven't seen anything that suggests USADA had evidence that athletes knowingly broke the rules. Have you?

PS: The only example is the infusions, which seem to have clearly been over the allowed limit. But IIRC, the athletes all said Alberto told them the infusions were legal.

Makes sense but wrote:

Tell like it is wrote:

Why can't we say what really happened here.

Ritz was offered a deal to give as much info as possible or go down with a ban for himself.

He has to support USADA given the alternative.

You have to wonder. I haven't seen anything that suggests USADA had evidence that athletes knowingly broke the rules. Have you?

PS: The only example is the infusions, which seem to have clearly been over the allowed limit. But IIRC, the athletes all said Alberto told them the infusions were legal.

Didn't the report clearly say the only infusions over the allowed limit were the ones given to Magness? Everyone else's were legal.

semi_pro wrote:

Seems like a guy with lots of integrity. Works hard and cares a lot about the sport. I'm sure its been a hard process for him.

Typical of the LRC. Goucher and Magness bashed when they were the first to come forward and Ritzhein is a hero even though it was only after he was leaked by Fancy Bears that he had no other choice but to fess up. Ritz also one of the few who it seems there is proof he cheated with his injections.

There is a murder but no body....

So who doped? obviously big big cloud on farah, rupp, centrowitz, and many others...

cloud smells from dope:)

The west is so often hypocrite about their athletes.....

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/oct/04/sebastian-coe-alberto-salazar-very-british-hypocrisy-athletics

Wildhorse wrote:

Didn't the report clearly say the only infusions over the allowed limit were the ones given to Magness? Everyone else's were legal.

You are right! I was confused.

Sloppy is as sloppy does wrote:

Wildhorse wrote:

Didn't the report clearly say the only infusions over the allowed limit were the ones given to Magness? Everyone else's were legal.

You are right! I was confused.

Yep, so if more, then why didn't he say that I was injected with over the legal limit. I don't hear anyone saying more than already reported.....where's the real smoking gun?

So, if Ritz, Kara, Adam, and Magness testified, in order for USADA to have come to the conclusion they did, none of those four had any evidence to provide of any athletes being doped (other than the technicality with "not a real athlete" Magness). USADA stated that Salazar worked hard to stay within the rules, so was that conclusion based on Ritz, Kara, Adam, and Magness's testimony?

If these four could not provide enough evidence to lead to a doping charge (I mean one that actually led to a competing athlete getting an illegal performance enhancement), where is the doping? They all seem to allege that there was some kind of inner circle that included only Salazar, Rupp, and Farah and therefore something dirty must have been going on. Isn't it entirely possible that they misinterpreted why they were not on the inside? Perhaps Salazar just placed his focus on those two because he felt they were the most talented, and the others felt hurt that they were kept out. When I was an athlete, I had a coach who chose to focus on my teammate rather than me. It felt pretty bad because I felt like I was more dedicated and more talented (we had pretty equal PRs at the time and I had far better basic speed). Eventually my teammate became a top 10 USA 3200m runner while I ended up top 10 in the state, about 20s slower. I didn't spout off and assume my teammate was secretly doping because he had a tight relationship with the coach. Maybe my coach just recognized the talent in my teammate...

I really don't get the cloud around Rupp. He hasn't failed any tests. USADA didn't come up with any sanctions despite all these former NOP people testifying. He doesn't have impossible PRs...Ritz ran faster in the 5000m, Solinsky ran close in the 10000m and might have been better had he not wrecked his career with injury. Hall ran faster in the marathon and Ritz was pretty close. So why is there suspicion? Because he ran some amazing workouts around the time he ran a fast indoor 3000m (only on par with Bob Kennedy's fitness level)? Because he managed to run an awesome mile time which didn't seem to translate to a good 1500m or a big time in the 5000m? I only see outstanding coaching here. It lines up with Kara going from not a big name to becoming a global medalist.

I get the cloud around Farah. He looks dirty as hell. My purely speculative theory is that Salazar was trying to utilize the gray areas but stay legal, and that Farah doped on his own when he was training in Africa. Farah used NOP for their outstanding coaching and facilities, then took the extra steps when he was away from Portland. It might be that he was quietly advised to do this by Salazar, or that he just did it on his own. That's just my own theory which is no better than any other since I have no evidence.

At this point, Salazar is guilty of pushing the gray areas too hard. These is no evidence on any of his athletes. Until there is, I'm not going to assume they are doping just because they are fast. Schumacher has a lot of fast athletes and times alone don't indicate doping to me. Are we to assume that Salazar is only getting mediocre athletes, then doping them to times that are only on par with Schumacher's athletes?

I know, now I'm a Nike shill. I'll just say that I'm waiting for evidence that any of his athletes doped. I hope many of you never sit on a jury.

Dathan "Sammy The Bull" Ritzenhein.

sdkjfkjsdhf wrote:

I hope many of you never sit on a jury.

Or piss off a cop or a prosecutor, because, as Robert Jackson, SCt Justice and the Chief Prosecutor at Nuremburg pointed out long ago:

One of the greatest difficulties of the position of prosecutor is that he must pick his cases, because no prosecutor can even investigate all of the cases in which he receives complaints...We know that no local police force can strictly enforce the traffic laws, or it would arrest half the driving population on any given morning.

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.

It is in this realm -- in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.