Former World Women's Marathon World Record Holder Paula Radcliffe (UK) ‘There is no evidence those NOP athletes were dopin

rekrunner wrote:

You are preaching to the choir.

You don't have to convince me that the report provides no basis for aspersions against NOP athletes.

Armstronglivs wrote:

From the master of long-windedness, you're not too good at summaries. The report does not resolve the question of whether any of Salazar's athletes were doping. It was investigating Salazar, not his athletes. There. Done.

Add obtuse to the list. The report provides no basis for claiming they must be clean. You're in the wrong choir.

So an "anti-doping rule violation" is the opposite of a doping violation? Pedantry goes well with casuistry. Your pretensions to "accuracy" are just that. It is interesting how an inferior intellect will find a way to reveal itself, despite every effort to appear the smartest in the room - as yours does.

So in your choir, there IS a basis for casting aspersions against NOP athletes in that report? You spin me right round, right round like a record. No one besides you made the claim "they must be clean". You are wrestling with your own scarecrow.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Add obtuse to the list. The report provides no basis for claiming they must be clean. You're in the wrong choir.

I know you are, but what am I? Once again, no one said "doping violation" except you. While you want to deflect and make this a personal attack against me, accuracy is important. Virtually everything you say, every argument you make, disappears once they are re-written for accuracy. Knowledge of the facts is also important. It boggles my mind that you still haven't read the report yet, but pretentiously offer lengthy assessments of the scope of the report. With respect to semantic distinctions, as I hope even you can see by the two examples I gave, there are things besides doping, which are ADRVs. There is an important material semantic difference. If you are as smart as you think you are, I hope you can see that "Salazar sent an email to NOP athletes" means something quite different than "Salazar doped NOP athletes".

Armstronglivs wrote:

So an "anti-doping rule violation" is the opposite of a doping violation? Pedantry goes well with casuistry. Your pretensions to "accuracy" are just that. It is interesting how an inferior intellect will find a way to reveal itself, despite every effort to appear the smartest in the room - as yours does.

rekrunner wrote:

So in your choir, there IS a basis for casting aspersions against NOP athletes in that report? You spin me right round, right round like a record.

No one besides you made the claim "they must be clean". You are wrestling with your own scarecrow.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Add obtuse to the list. The report provides no basis for claiming they must be clean. You're in the wrong choir.

You are very slow to grasp the point: the report does not and cannot cover every relevant avenue into inquiring whether any of Salazar's athletes were doping. It doesn't cover his entire coaching career and it was an investigation of Salazar not his athletes. I don't depend on the report to tell me anything definitive about the latter point. You do.

I don't claim that Salazar sending an email to his athletes was effectively doping his athletes. Salazar's doping violations were those that the panel described and for which he earned a penalty of a 4-year ban. I am not interested in your seeking to re-categorise them

and thus diminish their significance.

But that the report does not find evidence that he doped his athletes only speaks of the limitations of the investigation and the resulting report. Quite simply, the report does not, as far as I am concerned, resolve the question of whether he doped his athletes, despite the "no evidence" claim. Your position is that you form no view of his activities outside of what the report tells you. That is very out of character, because your usual approach is to interpret a report out of existence - if its findings don't suit you. I am not such an unquestioning receptacle of others' views as you appear to be in this case.

You are very slow to grasp that this thread is about Paula's quote: "There is no evidence in all of that report that shows that any of these (NOP) athletes were doping" Despite your serial denials, and feeble self-projected personal attacks, you seem to strongly agree with that statement. It is clear you have still not yet read the report, and yet you continue to make statements about the scope of the report that have already been demonstrated wrong. I would point them out again, but this thread isn't about your stubborn unwillingness to inform yourself of publicly available facts. I would bet you haven't even watched a 57 second video. But you do bring up an interesting question -- what do you depend on to tell you anything definitive about NOP athletes? We both seem to agree with Paula that basis is lacking in the report. Do you have any basis outside the report that "shows that any of these (NOP) athletes were doping?"

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are very slow to grasp the point: the report does not and cannot cover every relevant avenue into inquiring whether any of Salazar's athletes were doping. It doesn't cover his entire coaching career and it was an investigation of Salazar not his athletes. I don't depend on the report to tell me anything definitive about the latter point. You do.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your position is that you form no view of his activities outside of what the report tells you. That is very out of character, because your usual approach is to interpret a report out of existence - if its findings don't suit you. I am not such an unquestioning receptacle of others' views as you appear to be in this case.

This is more fantasy. I have formed my views partly on the report, but also the BBC/Panorama documentaries, the Propublica piece, Salazar's lengthy rebuttals, former/current NOP athlete/staff interviews, the Fancy Bears leaked report, content and arguments from multiple letsrun threads, and many external articles referenced from them, including casual obsever's summary list of reasons for his suspicions.

As you must have seen in the Salazar thread, before the report, I raised this very question about NOP athletes, as late as July this year, based on all this other external evidence, without the benefit of a report that does not show anything with respect to NOP athletes being doped by Salazar.

You have made repeated insinuations that NOP athletes would be the only expected beneficiaries of the doping violations from a doping coach, based on his convictions, the reasons for which are detailed in this report. You went further and claimed it would be naive to believe otherwise. I don't diminish the findings, but Salazar was found to have committed and was banned for: 1) Causing Magness to commit an ADRV ("facilitating and orchestrating") 2) Sending an email that tampered with the doping control process ("tampering") 3) Using his personal supply of testosterone gel in a questionable experiment on his sons ("trafficking") As you can see, the first two counts are arguably not under the definition of "doping", and the last count is clearly not "NOP athletes". If you have any basis outside the report, the time is long overdue for you to show your hand.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I don't claim that Salazar sending an email to his athletes was effectively doping his athletes. Salazar's doping violations were those that the panel described and for which he earned a penalty of a 4-year ban.

"...every athlete has the right to prove that they're clean..."

Including Russian athletes? A blanket ban on any group of athletes because some of them have broken the rules is always unfair and totally against the principle of natural justice.

There coming to get you Barbara

The thread begins with Radcliffe's comments but only a control-freak would insist that the discussion must conform to his interpretation of her statement and not deviate from that. You may recognise yourself. Yet you require me to now argue the case that Salazar was doping his athletes. Surely, to be consistent to your own rules you should have started a new thread on the subject? You are true to form - if nothing else.

I don't have to provide proof that Salazar was doping his athletes in order to take the view that the report does not prove otherwise because it didn't find evidence for him doping his athletes. An opposite conclusion is not logically necessary from the negation of any proposition. I pointed out earlier my reasons why I don't consider the investigation into Salazar offered definitive information into whether his athletes were doping; they weren't the subject of the investigation; the information obtained could not have been exhaustive unless each individual athlete was investigated. This didn't happen.

I am not interested in the detail of the report but it's main findings which have been reported widely and discussed endlessly on these threads - by you, especially. Reading its contents hasn't helped you grasp its significance any better.

If you change the subject, while replying to one of my posts, then you are not replying to anything that I said. I guess non sequitur is also a strategy. I don't ask you to argue the case, but to merely provide the basis. At a minimum, this would help me determine if your views are grounded in the real world, or your imaginary one. You have said repeatedly that the report cannot provide the basis, because it was limited in scope. If we remove these limits, and extend the scope to the extreme limits of reality, and as far back as you need, is there any basis, or bases, that shows that NOP athletes were doped?

troll detector wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Not correct! Even you admitted in the Salazar is banned thread that there was such evidence (but not sufficient to ban any athlete (other than Magness)). Why do start with the same old lie again? To protect Paula's lie?

No casual observer, you are the liar. It has been pointed out to you many times that your suspicion is based on normal fluctuations of blood volumes due to dehydration. Which you ignore to continue to post lies.

No you are incorrect, Paula would have had to run a lot longer to impact her Hct in that fashion, probably for 4 hrs.

Subway Surfers wrote:

No you are incorrect, Paula would have had to run a lot longer to impact her Hct in that fashion, probably for 4 hrs.

A four second gap between the two blood samples from 2003 would be enough to explain a chunk of the 20 % "boost" if the equipment wasn't the same one used to analyze both samples.

If one (quite plausibly) believes that her 15.6 g/dl was a blood doped value with only 0.47 % RETs, I've never quite figured it out why her Ret-% was almost equally low (0.59 %) with the Hb of value of only 12.8 g/dl thu indicating a noticeable surplus of red blood cells above her natural levels (blood doped/altitude training?) with also the lower Hb.

To my perception, the AAA report forms a subset within the wider picture of what is happening within the sport - and the role Salazar has played in this. We see from the report that Salazar was clearly looking for ways to give his athletes advantage, mostly within the rules if he could but exceeding them if he could get away with it (testosterone). You are correct in so far as you say the panel was unable to find persuasive evidence that his practices had extended to his athletes, within the framework of the USADA investigation. (I have given reasons why that might be so; chiefly that the investigation didn't focus on individual athletes, which it would needed to have done to prove their doping.) Yet we know that Salazar doped as an athlete (testo, again) and the findings of the panel that he breached the rules as a coach are consistent with someone of that kind of mindset.

In the era in which Salazar competed as an athlete and later worked as a coach we have seen drugs become pervasive in the sport. It has likely added to elite performances from some top African athletes. Salazar set up NOP to find an answer to African dominance. I don't think that answer could be found without doping and the rumours for years about Salazar athletes have suggested the same. Essentially, improvements in training alone won't do it in a doped sport.

As a coach, Salazar's efforts must inevitably be directed to aiding his athletes. The investigation and the panel showed what many have suspected for years, that his method involved exploring doping - both legal and illegal. The findings of the panel were confined to what it determined was proven. This however didn't extend to establishing that his athletes had doped.

I cannot prove his athletes have doped - no one can - yet, but amongst some of them their improvements have drawn speculation as well as indicators of official interest. (Other commenters here have pointed this out.) But if a prominent coach has shown that he has explored options that include doping - in the words of USADA, "orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping practices" - I would be very surprised if that did not, at some point, involve some of his athletes over his 30-year coaching career. That is conjecture, but conjecture can also be informed, and not necessarily be rebutted by evidence to the contrary if the evidence available is limited - as it is in this case.

Thus, you can reject the scenario that I depict because, in respect of NOP athletes at least, the dots don't lead incontrovertibly to joining them with doping. But there are enough features in the wider doping picture and the Salazar part of it to suggest it is better than possible, if not likely, that some have doped as part of his method. In a nutshell, that is reflected in the IOC directing an investigation of NOP athletes arising from the findings relating to Salazar's coaching practices. The IOC is not resting with Paula's assurances of "no evidence".

Interesting interview with Ángel Hernández.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/angel-hernandez-i-no-longer-dope-athletes-but-pretty-much-everyone-else-does/amp/

I appreciate your taking the time to respond, but much of this is your own personal fantasy: the "wider picture", "African performance from doping", "NOP's answer must include doping", etc. You continue to under-represent the scope of the investigation into Salazar's role in anti-doping rule violations. It's hard for me to imagine the possibility that the focus of the investigation into "Salazar's efforts" excluded NOP athletes while then concluding "Salazar's efforts must inevitably be directed to aiding his athletes". The investigation, after all was an open ended look at "Salazar's efforts" from private and public whistleblowing. With respect to NOP athletes, the L-Carnitine investigation included 6 NOP athletes, while the BBC/Panorama and Propublica reports included many accusations from Magness and Goucher, specifically about Rupp. At one point you use your own words "options that include doping" and clarify using USADA's words "orchestrating and facilitating prohibited doping practices", which are not quite the same thing. As we know USADA's "orchestrating and facilitating" was linked to excessive infusions of a non-banned substance. To blur that as "options that include doping" looks either ignorant, or dishonest.

I don't think this is largely my "own personal fantasy" if the IOC wants answers to some of the same questions. Or if athletes like Willis and Muir speak out, expressing a view that there is a "cloud" over his athletes.

There are longstanding widespread suspicions about African doping and it isn't much of a stretch to see that Salazar thought it necessary to fight fire with fire. Why else would he have been experimenting the way he did?

I understand that you like to be particular about terms that are employed in this context, but using substances to boost performance are a form of doping - legal or otherwise - and legal substances that are used in illegal amounts are definitely doping. Salazar doesn't get a 4-year ban - the same as Kiprop - for doings things that are "sort of ok". Once the line of legality is crossed you're a doper - end of argument.