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

There won't be a "special report " stating NOP athletes are clean, like Coe arranged with Paula Radcliffe when her feelings were hurt by social media . At this point you have a dirty coach , using unethical practices . The Only conclusion is NOP athletes were involved . There was no mention that any athletes were not under investigation , or that the investigation against the athletes is over. I recall a 2015 thread where rekrunner stated as fact " USADA has no authority to punish Salazar for procedures on implementing supplements ". This of course is not true.

When you have to keep cherry-picking the argument - as you do - it shows that the ground you are on is increasingly shrinking. The central point is that for many, including the IOC and athletes like Muir and Willis, the panel's findings have not dispelled suspicions that NOP athletes may have been doping under Salazar. This is not claiming "proof" but is a position of at least requiring further investigation.

While you keep insisting the discussion is about NOP athletes this is necessarily in the context of their relationship with their coach. Salazar has been guilty of doping violations - his breach of the rules makes that incontrovertible - and he has accordingly been treated that same as a doping athlete in Kiprop, with a 4-year ban. The question to be resolved for the IOC and others is whether his practices have extended to his athletes, as the panel's findings do not satisfactorily resolve that point.

I made no claim that the IOC or Willis or Muir were commenting about "African dominance" or the "wider picture" - that is your misinterpretation. But that you choose to do that to find ways to falsify an argument is a dishonest method - or you are not as bright as you think you are. But the views of the IOC and elite athletes do not arise out of a vacuum; they are well aware of the history of the sport and the pervasive presence of drugs, and without agreeing in every detail with my own views their understanding of "the wider picture" of the sport would not be very different from my own.

Cherry picking? I've responded to all of the new points you bring up. My central point was and always has been evidence so strong that it showed NOP athletes were doping. I asked you to provide your bases in reality, drawing from inside and outside of the report, in order to separate reality from your imagination, and you responded with your perceptions. I called "wider picture", "African dominance" and "NOP's answer must include doping" "your own personal fantasy". You responded that the IOC and Nick Willis and Laura Muir share some of your fantasies. Nick Willis started a tweet by saying "I know nothing" before expressing emotions. Similarly Muir (did she comment on NOP athletes?) would know nothing about Salazar and NOP athletes. IOC asked questions and asked WADA to answer them -- asking questions indicates a lack of knowledge. The views of the IOC and elite athletes arise from a lack of knowledge. Salazar was found guilty of anti-doping rule violations that did not involve NOP athletes.

I never ask for a "special report" stating NOP athletes are clean. I ask for bases and evidence that show NOP athletes are not. "Coe arranged with Paula Radcliffe when her feelings were hurt by social media" looks like more distorted fantasy. Coe expressed a belief that Paula was clean, and Paula was a repeated high profile target of the British Press. The IAAF was also attacked by the Sunday Times and ARD, and produced a lengthy response, which WADA experts and the WADA IC described as scientifically sound. This rebuttal included the "case in point" example of Paula, a main high profile target of the British Press, and how the rules, then and now, the science, and anti-doping experts would interpret the reported blood values. There seems to be a logical contradiction between "the investigation did not focus on the NOP athletes" and concluding "NOP athletes were involved". This may well be the "only conclusion" but my point is that it is a conclusion missing important bases in reality. I cannot rebut everyone's conflicting fantasies, but simply point out the limits of what can be concluded based on the known facts and history. I don't recall saying anything like that in 2015. Several google searches turned up nothing. Maybe "this of course is not true" refers to your recollection rather than anything I said. I don't think I was even aware of "procedures on implementing supplements" until the 2017 Fancy Bears leak of a document written in 2016. In 2015, I would have only been aware of accusations in the whistleblowing documentary and article. I don't believe I ever doubted USADA's authority to punish with respect to the quantity and rate of infusions. In any case, USADA did not punish Salazar for "procedures on implementing supplements". USADA punished Salazar for organizing and facilitating Magness' excessive infusion of a non-banned supplement exceeding the allowed quantity and rate. This despite an email one month before the excessive infusion, where Salazar explicitly instructed Magness to find a "WADA legal" way to do it -- something I thought, and still think, should exonerate Salazar on this count. I have learned that some rules do not require or factor in intent or misunderstanding when deciding if an ADRV occurred.

Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:

There won't be a "special report " stating NOP athletes are clean, like Coe arranged with Paula Radcliffe when her feelings were hurt by social media . At this point you have a dirty coach , using unethical practices . The Only conclusion is NOP athletes were involved . There was no mention that any athletes were not under investigation , or that the investigation against the athletes is over. I recall a 2015 thread where rekrunner stated as fact " USADA has no authority to punish Salazar for procedures on implementing supplements ". This of course is not true.

Your analysis vague . Salazar's sanctions were spelled out clearly . " Intent" has nothing to do with it . His actions and his direction to Dr Brown was unethical and violated a USADA policy . 4 year Ban . You and Paula claiming NOP athletes are innocent , thus Salazar is innocent is a weak argument.

You seem to be misguided about many things. I did not offer any analysis. I agree -- Salazar's sanctions were spelled out clearly. I agree -- "Intent" had nothing to do with it. I even said as much. I don't know about unethical or USADA policy, but the AAA panel found three WADA ADRVs. I did not claim NOP athletes are innocent. Paula said "There is no evidence in all of that report that shows that any of these athletes were doping", and I agreed. I did not argue that Salazar was innocent.

LordEric44 wrote:

Your analysis vague . Salazar's sanctions were spelled out clearly . " Intent" has nothing to do with it . His actions and his direction to Dr Brown was unethical and violated a USADA policy . 4 year Ban . You and Paula claiming NOP athletes are innocent , thus Salazar is innocent is a weak argument.

rekrunner wrote:

Paula said "There is no evidence in all of that report that shows that any of these athletes were doping", and I agreed.

Didn't you acknowledge the evidence earlier (medical docs, witnesses, testo disappearing, likely doping... there was a better summary here a few pages back)?

Then you can only agree to:

"There is no evidence in all of that report that proves that any of these athletes were doping"

Unless you and wifey have a unique understanding of the word "show".

the truth and nothing but the truth wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Paula said "There is no evidence in all of that report that shows that any of these athletes were doping", and I agreed.

Didn't you acknowledge the evidence earlier (medical docs, witnesses, testo disappearing, likely doping... there was a better summary here a few pages back)?

Then you can only agree to:

"There is no evidence in all of that report that proves that any of these athletes were doping"

Unless you and wifey have a unique understanding of the word "show".

+1

I also agree to: "There is no evidence in all of that report that proves that any of these athletes were doping" I did "acknowledge" various lists of "evidence" which were often described as "insufficient". I also acknowledged: - some of that evidence did not involve NOP athletes - some of that evidence did not involve doping - some of that evidence was ambiguous - some of that evidence was contested - all of that evidence combined does not "show" NOP athletes were doping

the truth and nothing but the truth wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Paula said "There is no evidence in all of that report that shows that any of these athletes were doping", and I agreed.

Didn't you acknowledge the evidence earlier (medical docs, witnesses, testo disappearing, likely doping... there was a better summary here a few pages back)?

Then you can only agree to:

"There is no evidence in all of that report that proves that any of these athletes were doping"

I heard somewhere that the Olympics boss was looking into NOP, even he thought it was unrealistic to have a dirty coach and clean athletes.

Subway Surfers wrote:

I heard somewhere that the Olympics boss was looking into NOP, even he thought it was unrealistic to have a dirty coach and clean athletes.

I think that is some valid suspicioun there by the IOC - that's what common sense and logic would suggest, but rekrunner seems to think differently and is so obsessed with that report.

Although this thread is about what "the report" "shows", I also offered the challenge to list any factual bases in reality outside of the report, showing that NOP athletes doped, or were doped by Salazar. "casual obsever" was the only one willing and able to accept the challenge, and I agreed with his conclusion that his list of evidence was "insufficient" to result in a ban for anyone.

You speak of "common sense and logic", while I speak of "facts and logic", so it should be expected we see things differently.

It looks like for some that the IOC "investigation" is the new thing that they "don't know" to be used as new replacement foundation for the classic logic fail "argument from ignorance", once the scope and results of the USADA investigation became "what we know".

Here's what I know about the IOC investigation. Thomas Bach is concerned by the findings in the AAA panel report (as he should be) and seems to ask some of the right questions about how the Olympics may or may not be impacted.

First of all Bach doesn't know anything either:

"Bach promised he would write a letter to WADA to find out further details around the case."

"This includes whether results at the Olympic Games may have been impacted by possible doping offences."

He has asked some specific questions regarding the scope of the investigation:

"First of all to see how many athletes have been investigated."

"Have all the athletes been investigated who were training in this center there?"

"Does the report address the whole period of the existence of this project or only part of it?"

"Could there be any Olympic results affected directly or indirectly?"

Afterward, the IOC may decide if they have further questions:

"We are confident WADA is looking into this anyway and will look into any questions that remain open after this report."

It seems premature to think that an independent IOC investigation is anything more than due diligence at this point. Once WADA comes back with answers about the conclusions of USADA's investigations, and if the IOC has further questions, then we might see the IOC launch an independent investigation into the NOP athletes. I still have my doubts, but you can always hope.

I think you're very naive and oblivious to just how bad the doping problem is everywhere. Maybe it gives you a false sense of hope to bury your head in the sand and pretend all is "well and good."

Reality can be discomforting for many people like yourself who want to "believe" that the sport is clean.

Watch this video just published a few days ago - if it doesn't sober you up I don't know what will.

Some quotes from the report:

"Doping isn't just a Russian problem but it's a global problem."

"Is there a will to even catch the cheats?"

https://youtu.be/z466itSHE58

Thanks for the video -- I'm a big fan of the Economist. And thanks for your concern about me, but why would you think these things about me? I think I have a pretty good sense of the scale of doping, and the pervasiveness, from a number of authoritative sources. I don't believe that "the sport is clean", and I never said all is "well and good". I'm not discomforted by reality, but more by fantasies which are not connected to reality. This is why I keep asking, what is the basis in reality?

Don't be naive wrote:

I think you're very naive and oblivious to just how bad the doping problem is everywhere. Maybe it gives you a false sense of hope to bury your head in the sand and pretend all is "well and good."

Reality can be discomforting for many people like yourself who want to "believe" that the sport is clean.

Watch this video just published a few days ago - if it doesn't sober you up I don't know what will.

Some quotes from the report:

"Doping isn't just a Russian problem but it's a global problem."

"Is there a will to even catch the cheats?"

I noticed the Economist video was quite critical of the IOC for suggesting an incentive to give the appearance of anti-doping, but doubting whether the IOC has the right incentive and interest to follow through with catching dopers.

This seems to cast doubts on any hope we might have on the IOC launching an investigation into NOP athletes that uncovers something more than USADA could in 6 years.

I haven't read the USADA report, just bit and pieces and the information that's been spread through social media. What I do know of the report, Coach Salazar committed "multiple anti-doping rule violations" during a specific time period. The specific time period is important and the language being used "doping rule violations" is important to note as well. I don't know the exact dates when things changed, but I know several years ago a lot the grey area medial stuff stopped...long before most of the current NOP athletes arrived. Obviously no one is going to continue doing something you are under investigation for. I am almost certain no Alberto coached athlete(s) with his knowledge blood doped or took anabolic steroids. The reasons why I am almost certain is, 1. NOP were the most tested distance runners and in spite of what you hear on this board, testing does work. Athletes are caught all of the time and it works as a deterrent. 2. Detection has improved significantly over the last decade. USADA has NOP athletes' samples and biological passport data that go back to 2009. Without a doubt NOP athlete's BP data has been thoroughly analyzed and blood samples retested and if anyone of them came up dirty that would made things a lot clearer. The reason why the investigation took so long and states "doping rules violations" is because no NOP athlete ever tested positive, there are no adverse analytical findings or even retested samples that have come up dirty.

With all of that said, Coach Salazar certainty cheated in some way, that's why he is banned. Albeit, I am not exactly clear on what he did. Back when Coach Salazar did clinics and use talk a lot, on several occasions he spoke about his disdain for EPO and steroids. He knew athletes from Russian, African and other nations were doping long before it became common knowledge. Albeit, at times it was kind of like Coach Salazar hated the fact that athletes from other countries got to dope and his athletes couldn't. He wanted to use American science to level the playing field and somewhere his techniques crossed over into rules violations.

TrackCoach wrote:

The reasons why I am almost certain is, 1. NOP were the most tested distance runners and in spite of what you hear on this board, testing does work.

"most tested"? There is no evidence for that. Rather, it's a classical joke of cynics.

"testing does work"? There is lots of evidence to the contrary, including statements from several experts like Pound and yes, Salazar. The numbers simply don't work out, with a lot less than 100 elite athletes caught per year (40? 50? 60?), and 20 - 50% of the thousands doping, depending on the source.

Where is "casual obsever" to remind us when "no evidence" is a lie? I don't know about "most tested", but USADA does release testing statistics each year, which is evidence, and I do recall Rupp was the most tested by USADA, at least for one year when it made a "letsrun" headline. In 2016, WADA published a report, which is evidence, showing 158 Analytical ADRVs in the sport of Athletics. Contrary to "a lot less than 100", 158 is much more than 100 and 40 and 50 and 60. Testing works in many cases and testing also fails in many cases. It is not perfect. Testing can fail for many reasons: 1) no reliable test exists; 2) some reliable tests are too expensive, so only performed selectively; 3) short detection windows means athlete not "glowing" during sample collection; 4) athlete not tested either due to lack of priority, or due to athlete missing or evading test; 5) medical reasons; 6) Other plausible non-doping reasons. But let's put aside the Lance Armstrong-esque myth of "most tested". We are way beyond testing here. One way to partly overcome the failures of testing is to conduct lengthy investigations with current and former athletes and staff. In the case of USADA versus Salazar, USADA relied upon "more than 2,000 exhibits, which the AAA heard along with the defendants’ cases. In all, the proceedings included 30 witnesses and 5,780 pages of transcripts".

this is propaganda wrote:

TrackCoach wrote:

The reasons why I am almost certain is, 1. NOP were the most tested distance runners and in spite of what you hear on this board, testing does work.

"most tested"? There is no evidence for that. Rather, it's a classical joke of cynics.

"testing does work"? There is lots of evidence to the contrary, including statements from several experts like Pound and yes, Salazar. The numbers simply don't work out, with a lot less than 100 elite athletes caught per year (40? 50? 60?), and 20 - 50% of the thousands doping, depending on the source.

I appreciate your comments, as well as your honesty that you are speaking without having read the details of the AAA Panel report. It is clear from annual statistics reports, that during the USADA investigation, USADA was target testing NOP, but as I said above, testing works but is far from perfect. And it's a good point that all the L-Carnitine infusions happened around the 2011-2012 timeframe, while the testosterone experiment was conducted in 2009. It seems unlikely that if there was clandestine doping, that it would have continued after the documentaries, and that any athletes who joined after the documentaries in 2015 would have received any of the identified treatments under the scrutiny of an aggressive anti-doping investigation. It doesn't take that long to read the AAA Panel report, and much of the relevant information can be found in the sections titled "Decision and Reasoning", making it even faster if you read only those sections. (Stop here if you don't want my take on it) Or you can rely on my simplified characterization, if you trust I don't downplay it too much: 1) ADRV Count 1: Salazar played a role, organizing and facilitating, in Magness receiving a banned method, an excessive infusion of a non-banned substance. 2) ADRV Count 2: Salazar sent an email, incorrectly clarifying infusions as injections, and advising some NOP athletes to not report injections to anti-doping personnel, which was considered "tampering" with the anti-doping process. 3) ADRV Count 3: Salazar supplied his own personal stock of AndroGel for the highly questionable testosterone experiment, which was considered "trafficking" to a third party. These were the ways Salazar was found by the AAA panel, as a result of USADA's lengthy investigation and charges, to be "cheating". It was also noted: 1) By the panel: There was contemporaneous evidence that the 6 NOP athletes receiving L-Carnitine with a modified "WADA legal" method with infusions of reduced quantity, and that the 6 NOP athletes were NOT found to have committed the same ADRV as Magness. 2) (I believe by Salazar): That the tampering email had no impact -- no anti-doping personnel ever asked, so no information was withheld as a result of the email. 3) By me: The testosterone experiment apparently would have violated no WADA rules, if they had sourced the AndroGel by other means. In other words, if: 1) Magness had found and received the same "WADA legal" method as the others, and 2) Salazar had not sent that email (which was in any case incorrect and irrelevant), and 3) they found another source for the AndroGel, then it's possible that the USADA investigation into Salazar and NOP athletes would still be on-going, entering its 9th year.

TrackCoach wrote:

I haven't read the USADA report, just bit and pieces and the information that's been spread through social media. What I do know of the report, Coach Salazar committed "multiple anti-doping rule violations" during a specific time period.

...

With all of that said, Coach Salazar certainty cheated in some way, that's why he is banned. Albeit, I am not exactly clear on what he did.