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

"Sufficient" means "enough", or "adequate".

"Evidence" can be a hundred different things.

"Sufficient evidence" showing "Salazar doped NOP athletes" would by enough evidence to establish an unbroken link between three elements at the same time: Salazar, dope, and an NOP athlete.

For example, "evidence" could be found by looking in "more than 2,000 exhibits, ... 30 witnesses and 5,780 pages of transcripts".

Speaking of not following you, who gets to decide when suspicion becomes "reasonable", or when circumstantial evidence becomes "strong"?

In any case, this personal speculation doesn't sound like it rises to the level that justifies tarnishing a clean athlete's reputation, or damaging the sport.

Maybe to drive the point home, don't give me hypothetical examples about athletes from other countries. Find me examples from the AAA panel report that connect: Salazar, dope, and an NOP athlete.

I advised you repeatedly to read the AAA panel report to find out what violations Salazar was found to have committed. A comprehensive understanding of an easy to read decision, might help you understand what I argue.

Armstronglivs wrote:

No suspicion is reasonable to rekrunner. Only proof is acceptable. Actually it isn't - as he argues Salazar hasn't committed doping violations but the equivalent of a parking offence.

Careful choice of words. There's "no evidence" is not the same as saying they weren't doping. How many dopers provide actual evidence of their doping?

--------------------------

re: "lacking sufficient evidence, we should not cast aspersions on athletes; we should not doubt their performances; and we should not damage their reputations"

I don't know the actual demographic of the LRC, but I suspect the vast majority of the active posters are retired county champs who still run and are fans of the sport. They are suburban, White, upper middle class, conservative, opinionated, a little bit full of themselves and a little bit heartless at times. Some of them are decent local road racers, but they only had a modest amount of success in the grand scheme of things. They don't know what it means to be an elite, H.S., college and certainly not a professional athlete. They probably don't have any idea of the affect their words have and don't care. Just about every U.S. elite athlete has been called out on this board at some point...the average LRC member simply doesn't understand the commitment and sacrifice it takes to be great and that doping is something that's inconceivable to most elite athletes. Btw, some elites do come on the board, but mostly peruse and perhaps post on rare occasions. From time to time, an elite will become an active poster, but they usually don't do it for long, especially after they read hurtful stuff and a lot of nonsense.

I can hear the passion in your writing and I can see you are struggling to get your point across because you don't know your primary audience.

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe to drive the point home, don't give me hypothetical examples about athletes from other countries. Find me examples from the AAA panel report that connect: Salazar, dope, and an NOP athlete.

Moving the goalpost again? I thought the discussion is about:

'There is no evidence those NOP athletes were d...'

which evidently neither includes Salazar nor the AAA report.

But either way, evidence for them doping:

- likely doping status, leaked from the IAAF (Mo and Galen were "likely doping")

- witness stating that Salazar's athletes were on testosterone therapy (see AAA's report linking Salazar, dope, and NOP athletes).

Also in the report: Salazar doped himself as an athlete with testosterone, and his pupil Decker was banned for testosterone doping. Lots of connections Salazar - doping - athlete.

Again, I only move the goalposts back to where they started. From the first post and the link: "Paula Radcliffe spoke to SNTV on Monday about Alberto Salazar's Nike Oregon Project saying athletes should not be tainted by association" Direct quote from Paula, in the video linked in the first post: "There is no evidence in all of that report that shows that any of these athletes were doping" Evidently the goalposts always included: 1) guilt by association with the banned coach Salazar, and 2) "no evidence in all of that report" The "dope" in your two examples was not been established: 1) "Likely Doping" can have many non-doping causes, and requires expert interpretation of a whole dossier. 2) USADA did not establish that "testosterone therapy" meant "testosterone". The use of "testosterone" was not corroborated by any athlete or staff, while the use of many supplements (Testo Boost, Alpha Male, Vitamin D, Thyroid, prolactin) to raise testosterone levels, was repeatedly corroborated.

the bottom of this wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe to drive the point home, don't give me hypothetical examples about athletes from other countries. Find me examples from the AAA panel report that connect: Salazar, dope, and an NOP athlete.

Moving the goalpost again? I thought the discussion is about:

'There is no evidence those NOP athletes were d...'

which evidently neither includes Salazar nor the AAA report.

But either way, evidence for them doping:

- likely doping status, leaked from the IAAF (Mo and Galen were "likely doping")

- witness stating that Salazar's athletes were on testosterone therapy (see AAA's report linking Salazar, dope, and NOP athletes).

There seem to be a lot of disconnected or partial connections that do not "establish an unbroken link between three elements at the same time: Salazar, dope, and an NOP athlete". About Mary Decker Slaney: - Decker was not an NOP athlete. - In a 2015 interview, Decker denied reports that Salazar was her coach in 1996, saying Bill Dellinger was her coach. - In any case, coaching an athlete is not doping an athlete. - Coaching is not one of the three elements I listed above. - Mary Decker said she doped herself, taking birth control pills. - Here is what Duke Law School professor Doriane Lambelet Coleman said about Mary's test, and her testosterone levels: "Mary Slaney "never 'tested positive for testosterone,'" Coleman wrote. “The (International Olympic Committee) laboratory reports are clear that her testosterone levels were always within her own normal range, which itself was always within the normal, allowable range. Those facts were never disputed." "She was exonerated by the USATF because of this and because the IOC laboratories were unable to explain why their own internal scientific literature questioned the validity and reliability of the ... test as a proxy for doping, especially for women whose hormone levels naturally fluctuate."

the bottom of this wrote:

Also in the report: Salazar doped himself as an athlete with testosterone, and his pupil Decker was banned for testosterone doping. Lots of connections Salazar - doping - athlete.

Armstronglivs wrote:

No suspicion is reasonable to rekrunner. Only proof is acceptable. Actually it isn't - as he argues Salazar hasn't committed doping violations but the equivalent of a parking offence.

You saw it coming, didn't you? Now reckie trolls that even banned testosterone cheat Decker was innocent despite the proof to the contrary. Now I have seen everything.

jbvfdbnnfjnjbnsd

https://video.eurosport.co.uk/athletics/there-is-no-evidence-those-athletes-were-doping-paula-radcliffe-on-alberto-salazar-s-nike-oregon_vid1254254/video.shtml

I always ask for evidence, and likewise I also provide evidence. Here I provided evidence that your "proof to the contrary" was also doubted by the IOC laboratories own internal scientific literature. In another thread "Zat0pek" just explained how Ben Johnson was "set up" in the 1988 Olympics, with this reasoning: "growing public suspicion over the use of drugs in sports demanded that a major figure be thrown under the bus to create the false impression that testing actually “works” thereby restoring some public confidence and keeping them watching". It's not my conspiracy theory, but it does make one wonder: Mary was also a "major figure". This was 1996, before the formation of WADA, and maybe the public was due another reminder ...

The Prophecy wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No suspicion is reasonable to rekrunner. Only proof is acceptable. Actually it isn't - as he argues Salazar hasn't committed doping violations but the equivalent of a parking offence.

You saw it coming, didn't you? Now reckie trolls that even banned testosterone cheat Decker was innocent despite the proof to the contrary. Now I have seen everything.

" ... doping is something that's inconceivable to most elite athletes."

Not so inconceivable. It is estimated by WADA and others that 40+% may be doping. Only 0.5% are caught.

rekrunner wrote:

I always ask for evidence, and likewise I also provide evidence.

Here I provided evidence that your "proof to the contrary" was also doubted by the IOC laboratories own internal scientific literature.

"evidence"? "also doubted"? That outside opinion - not even a witness - was considered null and void in the final ruling, but because it fits your doping apologism you consider that to be of high importance.

Here on the other hand you insist that AAA is right, not USADA, because now that fits better with your doping apologism.

You are not a very convincing doping apologist.

rekrunner wrote:

I advised you repeatedly to read the AAA panel report to find out what violations Salazar was found to have committed.

A comprehensive understanding of an easy to read decision, might help you understand what I argue.

Armstronglivs wrote:

No suspicion is reasonable to rekrunner. Only proof is acceptable. Actually it isn't - as he argues Salazar hasn't committed doping violations but the equivalent of a parking offence.

No, it wouldn't. Your interpretation is your own - as it always is. The world of Pollyanna.

0/10...what a self-serving pretentious statement and you call yourself a track coach? Lol. How in the heck would you begin to know the background of any of us anonymous posters here? Maybe some of us have a non-running endurance background and are not caucasian? And why does someone have to be an elite or professional runner to not only understand the science of doping but to be able to research how extensive and deep the problem is in athletics?

And doping "inconceivable to most elite athletes?" Lol...you're obviously not very well researched in the history of doping with athletics. You might want to start with the Russians who have basically inherited their old Soviet doctrine that you can't be "successful" without doping. And Morocco has a long history of doping as well as Kenya (nothing new there).

What's up with this? wrote:

0/10...what a self-serving pretentious statement and you call yourself a track coach? Lol. How in the heck would you begin to know the background of any of us anonymous posters here?

+1

ROFL.

What's up with this? wrote:

And doping "inconceivable to most elite athletes?" Lol...you're obviously not very well researched in the history of doping with athletics. You might want to start with the Russians who have basically inherited their old Soviet doctrine that you can't be "successful" without doping.

Not just the Russians. In fact, the drug cheat NOP coach Salazar said the same thing. Openly!

Maybe the primary reason I'm not a "convincing" doping apologist because I'm not apologizing for doping. Someone above had the clever moniker "details matter, a lot". I'm providing historical details. Law Professor Coleman "helped with Slaney’s representation in the USATF doping hearing". I'm aware of USATF's decision overturned on appeal. I'm unaware that anyone subsequently nulled and voided doubts in IOC lab's internal scientific literature -- do you have a source? Did I actually say USADA was "wrong" about something? Maybe, but I can't recall. Can you be specific? The AAA panel was granted the authority to judge a dispute. The USADA was a plaintiff in a dispute. The AAA panel found against many of USADA's charges, and for some of them. The AAA explained their decisions and reasoning, in the context of the available evidence and applicable rules, and I agreed with their decisions and reasonings, not finding any fault or contradiction. It's the process that makes something "right" or "wrong" -- providing context, applicable rules, facts, evidence, and reasoning.

The Prophecy wrote:

"evidence"? "also doubted"? That outside opinion - not even a witness - was considered null and void in the final ruling, but because it fits your doping apologism you consider that to be of high importance.

Here on the other hand you insist that AAA is right, not USADA, because now that fits better with your doping apologism.

You are not a very convincing doping apologist.

You are talking about IAAF vs. Decker, with USATF siding with her. The arbitration panel ruled in favor of the original IAAF decision to ban that drug cheat, but you keep siding with Coleman's opinion (the drug cheat's lawyer! guess what his job is!): https://apnews.com/13b4b5841e854a249487cdefda841f20

The IAAF imposed the ban after the arbitration panel said there was ``failure to establish by clear evidence that an abnormal T-E test was attributable to pathological or physiological conditions,″ according to IAAF spokesman Giorgio Reineri.

USADA in their Charging Letter accused Salazar of doping his athletes with testosterone as well as using a forbidden method on them (too large injections) - you argue against both, and even go so far to bring up the "no evidence" moniker.

rekrunner wrote:

There seem to be a lot of disconnected or partial connections that do not "establish an unbroken link between three elements at the same time: Salazar, dope, and an NOP athlete".

a) That's your unsubstantiated opinion.

b) The "unbroken link" is your criterion that never occurred in this thread before you insisted on it.

c) At least you recognize that there are in fact connections between three elements at the same time: Salazar, dope, and an NOP athlete, but of course you have to ridicule them to stay true to your agenda.