USADA stands up to WADA in regards to NOP case.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sport-doping-wada-tygart-idUSKBN1XG1LG
USADA stands up to WADA in regards to NOP case.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sport-doping-wada-tygart-idUSKBN1XG1LG
"However, USADA did not sanction any of his athletes after finding no evidence of any wrongdoing by them. "
So why does Salazar have to be the fall guy when so many others (especially here) are even more obsessed with drugs than him?
Glass houses wrote:
"However, USADA did not sanction any of his athletes after finding no evidence of any wrongdoing by them. "
So why does Salazar have to be the fall guy when so many others (especially here) are even more obsessed with drugs than him?
Because he's a white male, and WADA needs a fall guy after their Jama Aden debacle.
Perfect candidate wrote:
Glass houses wrote:
"However, USADA did not sanction any of his athletes after finding no evidence of any wrongdoing by them. "
So why does Salazar have to be the fall guy when so many others (especially here) are even more obsessed with drugs than him?
Because he's a white HISPANIC male, and WADA needs a fall guy after their Jama Aden debacle.
Fixed it for ya, you're welcome.
No point in the Wada looking into that imaginary "state-sponsored" Rodchenkov malarkey scheme either.
About time wrote:
USADA stands up to WADA in regards to NOP case.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sport-doping-wada-tygart-idUSKBN1XG1LG
There's no way a coach who has doped himself and even his sons and conducted illicit experiments with pharmaceuticals would ever dope his athletes, would he?
Armstronglivs wrote:
About time wrote:
USADA stands up to WADA in regards to NOP case.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sport-doping-wada-tygart-idUSKBN1XG1LGThere's no way a coach who has doped himself and even his sons and conducted illicit experiments with pharmaceuticals would ever dope his athletes, would he?
Well, according to report...no. I guess we have to go entirely by the Gospel of the USADA report. Rekrunner has analyzed that report verbatim and has assured us there's not one inference that Al Sal doped any of his athletes...ever.
Here's the irony of this situation: I've looked at a lot of CAS hearings with Russian coaches banned for doping violations. Everyone one of them, whether it's a 4-yr ban or lifetime whack, clearly doped the athletes that they coached (in fact, some of them have just laughed off the ban and continue to coach. Lol). But not one of these coaches were banned for just experimenting with a banned substance on a family member or administration an injection of L-Carnitine. These Russian coaches were banned for doping their athletes with the gold-standard PEDs (EPO, roids, T, HGH, etc.). After all...isn't that why coaches are supposed to be banned? Primarily for doping athletes? To deter the behavior of doping athletes and send a message?
So, it absolutely makes no sense at all that USADA would ban a world-renowned coach for four (4) years ruining his name, reputation, and status among the elite coaches for violations that are so benevolent. It's looks very foolish on their part.
This is a weird USADA decision wrote:
Here's the irony of this situation: I've looked at a lot of CAS hearings with Russian coaches banned for doping violations. Everyone one of them, whether it's a 4-yr ban or lifetime whack, clearly doped the athletes that they coached (in fact, some of them have just laughed off the ban and continue to coach. Lol). But not one of these coaches were banned for just experimenting with a banned substance on a family member or administration an injection of L-Carnitine. These Russian coaches were banned for doping their athletes with the gold-standard PEDs (EPO, roids, T, HGH, etc.). After all...isn't that why coaches are supposed to be banned? Primarily for doping athletes? To deter the behavior of doping athletes and send a message?
So, it absolutely makes no sense at all that USADA would ban a world-renowned coach for four (4) years ruining his name, reputation, and status among the elite coaches for violations that are so benevolent. It's looks very foolish on their part.
Isn't this because the USA is a morally superior country compared with the rest of the world? So higher moral standards are in place throughout the society even when it comes to things like doping?
This is a weird USADA decision wrote:
So, it absolutely makes no sense at all that USADA would ban a world-renowned coach for four (4) years ruining his name, reputation, and status among the elite coaches for violations that are so benevolent. It's looks very foolish on their part.
Well, that was AAA's decision, not USADA's, and the violations were not "benevolent"!
If you read the report, you notice that USADA actually wanted to ban Salazar for handing out testosterone to his athletes too, but failed because of insufficient evidence. That makes this "no evidence" talk in the article so weird, but note that this comes from the reporter who may have misunderstood Tygart.
In any case, let's remember that USADA sided with both 3-missed-tests Coleman and roid-Wilson, and could never catch Armstrong with a positive test either.
casual obsever wrote:
In any case, let's remember that USADA sided with both 3-missed-tests Coleman and roid-Wilson, and could never catch Armstrong with a positive test either.
You are assuming that USADA is not corrupt in any way. Maybe they received good money for protecting Armstrong or Coleman? Maybe they want the USA to keep a good reputation when it comes to doping rather than exposing their own dirty athletes which would be very negative for the country and the sport in general?
Why would they rather say "forget investing NOP, nothing to find there!" instead of happily accepting the help from WADA and cooperating with them, sharing all info they have and work together on this case and really dig deep into it? Most national anti-doping agencies can't be trusted, we all know how corrupt Kenya's is but forget that it could affect our first-world countries just as much..
casual obsever wrote:
This is a weird USADA decision wrote:
So, it absolutely makes no sense at all that USADA would ban a world-renowned coach for four (4) years ruining his name, reputation, and status among the elite coaches for violations that are so benevolent. It's looks very foolish on their part.
Well, that was AAA's decision, not USADA's, and the violations were not "benevolent"!
If you read the report, you notice that USADA actually wanted to ban Salazar for handing out testosterone to his athletes too, but failed because of insufficient evidence. That makes this "no evidence" talk in the article so weird, but note that this comes from the reporter who may have misunderstood Tygart.
In any case, let's remember that USADA sided with both 3-missed-tests Coleman and roid-Wilson, and could never catch Armstrong with a positive test either.
If USADA wanted sufficient evidence to ban Salazar for administering testosterone to any of his athletes, I would think they would need Salazar to confess or one of his athletes to come forward and admit they were administered T (or any other banned substance) from him? Neither scenario was likely to occur so the next best situation would be audio recordings from one or more of his athletes involving Salazar that doping was going on within the NOP.
Recall the ARD-recordings where whistleblower Stepanova had her coach secretly taped on the specifics of what kind of a program she was put on. And her teammate Savinova was secretly taped explaining how her anti-doping countermeasures worked where her coach advised her of the washout periods and at what Hgb level not to exceed so as to not trip her ABP. And Poistagova was taped during a training run with Stepanova where she explained the PEDs she used in the lead-up to London and what kind of PEDs her coach suggested. Plus the high number of ABP hematological-anomalies cases against these coach's athletes was icing on the cake. This is the kind of evidence I like to see when a coach is going to receive a 4-year or longer ban. It's solid and there's no question that these coaches were involved in a systematic doping scheme with their athletes. No one is going to lose sleep wondering if these Russian coaches were unjustly banned. Lol.
If all USADA has at this point is Salazar experimenting with T on family members and the L-Carnitine situation with Magness, then yes - it is benevolent and probably, IMO, worthy of a warning or 6 month ban at the most. But 4-years for something of this nature? Plain silly and makes USADA look foolish.
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
In any case, let's remember that USADA sided with both 3-missed-tests Coleman and roid-Wilson, and could never catch Armstrong with a positive test either.
You are assuming that USADA is not corrupt in any way. Maybe they received good money for protecting Armstrong or Coleman? Maybe they want the USA to keep a good reputation when it comes to doping rather than exposing their own dirty athletes which would be very negative for the country and the sport in general?
Why would they rather say "forget investing NOP, nothing to find there!" instead of happily accepting the help from WADA and cooperating with them, sharing all info they have and work together on this case and really dig deep into it? Most national anti-doping agencies can't be trusted, we all know how corrupt Kenya's is but forget that it could affect our first-world countries just as much..
It's quite obvious when you think about it from Tygart/USADA's perspective. They spend 4 years investigating the program, leave "no stone unturned", and then all WADA says is "we are going to investigate ourselves". WADA didn't even acknowledge the Salazar ban. It's basically a "we don't trust you" or a "we are better than you" kind of thing.
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
In any case, let's remember that USADA sided with both 3-missed-tests Coleman and roid-Wilson, and could never catch Armstrong with a positive test either.
You are assuming that USADA is not corrupt in any way. Maybe they received good money for protecting Armstrong or Coleman? Maybe they want the USA to keep a good reputation when it comes to doping rather than exposing their own dirty athletes which would be very negative for the country and the sport in general?
I would think that if they're corrupt a whistleblower would have come forward by now.
Remember with the Armstrong case, a disgruntled Floyd Landis dropped a dime to USADA on Armstrong & U.S. Postal because Armstrong and his new team Radio Shack wouldn't hire him because of his previous doping ban. This pissed off Landis who basically said I'll get even and show him.
A disgruntled Stepanova, who had been left off the Russian National team, got the ball rolling with the ARD-recordings that single handedly took down Russia's state-sponsored doping empire. And another disgruntled athlete dropped a dime to the Austrian law enforcement authorities that exposed the mind-boggling blood doping ring Operation Aderlass that had been secretly going on for years.
We live in an era of whistleblowers with sports. Athletes that feel they've been wronged and left out of the pie don't hesitate come forward and expose doping. They figure it'll make them famous, popular, and perhaps they can write a book about it. Everybody remembers that it was Landis who took down the great Armstrong. And if wasn't for whistleblowers we wouldn't know half of what's going on with secret, covert doping operations.
Perfect candidate wrote:
Glass houses wrote:
"However, USADA did not sanction any of his athletes after finding no evidence of any wrongdoing by them. "
So why does Salazar have to be the fall guy when so many others (especially here) are even more obsessed with drugs than him?
Because he's a white male, and WADA needs a fall guy after their Jama Aden debacle.
Probably pretty much this. Nothing like parading a white mans head on a stick these days.
'“That was the first thing to come out of WADA after the USADA decision. I don’t know why they said that. It was surprising,” Tygart told Reuters . . .'
Well, duh.
It's surprising that this is a surprise to Tygart.
After all, he brought a case that resulted in a 4-year ban on a coach, so it's quite natural for WADA to want to determine for itself whether the coach's alleged culture of cheating carried over to his athletes.
Tygart created this monster, but he doesn't want to accept responsibility for it.
This is a weird USADA decision wrote:
If USADA wanted sufficient evidence to ban Salazar for administering testosterone to any of his athletes, I would think they would need Salazar to confess or one of his athletes to come forward and admit they were administered T (or any other banned substance) from him? Neither scenario was likely to occur so the next best situation would be audio recordings from one or more of his athletes involving Salazar that doping was going on within the NOP.
Agreed. That's why USADA settled on the three WADA violations that they could prove beyond any doubt, and AAA agreed with them.
This is a weird USADA decision wrote:
If all USADA has at this point is Salazar experimenting with T on family members and the L-Carnitine situation with Magness, then yes - it is benevolent and probably, IMO, worthy of a warning or 6 month ban at the most. But 4-years for something of this nature? Plain silly and makes USADA look foolish.
That's all they could prove beyond a doubt, not all they had.
The 4-year ban was the lowest punishment allowed for that violation (and it came from AAA not USADA):
Four (4) years Ineligibility up to a lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the violation
Salazar got lucky there that AAA did not add the bans of the other two proven infractions, but decided to treat them all at one offense. Otherwise it would have been an 8 or 10 years ban!
Last but not least, USADA actually wanted "a lifetime period of ineligibility" for this cheat.
USADA and WADA are a complete joke. Just look at how MMA fighters are being treated in the UFC for further proof. I don't trust anything that comes out of the mouths of Wada, Usada the IAAF, IOC and USATF. They are no different than any other organization. "Flavor of the month" if you will..
casual obsever wrote:
...
Agreed. That's why USADA settled on the three WADA violations that they could prove beyond any doubt, and AAA agreed with them.
...
That's all they could prove beyond a doubt, not all they had.
The 4-year ban was the lowest punishment allowed for that violation (and it came from AAA not USADA):
Four (4) years Ineligibility up to a lifetime Ineligibility, depending on the seriousness of the violation
USADA brought more charges than they could prove:
The Panel also notes that USADA put on a vigorous prosecution, charging Respondent
with five violations relating to multiple sets of facts, and, after putting itself and the
Respondent to great expense and effort over many years, prevailing only on three
violations, each with respect to one set of facts.
casual obsever wrote:
Salazar got lucky there that AAA did not add the bans of the other two proven infractions, but decided to treat them all at one offense. Otherwise it would have been an 8 or 10 years ban!
Last but not least, USADA actually wanted "a lifetime period of ineligibility" for this cheat.
I wouldn't say luck, but that it was required by the rules:
These violations collectively are considered as Mr. Salazar’s first anti-doping rule violation,
...
The Panel must determine the sanction to be imposed based on its finding of multiple
violations by Respondent. In accordance with Article 10.7, “Multiple Violations”, an
anti-doping rule violation will only be considered a second violation if the Anti-doping
Organization can establish that the Athlete Support Person committed the second
antidoping rule violation after the Athlete Support Person received notice pursuant to Article
7. USADA provided Respondent with one notice which included the several charges
addressed in this case and the Post-Hearing Charges related to Tampering and/or
Attempted Tampering, which USADA did not contend was to be considered a second
violation. Article 10.7 further provides "If the Anti-Doping Organization cannot establish
this, the violations shall be considered together as one single first violation, and the
sanction imposed shall be based on the violation that carries the more severe sanction."
...
The charges brought by USADA based on the Charging Letter, as adjudicated in this case,
are all to be considered together as one single first violation.
Perfect candidate wrote:
Glass houses wrote:
"However, USADA did not sanction any of his athletes after finding no evidence of any wrongdoing by them. "
So why does Salazar have to be the fall guy when so many others (especially here) are even more obsessed with drugs than him?
Because he's a white male, and WADA needs a fall guy after their Jama Aden debacle.
Ah yes. The Cuban immigrant is a white male. Makes perfect sense.
That article sounds like Travis Tygart trying to remain relevant. "No boss we have it handled."