UKAD is ready to fight any attempt by WADA to seize its stock of Sir Mo Farah’s urine and blood samples

I actually hope WADA do do some specific testing on NOP athletes with the latest tests, and taking Mo at his word he is more than happy for that to happen.

That said, there is a legitimate argument that the issues that Salazar was sanctioned for did not indicate doping of athletes - there was a facutal finding that his tests about the T massage gel was all about detecting whether someone else could contaminate his athletes (though it was found that doing this was not legitimate, so he was sanctioned) and the "trafficking" sanction was very much a technicality (spun to mean something completely different by much of the media). WADA could very well take the view that none of this indicated that performing athletes were doping at all.

All that said, I would still prefer WADA to be active about this to clear the story up as best as possible - though plenty of people would still have doubts no matter what they say.

Ultraboy wrote:

The reporting I’ve seen is that USADA want them, not that there has been a request from WADA.

Yes, that's all I saw too.

This appears to be yet another case of the UK press attacking its athletes and organizations, in this case, the Telegraph and a Telegraph reporter, turning a hypothetical scenario into a scandal, by trolling the public and attacking UKAD, Mo, and the sport.

I looks like WADA would be within their rights to request retests, so I don't imagine they would ask for the samples anyway, but for a retest.

UKAD said they would cooperate with sufficient justification, but not for a fishing expedition. Since Salazar was highly concerned with many legal ways to raise testosterone, it's plausible that there would be sufficient justification to examine some of these samples more closely. it's also plausible that the IAAF did this already, and WADA already has access to all the data they need in ADAMs without requesting retests.

Mo Farah developed a unique case of tinnitus about 10 years ago; he couldn’t hear doorbells.

All his samples around that time have been destroyed or are about to be destroyed by UKAD. Blood and urine samples have a 10 year limit.

Who checks the checkers?

This is the real problem for UKAD. If UKAD give all of Mo Farah’s samples to another drug testing agency, then every decision make by UKAD (how often they tested Mo Farah, which tests they performed and which tests they did not, inconsistencies in whereabouts data etc. etc.) will be put under a microscope.

UKAD are protecting their own @rses.

larkimm wrote:

All that said, I would still prefer WADA to be active about this to clear the story up as best as possible - though plenty of people would still have doubts no matter what they say.

+1

The doubts come from the fact the WADA doesn't exactly have the best track record, not out of nowhere.

As for the rest, I strongly disagree. First of all, you discussed only one of the three anti-doping rule violations that Salazar was banned for, second, you downplayed the severity of that violation which comes with a minimum ban of four years, and third, I suggest to read AAA's report including USADA's accusations (where AAA voted 2 : 1 that the evidence of doping was not enough for a conviction).

^This.

Let's remember that UKAD decided to not ban Farah in 2011 for test evasion, based on the claim that they trusted him!

That's so ridiculous. And now they can't hand over the 2011 samples because of fear that would make them unusual in the future. Newsflash UKAD: they will be unusable starting next year.

Lolz. As if they didn't know...

So much for this self-policing nonsense, which has to stop.

Why would samples from 2010 and before be relevant to an investigation about Salazar. He didn’t move to NOP until spring 2011.

Ultraboy wrote:

Nicola Sapstead has been pretty clear that she doesn’t want to waste samples repeating the same tests. If she is saying that there isn’t any new test and that’s why she’s not releasing them why are you doubting her? She doesn’t want to waste them repeating a test that found nothing already.

Would another potential explanation be that UKAD threw Farah's samples into the garbage several year's ago and they now have nothing to hand over to WADA?

casual obsever wrote:

larkimm wrote:

All that said, I would still prefer WADA to be active about this to clear the story up as best as possible - though plenty of people would still have doubts no matter what they say.

+1

The doubts come from the fact the WADA doesn't exactly have the best track record, not out of nowhere.

As for the rest, I strongly disagree. First of all, you discussed only one of the three anti-doping rule violations that Salazar was banned for, second, you downplayed the severity of that violation which comes with a minimum ban of four years, and third, I suggest to read AAA's report including USADA's accusations (where AAA voted 2 : 1 that the evidence of doping was not enough for a conviction).

AFAIK Salazar was sanctioned for "trafficking", "tampering" and "administration". "Trafficking" was related to the T experiment only, "Tampering" (2 year sanction only) was in relation to advice Sal gave to athletes surrounding the distinction between infusion and injection which the panel felt was advice deliberately given to avoid questions being asked - despite the fact that what had been administered was in fact legal - and "administration" was in relation to infusions given to Magness, not a competing athlete (though technically an athlete nonetheless).

I've read the AAA report quite fully and a) I agree with their outcomes and sanctions but b) do not find it to be anything other than mistakes made when trying to operate close to the legal limit. I read nothing in there that gives me any hint that elite athletes at NOP were "doped".

But I also accept others read it differently.

boosted testers wrote:

Ultraboy wrote:

Nicola Sapstead has been pretty clear that she doesn’t want to waste samples repeating the same tests. If she is saying that there isn’t any new test and that’s why she’s not releasing them why are you doubting her? She doesn’t want to waste them repeating a test that found nothing already.

Would another potential explanation be that UKAD threw Farah's samples into the garbage several year's ago and they now have nothing to hand over to WADA?

Or that aliens have taken over UKAD.

You can make up any suggestion you like. It doesn't make it any closer to the truth!

While you didn't see "any hint", I observed many:

1) Salazar was a testo cheat as athlete

2) Salazar coached testo cheat Decker

3) Salazar was seen with testo around his athletes in 2008 while not having a prescription

4) Salazar's own testo levels went down after he obtained a larger testo prescription

5) a witness reported that "Alberto Salazar’s athletes" used "thyroid and testosterone therapy"

6) "a Galen Rupp medical record from 2002 that included the line “Presently on prednisone and testosterone medication”."

7) Salazar routinely send the professional masseuse away to give Rupp private massages behind closed doors

Also note that one of the three "judges" considered the evidence to be sufficient that Salazar doped or tried to dope not only Magness ("A majority of the Panel finds that USADA has not met its burden of proof with respect to the Attempted Administration charge as it relates to the NOP Athletes"). See also p. 61 of the decision pdf. Not "any hint", well, that's cute.

Last but not least, both Rupp and Farah (as the only Brit actually) were labeled as "likely doping" by the IAAF in 2016. Two more "hints", imho.

I understand all of this, but my issue with Salazar is for example the email he sent showing he was actively trying to circumvent rules, e.g. if athletes got diagnosed with certain things, they'd be able to use certain medications that had performance boosting effects. Exploiting loopholes like that simply isn't within the nature of the sport. I can't remember the exact wording but he seemed happy that he had discovered something that if he did a certain thing, the athletes would have to take a certain medication, and it would be within the rules, but doing that indirectly just isn't.

E.g.

Salazar’s enthusiasm was captured in an email he sent to Lance Armstrong shortly after viewing Magness’ test results: “Lance, call me asap! We have tested it and it’s amazing. You are the only athlete I’m going to tell the actual numbers to other than [two-time Olympic medalist] Galen Rupp.”

At the time, Magness said, he believed that the infusion was allowed. He said that he began to have doubts after Salazar sent emails instructing athletes not to disclose that they had received an infusion. Eventually, Magness came to accept that he had participated in a banned procedure.

You're bring a lot more to the table than the AAA outcomes though. Don't misunderstand me, I fully appreciate why there is suspicion about Salazar / NOP beyond the matters he was sanctioned for - I'm not completely daft!

There's nothing to be gained by going over the old history around his time as a runner nor the picture with Decker. We're not going to get any new info there to conclude one way or another.

And the "likely doping" stuff is the right procedure - and the consequence, as I understand it, is that after that flag is raised more testing / focus is done; which has not resulted in any findings. So that can't be evidence of anything.

Anyway, this is all old ground - USADA had a lot of time to put together a case against Salazar, and all they got were three (sanctionable), relatively minor (as I read them) infractions. They didn't come up with evidence of a doping programme at NOP, nor has any athete in the squad come out with actual evidence of doping, even those who have left subsequently. The Cain stuff seems to be legitimate (j.e. her account seems correct, even if it is told through her lens) and that is damning of itself.

But as I've said, I hope Mo's samples do get retained / retested and come back clean - but even if they do, there'll be plenty who will still consider him to be a cheat, despite an absence of good evidence.

Like Einstein's brain, one day Mo's urine and blood samples will be kept in a museum.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Like Einstein's brain, one day Mo's urine and blood samples will be kept in a museum.

Beside Paula Radcliffes refrigerator

larkimm wrote:

You're bring a lot more to the table than the AAA outcomes though. Don't misunderstand me, I fully appreciate why there is suspicion about Salazar / NOP beyond the matters he was sanctioned for - I'm not completely daft!

There's nothing to be gained by going over the old history around his time as a runner nor the picture with Decker. We're not going to get any new info there to conclude one way or another.

No I don't, points 1 - 7 are all from the decision pdf. USADA did go over the old history, and rightfully so imho, to paint a picture of a long time testo cheat.

larkimm wrote:

Anyway, this is all old ground - USADA had a lot of time to put together a case against Salazar, and all they got were three (sanctionable), relatively minor (as I read them) infractions.

Not quite. USADA wanted to ban Salazar for live because of five anti-doping rule violations. It was AAA who let "only" three of them stand, and who reduced the ban to four years. Well, we'll see how many sanctionable ARDVs CAS considers as proven.

Not sure based on what you call those ARDVs "relatively minor", as they led to a four year ban (as the minimum punishment). Using EPO for example comes with the same punishment. But ok, I guess everything is relative, e.g. Drummond got eight years.

He did say "AAA outcome", which is much less than your 7 points would indicate. The primary goal of anti-doping is to prevent athletes from arriving at the start line with the benefits of doping. I think it is fair to say a finding of an actual athlete competing while doped is more serious than findings that resulted in no athlete being doped, or a finding of attempted interference where no interference actually occurred, even if the penalty is the same. It is expected and probably necessary that WADA create rules that deter non-compliance with the rules, and giving out harsher penalties as a deterrent to violating the rules, or an incentive to comply. If we look at Salazar's three violations: - Only Magness was found to receive, not dope, but an excessive infusion of a non-doped substance - No athlete doped by virtue of receiving an email, either directly or indirectly - Trafficking testosterone to athletes is arguably worse for the sport than trafficking testosterone to non-athletes If you read the AAA Panel decision, they do not paint Salazar in the same negative light that USADA does. They describe a coach who was genuinely concerned that all NOP athletes compete within the rules. They do not paint USADA in a very good light either.

If this is such an insignificant & minor offense then why 4 years? A 4 yr ban is a serious penalty. An athlete tests positive for EPO = 4 yrs, an athlete tests positive for steroids = 4 yrs, a refusal to submit to a doping test = 4 yrs, and so on.

A 4 yr ban in today's anti-doping climate can be career ending for most athletes, at the very least career altering.

If all these things that Salazar did, especially the testing of the testosterone on his son, were not done for nefarious reasons of administering PEDs to any of his athletes, then why not a much lesser ban? Maybe 1 year or even 6 months. 4 years just doesn't sound right for those infractions. If he loses his appeal, his career and reputation is essentially trashed. He'll be disrespected and characterized by many as a "doping coach." People are going to assume that because he got 4 years, the same length of ban that many Russian doping coaches received, Salazar must have been doping his athletes.

4 years is very serious.

rekrunner wrote:

He did say "AAA outcome", which is much less than your 7 points would indicate.

Oh boy. My seven points were in response to:

larkimm wrote:

I've read the AAA report quite fully and a) I agree with their outcomes and sanctions but b) do not find it to be anything other than mistakes made when trying to operate close to the legal limit. I read nothing in there that gives me any hint that elite athletes at NOP were "doped".

He did say "AAA report", which is much more than my 7 points would indicate.

You should scold larkimm for changing the argument from AAA report to AAA outcome, and for lying about "nothing in there...". Where is your fair and logical approach?

Who called it insignificant and minor? Of course a 4 year ban is serious, because interfering with the anti-doping process is a serious offense. But ... if there was also a finding that any NOP athlete had doped as a result of Salazar's "violations", then I would consider that arguably more serious, because, after all, the primary goal is to allow clean athletes to compete against clean athletes, and the anti-doping process is a means to achieve the important goal. It is not a function of ban length.