I'm 99.9% confident Salazar will be in Tokyo coaching . With additional emails conflicting the whistle blowers

podskljhjiaksk wrote:

I am a doctor and no this is not a defense wrote:

This is totally damning.

Do you have any idea how a prescription works?

A doctor wants you to take drug X so your coach just gives you some from his personal stash? Um no.

Legitimate doctors don't "direct" coaches to give their athletes medications.

Yeah, and who brought Dr. Brown with them into the NOP program? The Gouchers. Email from Adam exists with Adam introducing himself to Dr. Brown as having been sent by Wetmore, who said he was the best in the country, and had sent other runners to him. Total revionist history that the Gouchers try to use Dr. Brown to smear NOP/Salazar, when if anything, more likely Salazar was naive than them, and that they were dirty from college.

"You introduced me to the crack dealer so I shouldn't have any liability when I try to give you crack that I claim I got from him."

Diffusion of responsibility

Kind of ironic , just following orders

Ploy 1 lump Goucher w/ Brown

(She’s got him as a doc because he plays ball w Nike and Salazar)

Ploy 2 I’m just the messenger not the coach looking to cheat

( I handed her the drug she didn’t need but that’s all)

ie just the guy driving the getaway car, not plotting the crime

sleazazar wrote:

podskljhjiaksk wrote:

Yeah, and who brought Dr. Brown with them into the NOP program? The Gouchers. Email from Adam exists with Adam introducing himself to Dr. Brown as having been sent by Wetmore, who said he was the best in the country, and had sent other runners to him. Total revionist history that the Gouchers try to use Dr. Brown to smear NOP/Salazar, when if anything, more likely Salazar was naive than them, and that they were dirty from college.

"You introduced me to the crack dealer so I shouldn't have any liability when I try to give you crack that I claim I got from him."

If Gouchers want to confess to doping under Salazar, then they're free to, until then, they're wasting our time trying to pretend to be clean, while throwing shade at Salazar, for the shady doctor that they had a pre-existing relationship with. On the other hand, if you want to suspect/criticize Salazar, to effectively do this, without appearing a hypocrite, everyone needs to stop defending the Gouchers.

Alberto is going to keep a very low profile during his suspension as Nike does not want him in the limelight for the wrong reasons.

His best bet is to take an NCAA coaching job when his suspension is up.....College XC and Track & Field is a still great, super competitive sport --- and he wouldn't have to take crud from the cheaters from Kenya and Epothia..... He could still coach the occassional pro runner who is trying to get to the Olympics but his main job would be the college --- perhaps Oregon U...... He would be getting plenty of good media for Nike too.....

The big question: If my son was one of the best high school distance runners in America would I send him to Salazar/Oregon? You bet I would.... Everybody in America gets a second chance. Let's all make sure that includes Alberto.

What would be the basis for extending the ban? USADA would have the burden to demonstrate something like "aggravated circumstances" which would allow a longer penalty.

Adding more violations doesn't seem to help, as it would still fall under "Multiple violations" article, unless USADA can demonstrate they should be considered separate, or unless one of the "new" violations carries a more severe minimum penalty.

I would be shocked to see new evidence that USADA was not able to obtain in the previous 7 years.

Salazar didn't get an average ban, but the minimum one. I suppose USADA doesn't need to demonstrate extraordinary/aggravated circumstances to get a normal ban.

As for whether or not USADA agrees that that the minimum ban is appropriate, remember their original decision - appealed by Salazar - was a lifetime ban. What CAS thinks, remains to be seen.

As for the "Multiple violations" article, remember that Jeptoo's ban was extended when it turned out that she was doping in the preparation for Boston too. Apparently the judges have some freedom in such cases.

As for whether or not there's new information, after the AAA decision USADA "[r]evealed information had emerged that could lead to further action against Salazar".

I hope Alberto comes back to the sport! And I hope he let's all of this fuel him to do bigger and better things than he and the USA have ever done!

Even if he did get an acquittal, who would sign with him with his tainted reputation?

casual obsever wrote:

Salazar didn't get an average ban, but the minimum one. I suppose USADA doesn't need to demonstrate extraordinary/aggravated circumstances to get a normal ban.

As for whether or not USADA agrees that that the minimum ban is appropriate, remember their original decision - appealed by Salazar - was a lifetime ban. What CAS thinks, remains to be seen.

As for the "Multiple violations" article, remember that Jeptoo's ban was extended when it turned out that she was doping in the preparation for Boston too. Apparently the judges have some freedom in such cases.

As for whether or not there's new information, after the AAA decision USADA "[r]evealed information had emerged that could lead to further action against Salazar".

If USADA disagrees, it would seem they still have the burden to demonstrate that the "seriousness" of the violations (for either "Administration" or "Trafficking" charges) merit more than the minimum ban, despite the AAA Panel's decision and reasoning that the minimum ban is also the appropriate ban.

in the case of Jeptoo, the IAAF succeeded to extend the ban from 2 years to 4 years by arguing "aggravating circumstances" to the "comfortable satisfaction" of the CAS.

I saw the quote in the Telegraph about the new information -- I'm curious, but I'll just leave i there -- we'll see if that leads anywhere, or just gets lost in the noise.

garyg1345 wrote:

Even if he did get an acquittal, who would sign with him with his tainted reputation?

All top prospects would sign with him .

podskljhjiaksk wrote:

sleazazar wrote:

"You introduced me to the crack dealer so I shouldn't have any liability when I try to give you crack that I claim I got from him."

If Gouchers want to confess to doping under Salazar, then they're free to, until then, they're wasting our time trying to pretend to be clean, while throwing shade at Salazar, for the shady doctor that they had a pre-existing relationship with. On the other hand, if you want to suspect/criticize Salazar, to effectively do this, without appearing a hypocrite, everyone needs to stop defending the Gouchers.

I'm not positive that the Gouchers broke doping rules. I'm certainly open to believing they did if evidence is presented to me. However, I AM positive that Salazar did, and I am positive that he is a crappy human being on top of it.

There is no hypocrisy in that.

sleazazar wrote:

podskljhjiaksk wrote:

If Gouchers want to confess to doping under Salazar, then they're free to, until then, they're wasting our time trying to pretend to be clean, while throwing shade at Salazar, for the shady doctor that they had a pre-existing relationship with. On the other hand, if you want to suspect/criticize Salazar, to effectively do this, without appearing a hypocrite, everyone needs to stop defending the Gouchers.

I'm not positive that the Gouchers broke doping rules. I'm certainly open to believing they did if evidence is presented to me. However, I AM positive that Salazar did, and I am positive that he is a crappy human being on top of it.

There is no hypocrisy in that.

If you knew an hung out with Salazar , the he would be a great guy. Why would you hang out with a crappy dude. If you don't hang out with Sal , then you don't know what kind of guy he is.

People thought Tiger Woods was a family man based on TV interviews .

rekrunner wrote:

I'm not so confident that he will be able to overturn all three violations in appeal.

Given the strict definitions of "facilitating", "attempted tampering", and "trafficking", and the irrelevance of many related factors, regarding intent or impact, in making the determination of the violation of the rules, I don't foresee a successful appeal.

At his age, and with his reputation tarnished, I don't see him ever coming ever to coaching.

This would seem a more just outcome if USADA had been able to build a case for at least one NOP athlete ever being doped by Salazar.

Goober Jr wrote:

Look for a very quick reversal after the appeal by AlSal.

I don't anticipate a quick reversal; I expect him to serve the full ban. However, I am relatively certain he will coach again. Athletics is all AlSal has ever done, he has never been anything else but an athlete and a coach. When he left, he was without a doubt, the head of the best running program in the world. NOP athletes were on track to win a half dozen medals at the 2020 Olympics. Almost no one walks away from something not on their own terms and when they are at the top of their game. Based on everything I know about Salazar, he is not the type of dog to run away with his tail between his legs, right now his is stewing and waiting for the opportunity to come back. And btw, if AlSal came back, he would only be 63 years old, that's hardly too old to coach.

Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:

sleazazar wrote:

I'm not positive that the Gouchers broke doping rules. I'm certainly open to believing they did if evidence is presented to me. However, I AM positive that Salazar did, and I am positive that he is a crappy human being on top of it.

There is no hypocrisy in that.

If you knew an hung out with Salazar , the he would be a great guy. Why would you hang out with a crappy dude. If you don't hang out with Sal , then you don't know what kind of guy he is.

People thought Tiger Woods was a family man based on TV interviews .

The last few decades are littered with people who hung out with and knew Salazar who have confirmed he is a crappy human.

Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:

sleazazar wrote:

I'm not positive that the Gouchers broke doping rules. I'm certainly open to believing they did if evidence is presented to me. However, I AM positive that Salazar did, and I am positive that he is a crappy human being on top of it.

There is no hypocrisy in that.

If you knew an hung out with Salazar , the he would be a great guy. Why would you hang out with a crappy dude. If you don't hang out with Sal , then you don't know what kind of guy he is.

People thought Tiger Woods was a family man based on TV interviews .

Why would believe someone whose "evidence" is an empty bottle of a thyroid drug, prescribed by the Dr. Brown that the Gouchers had a pre-existing relationship with, going back to college? "Why would you hang out with a crappy dude?" I don't know, ask the Gouchers, and ask them why Kara was begging to get taken back for long after been kicked out, exactly like Mary Cain.

podskljhjiaksk wrote:

Flying Carpet Salesman wrote:

If you knew an hung out with Salazar , the he would be a great guy. Why would you hang out with a crappy dude. If you don't hang out with Sal , then you don't know what kind of guy he is.

People thought Tiger Woods was a family man based on TV interviews .

Why would believe someone whose "evidence" is an empty bottle of a thyroid drug, prescribed by the Dr. Brown that the Gouchers had a pre-existing relationship with, going back to college? "Why would you hang out with a crappy dude?" I don't know, ask the Gouchers, and ask them why Kara was begging to get taken back for long after been kicked out, exactly like Mary Cain.

With my interactions with Al , he was polite, did not come across as a i know everything guy . Asked about my training et. Clearly, he is not a baby sitter , nor should he be.

Nice. Maybe they can ensure that Salazar is (at least officially) kept out of the sport forever.