casual obsever wrote:
Well then, who said that "the Magness infusion was somehow set aside..."?
Evidence?
In one of the "bbc.com" articles, Marc Daly wrote:
"Magness was never charged by Usada for this breach because he became the key witness for Usada in their investigation of Salazar and Dr Brown over their use of a prohibited infusion."
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I think "casual" thinks the three violations should be treated separately, that is 4+2+4 = a 10 year ban.
Or alternatively, the two first charges: "facilitated" and the "tampering" were effectively null: i.e. 4+0+0 = a 4 year ban.
The WADA code, and the AAA Panel, are very clear on this point about how to treat multiple violations in this complaint.
1st sentence: no I don't think so.
2nd sentence: yes, obviously, as can be seen above.
3rd sentence: yes, obviously.
Where do I see a chance for CAS to extend the ban? They could decide that the minimum ban is not sufficient here, for example because Magness received a whopping 1000 mL on purpose, instead of 60 mL unintentionally, or because Salazar gave his son, openly and with intend, a substantial amount of testo, instead of a tiny trace unintentionally by hugging him, or because Salazar is a not exactly repentant, serial offender. After all, USADA decided on a lifetime ban.
1st sentence: OK, I get it now.
USADA was a party in a dispute. Whatever USADA decided doesn't seem important if it did not survive the arbitration.
Not terribly important, yes, but it does imply that a longer ban is not out of the question.
casual obsever wrote:
In case you meant me, I actually wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Actually according to AAA, that anti-doping rule violation was irrelevant to Salazar's ban, for he just got the shortest ban allowed for his testo experiment.
Evidence for that? Refer to the statements in the decision under
"3. Decision and Reasoning – Trafficking and/or Attempted Trafficking – Testosterone Experiment"
Most importantly in this context:
"469. The Panel finds that the minimum period of Ineligibility of four years shall be imposed on Respondent for violation of Article 2.7. "
So, four years for the Testosterone Experiment.
Then compare this with the final judgment:
"531. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the period of Ineligibility shall be four years from the date of this decision. "
So, four years total. So, no additional ban because of the prohibited method used, or because of "Tampering and/or attempted tampering with NOP athletes’ doping control process".
So I disagree - AAA did not say that the Magness offence was irrelevant. If the T experiment had not taken place, the four year minimum would have been imposed. Or if only the T experiment had taken place, and not the Magness offence, the four year minimum would have been imposed. I read nothing into their phrasing of the two lines about the sanctions that says one or the other is irrelevant. It's simply the way first offences work within the WADA code that bans run concurrently (as they talk about in the judgement more eloquently than I can.
casual obsever wrote:
Not terribly important, yes, but it does imply that a longer ban is not out of the question.
Yes, that's definitely a risk that Salazar is taking. He does appear "bang to rights" on at least one (if not more) of the counts. CAS could well arbitrate upwards.
rekrunner wrote:
WADA code wrote:
Great, so according to WADA, these are interchangeable terms for their purposes.
So you arguing about the distinction on the previous page was????
The distinction on the previous page had nothing to do with WADA or WADA's purposes.
That's hilarious.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I think "casual" thinks the three violations should be treated separately, that is 4+2+4 = a 10 year ban.
Or alternatively, the two first charges: "facilitated" and the "tampering" were effectively null: i.e. 4+0+0 = a 4 year ban.
The WADA code, and the AAA Panel, are very clear on this point about how to treat multiple violations in this complaint.
1st sentence: no I don't think so.
2nd sentence: yes, obviously, as can be seen above.
3rd sentence: yes, obviously.
Where do I see a chance for CAS to extend the ban? They could decide that the minimum ban is not sufficient here, for example because Magness received a whopping 1000 mL on purpose, instead of 60 mL unintentionally, or because Salazar gave his son, openly and with intend, a substantial amount of testo, instead of a tiny trace unintentionally by hugging him, or because Salazar is a not exactly repentant, serial offender. After all, USADA decided on a lifetime ban.
Ahhhh, yes. Another thread screwed up from you two buffoons.
BUMP
Can Mo Farah be suspended for lying to officials?
The answer is yes, as proven by the case of Dry, who lied about his whereabouts.