I never claimed saintly status for them. I merely pointed out what I take to be a very strong incentive for them not to dope and for Nike to be attentive to the issue. Second, I never claimed I was "certain": I claimed I was as confident as I could be. In making such a claim I was taking into account my own limited circumstances. Of course I could be mistaken, but given how close the group is to Nike, given that few of Salazar's athletes have succeeded at the highest level (why, for example, hasn't Ritz run faster, or Ulrey, or Webb, or Adam Goucher [who ran almost the identical time for 5000 that he ran under Wetmore] etc.?
past history wrote:
I agree with you, I never said anyone in Salazar's group was doping. My point was that Monty, a previous poster, claimed the group being sponsored by Nike gave them saint status and there could be no wrongdoing. He claimed he was "as certain as he could be" they were clean. He layed down the absolute first which is silly to do considering Nike's past history. It is obtuse to think doping does not occur at the top levels of sport just because an athlete has not tested positive.
There is no evidence on either side, clean or dirty, for top athletes anymore. Dopers and non-dopers alike have the same test result 99% of the time which is clean. The tests are too easy to beat and anyone running a good doping program can pass them with ease. Unless governing bodies are serious about retesting samples from 10 years ago, ala Lance, most dopers will never be caught.