Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 207
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    tallahassee
    Posts
    1,119
    Preface by saying I am a dead cynic about PEDs in the sport generally and Salazar/NOP are no exception to that.

    But, having read through the 532 paragraphs of the arbitration decision, there is very, very little there there.

    The decision winds up by conceding that it is holding Salazar responsible only for "unintentional mistakes".

    The three "mistakes":

    1) Steve Magness, who USADA concedes was no more than a "recreational level" NOP training partner, received an IV containing L-Carnitine, a non-banned substance, in an amount in excess of the then-prescribed WADA limit, within a specified time period.

    The decision concedes that Salazar did not know that Magness received an amount over the limit and devoted considerable efforts to ensure that amounts over the limit were not administered. Nevertheless, the decision finds him responsible on a theory of strict liability, a legal term of art, given that he arranged for the administration.

    This count alone is found to be justification for a four year ban.

    2) Salazar told some NOP athletes not to disclose, in response to USADA survey, L-Carnitine IVs that were given to them in legal amounts because, the decision concludes, he was concerned that NOP had broken a rule requiring that the administration be done by "injection" rather than "infusion."

    In fact, Salazar was confused about the rule and there was no pertinent substance to the infusion/injection distinction. Even though the administrations at issue were therefore legal, the decision finds a tampering violation.

    3) Salazar gave his prescribed testosterone gel to his own two sons, who were not athletes by anyone's definition, as a one-time test of the effect of the gel on testosterone readings. The test was known to a number of people, not conducted in secret.

    Salazar claimed he did this because of a concern about the possibility of sabotage and there are some surrounding factors for this claim discussed in the decision.

    The decision does not make a judgment on the credibility of this claim or find that the test was conducted for an illegitimate purpose. Rather, the decision finds that, under the pertinent rule, Salazar was prohibited from giving the gel to any third party, even non-athletes.

    That's it. A good deal of the decision is devoted to counts where the decision finds in Salazar's favor and against USADA. There is discussion of the use of thyroid medication with the intention of raising testosterone levels, but it is not the basis of any adverse finding.

    Those who have wondered in this thread when bans are coming against NOP athletes, past or present, can stop wondering, because there is nothing in the findings that points to that.

    This is the final paragraph of the decision, in full:

    "The Panel notes that [Mr. Salazar] does not appear to have been motivated by any bad intention to commit the violations the Panel found. In fact, the Panel was struck by the amount of care generally taken by [Mr. Salazar] to ensure that whatever new technique or method or substance he was going to try was lawful under the World Anti-Doping Code, with USADA’s witness characterizing him as the coach they heard from the most with respect to trying to ensure that he was complying with his obligations. The Panel has taken pains to note that Respondent made unintentional mistakes that violated the rules, apparently motivated by his desire to provide the very best results and training for athletes under his care. Unfortunately, that desire clouded his judgment in some instances, when his usual focus on the rules appears to have lapsed. The Panel is required to apply the relevant law, the World Anti-Doping Code and its positive law enactments in the rules of international sports federations, in discharging its duty, and here that required the Panel to find the violations it did."
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    La Mirada, CA
    Posts
    465
    Quote Originally Posted by polevaultpower View Post
    It is an ADRV for the athletes to train with him moving forward. USADA/AIU is notifying everyone now. If any evidence surfaces, the athletes get charged.
    Is there a formal definition of what would be considered "train[ing] with" AS?

    I'm not trying to be difficult, just wanting to understand what's disallowed. Phone calls, for instance?
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #53
    Quote Originally Posted by player View Post

    3) Salazar gave his prescribed testosterone gel to his own two sons, who were not athletes by anyone's definition, as a one-time test of the effect of the gel on testosterone readings. The test was known to a number of people, not conducted in secret.
    That's about the worst experimental design I've heard of in ages.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    tallahassee
    Posts
    1,119
    Quote Originally Posted by trackCanuck View Post
    That's about the worst experimental design I've heard of in ages.
    That's exactly the point that witnesses offered by Salazar made: that no one who was seriously trying to find out what they could get away with would proceed in this manner.

    Giving the gel to his sons is what USADA calls trafficking.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #55
    Quote Originally Posted by player View Post
    That's exactly the point that witnesses offered by Salazar made: that no one who was seriously trying to find out what they could get away with would proceed in this manner.

    Giving the gel to his sons is what USADA calls trafficking.
    This should make for an interesting court discussion. I don’t think this is over for Salazar.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    11,672
    Perhaps....I doubt it will be overturned...this was hardly a rush to judgment....besides there is much more to the story....and in the end Salazar was banned which all anyone will remember...

    Hard to imagine even if the ban was overturned Salazar could be welcomed back.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/nickwillis/status/1178839469266554882

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Cathal_De...75593184010240
    Last edited by Conor Dary; 10-01-2019 at 07:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Conor Dary View Post
    Perhaps....I doubt it will be overturned...this was hardly a rush to judgment....besides there is much more to the story....and in the end Salazar was banned which all anyone will remember...

    Hard to imagine even if the ban was overturned Salazar could be welcomed back.
    Perhaps not, but we live in a litigious country and Salazar will try to make USADA pay dearly.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Back in the hometown of Peter Norman
    Posts
    6,181
    Quote Originally Posted by cigar95 View Post
    Is there a formal definition of what would be considered "train[ing] with" AS?
    I'm glad you asked. Training with me would involve a lot of pretentious craft beer sipping and for the current period, intense couch sitting in the wee small hours cheering on Aussie javelin throwers.

    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    11,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Perhaps not, but we live in a litigious country and Salazar will try to make USADA pay dearly.
    Perhaps....I'm sure Nike has already tried...

    "Another thing typical in anti-doping - you just KNOW the thing goes so much deeper, but you’re resigned to never getting proof of who’s swimming down there, even though you’ve been watching them for years. Nike must have fought a vicious battle to keep this one down."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Scienceof...15829649416197
    Last edited by Conor Dary; 10-01-2019 at 07:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #60
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    61,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Perhaps not, but we live in a litigious country and Salazar will try to make USADA pay dearly.
    paging a law dude: since this result involved the American Arbitration Association, isn't that about the end of the line, since Salazar has already had legal representation?
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •