wejo wrote:
Harambe wrote:2) NOP are finally cheaters because they broke the 50mL rule. However, they clearly didn't violate the spirit of the law here. That rule is solely to prevent dilutive transfusions to cover up PEDs. NOP infused >50mLs just to up some random metabolite levels and banned PEDs never came into play.
Where are you coming up with the spirit of the law thing? Alberto emailed USADA asking if he could violate the rule. They said no. The report presents strong evidence that he went and did it anyway.
When Alberto emailed USADA and said "hey we just want to inject l-carnitine" they didn't write back, "oh yeah are rules are wrong, the spirit of them is not to ban injections of legal substances but just to stop masking of doping. They wrote back and said essentially follow the rule."
As I read the report, I flagged multiple instances where Alberto professed to wanting to follow the rules, but by the time I got to the end of the report, it was clear to me they broke them.
GeezYouPeople wrote:
Most of the stuff he was pushing is, in my opinion, the equivalent of Dumbo's feather. That's not to let Salazar off the hook at all ... robbing a bank is still a crime even if you only net $20. But I'd be willing to bet that the NOP athletes would have performed basically the same if Salazar had resisted the temptation to play at being a biochemist/physiologist. Sad, really.
I agree with this assessment in regards to L-Carnitine. Do we think they still are using l-carnitine?
However, if you think he was doing something with the androgel you can't really believe that.
casual obsever wrote:
If USADA will be able to prove testo doping (see this report, see NY Times, and see Rupp's suspicious test results in early 2016 etc.), then the fans here will claim that others do the same, so NOP is fine.
'
Fill me in on Rupp's suspicious test result? That's not ringing a bell in my memory.
Conspiracy Theorist wrote:
I completely agree with you. This report is case and point. It was leaked to the public before it became official. Should athletes trust that their personal health information will be safe when clearly there is a risk it could be leaked to the public? I wouldn't. I would only give what is required.
The report could have been leaked but reports are that it was not leaked but rather HACKED by the Russian outfit Fancy Bears. There is a difference there but you could think the hacking claim is a smokescreen to leak it.
When you say that "they said no" could you share/post the email of their response to him?