rekrunner wrote:
I don't speak about a right to privacy, but a right to an untarnished reputation.
Maybe in an ideal world there is a "right to an untarnished reputation" but in the real world Salazar and other members of the NOP have already had their reputations tarnished. I seriously doubt a little sunlight would do anything but good for their reputations if they are innocent.
rekrunner wrote:
It's one thing to report suspicions to your local ADA, in private and in confidence, for investigation, but quite another to go public with allegations that cause permanent irreparable reputational harm.
Again the problem is the lack of transparency. Whether fair to USADA or not, the reason people like Kara Goucher gave for going public was that it didn't seem to that USADA was doing anything with private testimony.
rekrunner wrote:
Regarding you repeating the testosterone experiment, if it involves athletes under USADA's jurisdication, or support staff in possession of a banned substance without medical justification, USADA would indeed have something to say. If Salazar admitted to it, it is no longer a hanging thread. In any case, it is not for USADA to decide a back and forth between two other parties about a topic not under USADA's jurisdiction.
It remains a loose thread because it looks blatantly against the rules, Salazar has admitted to it and USADA has remained mum. I have trouble concluding that because USADA didn't pursue it do that the action must either be banned or not under their jurisdiction but maybe that is true in which case, as you wrote, "USADA 1) could lobby for rule changes, or 2) could report some of the issues to the right authorities with jurisdiction," however, it seems that too we are forced to take on faith.
rekrunner wrote:
I'm not sure where this suspicion that USADA is sitting on incriminating evidence, or USADA didn't dig deep enough comes from. Surely not public information. Based on what was made public, most of what was reported was either 1) allowed by the WADA code, or 2) not under USADA's jurisdiction. What remains was either based on ambiguous evidence, or no evidence, that any alleged ADRV occurred.
You are ignoring the example I gave of testing steroid cream on his son which Salazar admitted to. Does this fall into your category (1) or (2)? Either way this is a huge mark against USADA. If it is (1) then coaches are allowed to run their own tests on the performance effects of banned substances which is crazy--completely against the spirit of anti-doping. If it is (2) then USADA effectively has no teeth.