Greg's best friend wrote:
What kind of athlete would choose to be coached by someone under an active investigation (that they surely knew about)? Surely Salazar was just a dealer, not a user!
Salazar was absolutely a doping cheater throughout his career. And he was a jerk.
Well Stated!
Abuse of power comes as no surprise wrote:
sdkjfkjsdhf wrote:
I hope many of you never sit on a jury.
Or piss off a cop or a prosecutor, because, as Robert Jackson, SCt Justice and the Chief Prosecutor at Nuremburg pointed out long ago:
One of the greatest difficulties of the position of prosecutor is that he must pick his cases, because no prosecutor can even investigate all of the cases in which he receives complaints...We know that no local police force can strictly enforce the traffic laws, or it would arrest half the driving population on any given morning.
If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.
It is in this realm -- in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
A very apt and highly underappreciated observation.
I'm curious: Is it just a coincidence that you posted this quotation on the same day that it was used in an article for The Atlantic?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/trump-investigation-abuse/599617/Absoulutely, if Dathan (who I thought was the greatest!) has admitted to cheating, then he should have all of his records stricken. He has taken the moral high road, and now should be happy to return those records to the rightful people. If he does this, I will post a pic on all my social media, stating my belief that he is the last moral man in America and that we should vote Dathan for President.
semi_pro wrote:
Seems like a guy with lots of integrity. Works hard and cares a lot about the sport. I'm sure its been a hard process for him.
You have truly mastered the art of sarcasm.
Naked Moralist Runner wrote:
Absoulutely, if Dathan (who I thought was the greatest!) has admitted to cheating, then he should have all of his records stricken. He has taken the moral high road, and now should be happy to return those records to the rightful people. If he does this, I will post a pic on all my social media, stating my belief that he is the last moral man in America and that we should vote Dathan for President.
At least Trump never doped. Imagine Trump on EPO.
Ritzenhein should just STFU. He is as guilty as Salazar... That assumes that Salazar was guilty.
Kara testified under oath that Salazar gave her a pill of Cytomel to take -- Cytomel is a prescription drug, Salazar had a stockpile, and it requires a TUE....Kara called her doctor to ask what the pill was and the doctor said to flush it down the toilet, its illegal and dangerous. This is what is commonly referred to as "trying to dope an athlete with no regard for their health". USADA couldnt find corroboration so couldnt find absolutely for guilt of that charge -- but it was never disproven. Sorry Nopologists, your boy AlSal is Guilty AF!!
Avocado's Number wrote:
A very apt and highly underappreciated observation.
I'm curious: Is it just a coincidence that you posted this quotation on the same day that it was used in an article for The Atlantic?
I agree Justice Jackson's observations are underappreciated.
Sorry to disappoint, but it's just coincidence. I'm not Conor Friedersdorf, and I'm pretty sure we've never met. In fact, I hadn't seen that article until you mentioned it. (It looks interesting, so I'm glad you mentioned it.) I first ran across Jackson's quote in the late 80s or early 90s. It's a fun one to throw out, since it seems to run against common sense. I've learned a lot from pondering it over the years.
If I had to guess as to why we both use it, I'd say it's because this quotation has been "in the air" recently. Partly, that's because of the increasing worry about over-criminalization, which makes selective prosecution even easier. But mostly it is popping up a lot because of the Mueller investigation. Justice Scalia quoted Jackson in one of the early special prosecutor cases. Scalia's views were ignored (and mocked) until the Clinton impeachment, when Scalia's predictions about the dangers of special prosecutors running amok started to look prescient. Since then, Jackson's quote shows up whenever special prosecutors are discussed.
It seems you had seen the Jackson quote before. Where did you come across it?
Seems improbable. First off, Cytomel (Liothyronine) is not prohibited by USADA in any dose. Second, to be useful, this drug requires continued dose, as an SSRI would. A single pill would have no significant efficacy.
Evidence Front wrote:
Kara testified under oath that Salazar gave her a pill of Cytomel to take -- Cytomel is a prescription drug, Salazar had a stockpile, and it requires a TUE....Kara called her doctor to ask what the pill was and the doctor said to flush it down the toilet, its illegal and dangerous. This is what is commonly referred to as "trying to dope an athlete with no regard for their health". USADA couldnt find corroboration so couldnt find absolutely for guilt of that charge -- but it was never disproven. Sorry Nopologists, your boy AlSal is Guilty AF!!
Evidence Front wrote:
Salazar had a stockpile, and it requires a TUE.
No, Cytomel does not require a TUE. This has been covered many, many times on here. How could you possibly not know this? Do you not care about the facts? Or..?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-rebuff-to-usada-wada-declines-to-ban-thyroid-medication-1443568862https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/34407495https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/health/a774072/thyroid-meds-still-legal-for-elite-athletes/Glory to the panel, our new allmighty track and field overlord.
All the athlete who have trained under Salazar should be scrutinized, and tightly vetted before entering another internation competition. This is matter of fairness and equity of the sport as a whole.
These athlete should compete under the neutral banner.
LetsRun.com wrote:
https://twitter.com/djritzenhein/status/1181348000762912770
omfg.... what does that even mean? More vague answers. The more non answers I see the more I hope Salazar wins his appeal. Like WTF does any of this even mean?
Interpreting Ritzenhein's Twitter post...
"I, for one, welcome our new USADA overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted sports personality I could be helpful in rounding up others..."
fking hell wrote:
"but he's never missed a drug test"
THAT'S THE POINT, YOU FVCKING IDIOTS
Did you read ANY of the information that has come out? Yeah, I wonder why he never tested positive when the nike lab was doing regular testing of hormomone levels ALL THE TIME.
Ever hear about a guy named Victor Conte? The guy who ran a huge doping scheme and famously said, "The dopers are always ahead of the testers?"
Yeah, wonder why he never tested positive. I wonder why Marion Jones never tested positive either.
Ever hear about the positive tests that get swept under the rug?
Jesus, you have to willingly be blind to all of this to maintain the level of ignorance y'all have. People like Zat0pek have been trying to tell you this stuff for years and you never listen
But there was a MASSIVE paper trail with Balco, tons of documents that proved what was going on. How does USADA after 4 years not have that ? Bring up Armstrong, so many people ratted him out and were SPECIFIC with what he was doing. BLOOD DOPING, EPO the works. For years....
All we get from Kara Goucher "shady stuff" and Steve Magness apparently saw a ghost during the 2012 Olympic 10K final or something? NOTHING.
Here comes the horde of NOP d!ck riders to bash Ritz.
And to illustrate how much they know and how much credence we should give to their contrived fish stories exculpating all things NOP, remember - these are the same sorts of epsilon-minus semimorons (apologies to Aldous Huxley) who argued to no end that Lance was clean!
Jerry Maguire wrote:
fking hell wrote:
"but he's never missed a drug test"
THAT'S THE POINT, YOU FVCKING IDIOTS
Did you read ANY of the information that has come out? Yeah, I wonder why he never tested positive when the nike lab was doing regular testing of hormomone levels ALL THE TIME.
Ever hear about a guy named Victor Conte? The guy who ran a huge doping scheme and famously said, "The dopers are always ahead of the testers?"
Yeah, wonder why he never tested positive. I wonder why Marion Jones never tested positive either.
Ever hear about the positive tests that get swept under the rug?
Jesus, you have to willingly be blind to all of this to maintain the level of ignorance y'all have. People like Zat0pek have been trying to tell you this stuff for years and you never listen
But there was a MASSIVE paper trail with Balco, tons of documents that proved what was going on. How does USADA after 4 years not have that ? Bring up Armstrong, so many people ratted him out and were SPECIFIC with what he was doing. BLOOD DOPING, EPO the works. For years....
All we get from Kara Goucher "shady stuff" and Steve Magness apparently saw a ghost during the 2012 Olympic 10K final or something? NOTHING.
yeah i want something other than kara being bitter about not being good enough to get more attention than rupp. i certainly don't doubt that at least saladbar is guilty of something here but i want the evidence and which athletes are involved.
I disagree. It is not "the most dangerous power" to prosecute the guilty. Far more dangerous is to prosecute an innocent scapegoat, such as Duke lacrosse or a security guard in a terrorist attack.
Wildhorse wrote:
Didn't the report clearly say the only infusions over the allowed limit were the ones given to Magness? Everyone else's were legal.
If that's true, why hasn't Magness been banned?
I find it strange that he'd be the only one, since he was never that good of a runner.
sdkjfkjsdhf wrote:
I hope many of you never sit on a jury.
Abuse of power comes as no surprise wrote:
Or piss off a cop or a prosecutor, because, as Robert Jackson, SCt Justice and the Chief Prosecutor at Nuremburg pointed out long ago:
One of the greatest difficulties of the position of prosecutor is that he must pick his cases, because no prosecutor can even investigate all of the cases in which he receives complaints...We know that no local police force can strictly enforce the traffic laws, or it would arrest half the driving population on any given morning.
If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.
It is in this realm -- in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
That's exactly what happened.
