CAS UPHOLDS Alberto Salazar's four-year anti-doping ban

doctorj wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

Why would a coach possess banned substances and tamper with records if none of the violations "directly affected athletic competition, and that there was no evidence put before the Cas as to any effect on athletes competing at the elite level within the NOP?

Where is the logic there?

The logic is that possession is a violation, yes simple possession, intent becomes irrelevant as long as you are in possession of a banned substance. Can you process that?

Why have possession of such a substance if not to aid your athletes? Yet the conclusion was '"none of the violations directly affected athletic competition, and that there was no evidence put before the Cas as to any effect on athletes competing at the elite level within the NOP?

Simple question.

under a bridge wrote:

No shortage of Salazar lapdogs. There’s a sucker born every minute.

Not defending him.

Just trying to find out why a coach would cheat but not do so to aid his athletes in competition as were the findings of the investigation

No real change from two years ago. Just confirmation of what was already decided before.

USADA still “wins” and Salazar/Brown still “lose”,

Good news for fans of the sport and fair play is that there is no evidence of NOP athletes ever doping.

But apparently USADA’s conduct in prosecuting was questionably excessive and disproportionate.

The Unkle wrote:

under a bridge wrote:

No shortage of Salazar lapdogs. There’s a sucker born every minute.

Not defending him.

Just trying to find out why a coach would cheat but not do so to aid his athletes in competition as were the findings of the investigation

It couldn't be proven in the investigation, which is a difference, as if no one has ever doped in the offseason. Good lapdog.

under a bridge wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

Not defending him.

Just trying to find out why a coach would cheat but not do so to aid his athletes in competition as were the findings of the investigation

It couldn't be proven in the investigation, which is a difference, as if no one has ever doped in the offseason. Good lapdog.

Could you state that in English?

The Unkle wrote:

under a bridge wrote:

It couldn't be proven in the investigation, which is a difference, as if no one has ever doped in the offseason. Good lapdog.

Could you state that in English?

I did. Ask someone to assist you.

under a bridge wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

Could you state that in English?

I did. Ask someone to assist you.

Lets' take a look.

"It couldn't be proven in the investigation, which is a difference, as if no one has ever doped in the offseason."

Do you wish to amend your statement about this being in English?

habs wrote:

Ernest wrote:

Have to agree.

SafeSport's lifetime ban sets a low evidentiary bar - one which can never be consistently applied. If that net were cast, the haul would fill the holds.

I can think of many coaches who make Salazar look like a Saint.

i'll just leave this here because I hadn't heard this story before:

https://twitter.com/ddritzenhein/status/1438571434503131143

i think there is something there to the safesport violation even if they should be more transparent in their process. there have been enough instances like this.

Twitter hotlinks rarely work on this site - at least for me. This is the tweet:

Derek Josh Kerr

@ddritzenhein

Replying to

@ChrisChavez

I’m over the moon about this ban cause of what Alberto Salazar did to me by say I didn’t look like a distance runner & I should lose weight at 2012 Olympic Track Trials when I was 120-130 lbs & now I’m in therapy for Body Weight Issues & three other things

If Cain has a twin, Kerr might be it.

Blame-shaming others for their issues and failings?

Not recognizing control over attitudes and outcomes - Salazar is not a mesmerizing Svengali robbing you of free will.

To the extend they are products of their environment, that is a lot more than one person or one time.

Own it, man.

"Over the moon?" Taking joy in the misfortune of others?

Think badly if you must, but why bleat to the world? Smacks of attention-seeking.

his last name isn't kerr, it's Derek Rubis, who is well liked in the t&f community and wouldn't do any of the things you mentioned. salazar saying what he said was a dick move in both cases regardless of what you think about the person reporting it

The Unkle wrote:

under a bridge wrote:

I did. Ask someone to assist you.

Lets' take a look.

"It couldn't be proven in the investigation, which is a difference, as if no one has ever doped in the offseason."

Do you wish to amend your statement about this being in English?

You might try re-reading it in reference to your post that I responded to if you are still struggling. I believe in you.

rekrunner wrote:

But apparently USADA’s conduct in prosecuting was questionably excessive and disproportionate.

I am looking forward to reading the full report about the evidence abandoned by USADA:

CAS wrote:

...and that the evidence was presented and, in some cases, later abandoned

AAA observed similar problems with USADA, which submitted their evidence related to their "additional tampering claim" so late it was excluded:

AAA wrote:

On January 11, 2019, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 14 excluding the Subject Documents from the record in this matter because they were submitted past the final deadline for admission of exhibits.

Note that USADA originally charged Salazar with six violations, but only provided evidence to AAA for four, and then "won" on three of the four charges.

Why does Derek Rubis post from a Twitter account named "Derek Josh Kerr"? Not at all confusing.

Anyway, whoever he is doubled down with regard to Salazar's ban being upheld:

"I’m loving this cause what he did to me"

These comments from Rubis ("Kerr") are just mean-spirited.

Certainly more so than if Salazar stated what's obvious and well-intentioned - you need to control diet and body composition to run well and compete internationally.

If that offends you and has you in therapy 8 years later, competitive running isn't your sport. You might as well be a 300 pound jockey.

under a bridge wrote:

[quote]The Unkle wrote:

[quote]under a bridge wrote:

[quote]The Unkle wrote:

[quote]under a bridge wrote:

[quote]The Unkle wrote:

[quote]under a bridge wrote:

No shortage of Salazar lapdogs. There’s a sucker born every minute.

Wow. Another well constructed sentence.

So now we have:

"It couldn't be proven in the investigation, which is a difference, as if no one has ever doped in the offseason."

"You might try re-reading it in reference to your post that I responded to if you are still struggling."

Would you like to go for the trifecta?

The Unkle wrote:

**disastrous attempt at quoting**

Would you like to go for the trifecta?

I can't be surprised that a child who can't even use the simple quote function correctly would struggle to comprehend English sentences. Good lapdog.

I think Josh might be giving Al Sal a little too much power. Yes, he is a well-known coach, but did you read his book? He comes off as a limited kind of guy whose self-esteem is almost totally based on running. After reading the book, you want to talk to his family members (service academy brother, very smart engineer father), not him. He is not like the typical well-balanced mentors that I know.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But apparently USADA’s conduct in prosecuting was questionably excessive and disproportionate.

I am looking forward to reading the full report about the evidence abandoned by USADA:

CAS wrote:

...and that the evidence was presented and, in some cases, later abandoned

AAA observed similar problems with USADA, which submitted their evidence related to their "additional tampering claim" so late it was excluded:

AAA wrote:

On January 11, 2019, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 14 excluding the Subject Documents from the record in this matter because they were submitted past the final deadline for admission of exhibits.

Note that USADA originally charged Salazar with six violations, but only provided evidence to AAA for four, and then "won" on three of the four charges.

Six? I thought only five (but that was two years ago).

Some of the charges were multiple counts, and they only succeeded with one count of each violation.

But one is enough.

USADA essentially through a bowl of spaghetti on the fridge, and a three strands stuck.

The spaghetti had no meat (NOP athletes) in it.