Alberto Salazar at centre of Doping allegations BBC Panorama *MOD NOTE: Post 134*

ultrapercy

There seems to be an attitude within top level sport that cheating is all part of the game. A sort of everything is legal so long as you don't get caught mindset. Sportsmanship is all but an ancient artifact. This attitude is being absolutely driven and was probably created by nike and their corporate ilk. The guys with the medals around their necks and needles in their arms are merely a symptom of a corporate cancer that's eating all sport from the inside out. The call for life bans for offenders sounds good and often can be used as cover but it would have a miniscule effect toward curing the disease. The little guys like Fagan will get bans an be pilloried by many within their local community for picking up a 100 euro prize on their return to competition while the Gatlins roll in the millions for themselves and Nike.

Notwork Error

ultrapercy wrote: »

There seems to be an attitude within top level sport that cheating is all part of the game. A sort of everything is legal so long as you don't get caught mindset. Sportsmanship is all but an ancient artifact. This attitude is being absolutely driven and was probably created by nike and their corporate ilk. The guys with the medals around their necks and needles in their arms are merely a symptom of a corporate cancer that's eating all sport from the inside out. The call for life bans for offenders sounds good and often can be used as cover but it would have a miniscule effect toward curing the disease. The little guys like Fagan will get bans an be pilloried by many within their local community for picking up a 100 euro prize on their return to competition while the Gatlins roll in the millions for themselves and Nike.

To be fair Up, doping has always been looked at that way and long before sponsors ever entered sport. From Tom hicks taking rat poison to win the 1904 Olympic marathon to cyclists taking cocaine and stealing booze from mountain top bars during the 40's and 50's to blood tranfusions in the 70's, the steroid era of the 80's and beyond,the Epo era of the 90's and 00's and the genetic doping of today. Doping is as intrinsically linked to sport and always has been and still will be when athletics and sport has evolved far beyond recognition of what it is today. Depressing and all as that is.

It might be bad now but athletes used to regularly die from doping in the past for very little monetary reward.

rom

Notwork Error wrote: »

Just going to play devils advocate here. If Mo Farah is guilty of doping by association to AlSal, why isn't Kara Goucher? Why isn't Ritz? Hall?Centro?Levins? Abdi? Cain?and so on.

The Kara Goucher interview I say from a few years back where she said after falling short in New York "Alberto is going to be so angry". It was a red flag for me. I have never heard the likes of it. It was clear that the relationship was very one sided. Goucher is also putting the spotlight on herself now by this. She knows that this will have consequences and people will try to discredit her and if she has anything to hide it will come out. For this reason I believe that is why she was so upset. As she is at the end of running days its not going to keep her out of a major champs etc.

One thing also to point out that IOR should learn for this journalist. He had the nads to actually say he was going to take EPO and show the improvements and thus being labeled a drug cheat forever but IOR just wanted to say he would for sensationalism.

There is much more to this story. JTG asked about if AS was coaching Mary Decker Slaney and Mo said that AS assured him that he wasn't. But then we have an article like http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/01/sports/olympics-slaney-slows-down-to-speed-things-up.html that shows he was 2 months before she was caught.

AS as a coach to have the power over someone like Kara Goucher (a grown woman) that she was balling crying (though she is partial to the odd tear) that the biggest disappointment was letting him down is not a normal sporting relationship in the western world or I could be wrong.

clear thinking

rom wrote: »

AS as a coach to have the power over someone like Kara Goucher (a grown woman) that she was balling crying (though she is partial to the odd tear) that the biggest disappointment was letting him down is not a normal sporting relationship in the western world or I could be wrong.

I would say unfortunately you get bullies who are coaches just like in any walk of life.

After a marathon a few years ago I saw a coach go ballistic, on the gargle, because a couple of his athletes weren't high up enough in the top 10 for his liking. It was borderline fearing for their safety as the two athletes looked to be bricking it.

Like with any bullies, and the sporting ones are no different - Lance Armstrong, it is a power thing and very hard for those being bullied to break away from.

Salazar sounds like an Armstrong type bully based on that Goucher comment, not to mention calling her fat after being pregant. W*nk*r.

average_runner

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Wow need to start wearing body armour into this thread for fear of being attacked based on the two response to my post. (which I subsequently deleted after the first)

Did I say I condoned it? No. I simple stated a realistic fact that doing so would effectively end his career given that it would end any sponsorship (I think his deal is up next year anyway) and access to the medical services he will need to make a full recovery.

I doubt you would tell your boss you think he is a D!ck and he can stick his job just after you took out a mortgage to get a house.

If you look at most of the people who have spoke out it is people who have nothing to lose (Magness only becoming vocal after he got his place coaching in Houston, Goucher has a fairly lucrative deal with Oiselle, Radcliffe is retired, Pavey got dropped by Nike, Symmonds is with Brooks, Willis is with Adidas)

In fact the only one I can think off hand that is a Nike Athlete is Dai Greene.

I wasn't directing at u, but at him more. I wouldn't work for a company that goes against What I stand for. Or a least I wouldn't go around preaching about drugs cheats when he is funded by them.

A lot of running shoes sponsors have if ur caught your out, except Nike of course.

Chivito550

conavitzky wrote: »

I see Mo has pulled out of the 1500m in Birmingham citing stress. What has he to be stressed about? He says he wants to get back stateside to train and that there are a few questions to be answered?....

I'm no fan of Mo, but the runner in me understands exactly why he would pull out of a race if he was feeling mentally exhausted. Perfectly understandable actually.

conavitzky

Chivito550 wrote: »

I'm no fan of Mo, but the runner in me understands exactly why he would pull out of a race if he was feeling mentally exhausted. Perfectly understandable actually.

I see where your coming from Chivito but if he knows he has nothing to hide why should he feel mentally exhausted? No allegations have been made in relation to him only Rupp and AS. Surely an ideal opportunity for him to go out and do his thing especially as it was in front of a British crowd. In my opinion he has ramped the pressure up on himself even more by doing what he has done.

Notwork Error

conavitzky wrote: »

I see where your coming from Chivito but if he knows he has nothing to hide why should he feel mentally exhausted? No allegations have been made in relation to him only Rupp and AS. Surely an ideal opportunity for him to go out and do his thing especially as it was in front of a British crowd. In my opinion he has ramped the pressure up on himself even more by doing what he has done.

How about the reason that your tone suggests?Seriously, you're not using the DNS as suspicious, are you? If the whole world was ripping your reputation to shreds whether you were guilty or not, would you be sleeping nice and cosily every night?

Everything Mo does is a sign of guilt to you guys.

average_runner

conavitzky wrote: »

I see where your coming from Chivito but if he knows he has nothing to hide why should he feel mentally exhausted? No allegations have been made in relation to him only Rupp and AS. Surely an ideal opportunity for him to go out and do his thing especially as it was in front of a British crowd. In my opinion he has ramped the pressure up on himself even more by doing what he has done.

Because he is exhausted from the constant hounding from the press etc. I am sure his brain is in over drive also.

ultrapercy

Notwork Error wrote: »

How about the reason that your tone suggests?Seriously, you're not using the DNS as suspicious, are you? If the whole world was ripping your reputation to shreds whether you were guilty or not, would you be sleeping nice and cosily every night?

Everything Mo does is a sign of guilt to you guys.

Endemic cheating especially drug cheating is so widespread and so damaging to sport that the old innocent until proven guilty model can no longer be applied. The cheats are always one step ahead of the testing system so the burden of proof must be on the person under suspicion to prove their innocence. Sad, but that's the way of the world now.

tang1

People will believe what they want to believe, my old man still reckons Armstrong is clean. Once you have yourself convinced about something its very hard for others to change your mind.

average_runner

ultrapercy wrote: »

Endemic cheating especially drug cheating is so widespread and so damaging to sport that the old innocent until proven guilty model can no longer be applied. The cheats are always one step ahead of the testing system so the burden of proof must be on the person under suspicion to prove their innocence. Sad, but that's the way of the world now.

How do they do that? Cheats are ahead of the testers.

shels4ever

tang1 wrote: »

People will believe what they want to believe, my old man still reckons . Once you have yourself convinced about something its very hard for others to change your mind.

Even Lance has even given up on that one himself, so fair play to your old man for sticking to his guns .

davedanon

Michelle Smith is still a heroine in Rathcoole, I'm sure.

Murph_D

clear thinking wrote: »

Specifically on the show, there is more to come from this in my view. The athlete / journo micro dosed and passed the WADA tests and then went on to state there is no suggestion that some athletes have done this. If I was one of the athletes, like Mo, involved I'd be suing as there is a clear accusatory inference from the way the documentary was structured.

My first reaction to the reporter doing the EPO was that this is sensationalism, especially as he declined to publish the BP numbers to protect the people who assisted him in running the BP tests.

But on reflection how else do you demonstrate definitively that micro dosing works, and can be easily hidden? To be fair to the journo he demonstrated that, and you have to take his word for it - WADA certainly seemed convinced that he'd managed to beat the test. And it heads off the "But I'm the most tested athlete in history" defence, even if that is a less credible defence post-Armstrong.

The "This does not infer that anyone else is guilty" statement on the show is there to protect against legal challenge, IMO. I think it would be difficult to mount a legal challenge. They were careful also to include specific statements of denial from AS and MF, and indeed Wells.

So I'd say the BBC is well protected legally. The messenger hasn't been shot, not yet at least.

TRR_the_turd

davedanon wrote: »

Michelle Smith is still a heroine in Rathcoole, I'm sure.

so what you will about Smith, but she never took heroin!

rom

TRR_the_turd wrote: »

so what you will about Smith, but she never took heroin!

I don't think its performance enhancing.

Notwork Error

ultrapercy wrote: »

Endemic cheating especially drug cheating is so widespread and so damaging to sport that the old innocent until proven guilty model can no longer be applied. The cheats are always one step ahead of the testing system so the burden of proof must be on the person under suspicion to prove their innocence. Sad, but that's the way of the world now.

How can you prove innocence though? No ones going to believe them anyway no matter what they try to prove, look at Team Sky in cycling, they had journalists go to training camps with them, released all their power data and blood values to the media and respected physiologists and are still looked at as one of the dirtiest teams in cycling because no matter how much data, it's impossible to prove innocence.

It's like going up to someone on the street and saying, "did you steal my wallet?" and them saying no but you ask them to prove they didn't. How can they prove it? You can only argue against what's put in front of you.

I wouldn't fancy my chances in a trial by boards by the looks of things even if I was innocent of the charge.

davedanon

Notwork Error wrote: »

How can you prove innocence though? No ones going to believe them anyway no matter what they try to prove, look at Team Sky in cycling, they had journalists go to training camps with them, released all their power data and blood values to the media and respected physiologists and are still looked at as one of the dirtiest teams in cycling because no matter how much data, it's impossible to prove innocence.

It's like going up to someone on the street and saying, "did you steal my wallet?" and them saying no but you ask them to prove they didn't. How can they prove it? You can only argue against what's put in front of you.

I wouldn't fancy my chances in a trial by boards by the looks of things even if I was innocent of the charge.

It's a social media-wide problem. People are accused, judged and found guilty on the internets by the court of popular, what-I-reckon opinion.

ultrapercy

Notwork Error wrote: »

How can you prove innocence though? No ones going to believe them anyway no matter what they try to prove, look at Team Sky in cycling, they had journalists go to training camps with them, released all their power data and blood values to the media and respected physiologists and are still looked at as one of the dirtiest teams in cycling because no matter how much data, it's impossible to prove innocence.

It's like going up to someone on the street and saying, "did you steal my wallet?" and them saying no but you ask them to prove they didn't. How can they prove it? You can only argue against what's put in front of you.

I wouldn't fancy my chances in a trial by boards by the looks of things even if I was innocent of the charge.

There is certainly enough evidence for suspicion of a lot of the Alsal camp. It's wrong for someone who is guilty to get away because of an absence of proof. The only option, in that case, is pressure applied by peers and fans to the people under suspicion. This basically is how Lance was found out eventually. To simply say well there is no hard evidence so we accept your clean is to give a green light to doping.

Notwork Error

ultrapercy wrote: »

There is certainly enough evidence for suspicion of a lot of the Alsal camp. It's wrong for someone who is guilty to get away because of an absence of proof. The only option, in that case, is pressure applied by peers and fans to the people under suspicion. This basically is how Lance was found out eventually. To simply say well there is no hard evidence so we accept your clean is to give a green light to doping.

Evidence for suspicion and investigation, yes. I have no problem with people putting a flashlight on athletes as I think it's a good thing but hounding athletes and smearing their reputation without proof is unacceptable in my opinion. They are just like you and me and how would you like it if someone started spreading rumours about your character and ruining your life without evidence. There seems to be this atitude that athletes and people in the spotlight don't deserve the same treatment and fairness as everyone else. They are flesh and blood and should be treated in the same way as anyone else. The system is good enough for murderers, it's good enough for athletes, you and me.

Athletes are no different, their jobs maybe more in the spotlight than other peoples jobs but that's no excuse to tear them apart without evidence. As much as I love the sport and hate seeing it be destroyed by drugs, I'd much rather see athletics die than see athletes become second class people and have their rights stripped.

ThisRegard

Notwork Error wrote: »

How can you prove innocence though? No ones going to believe them anyway no matter what they try to prove, look at Team Sky in cycling, they had journalists go to training camps with them, released all their power data and blood values to the media and respected physiologists and are still looked at as one of the dirtiest teams in cycling because no matter how much data, it's impossible to prove innocence.

Having doping doctors and ex pros working for them is not a good start to any team, no matter what sport, trying to claim they're clean.

Clearlier

ThisRegard wrote: »

Having doping doctors and ex pros working for them is not a good start to any team, no matter what sport, trying to claim they're clean.

Impossible to disagree but cycling needs a total and complete restart. Doping wasn't just present in the top 2 or 3 or even the top 10. Everyone did it. Anyone who refused was quickly dropped, first in races and then from their teams. I don't honestly see how cycling makes its way back. There is no credibility, it's nigh on impossible to hire anyone who has ever been involved with cycling before who has not in some way been linked with doping.

Ross Tucker is generally pretty sound on doping - anyone who read his stuff on cycling would have been crystal clear that Armstrong (and practically everyone else) was doping long before it did all fall apart.

sportsscientists.com/2015/06/a-no-good-week-for-doping-in-sport/

The piece about finding it difficult to believe Farah wasn't aware that this was coming looks bad but I can imagine that he didn't see the full picture until the documentary aired.

I don't believe that there is/was widespread doping amongst runners such as there was in cycling but there were undoubtedly pockets of organised doping (Russian middle distance women and Balco are the two that spring to mind but there are others). I have to admit that it's only a belief though and I hold it with a little less conviction than I used to.

ultrapercy

Notwork Error wrote: »

Evidence for suspicion and investigation, yes. I have no problem with people putting a flashlight on athletes as I think it's a good thing but hounding athletes and smearing their reputation without proof is unacceptable in my opinion. They are just like you and me and how would you like it if someone started spreading rumours about your character and ruining your life without evidence. There seems to be this atitude that athletes and people in the spotlight don't deserve the same treatment and fairness as everyone else. They are flesh and blood and should be treated in the same way as anyone else. The system is good enough for murderers, it's good enough for athletes, you and me.

Athletes are no different, their jobs maybe more in the spotlight than other peoples jobs but that's no excuse to tear them apart without evidence. As much as I love the sport and hate seeing it be destroyed by drugs, I'd much rather see athletics die than see athletes become second class people and have their rights stripped.

I agree with you 100% regarding smearing and hounding of individuals, that is wrong in any aspect of life. My point of view is not to attack the athlete in the first place because they are the pawns in a rigged game. The powers that run the game and their mentions ( coaches doctors etc) should be the real targets because they are the real villains. If what we heard about Glen Rupp is true it's tantamount to child abuse and he should not be castigated for someone else's wrongdoing. Athletes are disposable, they come and go famous today forgotten tomorrow. The system that eats them up grows stronger and more invincible every day.

a148pro

I think people are hounding on Farah for a number of reasons unrelated to the programme:-

- innately, people, and the media in particular, want to see the squeaky clean guy take a fall

- people in the know have concerns about how Farah went from being a previously run of the mill runner to Olympic Gold medal winner

- we have become collectively cynical about competitive sport after previous scandals

The programme merely gives the media an opportunity to vent those concerns.

Watching the programme I thought it was strikingly low on actual detail and people have pointed to the failure to explain motives of some contributors.

However, having read a lot about the Armstrong saga I have come to the view that these tell tale "little" signs, combined with a concern as to an otherwise ordinary athlete becoming a winner, are worrying.

I really like Farah. That cube episode where he won without losing a life spoke to his competitive brilliance as well. So like many others I hope he is clean.

overpronator

Salazar has broken his silence, statement to The Guardian

rom

overpronator wrote: »

Salazar has broken his silence, statement to The Guardian

Reminds me of this:

https://youtu.be/Kzk-VbtWJD8?t=1060

Ron Gomall

davedanon wrote: »

Michelle Smith is still a heroine in Rathcoole, I'm sure.

I hope not ! Michelle De Bruin, married a drugs cheating coach but we all accepted her progress as genuine (well I did anyway), I stayed up and cheered her home on the TV, was delighted at the Golds, ignored the US speculation as I wanted to believe that she/ Ireland had won those medals legitimately.
I felt so cheated & so stupid afterwards myself (was a competitve swimmer for 10 years, knew how hard it was to get 1/10, hundredths off your time, yet accepted her improvements - gobsh173).
Guilt by association - mmmm - could be valid in the Salazar stable when you see improvements by some athletes in the stable , if they seem too good to be true then possibly they are. If a journalist can beat the WADA test with no support team then absolutely its possible for a top athlete.
Salazar's claim that he complies with WADA regulations, so did the journalist in that the blood levels never breached WADA thresholds, it really doesnt give any comfort.
I hope all the athletes are clean but I also hoped/ believed Michelle was clean.
There's a certain part of the Irish psyche that still celebrates Michelle - I cannot condone it as fckers like her beat me when I swam clean and its not what I want to promote for the sport or my kids

Snowchaser

a148pro wrote: »

I think people are hounding on Farah for a number of reasons unrelated to the programme:-

- innately, people, and the media in particular, want to see the squeaky clean guy take a fall

- people in the know have concerns about how Farah went from being a previously run of the mill runner to Olympic Gold medal winner

- we have become collectively cynical about competitive sport after previous scandals

The programme merely gives the media an opportunity to vent those concerns.

Watching the programme I thought it was strikingly low on actual detail and people have pointed to the failure to explain motives of some contributors.

However, having read a lot about the Armstrong saga I have come to the view that these tell tale "little" signs, combined with a concern as to an otherwise ordinary athlete becoming a winner, are worrying.

I really like Farah. That cube episode where he won without losing a life spoke to his competitive brilliance as well. So like many others I hope he is clean.

The Cube? I am hoping you are being sarcastic with that?

walshb

Mo is clean!

barryoneill50

Now that's just speculating....

walshb

barryoneill50 wrote: »

Now that's just speculating....

As is the other option!

Chivito550

Something which has been missed in all of this, but did anybody see the field in the men's 1500m at Birmingham? The race Mo was supposed to run in. Absolutely muck for a DL meet. None of the best 1500 runners in the world were there. It was set up for Mo to win on home soil. Clean or dirty, I am fairly sick of the "Mo Show" at this stage.

pistol_75

Chivito550 wrote: »

Something which has been missed in all of this, but did anybody see the field in the men's 1500m at Birmingham? The race Mo was supposed to run in. Absolutely muck for a DL meet. None of the best 1500 runners in the world were there. It was set up for Mo to win on home soil. Clean or dirty, I am fairly sick of the "Mo Show" at this stage.

Was it true as well that he was getting £75,000 appearance money as well.

shels4ever

Chivito550 wrote: »

Something which has been missed in all of this, but did anybody see the field in the men's 1500m at Birmingham? The race Mo was supposed to run in. Absolutely muck for a DL meet. None of the best 1500 runners in the world were there. It was set up for Mo to win on home soil. Clean or dirty, I am fairly sick of the "Mo Show" at this stage.

If we had a double Olympic champ I'm sure we would have our own [insert stupid name] show too. Cant blame them for that its been a long time since they have had anyone at this level.

Chivito550

shels4ever wrote: »

If we had a double Olympic champ I'm sure we would have our own [insert stupid name] show too. Cant blame them for that its been a long time since they have had anyone at this level.

Getting in a bunch of B listers to race an event which is part of a Diamond League meet is not on IMO. The Belgians don't water down the 400m in Brussels for the Borlees. They race the best there is.

shels4ever

Chivito550 wrote: »

Getting in a bunch of B listers to race an event which is part of a Diamond League meet is not on IMO. The Belgians don't water down the 400m in Brussels for the Borlees. They race the best there is.

Wonder how budgets compare and what Mo asks, may not be their fault but his with his demands. Wouldn't get annoyed with the Mo should I just have no time or interest in him really. Apart from the current story of course.

Clearlier

Chivito550 wrote: »

Getting in a bunch of B listers to race an event which is part of a Diamond League meet is not on IMO. The Belgians don't water down the 400m in Brussels for the Borlees. They race the best there is.

Putting my slightly cynical hat on might that have something to do with the nationality of the best runners in their respective events? There's still not an awful lot of recognition for top African distance runners and no real contribution from that market to the sport financially whereas it's the opposite for sprinters.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Getting in a bunch of B listers to race an event which is part of a Diamond League meet is not on IMO. The Belgians don't water down the 400m in Brussels for the Borlees. They race the best there is.

The borlees haven't got the market appeal that Mo has. Like comparing Brazil football team to the Irish team. Ie. One of them can ask for what they like and get it.

Itziger

Chivito still has a point though. A crap field for a Diamond League meet and a 'star' distance shouldn't really be happening. (I don't know what the the field was like, so I'm trusting his reading of that).

Chivito550

average_runner wrote: »

The borlees haven't got the market appeal that Mo has. Like comparing Brazil football team to the Irish team. Ie. One of them can ask for what they like and get it.

Surely the Borlees would have a bigger appeal to the Belgian public than Farah though.

Notwork Error

Chivito550 wrote: »

Something which has been missed in all of this, but did anybody see the field in the men's 1500m at Birmingham? The race Mo was supposed to run in. Absolutely muck for a DL meet. None of the best 1500 runners in the world were there. It was set up for Mo to win on home soil. Clean or dirty, I am fairly sick of the "Mo Show" at this stage.

Maybe because the 1500m in Birmingham wasn't an official diamond league scoring event and the mile in Oslo is this week. I'd highly doubt Silas Kiplagat, Asbel Kiprop and co are going to go out and trash themselves in a race with no value in an already heavy period of racing to pick up 5 grand and only a few days before a major meet.

Not every race at the diamond league is a scoring event.

Chivito550

Notwork Error wrote: »

Maybe because the 1500m in Birmingham wasn't an official diamond league scoring event and the mile in Oslo is this week. I'd highly doubt Silas Kiplagat, Asbel Kiprop and co are going to go out and trash themselves in a race with no value in an already heavy period of racing to pick up 5 grand and only a few days before a major meet.

Not every race at the diamond league is a scoring event.

That's fair enough. Just seems like every time Mo runs in GB it's against astonishingly weak fields.

average_runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Surely the Borlees would have a bigger appeal to the Belgian public than Farah though.

But to the wider audience? But I do agree with u that's it's not on. I prefer to see a proper race than this half arse race.

Loving the mens 400m this year. Think it's James, can he keep it going?

ThisRegard

average_runner wrote: »

The borlees haven't got the market appeal that Mo has.

His appeal is only to those who follow him in the UK, I don't think he has much more appeal outside of that.

MrMacPhisto

ThisRegard wrote: »

His appeal is only to those who follow him in the UK, I don't think he has much more appeal outside of that.

Double Olympic champion. I'm not from the UK. I'm interested

walshb

Mo's appeal is a little more reaching than Britain.

ThisRegard

MrMacPhisto wrote: »

Double Olympic champion. I'm not from the UK. I'm interested

walshb wrote: »

Mo's appeal is a little more reaching than Britain.

In fairness I didn't say he had no appeal outside of Britain, I said he didn't have much. Ask people outside of those with an interest in watching Athletics and you won't get much of a response.

shels4ever

ThisRegard wrote: »

In fairness I didn't say he had no appeal outside of Britain, I said he didn't have much. Ask people outside of those with an interest in watching Athletics and you won't get much of a response.

Yes but how many extra world wide will tune in to watch the world 5k 10k this year because of him, (even if your hoping he loses) its a form of appeal if not a positive one .

clear thinking

Mo got assurances from Salazar that he didn't coach Mary Decker.

BBC & Guardian today: Salazar coached Mary Decker.

BBC & Guardian today: Printed pictures and quotes and the full articles from Runners World in 1996, pictures running with the drug cheat, quotes saying he was her coach and full articles with lots more.

The guy is a liar and cheat going on the evidence presented and it's pretty damning. The recurring themes in the documentary and from more recent stories and other athletes seem to be testosterone, asthma and exploiting other easy to get prescription PEDs, perhaps explaining how the claims that they didn't cheat are justified in their own minds.

EPO has not been openly thrown at him bar the mirco-dosing implication.

It will be interesting to see if Mo quits now.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33096367

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/12/ed-warner-uk-athletics-alberto-salazar