Salazar, revisited

The reaction has been swift and mostly a finger-wagging “justice has been done” tone with regard to Alberto Salazar’s four-year ban from the sport. In no way am I defending Salazar or even rooting for him (or, for that matter, rooting against him). But in reading multiple stories about this, while it seems Salazar is guilty of questionable judgment and faulty ethics, it’s not certain that his “crimes” warrant such a stiff punishment. His old marathon nemesis, Bill Rodgers, noted in a New York Times article that the case was “thin” against him, which prompted the cynical writer to note that he case was actually more than 100 pages. That notwithstanding, this passage about the ban announcement with regard to Salazar (he being the “Respondent”) makes me think that he may have a chance in his appeal. Read it and you be the judge.

“The Panel notes that the Respondent does not appear to have been motivated by any bad intention to commit the violations the Panel found. In fact, the Panel was struck by the amount of care generally taken by Respondent to ensure that whatever new technique or method or substance he was going to try was lawful under the World Anti-Doping Code, with USADA’s witness characterizing him as the coach they heard from the most with respect to trying to ensure that he was complying with his obligations. The Panel has taken pains to note that Respondent made unintentional mistakes that violated the rules, apparently motivated by his desire to provide the very best results and training for athletes under his care. Unfortunately, that desire clouded his judgment in some instances, when his usual focus on the rules appears to have lapsed. The Panel is required to apply the relevant law, the World Anti-Doping Code and its positive law enactments in the rules of international sports federations, in discharging its duty, and here that required the Panel to find the violations it did.”