Hey Angry Willy - I noticed your comments on Stray Gundersen a few days ago. Any insight on his connection to Liza Galvan-Hunter? I heard she participated in one of his altitude studies awhile back. Small world.
Hey Angry Willy - I noticed your comments on Stray Gundersen a few days ago. Any insight on his connection to Liza Galvan-Hunter? I heard she participated in one of his altitude studies awhile back. Small world.
Good for you--I'm this low life and that. Enlightening. I only hope you're a high schooler who will learn and grow up. As to anything substantive in what you say, in a certain fashion I can't deny or support "a single fact in the story"--I'm not investigating it. However, Epstein supposedly is. He quotes Areson as if she's contributing something substantive to the "case against" Salazar. Any investigative reporter worth his/her salt would never have quoted her unless he had first determined whether her comments had any probative value by asking just the sort of questions I asked, that he apparently did not ask, for if he had, he would have added her responses to the body of the article. Another poster tried to excuse Epstein by stating that he responded so quickly. Well, that's the problem, isn't it? He responded quickly. Jere Longman who writes for the New York Times would never violate journalistic protocol in the way that Epstein has, because Longman, qua investigative reporter, would be interested in revealing the facts of a situation, and not in taking sides. Alas, we seem to have entered an age in which journalism looks like the nonsense that MSNBC/Fox News propagate.
The Last Strawman wrote:
Montesquieu wrote:this is dreadful journalism, and it would receive a poor grade in any journalism class.
I'm sure that David Epstein would cringe at the assessment of his skills by a clueless clown who would sooner face a firing squad than reality.
Montesquieu wrote:
Epstein is writing as an advocate partially masquerading as a journalist.
I love how you claim not to be distinctly on Salazar's side in this issue, then post childish bits of whining like this one in which you're unable to keep your true colors hidden.
You can't dispute a single fact in the story, so instead you claim that not ENOUGH facts were provided. A pathetic, groveling little Gollum-like creature, you are, yesssssss.
No. No. Just, no. You don't know anything about journalism.
Then why don't you enlighten us?
I've read through everything pretty closely. I've also followed Vern Gambetta and Steve Magness closely for the past few years. I've personally met Kara Goucher. I've never heard a good thing regarding Alberto Salazar from any of the above parties. They've repeatedly hinted at exactly what they (Kara and Steve) came forward with, NOP was doing things that were definitely in the grey area of the sport and not in the athletes best interests.
I think this has twisted in looking for something that's blatantly illegal, from the spirit of the allegations that the Nike Oregon Project is operating under the assumption that to beat the best, you need to be doing everything LEGALLY possible. It's a philosophical argument that both Fleshman, Gambetta, and Magness have touched on. While Alberto is convinced that everything he's done is LEGAL from a program standpoint (we certainly have reason to question the Rupp testosterone evidence and the androgel accusations), even if it is LEGAL to use thyroid medication, is it in the spirit of the sport to be diagnosing athletes for symptoms of over training, sleeping in altitude tents, etc, so they can train even harder?
It's clear Alberto is ridiculously competitive. And he'll do anything that is justifiable in his mind to compete with the best in the world. He's justified this, he's now discrediting those who disagree under the premonition that what he's doing is LEGAL. Sure, it might be and probably is, but is that how you want to win? Alberto also has a background in experimenting with pharmaceuticals (see his struggle at the end of his career and possibly with Decker), so he has the knowledge to be dangerous.
The person I'd like to hear more from is Gambetta. He was there 6 months, he's very well respected by US Track and Field, and he's hinted that he did not like what he saw going on and got out of there ASAP. He's also maintained a friendship with Magness, so I believe he trusts Steve.
The other question I have about NOP is, wasn't it founded on the premise of helping American athletes compete for Olympic medals? Why is Cam Levins, Mo Farah, and Osako training with them? They don't represent USA, why are they part of the group?
Epstein had a great opportunity here to legitimately write a rebuttal to Alberto's letter, but instead chose to completely blow it by taking Alberto's statements completely out of context and omitting all of the redeeming qualities in his letter.
It sounds like Epstein's primary source for this letter was reading the LetsRun message boards. Disappointed.
Yes, please do.
Oh really? wrote:
sanchobaile wrote:No. No. Just, no. You don't know anything about journalism.
Then why don't you enlighten us?
It's not Epstein's responsibility to write a novel about every detail here. If he wants to follow up with something more in-depth about Jackie Areson, he can do that, but that's not essential right now. He has 17 sources, surely well more than that on background, backing up his story. He's no amateur. So he laid out what he could nail down, surely leaving lots of juicy material on the cutting room floor that he couldn't corroborate, and, as I said repeatedly to the dementors on this message board, presented all of it piece by piece to Salazar and Rupp for their rebuttal. They had none for SIX WEEKS, by my count. Epstein said they had 27 days before the story was published, and it has been out for a couple more weeks.
Granted, how do you prove innocence? It's a tough spot for Alberto, and when he posted his rebuttal yesterday, I was honestly impressed. I have no dog in this fight except finding the truth, and Alberto's response appeared to be well substantiated. It certainly made me question Epstein's original report, though I would never buy Alberto and Galen's statements that Epstein is an irresponsible journalist spreading lies. If that were true, this would be bigger than Jayson Blair, bigger than Stephen Glass. It's next to impossible.
But Epstein's response shows that Alberto's response had more holes in it than the Titanic. An absolute shell game, a PR campaign to distract and distort. That was the point of Epstein's response -- to expose those holes and contradictions. Not to bring out new allegations and to detail whatever Jackie Areson had to say. Sure, he could have expounded more, but if that's what you're focusing on, you're missing the point.
--an actual journalist (but of course the morons on this site are still smarter than me and Rojo)
xenonscreams wrote:
Epstein had a great opportunity here to legitimately write a rebuttal to Alberto's letter, but instead chose to completely blow it by taking Alberto's statements completely out of context and omitting all of the redeeming qualities in his letter.
It sounds like Epstein's primary source for this letter was reading the LetsRun message boards. Disappointed.
He acknowledges the "redeeming qualities" but it's his job to expose the holes. Again, if you don't get that, you're missing the point. And you didn't read it very carefully if you think his primary source is LetsRun.
He pretty much lost all credibility when he tried to claim albuterol could be a PED, especially since it's totally legal for non-asthmatics if they want to enhance "muscle performance" too, because that's totally going to help with long-distance running...
Ay, but there's the rub rojo: what you are saying is not supported by the record. Re-read what you quoted back to me. Nowhere does it specify when Kara says she received the Cytomel. She does NOT say she got it before Boston. She only makes a vague statement that Salazar complained about her weight before Boston and then there is a vague statement that Rupp had some Cytomel as well. She is NOT on the record saying that Rupp or Salazar gave her Cytomel at that time. The Cytomel mysteriously appears at some point, but she has not said when.
If we are really interested in the truth of what happened then we must ask tough questions to BOTH SIDES. Right now Salazar has emails that seem to contradict Kara's statements about Boston. I say "seem" because Kara is not really specifically on the record about anything. Let's get her on the record with some actual dates and times.
While we're at it let's ask Adam to clarify his statement about the doctor who admonished Salazar. Who was that doctor? When did this happen? The Propublica piece seems to indicate that this doctor is her endocrinologist Dr Brown, but Alberto has a signed statement from him directly disputing Adam's claim. Why is that?
xenonscreams wrote:
He pretty much lost all credibility when he tried to claim albuterol could be a PED, especially since it's totally legal for non-asthmatics if they want to enhance "muscle performance" too, because that's totally going to help with long-distance running...
What's your degree in again? And what studies on albuterol have you conducted? Epstein literally linked a peer reviewed study on pubmed which states in the abstract "with persons administered albuterol yielding superior values."
I wasn't very impressed with the ProPublica initial response. I agree we have to give them more time to respond since it took Salazar a month to respond. From my perspective though we have a ProPublica original article and response that is almost entirely based on their interviews, a picture of a graph with concerning notations and a pill bottle. Salazar's response has detailed documentation and evidence to support his claims. Are we to believe in this email day and age that Kara Goucher doesn't have any contemporaneous emails regarding her allegations? Steve Magness never emailed anyone regarding his concerns and struggles? There's a lot of smoke here and so there still may be fire but until ProPublica releases something that has some evidence other than anonymous sources and accusations, I'm going to go with the evidence.
To all the "spirit of the sport" guys: How do you arrive at the idea that Salazar is "not acting in their best interest"? Rupp has an Olympic silver. Farah Olympic and WC Gold. Goucher WC Bronze and great improvement in the marathon. Centro WC silver and bronze. Ritz ran an American record under Salazar.
Those results, to me, make it seem like he is working in their best interests. Sure, you could say that it is not all selfless, but that is not a reason to disregard his commitment to his athletes.
I also have to take issue with people claiming that NOP is built on a win-at-all-cost philosophy. They seem to have a very clear line in the sand in terms of what is allowable, and what they will not push the envelope on.
"Are people trolling/gaslighting with this stuff? I can't understand ho someone can find that litigated BS as evidence for epstein's camp"
Well, an unregistered nic crying about something that is not pro-NOP. The funds from Salazar and Farah will dry up soon. All of you PR drones will disappear to work on political endeavors where more pliable sheep can be found.
Mrr82 wrote:
Idiot of the week? You can't figure out why it was not dead last night compared to other nights?? Oh, and you think it's more reasonable someone is posting in the early AM across the pond then maybe someone posting on the west coast???
Moran, Dolt. You must be a blue collar worker bee. White collar people will work whatever hours are necessary to do a job. That includes working a night shift to work on something in another part of the world. If I work on a project with someone who is based in India, or Australia, --which I have done-- I work on their shift time.
Where did you get that idea? Epstein came out with Lauren Fleshman's stuff before Alberto's response. He could have waited if he was trying to play gotcha.
Did you miss the sentence before from Epstein, "Emails from Salazar, provided by Magness, express “complete confidence” in him just one month earlier.
So it is not just an HR letter. Epstein claims he has a letter where Salazar expressed "complete confidence" in Magness 1 month before they part ways.
Salazar portrayed Magness as an incompetent employee.
From the article: "In his response, Salazar said that he never criticized Goucher’s weight and that Brown, Goucher’s endocrinologist, is the one who directed him to give Cytomel to Goucher at the world championships in Daegu, South Korea, in August 2011. The ProPublica and BBC accounts referred to an instance earlier in 2011, in March, prior to the Boston Marathon. “His story is a different timeline,” Goucher told ProPublica. “He’s trying to use Daegu to cover up Boston.”
So she is saying March. Alberto is talking about much later.[/quote]
Regarding mutual termination letters/agreements, they are seldom if ever used when the employee resigns. If Magness resigned, he would have submitted a resignation letter.
An email, of which we haven't seen the content nor context in which it was presented, does not have much weight here. For example, "steve I'm fully confident in your ability as a sports scientist" would have no bearing whatsoever. Even if it was more robust that doesn't necessarily mean that much and doesn't contradict Salazar's version. In fact, a "mutual" termination letter by which both parties release any claims they might have against the other would be beneficial precisely if there was an email that could be construed by the employee as providing the basis for a wrongful termination suit.
If you haven't dealt with employment law as an employer, and all the hr compliance and legal costs and risks don't pretend that a "nice" email means much at all.
Btw, Salazar brought up plenty of facts that don't gibe with Magness' account of their parting, I noticed neither Epstein nor you addressed them. Got to love the quality of the witch hunt, re I mean the journalism - trying to get all of the story, right! ( or all of the story right)?
xenonscreams wrote:
He pretty much lost all credibility when he tried to claim albuterol could be a PED, especially since it's totally legal for non-asthmatics if they want to enhance "muscle performance" too, because that's totally going to help with long-distance running...
Totally...
1sided wrote:
From the article: "In his response, Salazar said that he never criticized Goucher’s weight and that Brown, Goucher’s endocrinologist, is the one who directed him to give Cytomel to Goucher at the world championships in Daegu, South Korea, in August 2011. The ProPublica and BBC accounts referred to an instance earlier in 2011, in March, prior to the Boston Marathon. “His story is a different timeline,” Goucher told ProPublica. “He’s trying to use Daegu to cover up Boston.”
So she is saying March. Alberto is talking about much later.
Sure, but what EXACTLY is she saying happened in March? That she received the Cytomel then....or just that Salazar was unhappy about her weight and mentioned that she might give Cytomel a shot?
So which does Kara say it is? Did she get the Cytomel in March/April (and if so from whom?) or was it August?
If it's the latter then all we have left of the Cytomel story is that mean old Salazar criticised her for her weight (which his contemporaneous emails seem to disprove) and suggested she take a prescription drug that her endocrinologist ended up putting her on anyway. Did Salazar actually give her pills in March/April or not?
This is the problem with this part of the Epstein piece. AlSal has provided documentary evidence -which I'm certainly willing to agree may not be the FULL story - but Kara and Epstein have given us nada to work with. I just want someone to ask her some specific questions. If she's got some supporting documents to support her case like AlSal does for his version of events then great, let's see them!
Exactly, and thanks for more clearly spelling out what I was trying to say in my full earlier post.
The facts are that Epstein's storyline is losing steam fast. He has "Foucher said" and nothing more so far. In his response, as opposed to giving specific detail (per the questions you suggest) and providing documentary evidence, he tries to mis-represent what Salazar stated and the the evidence Salazar provided. As if Salazar isn't entitled to argue his side, Epstein (the advocate?) seems NOT to want to investigate and discover or validate the truth but argue his position. Salazar's account of the Sept 2010-August 2011 was not challenged because Epstein doesn't even try to examine what he said or the supporting documents. Great journalism?!?