Kara Goucher running the Great North Run

not necessarily. Some people just like to name drop - makes them feel better about themselves. I do, however, find it a tad 'illogical' to claim that someone is clean simply because they say they are, and are nice to you.

Nice try. She started with Salazar in 2004. But why quibble with important facts if they get in the way of your argument, right?

How is someone name-dropping if they don't identify themselves? You've made no point whatsoever.

whatever...my point is that you can't determine someone is clean simply because they say they are, and are nice to you...any more than you can determine they are dirty if they defend drugs and are jerks. So, the person who did this post has no point whatsoever...let's just drop it.

orbitboy wrote:

One positve (sic) sample, and one NEGATIVE, which negated the positive. But hey, why pay attention to facts when trying to prove your point point? You pimply faced high-schoolers are going to have to come up with better evidence if you want to convict some of these guys. You have every right to be suspicious of Lagat. Fine. But there's not enough evidence to convict him. Not for a reasonable adult, anyway. You can't convict a guy on suspicion alone.

So are you saying that you believe in false positives? WHY??

Except that your chronology is all off. The Gouchers moved to Oregon and switched to Salazar soon after the 2004 OT, not in 2005 or 2006.

To inject their POV into the conversation as somehow relevant, even more relevant than anyone else's, and an end to the debate. He's claiming to KNOW that the Gouchers would never use drugs (well, except for depression and hyperthyroidism, apparently) to a degree that would trump anyone else's suspicions and therefore everyone who is suspicious should just take his word for it. Doesn't matter who he is, he wants the ego-stroke of being their righteous champion on this board.

clarify wrote:

How is someone name-dropping if they don't identify themselves? You've made no point whatsoever.

lay it out for us wrote:

So are you saying that you believe in false positives? WHY??

There's not enough evidence to convict him. Not for a reasonable adult, anyway. You can't convict a guy on suspicion alone.

You dodged the questions. Why? Nobody here could "convict" him, nor could anyone here "sentence" him. This is the court of public opinion, not a court of law. On the other hand, you appear to be insisting that he be cleared of suspicion.

lay it out for us wrote:

So are you saying that you believe in false positives? WHY??

orbitboy wrote:

There's not enough evidence to convict him. Not for a reasonable adult, anyway. You can't convict a guy on suspicion alone.

I thought that this was a thread about Kara Goucher's half marathon debut. Instead it's turned into the usual boring insinuations about Salazar and his athletes.

That's the bed that the Gouchers have chosen to make, the grave they've dug, the deal they both willingly made. Maybe their parents never advised them to be careful of the company they keep?

princples work wrote:

On the other hand, Adam and Kara Goucher would never take illicit, performance-enhancing drugs. I've known them for years and that is the one thing they stand for is no to drugs. Adam is completely righteous in that regard and so is Kara. when in PDX I had them over to dinner and they raged against drug users for an hour to Kathy Newberry's sister. When I mentioned someone was calling the Gouchers out for drugs she scoffed at the notion.

So the Gouchers have an altitude tent? Check. Anti-gravity treadmill? Check. Team of coaches, physical therapists, etc.? Check. Ideal soft-surface training evironment catered to their maximal performance? Check. All of Nike's built-in material advantages? Check.

It is those who rage against drugs who believe they are required for success.

And it is those who believe they are required for success who take them. Radcliffe did the same thing and DD.

Thanks for your post. You have opened my eyes about the Gouchers and what they are doing.

1500M

2006 4:05.14

2006 "Hello Coach Salazar"

2005 4:12.31

2004 4:16.48

2003 4:11.17

2000 4:12.15

3000M

2007 8:34.99

2006 8:41.42

2006 Hello "thyroid medication"

2004 9:14.77

2000 8:54.82

5000M

2007 14:55.02

2006 15:08.13

2006 Hello "thyroid medication"

2005 15:17.55

2003 15:42.97

2001 15:41.77

2000 15:28.78

10000M

2007 32:02 - Bronze WC

2006 31:17.12

2006 Hello "thyroid medication"

10 Kilometres

2006 32:46

thank you, Clarifier. Couldn't have said it better myself.

truth and honesty wrote:

It is those who rage against drugs who believe they are required for success.

And it is those who believe they are required for success who take them. Radcliffe did the same thing and DD.

Thanks for your post. You have opened my eyes about the Gouchers and what they are doing.

Good point. I've always wondered why they 'rage' against doping and dopers to a captive audience (reporters, friends and confidants) but hold their proverbial tongues in terms of much greater scope. Notice now that Radcliffe doesn't have jack to say about dopers anymore, despite her little publicity stunt in Edmonton. They don't make anti-doping statements (verbally or in wearing some symbol of protest) at their competitions, where the stand would garner much greater notice. I've noticed that they haven't even done something as simple as endorsing the Athletes Against Doping. I might have an easier time believing their words if their actions matched them more closely.

keep tilting at windmills fellas.

lay it out for us wrote:

You dodged the questions. Why? Nobody here could "convict" him, nor could anyone here "sentence" him. This is the court of public opinion, not a court of law. On the other hand, you appear to be insisting that he be cleared of suspicion.

lay it out for us wrote:

So are you saying that you believe in false positives? WHY??

orbitboy wrote:

There's not enough evidence to convict him. Not for a reasonable adult, anyway. You can't convict a guy on suspicion alone.

Excuse me, but I thought I said you have every right to be suspicious.... Hey, I did!!

But to very very many people who post on this board, suspicion (or guilt by association) = guilt. Even if it's just the court of pblic opinion, you're still rendering judgment without enough evidence. It's all very childish. I hope y'all grow up and eventually have enough life experiences to realize how narrow-minded you're being.

Your accusations are nothing more than catty, sour grapes gossip. You're a bunch of jealous girls.

Fine, fine, but who are you to determine just what constitutes "enough evidence"?? In the court of public opinion there is no established standard, yet here you are presuming to set that standard for everyone else. Talk about childish and, oh yeah, narrow-minded.

Anyway, you STILL CONTINUE to DODGE the questions: So are you saying that you believe in false positives? If so, WHY??

lay it out for us wrote:

Fine, fine, but who are you to determine just what constitutes "enough evidence"?? In the court of public opinion there is no established standard, yet here you are presuming to set that standard for everyone else. Talk about childish and, oh yeah, narrow-minded.

Anyway, you STILL CONTINUE to DODGE the questions: So are you saying that you believe in false positives? If so, WHY??

I believe in athletes who have been banned or suspended by some sort of official governing body that actually has some authority in the matter. If they're cool with the IAAF and USATF, they are cool with me. It's not narrow-minded, it's playing by the rule of law. People here are equating Kara Goucher with Regina Jacobs and Mary Slaney, and it's not fair.

What I don't believe in is idle, anonymous internt gossip and innuendo. Do you?