Steve Magness Issues Passionate Rebuttal To Alberto Salazar’s Open Letter

ryan foreman wrote:

Magness never showed any evidence of doping in the first place.

Huh. I guess you missed the photo of Galen's chart showing he was on testosterone meds.

Post it wrote:

There are no concrete accusations here.

At this point, there either needs to be some concrete accusations.

There was also no discussion of Godel's theorem. Isn't that shocking?

Oh wait -- it wasn't a discussion about higher mathematics, it was a statement designed to point out Salazar's lies.

As such, of course there were no "concrete accusations," other than accusing Salazar of not telling the truth (something that seems to suffuse Salazar with an almost sexual form of excitement).

ryan foreman wrote:

At this point, this back and forth is becoming very, very stupid.

Just think -- if this keeps up, soon enough, you may even be able to follow along!

He couldn't well write "I have to leave this doofus in charge for ten days and I hope he doesn't screw up to badly before I'm back. PS. Whatever you do, don't forward this letter to him, we gonna let him go soon and I want him to leave on a positive note" could he? ;-)

What in the world is Magness writing? Magness what's the proof????? Please show us. This is getting old.

Really? Guess you know the rumor is Alberto tried to cross that line with Kara.

I guess you missed that Salazar responded to it in the original article. And that neither Epstein nor Magness had any rebuttal to Salazar's response except to defend Magness that he was telling the truth.

SelectiveMemoryLoss wrote:

ryan foreman wrote:

Magness never showed any evidence of doping in the first place.

Huh. I guess you missed the photo of Galen's chart showing he was on testosterone meds.

About the word "testosterone" scribbled on an old medical document. I work in the medical field and most of you have no idea how distorted/diluted facts quickly gets over time. Say you have to go to an ER because you're dizzy, the doctor has to rule everything out so he asks if you've ever had psychiatric help, you respond "well, I was sent to a counsellor once in high school after a fight, but it was nothing really, just that once". The line in your journal becomes "saw a counsellor in high school" because the next patient is already waiting. Two years later you're back at the same ER for whatever reason, you're not even asked the question but after you've left the new line in your anamnesis, based on solely on the doctor reading the previous, becomes "some sort of psychiatric problems while in high school". After a third ten minut visit for someting completely unrelated you're down to "previous psychiatric disorder, unspecified" without even knowing about it yourself.

Absolutely nothing new here. Like the Epstein response, it may be 'passionate' but it's a weak, factless response offering no evidence of any wrongdoing. This is all looking very, very silly now. The idea that Epstein or anyone else was holding back any kind of bombshell is laughable if this is the kind of garbage that they are having to resort to.

SelectiveMemoryLoss wrote:

ryan foreman wrote:

Magness never showed any evidence of doping in the first place.

Huh. I guess you missed the photo of Galen's chart showing he was on testosterone meds.

What I still don't understand is, here you have a coach in Magness who is worried enough to walk into a stairwell to take a photo of a chart, wait 3 years, and then unleash it on the world. But that's it?

In his 2 years of 'growing concern' and 'ethical moments of self reflection' he's not gathering anything else? He literally takes a single photograph of a chart and absolutely nothing else? Everything else, instead, is hearsay / recollection / and memory? You have go to be kidding me.

No photos of the drugs in the book? Nothing else at all? Huh?

Am I missing something here? How does one go from 'I should take photos of this because this is bad and maybe one day I will need it' to NEVER doing it again for anything else?

He brought a water pistol to a gun fight.

Discrepancy Galore wrote:

That said - the main concern and uptapped part of the story now is that on the sideroad to the main story it has been confirmed that SM actually more or less did stalk a young female runner at NOP into having a relationship with him (whether or not that short relationsship actually started before or after the date he left is besides the point).

If I were a female runner under his tutelage in Houston (or the parent of a female runner there) I'd be very concerned knowing that has been part of his MO. Methinks reporters down there should go talk to them about whether or not they feel comfortable having such a guy on as coach!

A "young female runner"? Areson was born in 1988, so Magness is only three years her senior. They both were in their mid-20s when they started their relationship, according to what Epstein wrote.

And there's absolutely no evidence that he "stalked" her. Here's a news flash: when men and women the same age work together closely, they often develop feelings for one another. If this strikes you as sinister, you probably don't know very much about grownup relationships.

and

Let me explain somethint at 2:49 am before I go to bed. It seems so obvious now but when I think back 3-4 years ago to 2012 when I first heard about all of this stuff, it was a little hard for me to understand.

Yes you are right. Magness and no one in the world (at least who has spoken to the media) has proof that Salazar crossed that line in terms of a blatant doping violation (like EPO).'

Magness, Goucher, USADA, Epstein, etc don't have proof that Salazar doped Rupp like that. If anyone had proof to that degree, we'd already have a conviction.

They never said they did have proof.

They have strong suspicions based on his other behavior. Or they think all of his gray line stuff added together is a violation or at a mininum not what sports should be.

It's really very simple.

Salazar is clearly someone looking for a non training edge in running - whether that's drugs (definitely legal, perhaps illegal), treadmills, altitude tents, at all times. We know he'll use any legal means to win (masks, changing the location of races at the last minute, getting people DQd for non-infractions, etc).

He's got unlimited resources. He always has androgel with him. He tested drugs on his own son and knows androgel will never result in a positive test. He was buddy buddy with Lance when it was long obvious to anyone with a brain Lance had to be dirty.

Does he cross that line at night when no one is htere?

That's why there is an endless debate on here. Many people think yes (and went to WADA) but some say no.

It upset me 3 years ago when people didn't have proof. I remember talking to Steve in 2012. I said, "How do you not know? But Rupp is walled off. This isn't US Postal.

Magness doesn't have proof it occurred. He never said he had proof. But he's got a lot of other things that make him think, "LEt's use common sense here."

He has the nike lab report. He was getting pills in hollowed out books. He has doping of his own son. That's not normal activity for a 25 year old to find at the work place.

The fact that he and 15 others have added it up all together and gone USADA makes this a real story. Do you really think all of them are just making shit up for kicks and giggles? As the 2nd poster said in this thread, what do they gain by making theses allegations. Their life becomes a living hell as people like you rip them to shreds.

Maybe I'm not making sense as somehow it's taken me 25 minutes to type this post.

Here's an edited version of what some other dude said in another thread. I liked his logic but his crap was over the top so I'm editing some stuff out.

Discrepancy Galore wrote:

That said - the main concern and uptapped part of the story now is that on the sideroad to the main story it has been confirmed that SM actually more or less did stalk a young female runner at NOP into having a relationship with him (whether or not that short relationsship actually started before or after the date he left is besides the point).

If I were a female runner under his tutelage in Houston (or the parent of a female runner there) I'd be very concerned knowing that has been part of his MO. Methinks reporters down there should go talk to them about whether or not they feel comfortable having such a guy on as coach!

1. Hi Lierbag. How's your obsessive sex life-stalking of Magness going today?

2. Magness & Areson are both in the same age group. You're being an obnoxious moralizing prude about two consenting adults, and you're being dishonest by falsely implying that she was underage as opposed to a post-college 20 something just like he was.

Hey Rojo,

Thanks for the response. Agreed, if there was proof, maybe we'd see a conviction, but lack of proof doesn't mean innocence. But let's at least agree on this: There are allegations based on provable facts (proof), allegations that aren't provable (for example I remember scores of cyclist saying they had seen Lance Armstrong dope, or even doped with him, but no proof of this), and then there are strong suspicions. Certainly there is no proof (there wasn't much with Lance, but he turned out guilty), but my point is that there aren't even specific allegations. There are just suspicions surrounded by a cloud of (provable, verified) bizarre situations. Maybe specific allegations or even proof are coming, but I haven't seen them yet.

Lets just call it "courted" instead of stalked then, OK? BTW, I didn't know that because it was only a three year difference and such feelings are normal that made it OK to violate the responsibilities of your job (Salazar writes that the other females in the group weren't too happy about their coach obviously favored one particular athlete). Where's you age difference limit? 5? 10? 15? 25? If your daughter was courted and favored by a substitute teacher three years her senior - would that make it OK to you or the other students in her class?

Well said rojo.

Every athlete is looking for the legal edge. For those that have never been close you most likely won't understand.

The attacks on Steve seemed comical. Salazar sunk to a new depth and was truly clutching at straws.

Salazar is just an over the top coach who is looking for any advantage that he can to make up for when his athletes compete against those that are completely genetically gifted.

"Passion" is not a substitute for evidence. Back-and-forth between NOP, BBC/ProPub, and Magness will never resolve a thing. It's already almost become a kindergarten playground argument.

He took his shot, 2 or 3 years ago, with USADA and he didn't get what he wanted. So he found someone who passes himself off as an ivestigative journalist and tried again.

I'd advise Salazar to make no further comments. My mama told me that you can't ever win an argument with an idiot. If USADA/WADA/USATF/IAAF can't find enough to take any action, and apparently they haven't after 2 or 3 years, then Magness will have shot his wad and come up with nothing but blanks.

Is anyone criticizing Magness for failing to respond to the accusations of him getting too close to a female runner? Like, perhaps the one who left NOP at about the same time he did and moved to Houston with him?

butstill wrote:

What I still don't understand is, here you have a coach in Magness who is worried enough to walk into a stairwell to take a photo of a chart, wait 3 years, and then unleash it on the world. But that's it?[Quote]

How do you know he sat on it for 3 years? Epstein said he & the Gouchers filed a complaint against Alberto with Usada back in 2012. Presumably that complaint included the chart, no? If anything that would mean Usada sat on it, not Magness. And that could be another scandal onto itself showing that Usada is too close to Alberto or Nike, or that they don't take whistleblowing seriously enough.

[Quote]

No photos of the drugs in the book? Nothing else at all? Huh?

How do you know he doesn't have more photos to release? And what would a photo of the book prove at this point anyway, since Alberto already admitted the book incident actually happened?

I suppose this is how you imagine the conversation should have gone:

"Hey Galen, a package just arrived from Alberto. It's a book. I guess he thought you needed something to read on the airplane...wait a minute, that's not a book at all. There's a compartment inside with pills! That's kind of weird. By the way, can you hold it up for me for just a second so I can snap a photo of it with my phone for my collection of keepsake Track & Field memories?"

Discrepancy Galore wrote:

Lets just call it "courted" instead of stalked then, OK? BTW, I didn't know that because it was only a three year difference and such feelings are normal that made it OK to violate the responsibilities of your job (Salazar writes that the other females in the group weren't too happy about their coach obviously favored one particular athlete). Where's you age difference limit? 5? 10? 15? 25? If your daughter was courted and favored by a substitute teacher three years her senior - would that make it OK to you or the other students in her class?

Dude, WTF century are you even living in? "Courting"? Kinda like Alberto carrying on about them "doting" together or whatever it was. Who even uses that language? This isn't Victorian England. It isn't an effing Jane Austen novel.

Next you're gonna tell us that Jackie bared too much ankle, and Steve "pined for her affection" in poetic verse on a Sunday afternoon carriage ride through the meadows. Ridiculous prude.