His statement says nothing; he qualifies every comment that begins strongly and compliments both sides while hinting at the obvious fact - someone is lying. It's just gutless, PR drivel.
He was probably wearing a livestrong wristband during the interview.
Exactly, gotta make sure RunGum doesn't leave a bad taste in certain people's mouths.
Damn nephew!!!
Wordsmith extraordinaire.
Phil Knight wrote:
I don't agree with his assessment of Alberto's rebuttal, but that was the best interview I've seen on the subject.
+1
Nick has crystalized the "Mad Scientist" defense in a way that Salazar's 12000 words did not.
Mr. Symmonds obviously has a future outside of running - he could try law school.
MadScientist? wrote:
Nick has crystalized the "Mad Scientist" defense in a way that Salazar's 12000 words did not.
Mr. Symmonds obviously has a future outside of running - he could try law school.
Coaching. That is what Symmonds is looking for now.
Nick says its professional runners job to have an opinion on this but fails to see that Nike athletes have something to lose by publicly saying some other than PC fluff
An excellent point by Symmonds ...
\"I\'m also disappointed from the other pros who have no comment on this. This is your job, this is your career, I respect LetsRun for always asking the tough questions and I always say I\'ll never say no comment because this is our job to have a comment on this stuff.\"
I think Nick presented himself very well, speaking extemporaneously like he did right after a race. He is a smart likeable guy.However, in no way did he crystalize the "mad scientist" defense. This whole line of thinking "mad scientist" or "paranoid and covering all the bases" is pretty flimsy and leaves a pretty bad stench. You really have to be drinking the Koolaid to buy that story.
MadScientist? wrote:
Nick has crystalized the "Mad Scientist" defense in a way that Salazar's 12000 words did not.
Mr. Symmonds obviously has a future outside of running - he could try law school.
LetsRun.com wrote:
And he thanked LRC for asking the tough question and also said, "I respect LetsRun for always asking the tough questions"
I don't know who is right, we haven't seen all the evidence I don't think yet, but I know this process is great for this sport. Thanks for asking the tough questions."
= "I'm KYA so please don't come after me."
No, Nick is in agreement with others...he wasn't the first person to be glad that people came forward as the "idea" of bringing it all out has been around for a long time.I believe he's friends with the Gouchers, and both parties will do anything to be in the news and compliment each other in the process...the buddy buddy system.Nick played both sides of the field and whoever can't see that is blind as a bat.I am guessing that you two, the Brojos, are friends with Nick as well based on the response above.Glad that I was born with a mind to easily see thru b.s. as that's all this is. Where was Nick years ago? Did he just hear about this after Steve and others came out? Why didn't he voice his opinion then? First time that he suspected anything was in the last month? Opportunist with a capital O, just like Kara and Adam fearing the sun is setting and not going to rise again for their careers.
wejo wrote:
CYA wrote:Does Symmonds realize a PR prepared most of Salazar's manifesto? Probably not.
Has any athlete questioned the hidden shipment of drugs yet? Those drugs are coming for somewhere, and people like Dr. Brown has stated it wasn't from him. Who's drug prescription(s) where they? This a major concern that seems swept under the rug by most people.
Nick had tweeted about hollowed out books so I presume he knows about the hidden drugs.
I did not ask Symmonds if he had read the response to Alberto's response but Symmonds did indicate he thought more info would come out.
He did mention a legal team so that isn't all that different than a PR firm.
He had an open mind on the subject matter if you look at his comments in general and wants the full truth to come out. I think that is what most people want.
I agree with Nick that this whole thing is good for the sport and commend people for coming forward. Transparency is key for fair and ethical sport.
While the image of a crazy and paranoid competitive Salazar makes for great story, and creates a lot of fodder for Lets Run posters, I wish more attention could be directed to Nike, the money behind the madness, especially in terms of transparency, and long term and lasting changes.
Every time I click on certain other running sites, I find Mo Farah and the sculpted Canadian 800 woman runner staring at me in roid-rage. Their whole attitude in those ads screams illegal drug use. If we could just get Nike to put pressure on all their athletes to compete cleanly, or suggest that otherwise "your brand is going to be linked with balding and shrinking testicles for men, and hairy faces and deep voices for women" then I think there might actually be some good to come out of the sensational "he said/he and she said" story.
I know running is only a small part of the corporation's business, but it still is important to the business's athletic image, and if I was a Nike executive, I'd sure like that corporation to be associated with purity rather than a "grey area."
Prevy Track Guy wrote:
All Ducky wrote:Remember that Symmonds is a duck. He wants his fellow alumni to provide track thrills in future.
Ummm, no he's a Bearcat (whatever that is)
It's closely related to manbearpig.
The Oregon Project is not owned by Nike. It is owned by Salazar. Salazar gets X amount of money from Nike, and whatever he can sell on his nikeoregonproject.com website, and uses how "he" decides. Nike has the individual athletes under contract. It is run this way so that Nike can better manage liability. The person with the greatest liability exposure risk is Salazar.
janitor wrote:
While the image of a crazy and paranoid competitive Salazar makes for great story, and creates a lot of fodder for Lets Run posters, I wish more attention could be directed to Nike, the money behind the madness, especially in terms of transparency, and long term and lasting changes.
Every time I click on certain other running sites, I find Mo Farah and the sculpted Canadian 800 woman runner staring at me in roid-rage. Their whole attitude in those ads screams illegal drug use. If we could just get Nike to put pressure on all their athletes to compete cleanly, or suggest that otherwise "your brand is going to be linked with balding and shrinking testicles for men, and hairy faces and deep voices for women" then I think there might actually be some good to come out of the sensational "he said/he and she said" story.
I know running is only a small part of the corporation's business, but it still is important to the business's athletic image, and if I was a Nike executive, I'd sure like that corporation to be associated with purity rather than a "grey area."
Mo and M. bishop scream roid rage??? That's a new one.....letsrun users dropping to an even lower low of demonstrating intelligence and non-biased comments, that is beyond laughable, of all the things they've been accused of...roid rage is probably not one of them.
Their attitude in a picture screams drug use? Wth......
0/10
I appreciate that, and I'm sure they and all the shoe corporations have some sort of clause in their contracts with individuals severing ties over failed drug tests. Still, Nike (and other companies) could speak with a pretty powerful voice if they wanted to crack down on TUEs and the like.
Please buy my book, run in Brooks and chew my gum! Other than his overly self-promoting, good interview.
great concession by NS, akin to I owe my wife an apology for accusing or suggesting she was having an affair, unless some better evidence comes out!
Mo and M. bishop scream roid rage??? That's a new one.....letsrun users dropping to an even lower low of demonstrating intelligence and non-biased comments, that is beyond laughable, of all the things they've been accused of...roid rage is probably not one of them.
Their attitude in a picture screams drug use? Wth......[/quote]
Why the extreme reaction to my making fun of Nike ads? Are you a Nike ad executive? If so, you should reconsider the idea that looking angry and sullen equates with competitive toughness.
I still stand by my contention that if Nike would take a genuinely strong stand it would have a greater long term affect than "bringing down" Salazar, who after all, is just one person, albeit a very prominent and influential one.