"People have been threatened at this meet" - Kara Goucher

Wot a waste wrote:

In quieter reflective moments KMB is going to sit back and ask himself the question, why the feck did I waste hours on this thread?

I've asked myself this in noisier, absorptive moments already.

But I've shifted from posting long-winded explanations for why I think Salazar is not being truthful to asking for explanations of why the Gouchers' and Magness's detractors think those people are lying. I know I won't get an answer, but it saves a lot of time.

KMB wrote:

What are these "rational arguments" against Kara and Adam Goucher? Or if you prefer, in support of Salazar's defense against the Gouchers' alcugations?

Here we go again idiot.

1. Kara ran her best times while under Alberto, so she was doping if anyone was. But she says repeatedly she wasn't. So she contradict herself. You can tell when she is lieing

2. Steve Magness has not denied that he is a bad coach, he didn't sent anyone to NCAA since he coached there

3. Alberto proved he wrote Kara a prescription at the World Track Championships in Korea in 2012

I could keep going...

Also BTW you spelled "accusation" wrong, LOL.

"lieing"

Is those a new form of PR Drone-speak?

KMB--Embellishment, exaggeration, hyperbole, self-interested, special pleading, a desire to control a situation, defending oneself, dramatizing a situation--all of these lead to a false depiction of things without there being (intentional) lying. Furthermore, on a certain crude level we can distinguish between a statement of fact and a statement of explanation and/or meaning. Ultimately this distinction breaks down, by as a fast and ready expedient it is helpful. On the level of the statement of facts, there is a surprising amount of overlap between Salazar on the one hand, and Kara Goucher and Magness on the other. What tends to happen, however, in accusatory circumstances, is that the latter, statements of meaning or explanation, are conflated with the former, statements of fact. (I could give many examples if need be.) The virtue of Salazar's response is that he mostly keeps these two things distinct. The problem with Goucher's interview after the 5000 is that she rambles, which lends itself to embellishment, and conflates (perhaps) what she actually claims to have witnessed and what she inferred was taking place. About the embellishment, when she says (and I think this is exact), "I have been harassed since 2011; harassed." Do you really think she has? And she testified before USADA in 2013. Are we to believe she did not tell them all she knows such that she went back to them recently and is willing to give even more evidence (maybe this comes from others, though)? And then when asked about certain matters--she falls back on claims about what will come out in the future working with reputable news agencies. This might seem a bit duplicitous. Indeed, here she sounds like NFL and NBA players who after being implicated in some wrongdoing claim that when the facts come out in the future we'll see what really happened . . . but we know they never do. And here I want to underscore "sounds like," and why people might be skeptical (and I did check on line to spell it the American way rather than the English way lest I be accused of being the latter!) about her. Finally, if you do a search of all available threads on LetsRun looking for "Drama Queen," it's quite amazing how many hits over many years point in the direction of Kara Goucher. She does, you must admit, have a certain reputation.

KMB wrote:

Wot a waste wrote:

In quieter reflective moments KMB is going to sit back and ask himself the question, why the feck did I waste hours on this thread?

I've asked myself this in noisier, absorptive moments already.

But I've shifted from posting long-winded explanations for why I think Salazar is not being truthful to asking for explanations of why the Gouchers' and Magness's detractors think those people are lying. I know I won't get an answer, but it saves a lot of time.

Karas Nose wrote:

KMB wrote:

What are these "rational arguments" against Kara and Adam Goucher? Or if you prefer, in support of Salazar's defense against the Gouchers' alcugations?

Here we go again idiot.

1. Kara ran her best times while under Alberto, so she was doping if anyone was. But she says repeatedly she wasn't. So she contradict herself. You can tell when she is lieing

2. Steve Magness has not denied that he is a bad coach, he didn't sent anyone to NCAA since he coached there

3. Alberto proved he wrote Kara a prescription at the World Track Championships in Korea in 2012

I could keep going...

Also BTW you spelled "accusation" wrong, LOL.

#2. I'd say this is a pretty firm denial:

Montesquieu wrote:

.....

Nothing of value to add? Just the same, tired, regurgitation your obvious hatred of Kara.

What will you do after Salazar and NOP are forevermore erased?

You have been a diehard NOP defender, who been summarizing what Salazar meant, said, intended for several years. So, are you Alex, Tony, or Maria? Or, do the three of you share a name to make your points?

Please tell me if I'm wrong.

The quality of Kara's accusations against AlSal would be greatly enhanced if she were a he. Even more so, if she were a quieter, less attractive he. Greater still if she were a quieter, less attractive he who were not on the downside of his career. Then we'd be getting somewhere, huh?

See if you can figure out the logic of this. KMB asked why people thought Kara Goucher was lying. I first tried to show that the question is a bit more complicated, that people can be said to embellish, for example, without truly lying, and suggesting what might lead someone to do so. Then I pointed out why people might be dubious about her claims. Apparently in your world either Salazar is lying, and of course he is, or Goucher is, and of course she isn't. My world is a bit more complex. And I might suggest that rather than attacking me personally, and assume I must have some connection to this person or that, consider the substance of what I write. And if you actually look at the posts I've written over the years--it's not hard to look them up--I think you'd find that I tend not to be critical of very many people, particularly since rarely do I know what actually happened.

Full-Monty wrote:

Montesquieu wrote:

.....

Nothing of value to add? Just the same, tired, regurgitation your obvious hatred of Kara.

What will you do after Salazar and NOP are forevermore erased?

You have been a diehard NOP defender, who been summarizing what Salazar meant, said, intended for several years. So, are you Alex, Tony, or Maria? Or, do the three of you share a name to make your points?

OK. I'm not sure I agree with where this may be going, bit it makes sense.

I agree that he in many instances divorces his explanatory remarks from factual statements, in the sense that in his "open letter" he asserts a number of things as fact to lead off his various sections, only to then offer "Exhibits" that either fail to support these statements or, on a careful reading, even contradict them. In other words, he's weaselly, which is not a synonym of virtuous. But somehow I don't think this is what you meant...

I have no idea what sort of behavior rises to her personal definition of the term. I've seen a number people say that Christians will be "persecuted" as a result of the SCOTUS decision concerning same-sex marriage, but I assume Kara puts the bar a little higher. I think that at the very worst, even if she's calling impositions that other people would view as comparatively trivial "harassment," this doesn't mean she's actually lying, and it certainly has no bearing on anything of substance between her, Salazar and the NOP.

I think your parenthetical mark is on point, and on top of that, if you assume that one or both Gouchers knowingly used PEDs while part of the program, it would make sense that she would come forward first and disclose only certain details, and only later offer more details -- possibly implicating herself or Adam in the process -- if her anger toward Salazar reached a point at which preferred seeing him punished to keeping the Goucher name pristine. So yes, I can see someone being only partially honest at first with an intimidating authority such as USADA only to be more honest later, and not merely owing to the scenario I just outlined. I'm sure she knew she'd get to meet with USADA personnel more than just the one time.

I fully understand why people are skeptical, and why they think that she needs to put up or shut up (any agreement she has with USADA to limit her public comments notwithstanding). But again, I'm asking for examples of clear-cut lying from the many (or maybe it's exactly four -- no way to tell in this unaccredited mental hospital) people who accuse her or Adam or both of lying. It's fair to say, "She hasn't disclosed anything truly damning to the public," but unfair to say that this should have already happened or that it would have already happened if she had the goods on her former coach.

Mayhap, but I wouldn't put a whole lot of stake in any reputation earned or meted out on this message board. I just did a site-specific Google search for "salazar AND liar" that produced 2,150 results, with fewer than 50 of these being tied to the BBC and Pro Publica stories and their aftermath.

Full-Monty wrote:

Nothing of value to add? Just the same, tired, regurgitation your obvious hatred of Kara.

What will you do after Salazar and NOP are forevermore erased?

You have been a diehard NOP defender, who been summarizing what Salazar meant, said, intended for several years. So, are you Alex, Tony, or Maria? Or, do the three of you share a name to make your points?

I don't think this is fair. This thread, and this topic in general, has showcased the dubious handiwork of a dispiriting number of startlingly stupid people. If Montesquieu harbors either an unwarranted bias against the Gouchers or a disproportionate loyalty to Salazar, he hides it well (granted, I haven't seen any of his past comments about Al Sal because until recently I'd managed to sharply limit my visits to Letsrun for a number of years). He may doubt that Adam and Kara have much to contribute, but he's not being mindless or belligerent about it.

Do a website search for Montesquieu, and look back when Salazar had his meltdown about Gabe Grunewald. His every post was in support of Salazar, and detailed why Grunewald should have been DQ'ed.

I really appreciate Montesquieu's argument - it is what I have been trying to articulate recently but haven't quite been able to.

"conflates (perhaps) what she actually claims to have witnessed and what she inferred was taking place"

By no means do I think the Gouchers are deliberately lying. I do not think Kara is doing this for attention, I don't think Adam is mad at Salazar for getting Kara pregnant, or whatever other utterly absurd arguments posited here. I have been a fan of the Gouchers for many years.

Likewise I am certain that Salazar has circumvented the rules, which is unethical at best and illegal at worst. But it seems most likely to me that the Gouchers saw some sketchy things, and extrapolated that to mean that Salazar had exited the gray area and entered the black area.

"And then when asked about certain matters--she falls back on claims about what will come out in the future working with reputable news agencies. This might seem a bit duplicitous. Indeed, here she sounds like NFL and NBA players who after being implicated in some wrongdoing claim that when the facts come out in the future we'll see what really happened"

This is another thing that's been bothering me. In all fairness she is probably working with lawers, USADA, et. al., but if all she intends to offer when she does come forward with the claims she referenced is more circumstantial evidence, she is going to lose my support.

Oh, and finally, I'm not British. I also don't get why it's assumed Salazar supporters are British...or is it the other way around? I clearly missed something.

Mont SQ wrote:

Do a website search for Montesquieu, and look back when Salazar had his meltdown about Gabe Grunewald. His every post was in support of Salazar, and detailed why Grunewald should have been DQ'ed.

According to USATF rules, she should have been DQ'd. Of course, also, even though it was a terrible non-call, Salazar shouldn't have been allowed three protests but Grunewald pretty much earns a DQ in every race. If track ever gets enforcers like hockey has, it will be because of runners like Grunewald.

nearest hippie wrote:

I don't think Adam is mad at Salazar for getting Kara pregnant

Well, I don't think he's exactly thrilled about it, either!

well played

Tough Cookie wrote:

Mont SQ wrote:

Do a website search for Montesquieu, and look back when Salazar had his meltdown about Gabe Grunewald. His every post was in support of Salazar, and detailed why Grunewald should have been DQ'ed.

According to USATF rules, she should have been DQ'd. Of course, also, even though it was a terrible non-call, Salazar shouldn't have been allowed three protests but Grunewald pretty much earns a DQ in every race. If track ever gets enforcers like hockey has, it will be because of runners like Grunewald.

If Grunewald was a Salazar athlete, then the Brojos (and most of the pro Grunewald crowd) would have been calling for her head in that race, and as you said point out essentially "every race."

KMB wrote:

Wot a waste wrote:

In quieter reflective moments KMB is going to sit back and ask himself the question, why the feck did I waste hours on this thread?

I've asked myself this in noisier, absorptive moments already.

But I've shifted from posting long-winded explanations for why I think Salazar is not being truthful to asking for explanations of why the Gouchers' and Magness's detractors think those people are lying. I know I won't get an answer, but it saves a lot of time.

Probably all you need to do now is cut and paste from previous posts.

Well, what I actually meant was: no harm, no foul, just as it was originally determined by the officials.

Alex, Tony & Maria

We tried to change the rules but no one listed to us.

Alex, Tony and Maria