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

@Great post!

You'll all be out of a job soon, Alex, Tony and Maria. Sucks to be you.

AlCheaterCzar wrote:

"How come all Alberto "defenders" are sleezy."

Because they are in full-panic mode.

Kara got more people who want to spill Salazar's beans but are still in fear of him. The number of people who are uncomfortable with Salazar's "methods" is astounding.

Eleven were enough to bring Armstrong down. The Salazar number is approaching 30, or already over that level, and there are more who will come out of the woodwork.

Lorenzo the Magnificent wrote:

I'm always a little uneasy when people put a pronoun in front of the word "truth." His truth, my truth, their truth means no truth.

Yes! Exactly. There is not multiple versions of the truth. It really weakens her when she says that.

Quackers wrote:

It proves NOP needs to die. Their nutcase fans are willing to accept doping because that is the only way their team can win. NOP fans are worse than the rabid southern college football fans who nothing else to live for except a "their" team.

AlCheaterCzar wrote:

and there are more who will come out of the woodwork.

Like cockroaches when the lights are turned out?

DaBois wrote:

Yeah she definitely isn't lying. The interview is really good and honest. Not sure why she ran, but I love the work she is doing off the track.

kara cries again, clearly dilusional...nothing illegal even happened she's just butthurt about her relationship and drama between her family and NOP. It's ridiculous, either talk about it or dont.

Dramas like that, little things get blown up, I see it at work and in life all the time. Drama for the sake of drama, these people who tell her things are just drumming her to bond over pointing their fingers at others to bring themselves up. I'm sure it's painful for her but it's not what shes making it seem, there's nothing here but a broken relationship and career

LeT wrote:

to me wrote:

She does not come across as a woman who is lying to me. This thing will drag on forever.

I agree. Impressive interview from a simple believability standpoint.

I have never been much of a Kara fan but I have to say she comes across very strongly as honest, straightforward and caring about the sport and about the truth.

Kudos

Wow, I have to agree. Up until now, I was kind of on Alberto's side because I thought all the attacks and the Brojo's reporting was so one-sided. But she seems completely truthful here.

Although the use of term "my truth", like " our truth" grates on me. Can't it just be THE truth?

scatter in the light wrote:

AlCheaterCzar wrote:

and there are more who will come out of the woodwork.

Like cockroaches when the lights are turned out?

One the size that will cause Salazar's wife to scream in horror. Salazar will bolt out the door in a panic. Might even suffer another heart attack.

Poor Monte wrote:

Monte is part of the NOP goon squad. Victory must be had at any cost. Doping is okay as long as only his team is doing it.

I don't get that vibe. I think he's just among those who balks at the idea that high-caliber cheating exists in running just as it does elsewhere, and equates energetically denying something with zapping it out of existence.

Old Man Winter wrote:

Your post doesn't address the issue: what real claims is Kara trying to prove? Unless she's trying to prove that Rupp or someone in the NOP is doping, who cares? We already know that the NOP operates in the gray area.

Did you listen to her very emphatically say that she had nothing to add about Mo and Galen and that they have their own stories?

Also, by saying that the whole issue is dead if there's no evidence of cheating by a particular NOP athlete (Rupp), you seem to be neglecting the fact that 54 others have also been members of the same program. Will USADA ignore everything it uncovers that pertains to these 54?

I also don't quite get how someone admitting to operating in a "gray area" is supposed to obviate the possibility of his crashing through it into distinctly darker areas -- other than this being just what Salazar types want you to think. If someone admits to collecting Facebook photos of someone he's stalking online, maybe even masturbating to them, and to walking around her neighborhood from time to time, it this "harmless" stuff supposed to establish that the same person is unlikely to sexually assault his target at some point? Like that would be too obvious a natural extension of his M.O. or something?

Lying? I went on the assumption that everything she was stating was true--nowhere do I say she is/was lying, nor would I. And as for being part of a "goon squad"--that's actually very funny, but it also demeans you. One can disagree in a mannerly way, something it would be a good thing to learn.

Poor Monte wrote:

You seem oddly invested in Kara and the others being wrong or lying."

Monte is part of the NOP goon squad. Victory must be had at any cost. Doping is okay as long as only his team is doing it.

Kara coming forward with what she believed to be wrong is brave, but there still doesn't seem to be a smoking gun. It's clear to everyone Salazar will push into the gray area to get an edge, but Kara saying she wants more people to come forward with their grievances screams that she has nothing significant. Now she will come back with her response to Salazar to try and save face, while not actually giving the public anything of substance to bolster her accusations.

I thought the interview was really weak. She offered no substance. She looked like she was about to cry the entire time just like when a 3 year old is caught by mommy and about to confess.

n00f wrote:

kara cries again, clearly dilusional...nothing illegal even happened she's just butthurt about her relationship and drama between her family and NOP. It's ridiculous, either talk about it or dont.

Dramas like that, little things get blown up, I see it at work and in life all the time. Drama for the sake of drama, these people who tell her things are just drumming her to bond over pointing their fingers at others to bring themselves up. I'm sure it's painful for her but it's not what shes making it seem, there's nothing here but a broken relationship and career

NO--I do think high level cheating does go on in running, and in long distance running it was going on much more ten or fifteen years ago--hence the lack of super fast times in the last five years in the 5000 and 10000. And maybe it's going on with the Oregon Project. I don't know!!!!!!! And my point continually is that no one who posts on LetsRun knows either. So one considers what's offered to show it is going on. And my point in this thread with regards to Goucher (whom I've always respected as a runner) is that even if we accept everything she has said so far (I can't judge what she hasn't made public, if anything), it has at best limited probative value. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

It's no accident that the people who continue to bemoan the absence of a "smoking gun" are also those with a paralyzing lack of insight about the entire situation. In fact, the correlation coefficient between the use of "smoking gun" and steadfast support of Salazar despite mounting claims made against him is about 0.943, similar to the correlation between people asking, "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys!?" and being resistant to cracking a biology textbook.

A person can be found to be guilty of something in the absence of a single, monumental factor or piece of evidence that somehow stands above all others in magnitude or reach. It's a simplistic, romantic notion at best to expect the equivalent of confessions or video evidence of doping or something.

See if this is still your position one week from today.

Montesquieu wrote:

NO--I do think high level cheating does go on in running, and in long distance running it was going on much more ten or fifteen years ago--hence the lack of super fast times in the last five years in the 5000 and 10000. And maybe it's going on with the Oregon Project. I don't know!!!!!!! And my point continually is that no one who posts on LetsRun knows either. So one considers what's offered to show it is going on. And my point in this thread with regards to Goucher (whom I've always respected as a runner) is that even if we accept everything she has said so far (I can't judge what she hasn't made public, if anything), it has at best limited probative value. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

You appear to be saying that nothing anyone says here about the scandal has any real importance, because no one here really knows anything beyond what's been written in the papers and broadcast by the BBC -- at least not that they are willing to disclose.

You also seem to be saying that it's useless to speculate one way or the other about Salazar's guilt, because there's been nothing offered publicly so far by former athletes that stands as definite evidence of formal doping.

So I'm confused as to why you are even here chiming in. It would seem that you are either calling for everyone to just shut up until there's real evidence of doping, or calling for those who may know more than what's been made public to dish it up on Letsrun.com. Neither of these two outcomes strikes me as especially likely, don't you agree?

Sledge wrote:

Kara coming forward with what she believed to be wrong is brave, but there still doesn't seem to be a smoking gun. It's clear to everyone Salazar will push into the gray area to get an edge, but Kara saying she wants more people to come forward with their grievances screams that she has nothing significant. Now she will come back with her response to Salazar to try and save face, while not actually giving the public anything of substance to bolster her accusations.

Agreed. Her next statement will probably provide some convincing evidence about the real reason she left, and will show that Salazar did twist the story to his benefit. But I'm afraid she will have nothing else to say about doping.

There's no way that analogy is anywhere close to being true, but props on the use of "correlation coefficient". When someone has doped or is guilty of a doping violation there must be proof of said violation, hence the "smoking gun" speak. If she can't provide substantial proof (hard evidence or corroborated testimony), Salazar will not face any type of ban.

I will gladly change my position if she or anyone else provides ban worthy evidence.