Daily Mail reporter confronts AlSal at his Portland home

J.R. wrote:

run away wrote:

All of it is untrue, yet Alberto and Nike have run for the bunkers?

ALBERTO CAN RUN BUT HE CAN'T HIDE.

What exactly is he hiding from, idiot, other than ignorant fools who keep harassing him for no reason.

See: ProPublica/BBC documentary. See ProPublica report. See Daily Mail articles.

Note multiple reports by numerous athletes of, at minimum, TUE abuse and illegal distribution of prescription medicine to, at worse, providing testosterone to athletes.

Among other things, "idiot"

Flat Stanley wrote:

How can they prove he was on testosterone when the guy who probably wrote the lab report is dead. Unless they get access to medical records impossible.

Well, if USATF/IAAF actually did blood tests, they would have the ratios in the biological passport along with some AMAAAAAZING crazy blood values... from doping.

Regardless, given the way Diack responded to the Armstrong investigation, there is no way Nike's program will get sanctioned.

Al Sal knows this and exploits the numerous gaps well. The federations are fully aware and okay with it.

J.R. wrote:

Trollus Maximus wrote:

Since when did harassment become acceptable? There are more ethical ways to uncover the truth than confronting somebody at their home. Utterly classless paparazzi vulture tactics.

I agree. The people who think it is okay to harass hard working people at their homes and to smear their reputations on the internet are sad and ignorant losers.

Haha, in broad daylight Lawton walked through the front gate and knocked on Al's door.

Seems like the LetsRun boys have got the gloves off as far as NOP and Al are concerned, what's changed boys?Both good posts by the way.Long, detailed post from page 3 of this thread (last para):

wejo wrote:

We never disclosed these incidents on LetsRun.com but perhaps we should have because there is more than a lot of tension with us and Alberto and it makes doing our job harder. My concern was if we disclosed them people would have said we had an agenda against Alberto. Looking in the rear view mirror, I realize now I don't have a problem with reporting factual information.

Long, detailed post from page 6 of this thread (headings):

erik wrote:

1. Lying to get TUEs.

2. Using medication for performance enhancement, not medical need.

3. Illegal disbursement of prescription drugs.

4. Potential long-term physical harm to athletes.

5. Illegal performance enhancing drugs.

So, no, I for one do not find lying to get TUEs, using medication off purposes, illegal distributing drugs, putting athlete's bodies at risk, and potentially using banned substance as "PETTY."

wejo wrote:

I didn't quite realizing the timing of this but then when I got back from the Olympics we got a letter from his lawyer asking for the IP addresses and "identification information" of 117 different poster's names who he claimed were defaming his client. I told him we were not legally liable for the information posters posted but that if he would send me the posts that he deemed were defamatory I would look into them. I viewed it totally as an intimidation tactic or an attempt to find out who his critics were. The lawyer did not write back with a single post that was defamatory.

Lots of fun stuff in the whole post, but you better believe if they are paying for a lawyer to intimidate you, then they are paying for Internet Community Coordinators to modify public opinion. You can read remarkable similarity in the content and tactics used in the messages, over and over in different threads.

runDirtyrun wrote:

Lots of fun stuff in the whole post, but you better believe if they are paying for a lawyer to intimidate you, then they are paying for Internet Community Coordinators to modify public opinion. You can read remarkable similarity in the content and tactics used in the messages, over and over in different threads.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6574973&page=2

You're probably right, but if you mean that 'U of Oregon Class of 1981' stuff, that's just that idiot 'A Duck' or someone trying to come across as him. There is some classic 'A Duck' stuff on this old thread for comparison, it's a thread where he became positively manic and was posting dozens of times late at night and in to the early hours of the morning, crazy stuff.

'RE: Solomon suddenly world class and Rupp soloing 3.50 indoor miles - Come on Letsun, ask the questions! '

J.R. wrote:

What exactly is he hiding from, idiot, other than ignorant fools who keep harassing him for no reason.

Does this answer your question JR?:

erik wrote:

1. Lying to get TUEs.

2. Using medication for performance enhancement, not medical need.

3. Illegal disbursement of prescription drugs.

4. Potential long-term physical harm to athletes.

5. Illegal performance enhancing drugs.

So, no, I for one do not find lying to get TUEs, using medication off purposes, illegal distributing drugs, putting athlete's bodies at risk, and potentially using banned substance as "PETTY."

Every forum has a crackpot or three. (myself included)

But, the number of posts with widespread and varying personal attacks, manufactured doubts, demands for "evidence" are formulaic and mostly crude. And then they vanish. It's fun and easy to identify them.

Gray Zone wrote:

17 accounts of Salazar encouraging them to get tested for everything and use every result possible to get on asthma, thyroid, Test, etc, medications? That's just 17 accounts of the same program...

So you think the comparison of the witness accounts in Ferguson and the "witnesses" in the NOP scandal is valid? Or did you just use that matter as a springboard to bringing the subject back to your slightly less wacky, yet still quite malodorous, bullshit?

I wonder what it would take to get the real retards here to admit, or in some cases merely grasp, the fact that what Salazar has done GOES BEYOND APPROPRIATE TUEs AND "GRAY ZONE" EXPERIMENTATION. According to multiple interviewees, Salazar was actively promoting seeking sham diagnoses for various conditions, notably asthma, and inviting people to take T4 and its analogs in the absence of a prescriptions.

THAT shit is NOT invoking legit TUEs. THAT is DRUG-DEALING and CHEATING. You can't just mete out chemicals ad libitum and call it a TUE. Why is that so DAMN HARD to GET?

Every time one of you lapses into some story about this and that sketchy but technically legal biochemical maneuvering on Salazar's part, as you just did, you are either willfully missing the point or displaying outright stupidity. I don't think you're really stupid, so why are you serving as an apologist for cheating?

Montesquieu wrote:

Irrespective of whatever AS might have done as regards cheating, the journalism from the Daily Mail surrounding all of this is pitiful by any serious standard, and it's embarrassing how quickly LetsRun is to link the article.

So you admit (finally; to this point your level of stupidity has been remarkable for a guy who can assemble words and phrases with some facility) that Salazar has likely cheated, but you don't like to admit that, so you're going to focus on the fact that a reporter for the Daily Mail wrongly called Magness one of the best college milers ever?

If you really think that such a miscue renders the whole article useless, and by illogical extension makes all coverage of the scandal by the Daily Mail and other publications noncontributory, then you are the one who ought to be embarrassed.

I really hope the people who keep citing the Ferguson "hands up, don't shoot" thing as some evidence of witness unreliability are trolling.

Unreliability of in-the-moment witness testimony is far different from unreliability of recalling specific events that happened to you over time.

J.R. wrote:

What exactly is he hiding from, idiot, other than ignorant fools who keep harassing him for no reason.

In a very unusual way, you are almost a genius.

It's very rare for someone to be capable of being absolutely wrong about every issue. Simple probability implies that given a finite number of outcomes for every issue that arises here, you'd have to be correct now and again even if you don't know jack shit about a damn thing.

But you, sir, are an exception. You're like the canary in the coal mine of Letsrun stoopid. Whenever I'm not quite sure what to think about a given topic, I just look to see what you've said and how vehemently you've said it, and the right answer crystallizes in an a flash.

PEDs have drastically changed the landscape of distance running, and Salazar is dirty as hell.

Extended Metatard wrote:

J.R. wrote:

What exactly is he hiding from, idiot, other than ignorant fools who keep harassing him for no reason.

In a very unusual way, you are almost a genius.

you'd have to be correct now and again even if you don't know jack shit about a damn thing.

"you'd have to be correct now and again" - No.

"you don't know jack shit about a damn thing" - Correct.

J.R. calling someone an "idiot" - Classic.

No-Correct-Classic wrote:

"you'd have to be correct now and again" - No.

I should clarify what I meant. Given enough situations in which the only outcomes were A, B and C, or better yet just A and B, J.R. would in all probability pick the correct outcome every now and then just by chance, and while remaining glowingly, tit-twistingly retarded at every step. Think how SMART you would have to be to get a zero on a 500-question multiple choice test.

But I could be wrong. J.R. just might have a supernatural tropism for wrong answers.

Alberto should have exercised his American rights and shot that tabloid reporter between the eyes for trespassing

As usual NOP fanboys are wrong, yet again:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/12/is-it-ever-legal-to-shoot-trespassers.html

In general, property owners cannot use deadly force to protect property. But property owners may be able to shoot at trespassers in self-defense if they fear great bodily harm or death.

Extended Metatard wrote:

But I could be wrong. J.R. just might have a supernatural tropism for wrong answers.

Definitely something unnatural.

run away wrote:

All of it is untrue, yet Alberto and Nike have run for the bunkers?

ALBERTO CAN RUN BUT HE CAN'T HIDE.

J.R. wrote:

What exactly is he hiding from, idiot, other than ignorant fools who keep harassing him for no reason.

R U SERIOUS #2 wrote:

See: ProPublica/BBC documentary. See ProPublica report. See Daily Mail articles. Note multiple reports by numerous athletes of, at minimum, TUE abuse and illegal distribution of prescription medicine to, at worse, providing testosterone to athletes. Among other things, "idiot"

How exactly is he "hiding" from a documentary, or from people displaying their stupidity huh?

He's just living his life, and paying no attention to fools, as any sane person would do.

Uhmerican Rights wrote:

In general, property owners cannot use deadly force to protect property. But property owners may be able to shoot at trespassers in self-defense if they fear great bodily harm or death.

Well he did walk through an unlocked gate, rang the door bell and left when told Al wasn't there and there was no use waiting, people have been shot for less and Al certainly feared him cos he drove away when confronted by him.