Goucher releases statement: Further evidence will only be shared with USADA.

Reasoned Decision wrote:

"Further, in preparing for presenting its case at a live hearing USADA had, prior to August 24, conducted numerous witness interviews, and evaluated mountains of other information regarding its likely witnesses."

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf

That document certainly makes it appear that it was the USADA that brought Armstrong down. This makes for good propaganda for the USADA, but it is hardly the "whole truth and nothing but the truth."

It is interesting that the decision does not mention the FDA, or the FDA's lead investigator, Jeff.Novitzky. That is understandable. Novitizky was reckless in his zeal for hunting down drug cheats. His record shows clearly that he was willing to ignore the law to "get his man." On several occasions, he was reined in by federal judges for exceeding his legal authority. Despite was the USADA says, Novitzky's work was crucial to the case against Armstrong. Without his willingness to share his results with the USADA, there would have been no case against Armstrong.

One of the cases against Novitzky has become a classic on the (ab)use of search warrants to search computers. Novitzky seized a computer and took files off it that the search warrant specifically said he could not take. The federal courts agreed that the records could not be used in investigations. Novitzky then told reporters what was in those files, ensuring that the people he was investigating would pay the price.

In other words, Novitzky did exactly what Salazar is alleged to have done. He ignored the rules, and figured out ways to circumvent them when it served his purposes.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that this attitude is much more troubling when it is held by law enforcement than by a track coach.

soidkskdjshd wrote:

NOP has never been sponsored by a branch of the government, as Lance was by the US Postal service, that's why the government was able and willingly to pursue him.

Good point. This is yet another way in which the Salazar and Armstrong cases are different. Because Lance had a contract with the USPS, breaking some terms of that contract were crimes. If the contract had been with a private sponsor, breaking the contract would be a civil matter.

In other words, having the USPS as a sponsor gave the government yet another legal reason to go after Armstrong. There are far fewer legal reasons for them to go after Salazar and NOP.

Do you have a link substantiating this investigative over reach?

If you're right, then I agree with you; I believe in the bill of rights. However, if you're right and it took an unprincipled fanatic to get actionable evidence against dopers in cycling, then NOP claims that lack of evidence is evidence of innocence are less persuasive than before to me.

The Tiger Woods of running. No longer relevant

The fact that it's been over 5 weeks and the identity of these "more than 17 former NOP associates" haven't been made public is ridiculous

I wish Kara would stop ranting about all these sources she has, yet, we don't know who they are, all she's trying to do is build her credibility with more "so called" support from random peoples hearsay but it's not working at all

Just wanted to add this article regarding Kara's statement, as it's the best I've seen. The reporter looks further into Kara's claims about Nike suspending her during pregnancy.

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/kara-goucher-will-remain-publicly-silent-on-doping-allegations

I think the truth is is that we are at the end of the line on Goucher's knowledge of potential doping and TUE abuse at NOP. She disclosed two specific issues to Epstein - Salazar pushing Cytomel on her and Rupp pushing to get an IV drip at 2011 WC's. Beyond that they "readily admit they have no smoking gun."

So all of this other stuff seems to be about the personal animus between the Gouchers and Salazar and not about doping or whistleblowing or USADA. This seems like an extension of the pissing match between Oiselle and Nike.

Shayne, why are you posting, nothing better to do?

NOP Skeptic wrote:

The fact that it's been over 5 weeks and the identity of these "more than 17 former NOP associates" haven't been made public is ridiculous

I wish Kara would stop ranting about all these sources she has, yet, we don't know who they are, all she's trying to do is build her credibility with more "so called" support from random peoples hearsay but it's not working at all

They're not her sources. She's referring to the people that spoke with Epstein.

Not Vague wrote:

Roelants wrote:

Magness had a 12 year old document with a vague reference

The '17 people' may mean something.

The document was not vague.

There are a lot more than '17 people'.

There are entire threads and published articles debating what "testosterone medication" means. I think that qualifies as vague.

According to Epstein only 17 people have come forward. The larger numbers previously reported are a miscount. Some people were counted twice because they spoke to multiple groups.

RossiCheated wrote:

I should compare some of the choice things being said about the Gouchers (particularly Kara) with things that were said about the Andreus (particularly Betsy). We could play the game, was THIS mean thing said about A or B?

Sometimes whistle blowers aren't perfectly polished or "ready for the big stage" like those they are accusing, who have teams of PR agents, lawyers, marketers, and who have so much to lose if the accusations are proven true. Sometimes the whistle blowers are very easy to toss under the bus, to label as nuts, or liars, or vindictive, or jealous, or has-beens looking for a last moment in which they matter.

I feel like I've watched this movie before and I know the conclusion. It's a really long movie though.

And Mike Rossi cheated.

I suppose that it will be eternally frustrating that we're mainly left with he-said-she-said on so many issues, legal and otherwise. And, of course, that he-said-she-said can be greatly warped by expensive lawyers/PR people. Hopefully everyone understands that there are bad/dishonest organizations AND individuals. But this is an excellent reminder that, just because a whistle-blower is fallible (and how many won't be?), it doesn't mean that there isn't something to whistle about. I guess that this is analogous to "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that there aren't people out to get me."

Gurgle wrote:

NOP Skeptic wrote:

The fact that it's been over 5 weeks and the identity of these "more than 17 former NOP associates" haven't been made public is ridiculous

I wish Kara would stop ranting about all these sources she has, yet, we don't know who they are, all she's trying to do is build her credibility with more "so called" support from random peoples hearsay but it's not working at all

They're not her sources. She's referring to the people that spoke with Epstein.

Sorry, I should have been more specific

The point is, she was the original source, the other 17 plus followed suit

The point is she keeps talking about the other 17 sources like it will strengthen her argument, but until I hear it from them personally (direct qoute) nothing is added to her credibility

And even after all has been said, what more new information could there actually be? All I see happening is the other sources are going to just agree with what has already been said, and then BBC is going to write a long drawn article on it to make it seem like new information came out (kind of like the article put out hours after Salazar's- no new information)

If NOP is innocent on all accounts then this is going to look really bad for Kara, which in return makes Einstein/BBC/ProPublica lose a lot of credibility

TBH, knowing Kara's past, if I was Einstein, I would have never supported this investigation, especially with her leading it

From the article:"A longtime agent who has negotiated athlete contracts with Nike and other shoe companies said it is standard for such contracts to suspend payments if an athlete doesn’t compete for six months, whether because of injury, pregnancy, or other circumstances. Payments are typically made quarterly."Kara:“What prevented me from coming forward in 2011 was fear of further retribution after already being suspended by Nike for giving birth to our son.”Kara makes it sound like Nike maliciously suspended her for getting pregnant, and then further threatened not to pay her as "retribution." But it sounds like the pregnancy clause was all just part of a standard contract that she chose to spin to make people more sympathetic to her?

Boca baton wrote:

Just wanted to add this article regarding Kara's statement, as it's the best I've seen. The reporter looks further into Kara's claims about Nike suspending her during pregnancy.

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/kara-goucher-will-remain-publicly-silent-on-doping-allegations

Actually, she said that further evidence would only be shared TO USADA, demonstrating a shocking ignorance of correct preposition use.

Gurgle wrote:

I think the truth is is that we are at the end of the line on Goucher's knowledge of potential doping and TUE abuse at NOP. She disclosed two specific issues to Epstein - Salazar pushing Cytomel on her and Rupp pushing to get an IV drip at 2011 WC's. Beyond that they "readily admit they have no smoking gun."

And those "2 specific issues" are worth, very, very little.

1) Being given thyroid meds when you are on thyroid meds and have a prescription for thyroid meds......hardly a big deal (and possibly even this was prescribed by her doctor, according to Al. But either way, this is basically nothing).

2) The IV claim seems to have nothing behind it, and again, might not be against the rules.

So basically, their entire "case" against Salazar was a big fat ZERO to begin with, and has not gotten any more convincing.

Link wrote:

Do you have a link substantiating this investigative over reach?

If you're right, then I agree with you; I believe in the bill of rights. However, if you're right and it took an unprincipled fanatic to get actionable evidence against dopers in cycling, then NOP claims that lack of evidence is evidence of innocence are less persuasive than before to me.

I'm at work, and don't have the links at hand. I will dig them up later and post them.

In the meantime, I think you can find good sources by searching for Jeff Novitzky federal judge Lance Armstrong.

Perhaps the most damning statement comes from the judge in one of the Armstrong legal cases. The judge ruled that Armstrong lost as a matter of law, but then characterized the case as a personal vendetta by Novitzky.

.

I don't think there is any doubt that Novitzky was, as you say, "an unprincipled fanatic." The federal doping investigations began when he worked for the IRS. He decided he wanted to clean up sports, so he targeted Balco. When his bosses would not let him work the case on company time, he started going through Balco's trash after work. He took the trash to a parking lot and went through it. (Going through trash does not require a search warrant.)

Novitzky's methods show clearly in what happened next. Balco found out someone was going through their trash because Novitzky put the bags in another company's dumpster when he was finished. When that company found their dumpster full, they opened the bags and saw they came from Balco. They then called Balco and complained.

Needless to say, the Balco guys were not thrilled.

PS I posted without adding this, for anyone who think's I'm a NOP fan:

FWIW, I believe there is a lot of doping among American runners, especially among the elites. I would not be surprised to find out that any particular runner dopes. I would be disappointed, but not surprised. I would be shocked to find out that I am wrong, and that almost all elite American runners are clean.

Just finished the Mike Rossi article (well done) and was struck by LetsRun's statement regarding Mike Rossi "the fact that he would have the evidence but not want to provide it seems illogical." Kara Goucher states she can't stand being called a liar and having her family dragged into this, the way Adam was unfairly critizied, how Salazar' response selected emails from a string of emails in such a way it distorted the truth.

Her response is also completely illogical and I' love to hear Rojo call her out. If she has the evidence to support that Salazar's emails were edited in a way that distorted the truth then release the full chain of emails. If she's tires of Adam's interference in her career being unfairly brought up as the reason she and Salazar separated then provide something to the contrary.

If Mike Rossi said "After much consideration. even though I hate being called a liar and a cheat I will only provide the photographic and training evidence to the Lehigh Valley Marathon Committee" would we be satisfied?

All of this is a bit off topic since Novitsky is no longer with the Government (he took a job with the UFC) but he essentially became a vigilante:

And just for fun: