I don't know Rupp. I've briefly met one of his parents, but that's as close as I've come. However, I at least admit I don't know anything about what he's doing or on. The problem is a lot of people convicting or clearing with faulty logic.
- Lance beating tests for years isn't a conviction of someone else running record type performances and testing clean.
- Rupp not testing positive for anything isn't proof of his innocence.
- Some JV runner at Oklahoma State likely doesn't know anything substantive.
Questioning is good. Unfortunately in today's world of sport it's almost necessary to be somewhat jaded. I'd be shocked if Salazar/Rupp aren't on the edge, but on the edge is where you have to be at the elite level. I've never understood the critics that don't perceive Rupp as an old-fashioned blue collar runner, as if gadgets and gizmos somewhat detract from 100+ mile weeks. Why not try something different and see if it works?
I prefer to believe Rupp is clean, but that's just me. He has been a talent since day one. He's had a very long period of consistent, injury free training at the elite level with the same coach. That hasn't been the case for most of America's elite athletes. Look at what Solinsky and others have accomplished with consistent training at their peaks and how hard it is to get that magic back after injury.
I realize my personal thoughts above don't prove anything. They are only opinion. I just wish that more posters on this subject would recognize the same about their comments or at least take a critical thinking/logic class to help understand what qualifies as proof of an argument/fact.