Why did Mo lie?

Because that's what liars do.

The Diamond League is not Farah-certified.

He needed an excuse for pulling out of at least two races to avoid drug tests. He didn't expect the UK press to call him on it.

Your problem is that doesnt prove he lied.

You can show they sent the email 3 to 4 weeks ago.

You cannot show that he read it before he replied 2 weeks later.

You can POSIT that it took that long because he ran it through lawyers.

One could also posit that it took that long because he doesnt run his email account, a manager, etc, does, and didn't make Mo aware of it until it looked like this might blow up.

So the question: Why do you automatically assume he is lying?

I

M.C. Confusing wrote:

Your problem is that doesnt prove he lied.

You can show they sent the email 3 to 4 weeks ago.

You cannot show that he read it before he replied 2 weeks later.

You can POSIT that it took that long because he ran it through lawyers.

One could also posit that it took that long because he doesnt run his email account, a manager, etc, does, and didn't make Mo aware of it until it looked like this might blow up.

So the question: Why do you automatically assume he is lying?

So Mo didn't read the email.

And neither did Mo's agent, who was on the same email.Or Mo's agent did read the email but didn't bother to tell Mo.

Yet somehow the same agent did read and respond to an email, from the same people, which made specific allegations against Rupp. But still just neglected to mention any of this to Mo.

Because you know doping allegations against your coach and training partner are minor. Particularly when the same investigative reporters are asking Mo questions.

Maybe for the same reasons most people on this board lie that Salazar has never responded to these allegations.

Anyone know how long Salazar needs for all this evidence he's going to apparently present?

Going to be hard since his public call out to Mary Slaney to back him up has apparently gone unheeded.

He did not lie. He heard about the actual allegations 3-4 days ago. When the BBC asked him their questions they did not give him very much information. Believe it or not but that's the truth!

M.C. Confusing wrote:

Your problem is that doesnt prove he lied.

You can show they sent the email 3 to 4 weeks ago.

You cannot show that he read it before he replied 2 weeks later.

You can POSIT that it took that long because he ran it through lawyers.

One could also posit that it took that long because he doesnt run his email account, a manager, etc, does, and didn't make Mo aware of it until it looked like this might blow up.

So the question: Why do you automatically assume he is lying?

If what you say is true, and it depends on a long, convoluted list of IFs, why doesn't Mo come forward and simply clarify this point? He wouldn't even have to call a press conference but could do it through NOP's publicist. That's what I would do were I innocent of all charges, including the one of lying about when he discovered the controversy.

Again, what you say may be true, but I am sceptical. After all, there comes a point when one making excuses for suspicious behaviours begins to look like a kind of desperate win-at-all-costs advocacy.

Not a liar wrote:

He did not lie. He heard about the actual allegations 3-4 days ago. When the BBC asked him their questions they did not give him very much information. Believe it or not but that's the truth!

And you know this how? And you have what resources, insights and information that trumps the Daily Telegraph?

If he only heard of the allegations 3-4 days previous, how does that explain his quotes responding to said allegations (to the BBC) that were in the televised piece? He lied, plain and simple.

Anyone know how long Salazar needs for all this evidence he's going to apparently present?

He is going to consult with Mike Rossi's lawyers and the LVM board on that matter and will get back to us once they can get him in for an appointment.

Clearly he knew about it weeks ago and had been talking to Al Sal regularly since then.

My best guess as to the reason for his response at the press conference is that he did not know how big this story was going to be. He probably assumed it would all blow over like the report of him training with the drugs cheat in Africa and the numerous other allegations on Lets run. He probably just accepted what Al Sal told him and was not that worried.

Once the program was aired and it was in all the papers and he had to do the press conference he realised what a problem it all was so decided to fly by to Oregon to see Al Sal and ask some more questions.

By the way the investigation being carried out by UKA athletics is being carried out by three Non Executive Directors to ensure some independence. These are former marathon runner Sarah Rowell, former 100m sprinter Jason Gardner and a former Olympic wheel chair racer. These people are all dead against drugs and are thought of in UK circles as being as close as you can get to being certain they were clean. Gardner missed out on medals and finals because of cheats like Chambers and ran a PR of 9.98 for 100m. Sarah Rowell ran a 2.28 marathon. They will be able to get expert opinion where required and will be looking into all aspects including Mo's blood result. If there is an evidence of wrong doing to find I am sure these people will find it. If they don’t find anything it does not necessarily mean he is clean but I am confident they will do a thorough, fair job.

Robert Harrington wrote:

Not a liar wrote:

He did not lie. He heard about the actual allegations 3-4 days ago. When the BBC asked him their questions they did not give him very much information. Believe it or not but that's the truth!

And you know this how? And you have what resources, insights and information that trumps the Daily Telegraph?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11658375/Mo-Farah-told-of-Alberto-Salazar-doping-scandal-a-month-ago.html

The relevant quote from the article [with emphasis added]:

"the Daily Telegraph has learnt that, while not being told full details of specific allegations, Farah was informed that Salazar may have committed doping offences when he was sent a letter four weeks before the programme aired."

In other words, yes, Farah knew the documentary was going to say negative things about Salazar, but he didn't know exactly what, and he almost certainly didn't know about the Magness photo.

How about some focus on the role of Ricky Simms in this mess? Simms almost certainly saw all the e-mails well ahead of the documentary, but no one seems to be saying much of anything about him [while he quietly cashes checks.]

The above response appears to properly address the provoking yet misinformed question in the title of this letsrun.com message board thread.

Uh...did you, like, not read the 10 words after that part you bolded? "...Farah was informed that Salazar may have committed doping offences..."

he's an absolute liar. he's done it before with the driouch situation, his charity, and cheating on his wife. yet, people still give him the benefit of the doubt. crazy.

My reading is the precise opposite of yours. Your emphasis stopped exactly one sentence short.

" Farah was informed that Salazar may have committed doping offences when he was sent a letter four weeks before the programme aired."

Is the whole point.

Otherwise, if the Telegraph article is a story about a complete non-issue, why run it?

Sorry, you're seeing the whole thing through rose-coloured glasses.

And by the way, the Telegraph is not an entity given to sensationalism. That shameful practice is the Provence of the Sun and the Daily Mail and other such rags.

ryan foreman wrote:

Maybe for the same reasons most people on this board lie that Salazar has never responded to these allegations.

...is it REALLY for the same reason?

I think it is semantics. He was asked when he knew about the allegations against Salazar. Tell me what "knew about" means. The questions sent to Mo were about Mo. They were not about the claims re Rupp and Goucher. So was Mo actually saying that he knew there were allegations when they sent the email but he only knew about what those allegations were 3-4 days ago. That seems more likely to me than bare faced lying about something which there would clearly be evidence to refute.