Josh Rohatinsky's Thoughts on Salazar: "Galens progression from 2006-2012 was highly suspicious to me."

It is. The poster was citing the thyroid issue. the USADA was perfectly aware that Rupp's thyroid levels were fine for any normal person. But they allowed the treatment. That's just a fact. Quit fighting it and deal with it. That is all I'm saying.

lyin' foreman wrote:

Abuse of TUEs, or their use for masking, is not acceptable to WADA-USADA.

BTW: How did you know Salazar's excuse will be that WADA said they told him did not abuse TUEs, when what they actually told is, as long as he didn't abuse TUEs? The details of the excuse are sill in work by the Salazar legal team.

I agree with you. My point is that its useless to even have a discussion about progression if there isn't some agreed upon baseline to start from. Moreover, these allegations go as far back as high school. So even if there is a reasonable year over year progression, its meaningless if the allegations are that he is doing something illegal the entire time. My feeling is that if you take Rupp's talent and accept what Salazar has openly and publicly said about Rupp's training approach, including using medical exemptions approved by the USADA, than Rupp's progression from the very beginning has been very reasonable.

Roelants wrote:

My point in those posts is simply that picking a time or improvement and saying you don't believe it because of sudden progress or late progress is not very compelling alone unless you are taking the sport to new places like FloJo.

Evan Jäger, a steeper and 13:02 5000 guy, just ran a 3 plus second PR in the 1500 at 26. I think that is the same age as Rupp when he went 3:34. He has probably been working on mile speed to be strong enough to kick. It's not that different from what Rupp did.

We have had US guys better than Rupp at 5000 and they have PRd pretty significantly. We have only had Solinsky and, now Derrick, even close in the 10000.

Loopy Joe wrote:

Or my personal favorite, they stopped being afraid of the east Africans. All white runners ever had to do was believe!

All they had to do was trick their bodies into maintaining an unnaturally low weight without sacrificing lean mass or recovery ability. Athletes from calorie-poor east Africa are naturally at low body weight so they can handle training at that weight without recovery enhancements.

Many top westerners look much different from the Bob Kennedys and Dieter Baumanns of the past. They are extremely skinny but with tiny muscles popping out everywhere, like bodybuilding famine victims.

Thyroid medicine does not require a TUE.Your rant might make sense if you said "asthma". Even then, you can take asthma medication without a TUE.

TUE nonsense wrote:

This TUE nonsense is merely a way for coaches and athletes to bypass the rules. Look if someone is sick enough to require thyroid medicine then competing in track should be far down on their list of priorities. Just get better. Come back to the sport clean and off any TUE meds and see what you can do on a level playing field. The TUE is no different than a top level rifle shooter with an eye condition claiming they need a laser range finder in order to compete. Or an amputee claiming their bionic legs are of no advantage. Coaches giving drugs to any athlete should be banned from the sport. It's abusive and wrong.

This is an odd post. What many people are saying is you don't need to ignore anything to arrive at the following position, based on the total accumulation of evidence to date:1) Maybe Salazar gave Rupp Testosterone at 16. Maybe not. Maybe "testosterone medication" means "Testo-Boost" and "Alpha Male". NEED MORE EVIDENCE HERE TO DECIDE.2) Maybe Salazar/Rupp were gaming the system to get IVs. No reason to doubt Kara Goucher's recollection, we would NEED MORE EVIDENCE to that such a violation was attempted or actually occurred.3) Providing non-banned prescription drugs could be a legal issue, but doesn't violate any WADA rules. This is wrong, but wrongly called "cheating" or "doping violation".4) Experimenting with Androgel on his son, could be a legal issue, but doesn't violate any WADA rules, so long as Alberto's son is not subject to these rules. This is wrong, but wrongly called "cheating" or "doping violation".This is looking at the all of the available evidence in the worst possible scenario -- there are still some unanswered questions, that merit investigation.How should we respond once the whole story emerges? Another odd question. The main claim is the current evidence only allows us to conclude so much -- and the knee-jerk conclusions over-interpret the existing evidence, by adding many unfounded assumptions. Once the "whole" story emerges, or more evidence comes to light, it seems obvious that only then, can we factor in the new evidence, and draw other conclusions. You seem to be arguing that it's OK to "jump the gun" NOW, based on one possible future that may or may not come. If the evidence shows he has been an EPO provider, then I will conclude that he has been an EPO provider -- but NOT BEFORE such evidence has surfaced. This isn't a contest to see who can best predict the future now. If constrain yourself to draw evidence based conclusions, then it follows that as more evidence accumulates, more conclusions can be drawn.I don't see any better way to behave then "operating with complete clarity on available evidence, and that everyone else's jumping the gun was never justified even if they turned out to be right?"

From his testimony, "Mike" was found to have low thyroid and testosterone, and the Nike doctor recommended for him to see Alberto's "endocrinologist". It's not clear from the testimony if the Nike doctor said "we will give you testosterone", or if it was "Mike" who concluded "testosterone" and "microdosing".This looks to me like the same confusion behind "testosterone" and "medication to boost testosterone". Until it is cleared up "What Aberto usually does with his endocrinologist", "Mike's" testimony can equally support "TestoBoost", as the approach to "get his values back to normal".

Here's your proof wrote:

Yes in fact, someone has. The BBC documentary interviewed a former NOP runner under the pseudonym "Mike" who stated flat out that Alberto's doctors tried to give him testosterone microdosing.

Granted you'll probably just dismiss him as "anonymous" (even though two reputable journalistic sources - Epstein and the BBC - undoubtedly know who he is and can confirm he's a former NOPer), all the while ignoring that he's probably remaining anonymous because Alberto also has a *documented* history of threatening to ruin people's careers by blacklisting them from any of the Nike-sponsored universities (see his email making the same threat to Magness).

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure Rupp was not even living full time in Portland the entire period of July 2007 to July 2009. Rohatinsky would have trained with him a lot, but not every day.

Some of what Josh says is significant. Namely, as someone that trained and interacted with the relevant players he believes the accusations. That does count for something.

However, out side of that, I don't see anything significant in what he says. Him beating Rupp in college means nothing. Referencing training with a much younger Galen when Galen was in college and then using that as a basis for his improvement 5 years later is questionable. He saw nothing specific or concrete in two years of being with the group. He was never asked to do anything illegal or even get a TUE.

On the whole, I think his post is a wash as far as evidence in once camp or the other.

Do I think everything in the NOP was on the up and up? No, especially not related to prescription drugs. That being said, in my opinion most of the info doesn't point to what I'd call a full blown doping scandal either.

hayward102 wrote:

...in my opinion most of the info doesn't point to what I'd call a full blown doping scandal either.

There is a doping scandal. It features usage layers designed to protect the core-players. Everyone is not on board with the 'full' program, and they never will be, or never were.

Sudden Impact wrote:

Perhaps you aren't understand common sense. Rupp didn't improve 2s per year, he improved 5s in ONE year.

What about Jager's run yesterday? What about Raevyn Rogers going from 2:03.32 as a prep, running 2:05+ before going 2:01 and then 1:59? Are all jumps in performance due to PEDs and if so why isn't Jager getting accused of being on something as he's a steepler that just, out of the blue, ran the fastest time ever on American soil by an American?

Because many people love to hate Salazar, that's why. (Brosjos top that list.)

Take a look at the top cyclists in the your de France over the next few weeks then take a look at some of the top distance guys. Something is happening to allow people who are clearly way below a safe weight to have the power, strength and recovery to train at the level they are without getting sick. It may well be a combination of prescription grey area meds but my bet would be GW1516

Skuj wrote:

Because many people love to hate Salazar, that's why. (Brosjos top that list.)

Because Salazar is his own worst enemy, and has been at least since he ran of UofO.

If this is "evidence" this is as pathetic as it gets. In other words, I didn't see or know of anything, I was never asked to take drugs, but I was suspicious of Galen because he kept getting better than me.

So he spoke to authorities and vented his sour grapes. Josh, if you don't have facts, you don't have jack. Your opinion is worthless, it reeks of nothing but sour grapes.

I have not read this entire post and I am doubtful that I will get a response, but I'd like to ask Josh why he and Galen Rupp under the guidance of Alberto Salazar agreed to run the 5000m semi-final at the 2008 Olympic Trials with no intention of running the finals. Thus taking two spots away from runners who could've competed in the semi-finals and also taking two spots from runners who could've run in the finals of the 5000m, thus leaving two spots empty on the starting line in the finals.

That was a very questionable move and one that reflected badly on you and the NOP to use the Olympic Trials as a workout before the 10k (and we won't get into "Gouchergate").

odelltrclan wrote:

So he spoke to authorities and vented his sour grapes. Josh, if you don't have facts, you don't have jack. Your opinion is worthless, it reeks of nothing but sour grapes.

So, this is the best the AlSal's legal team and family members can do? Guess what? Attacking everyone who says anything you deem naughty about your client, hero, dad, because only AlSal tells the truth ain't gonna fly. It matters not one bit what AlSal says now. He cheated the system and knows it. Positive tests are not required. Actually seeing something illegal done is not required. AlSal and his boy Rupp both need to vanish from the sport forever.

So, this is the best the AlSal's legal team and family members can do? Guess what? Attacking everyone who says anything you deem naughty about your client, hero, dad, because only AlSal tells the truth ain't gonna fly. It matters not one bit what AlSal says now. He cheated the system and knows it. Positive tests are not required. Actually seeing something illegal done is not required. AlSal and his boy Rupp both need to vanish from the sport forever.

I am not AlSal's legal team moron, nor a family member, nor a friend, nor a fan. If Salazar is guilty then he deserves to be punished. But this kind of crap from Josh (and idiots like you) is worthless. And those like you that get hard-ons from this need to get a clue on the legal system. Salazar will get due process regardless of pricks like yourself. And it they have real evidence, then he will have problems. But Josh's sour grapes ranting is meaningless and would be as worthless as all the stuff in your kitchen trash bin.

Josh was making a statement in response to a load of inquiries he received, you freaking moron, not just airing grievances out of bitterness. That's not him having sour grapes that's him honestly answering the questions. Maybe honesty is new to you.

All you have to do is contrast Salazar's public conduct over the years and the public conduct of the whistle-blowers. There should be no doubt whose word should be trusted. End of story

Josh was making a statement in response to a load of inquiries he received, you freaking moron, not just airing grievances out of bitterness. That's not him having sour grapes that's him honestly answering the questions. Maybe honesty is new to you.

Who gives a crap why he posted responses. It is the idiots on LR.com who post this as some kind of "evidence" that I have the biggest issues with. This is not evidence. It is an opinion that has no legal bearing on anything other than to get AH like you (and many on this site) aroused.