Seriously, back off. A lot of innuendo and allegation has been made by a lot of people. It took the BBC 2 years to put fourth their program, so give Salazar a few weeks to gather evidence and respond.
Seriously, back off. A lot of innuendo and allegation has been made by a lot of people. It took the BBC 2 years to put fourth their program, so give Salazar a few weeks to gather evidence and respond.
I like how they expect him to have gotten his evidence immediately...
THIS.
You can tell that neutral observers are starting to support Alberto on here. LRCers are smarter than the BroJos give them credit for, apparently - they can sense the witch hunt and respect what Alberto and Nike have done for the sport.
LLC wrote:
Seriously, back off. A lot of innuendo and allegation has been made by a lot of people. It took the BBC 2 years to put fourth their program, so give Salazar a few weeks to gather evidence and respond.
He was given the opportunity to respond in advance of the program airing. It has been several weeks since the program has aired. He has had well over a month to get his story straight.
It's a "count up" clock, actually, and I for one like it.
While I'm at it, I'll say for the 3rd time - be watching for AlSal to say [very little] on Friday, July 3, 2015 at 4 pm PDT.
There's a very basic concept at work here that many of you either cannot grasp or insist on willfully overlooking, and it's this:
When you've been accused of something that you haven't done, it doesn't matter if your accuser has spent ten seconds, tend days or ten years assembling his case against you -- you can simply retort, "Provide evidence to support your claims," and if your accuser hasn't done so, you're off the hook until he does.
If your accuser HAS provided what APPEARS to be evidence, because you know that it's sham evidence, you can confidently declare, "That is bullshit, and here's how I'll go about establishing that." You may need a sliver of time to collect what you need, depending on what you've been accused of, but you need no time at all to give a few meaningful details, e.g., "The Gouchers are lying and I will prove I never gave her that bottle and it's not my handwriting," or "Those e-mails Magness says are from me are not from me, so the headers must have been forged," or "I never encouraged Lauren to take more medication than she needed, she's simply lying," or "I can show that anyone I've coached who's been diagnosed with asthma for the first time after becoming my athlete, really does have asthma."
Instead, dead silence. Nothing.
Which is just what you'd expect of a guy who knew that more and more incriminating things would come out from an increasingly wide network of athletes, coaching assistants, massage therapists and people like Catlin who have known him for a long time.
And lo and behold, just about every day, there IS in fact a new story painting a crisp portrait of a longtime dirty-birdie.
I honestly wonder where you blithering nitwits come up with ideas like, "It took the BBC x years to gather evidence, therefore Alberto deserves y weeks to refute it." That equation has absolutely no ties to the real world in any way except one: "plausible" denial.
It's time to bend over forward from the waist now, and expect the (possibly violent) introduction of a penis or penis-like projection into whatever orifice happens to be most favorably aligned with the approaching cylinder.
14 days so far is only the time elapsed since a statement by Salazar was printed saying he would respond.
It's been 20 days since the ProPublica piece was published and the BBC documentary aired.
We know from David Epstein that the allegations printed were provided to Salazar well in advance, so he could respond to them.
So two weeks is actually quite generous. It's actually many more than that.
But there hasn't been one single public pronouncement contradicting one single claim that has been made by any one reporter. Only a blanket "people are knowingly making false statements."
No reasonable person expects the NOP team to produce a dissertation overnight defending themselves.
But one would think with the resources they have, we'd have at least heard something from now. But it's been radio silence.
They have know about the allegations for over 2 months and still they responded with single line responses of nonsense. They know more stuff is coming and Alberto wasn't able to cover all of his tracks dating back to the 80's and 90's unfortunately. Why make yourself look like an idiot when you know the boom is coming?
reader of the forums wrote:
LLC wrote:Seriously, back off. A lot of innuendo and allegation has been made by a lot of people. It took the BBC 2 years to put fourth their program, so give Salazar a few weeks to gather evidence and respond.
He was given the opportunity to respond in advance of the program airing. It has been several weeks since the program has aired. He has had well over a month to get his story straight.
You're right, that several weeks is now nearly eight and with all the Nike resources and personnel to assist him.
Let's put this in perspective.
Salazar knew about the claims 1 month before the documentary aimed. To be fair he probably didn't know exact specifics, but we can tell by the documentary what questions they posed him. And they asked about the testosterone on Rupp, the testing on his son, the cytomel for Kara, the IV drips, and perhaps more.
Since then it has been 3 weeks.
So Salazar has had almost 2 months to dig into his resources and come up with a defense. He hasn't.
That's a lot of time when you're not coaching your athletes really and have the sole goal of defending yourself.
The reason it hasn't come out is simple:
1. Salazar doesn't know everything the accusers know, so he doesn't want to put something out there, then have it be shown to be a lie (i.e. Mary Slaney disaster).
2. Lawyers. Salazar probably wanted to blast Magness, Goucher, and Stiner, ala Lance. My guess is that the lawyers got involved and said, wait, watch out.
3. Every couple days new information leaks out and Salazar has to revise his story.
So why can't he go directly to his accusers with this? Why go to the makers of drugs or call on athletes who don't have to do with the story? He had time to respond DIRECTLY before the articles came out and clear up these allegations and confusion.
Instead, he only answered a few, barely any, of the allegations, right? Why not get in contact with his lawyers before... you know, when he was questioned directly by the British journalists who have to make contact before they print. He could have used this as a time to show how clean his group is and turn the documentary into a pro NOP thing. He could have kept from this article going out had he responded and provided proof then.
Instead, silence. That's what stinks.
God damn LLC, you are the most annoying poster on these boards. Ever.
I no longer think you and your cronies are Nike-shills. I think you probably all finished within 5 minutes of Alberto in some POS road race a million years ago and are still getting high off of that brief whiff of his jock you carry so fondly in your heart.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Brojos included. LLC included. Cranky old men everywhere are all entitled to their opinion.
BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO KEEP STARTING NEW THREADS WHEN THERE IS ALREADY A DISCUSSION TAKING PLACE IN AT LEAST ONE OTHER THREAD ABOUT THIS SAME TOPIC.
Seriously, I find this thread and the other stupid ones you started asking for apologies to be worse than the spam about finding the cheapest moving company in Mumbai.
Going to get a real kick of out Salazar and Rupp being fully cleared with no action by usada.
No one's going to hear from Al until the Nike legal team have sorted through the real illegalities in addition to the sporting ones. It's the real ones concerning prescription meds, mailing and other legal stuff that is occupying them and holding up any statement. If they don't cover their arses 100% then the smelly brown stuff is really going to fly around when it hits the fan, will probably happen anyway whatever they do or say.
LLC, 1981, and A Duck are all the same obsessive idiot.
LLC wrote:
Seriously, back off. A lot of innuendo and allegation has been made by a lot of people. It took the BBC 2 years to put fourth their program, so give Salazar a few weeks to gather evidence and respond.
It took two years to compile their report, because the Epstein team had to make contact, follow leads, accumulate details, play phone tag, interview, vet, verify, offer rebuttal opportunities, follow up, chase new leads, assimilate and organize the story, pass editor's scrutiny, etc. Salazar has to do none of that. He knew all of the details long before Epstein tackled the story. He's been asked by reporters by phone and by email to respond to each and every charge.
Salazar deserves NO time for rebuttal.
OP is a lame duck fanboy. Thus he's an idiot who has no brain. His posts cannot be taken seriously.
Eric L wrote:
LLC, 1981, and A Duck are all the same obsessive idiot.
Eric L, I saw what you did there, very sneaky, but you left out the bit about him being a "pathological liar and a delusional psychopath".
Salazar knew about the BBC program for over a month before it aired. He's had that + 20 days since to respond.
You think he's innocent? Then he needs to prove it. Time to put up or shut up.
Why does it seem as if "neutral observers" =
...
Alberto
Alberto's kid
Alberto's wife
Alberto's agent
Alberto's pharmacist
Alberto's doctor
Alberto's vet
Alberto's lawn guy
Alberto's babysitter
and a bunch of pseudonyms for A Duck?