Wow: Yet another allegation: Don Catlin: Alberto Salazar repeatedly asked for TUEs himself as an athlete he didn't need

As I said yesterday, I am expecting no.18 (now 19) to come forward tomorrow and say something like, "Galen Rupp had extra pimples on his face before his record 10k." Amazing how so many peoples memory all of a sudden has been recovered. Keeping your mouth shut for years (or decades) does a lot to shoot down your credibility. We now have the crowd effect at work....if you do not know what I mean just watch video of a riot. Regardless, the more who come forward without indisputable physical evidence the more ridiculous this gets. I hope Al sues for defammation. Start with Kara so we can watch her cry again.

When are people going to understand? This is what winners do. You push the limits and dance on the line of what is legal and appropriate. So Salazar applied for a bunch of TUEs and was denied. Yea he pushed the envelope. Where is the violation here? So what if he has his athletes were tested by an outside lab? This is not a violation of anything in the rule book.

Look at the history of the Patriots. It's a combination of hard work and pushing the envelope that have made them the most successful franchise in football history. Salazar gets that. Hard work AND smarts to play the rule book to your advantage is the difference between the winner and the perpetual runner up.

Kudos to Salazar a man for the times and a model for all of us to study and learn from.

YallDontGetIt wrote:

blah blah

One word: Androgel.

Nice attempt at analogy. At least you tried to be humorous as well, thus making your post not entirely a waste of time, energy, and space.

But your analogy is a failure. It is always illegal to attempt to rob a bank. There is nothing illegal about trying to obtain an unmerited TUE. That's why there is a procedure in place where denials and approvals are granted.

A better analogy would be a millionaire attempting to qualify for food stamps. Perhaps its shameful for that person to even try, and surely that person will be immediately denied, but its not illegal to try. If its legally offered, might as well give it a shot.

YallDontGetIt wrote:

When are people going to understand? This is what winners do. You push the limits and dance on the line of what is legal and appropriate. So Salazar applied for a bunch of TUEs and was denied. Yea he pushed the envelope. Where is the violation here? So what if he has his athletes were tested by an outside lab? This is not a violation of anything in the rule book.

Look at the history of the Patriots. It's a combination of hard work and pushing the envelope that have made them the most successful franchise in football history. Salazar gets that. Hard work AND smarts to play the rule book to your advantage is the difference between the winner and the perpetual runner up.

Kudos to Salazar a man for the times and a model for all of us to study and learn from.

This is maybe the antithesis of how people feel about what is going on. That is why it is big news.

Who has ever said I am really enamored by someone's ability to take supplements, use altitude tents, or uncover every angle in medicine/biology to achieve better performance?

We love running for:

-Lydiards epic training

-Cam Levins 190 mpw

-Haile G's / Paul Tergat's ridiculous mileage and tempos

-Ron Clarke's High Mileage and ridiculously fast/intense training over long distances

-Hanson's ODP putting in high mileage and creating Brian Sell/Desi/etc.

-Steve Way taking up running and running 2:15 at 40 off hard sound training

-Max King's 100*200m, running fast no matter what the distance because he trains like a beast.

the list goes on. We like to see runners train hard and see the results. I have never heard anyone say I really admire Geb's doctors or medical staff. So your assertion is silly. I would rather know Galen, who by all accounts does train hard and smart, is doing it the right way.

Right of Reply wrote:

I think it's called "building a case for prosecution" with the defendant having the "right of reply".

Except this isn't a legal case of any kind and Al Sal has the luxury of lying without consequence and the media does not.

Pot meet kettle. wrote:

Trust me, I'm Jimmy Saville wrote:

That'd be the Don Catlin that Sports Illustrated did a story on in 2011 about how he/his lab had bungled (i.e., helped) Lance Armstrong samples and avoid detection for positives. And there were suggestions that Catlin was in cahoots with Lance. Interestingly, the SI story was written by none of than David Epstein. Didn't notice any mention of this in the UK story.

Of course, Catlin denied the SI story.

Pot meet your brother kettle. Sports Illustrated meet The Daily Mail.

From the thread "Another NOP therapist comes forward":

Trust me, I'm Jimmy Saville wrote:

For example, the home page is currently littered with stories by the UK's version of the National Enquirer, The Daily Mail ( see

http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286

). The BroJos are treating TDM's regurgitation of what's (mainly already) been reported as news.

How about dealing with substance? Are you equating David Epstein - the primary reporter for ProPublica in "breaking" this story along with the BBC - with the National Enquirer?

My point is that the credibility of reporter and sources matter, especially in a "drug cheat" story where so far no direct evidence or firsthand account of actual doping has been presented. The BroJos recently retracted a statement that was not true that they had posted based on their memory. Pretty low standard of journalism (I think this happened, at least it's how I remember it?? really?). When making claims that can/will destroy another reputation and livelihood I'd expect more. Epstein, the "trustworthy" reporter that many have cited as why the "original" (placed in quotes because I believe he compiled the various accusations that had been out there for a while, and added a few new quotes and pics from Gouchers and Magness) story had legs and proved the credibility of the allegations wrote a story that challenged the reputation, competence and integrity of Don Catlin regarding drug testing/anti-doping. Catlin strongly rebuked the story.

This stuff isn't as black and white as you want to make it. And using Catlin as a source without bringing up his history is a joke. Especially when the current storyline is built on top of Epstein (whose reporting undermines Catlin's credibility).

Rojo

Can I request

1 Salazar thread

1 Global Warming thread

1 Hate thread

Then we can get back to using the boards for what they were intended

.ryan foreman wrote:

Next thing you know we are going to hear disturbing allegations that Flagpole masturbated to a Shannon Tweed movie in the early 90s instead of reading Fortune magazine.

???

Rojo

Can I request

1 Salazar thread

1 Global Warming thread

1 Hate thread

Then we can get back to using the boards for what they were intended

Randy Oldman wrote:

Rojo

Can I request

1 Salazar thread

1 Global Warming thread

1 Hate thread

Then we can get back to using the boards for what they were intended

ONE FOR MAKHLOUFI!!!

Al Sals statement was weak at best

Get over yourself, you're a hypocrite.

Where's the hypocrisy?

More of the usual losers rant.com - ad hominem attacks instead of rational argument.

Give me a break. wrote:

[quote]Trust me, I'm Jimmy Saville wrote:

Get over yourself, you're a hypocrite.

just like the bloke in his handle.

rojo wrote:

Man Overboard wrote:

Maybe a mod can merge this thread with the existing ones?

I'm trying to merge it by hand. After 15 years, I don't know how to do it and Weldon isn't answering the phone.

After more than 40 years you still don't know basic English grammar and spelling.

Why the need to private tests? Probably for the same reason East Germany had a strict internal testing system; to make sure your athletes doesn't get caught in the real anti-doping tests. Give me the name of a East German who tessted positive, apart from Ilona Slupianek/Schoknecht/Briesenick/Longo.

gwalkerruns wrote:

As I said yesterday, I am expecting no.18 (now 19) to come forward tomorrow and say something like, "Galen Rupp had extra pimples on his face before his record 10k." Amazing how so many peoples memory all of a sudden has been recovered. Keeping your mouth shut for years (or decades) does a lot to shoot down your credibility. We now have the crowd effect at work....if you do not know what I mean just watch video of a riot. Regardless, the more who come forward without indisputable physical evidence the more ridiculous this gets. I hope Al sues for defammation. Start with Kara so we can watch her cry again.

Because of behavior like this:

As Magness grew more disillusioned with the Oregon Project, his relationship with Salazar became less collegial. According to another email Magness shared with ProPublica and the BBC, Salazar disagreed with an altitude-training decision Magness made. At the close of the email Salazar warned Magness: "We really want to give you a positive recommendation to wherever you apply for collegiate positions but you are going to make it very hard for [Nike director of global athletics John Capriotti], Ben and I to do so when a Nike school Athletic Director calls us to ask about you if you go this route. Think this over very carefully." A Nike school typically refers to a college that has an apparel sponsorship deal with Nike.

gwalkerruns wrote:

Amazing how so many peoples memory all of a sudden has been recovered. Keeping your mouth shut for years (or decades) does a lot to shoot down your credibility.

I'll respond as if you really believe this.

Any adult with a pulse has surely observed, if not been a part of, a phenomenon in which a central figure wields power over a group (the group might be codified -- "Oregon Project" -- or abstract -- "Women who have sex with Tiger Woods" or "Women raped by Bill Cosby"). The power might be in the form of a supervisory role, or money and attendant fame, etc.

Let's say the central figure is systematically committing acts that make the individuals in the group uncomfortable for some reason, but not uncomfortable enough to force them to approach any outside parties by way of seeking resolution. People don't want to lose their jobs, or have their names bandied about in an unflattering way in public, or risk lawsuits -- whatever. So they keep quiet, something that makes it very easy to later dismiss them as cowards and the like.

Finally, something happens to compel one person to come forward and accuse the central figure of something. Tiger's first mistress. Cosby's (or a Catholic priest's) first victim. Or one of Alberto's lab rats.

It is not only not implausible to understand why more and more people would come out of the woodwork in short order to report similar stories, it's exactly what you should expect if you have any grasp of human psychology.

If you know that a dozen people have told your very story, wouldn't that embolden you to do the same despite your previously described reservations? Surely you've heard of "safety in numbers." It's a trite little saying, but it clearly fits.

This (obviously, I hope) is not to say that every accuser in such a situation is telling the truth, or that those making valid accusations can be presumed to be morally pure themselves. But to marvel over so many people coming forward at the same time is like marveling how many snowflakes seem to appear in the sky when there are already a lot of snowflakes falling.