ProPublica Responds to Alberto Salazar's Response - "Alberto Salazar Disputes Allegations—Some of Which Were Never Made"

YAWN!!! @ Brit PR drone liar

defence = Brit for defense

New Yorkers don't spell the word defense as defense.

This. A thousand times, this. Pushing for clarity and convincing evidence before condemning someone does not mean you are a paid shill for that person. But I suppose this is LRC, after all...

Montesquieu wrote:

I'm interested in the truth of the matter. Epstein appears interested in defending a position he has already staked out. But the truth is hard to get at, hence the importance of chipping away at the veneer of nonsense. Of course on this site when you do that, people assume you're an advocate of the other position, rather than simply having high standards of evidence.

Idisagrreee wrote:

This is Letsrun...no one cares about journalism.

Besides that, Whitman, Twain, etc., use dreadful quite often. Literate you're not.

This is getting funny. Only a Brit would bring up american authors to contend they are british!

And the guy that replied in agreement who said "Bingo"! Who says that? That is so British!! This thread is hilarious just watching obvious Brits pretend they are not.

Did anyone call the response this morning "brilliant"?

Monty, the person who put down stakes is Salazar. Salazar has a rather nasty habit of not telling the truth. That is the real truth here.

I'm working on the homepage tonight. I just came across an column by Oliver Brown, a UK columnist, that will shoot a thrill up the legs of NOP skeptics much like President Obama's old speeches did for Chris Matthews.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/mo-farah/11697636/Sorry-Alberto-Salazar-but-the-haters-will-carry-on-hating.htmlVicioius.Imagine if I wrote something like that. A few excerpts.

and

That all appears in the first 4 paragraphs.

While it definitely does not make me trust Salazar, I think people should actually read his response, which includes copies of many documents directly refuting allegations before claiming that the ProPublica guy saying saladbars response is bad because it addressed accusations outside the article. I mean a lot of people have been talking about the whole andro-gel hotel room incident for years now and alberto just proved that it is his....

Also this told us a lot more about Galen's thyroid and allergy issues than we have ever known before.

Have you done a poll of your flatmates? What do they think? Let us know.

magness man wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/mo-farah/11696895/Alberto-Salazar-latest-Mo-Farahs-coach-breaks-silence-on-doping-allegations.html

That's got some good stuff. I didn't read all of Magness's letter. HEre is a summary:

Telegraph wrote:

"However, the Daily Telegraph has seen Magness’s official contract termination letter that casts major doubt on Salazar’s version of events.

The letter from Nike, sent in June 2012, made it expressly clear that it was a “mutual decision to terminate the contract”.

It then concluded: “Should an opportunity present itself to work together again in the future, Nike would welcome consideration of such an opportunity.”

So Salazar tries to act like Magness was let go as he sucked yet in reality it was clear Magness wasn't comfortable there.

Stop with the "mutual termination" letter means Magness wasn't fired. Anyone experienced with hiring/firing/HR know that they are used ALL the time, and virtually every time the employer has decided to terminate the employee and just uses this LEGAL document to mutually agree that neither party has any legal claim(s) against the other party. Basically the employer uses it to reduce/eliminate legal risk, the employer is protecting itself. I've never seen a mutual termination agreement used when the employee decides to resign. Then the employee sends a letter of resignation.

And the it is NOT responsible journalism to present such a doc/common hr practice as if it really means in a conventional sense that the employee's termination was mutual. This is the weak tea that Propublica, The Daily mail and now Telegraph are peddling in their defense - pretty fricking weak

Looks like Dr. Brown passed the Androgel-test buck back to Salazar and is not admitting prescribing T to his sons.

Which of them is telling the truth, if either?

One idiot dumber than the next.http://www.letsrun.com/forum/process_search.php?search=Montesquieu&search_time=0Try reading.

ask around wrote:

Have you done a poll of your flatmates? What do they think? Let us know.

I'm thinking the Freud PR cronies know the end result of all this. ONce Alsal goes down, their beloved Mobot goes down with him.

ehhhhhhhh wrote:

The article seemed terribly biased

I'm not so much disagreeing with you as going a step further and wondering how this could even be possible.

The article is little more than an assortment of paragraphs in which Epstein writes "Salazar wrote this..." and Epstein himself replies "But this is what was actually said." And there are plenty of links to follow to fact-check the piece.

In other words, it's rather like a meta-analysis in clinical medicine. It's not an opinion column and really doesn't have the potential to even be biased. If you think that you can dispute any of David Epstein's "buts," then have at it. There are certainly a lot of sentences to choose from.

Serious?

HOW DO YOU NOT SEE HOW BIAS AND SHITTY YOU GUYS ARE?

You have an agenda. I'm out of this damn site.

Maybe I'm being presumptuous that the brojos will actually read this - but I'd really like Mr. Epstein to ask Kara Goucher the following pertinent question and the brojos seem to be buddy-buddy with him so maybe they have some pull:

When EXACTLY does Kara say she received that bottle of Cytomel? Was it March/April before Boston....or August before the WC? Let's have our intrepid investigative reporter ask some hard questions and get the full truth out in the open.

Epstein's response is long on 'bbbbut we never accused AlSal of that in the first place' and short on new details.

We were led to believe that Epstein was harboring a ton of additional evidence that he would use to trap and contradict any AlSal rebuttal. WHERE IS THAT EVIDENCE? All I see is defense and backpedaling.

Seriously?!!?

You put articles from the fish wrapper tabloid the Daily Mail on home page and now have found another British "writer" that agrees with your point of view.

Sure put this on your blog home page, any pretense that Let's Run does any journalism is long gone.

I agree that Epstein's latest is quite weak, almost a knee-jerk response, again without documentation, just more "he said, she said". What I gather from this is that they are trying to take cover for the certain libel lawsuits that will be in the works in coming months. After the "investigation" by the US agency is complete, and their report is published, you will see Salazar and Nike go for the jugular. We are in round three of a five round TKO fight.

Go and have a good wank then complain to the queen

comedy101 wrote:

Serious?

HOW DO YOU NOT SEE HOW BIAS AND SHITTY YOU GUYS ARE?

You have an agenda. I'm out of this damn site.

Unfortunately I'm losing a lot of respect for Epstein. How much criticism was Salazar under with no rebuttal? And now he attacks him for not only acknowledging the facts but also acknowledging the undertones of the story....for Epstein to bring up the TUEs....their original article definitely used innuendo to make it seem as though they were abusing the TUE system, even if they didn't come out and say "Galen had ___ TUEs in (year) ___."

And the edition of that Nike contract is comical and fits Salazars story...Mags was told his contract wouldn't be renewed, Salazar and Mags decided (apparently mutually) to split ways before his Nike contract was completely up, ad Nike issued a pretty standard mutual agreement form that would protect itself and also give Mags an opportunity to continue coaching in a field where Nike (predominantly controls). Try to imagine how hard it may have been for Mags to get a position at a Nike school with a Nike "termination" mark on his resume.

Also, how you're still going to Adam Goucher as a source is beyond me. I'm not so sure this has to be summed up...it should be obvious that he suffers from Alan Webb type depression due to lack of competitiveness in a field where he used to dominate. It's unfortunate that his career ended the way it did, but it makes him unreliable. Watch the documentary five thousand meters and tell me he's someone you would put a lot of trust in....

As for Stiner...well honestly, if I would have been in his shoes, I would have found it very concerning as well. The testosterone supps and the cold package were certainly alarming, however Salazar has cleared those up. He provided more than enough evidence (and when I say more than enough, I'm particularly talking about disclosing personal medical records) to support his narrative. I do commend Stiner, but Salazar has successfully answered those concerns.

As for the testing on his own sons...still kind of sketchy to administer a drug to your own kids, but that doesn't implicate them for doping. If they were "trying to figure out how to cheat the test" they would have administered the supp prior to the exercise...why would Galen put the gel on after a race??

My thoughts anyways

The Freud PR cronies will have their hands full trying to collect their fees from Salazar. Salazar will not pay full price. Freud will expect nothing but full price. An epic battle will ensue.

The the owner of Freud when to battle with Ruppert Murdock, a multi-billionaire AND his wife's father, to the point that it ended his marriage to the daughter is something Salazar doesn't seem aware of.