"People have been threatened at this meet" - Kara Goucher

On Sunday night Salazar promised to co-operate with Usada if it decides to question him, saying: “Absolutely, I’ve got nothing to hide.” However, when asked whether he would do so under oath, he said: “I don’t understand exactly what that means. I’d need to speak to my lawyer.” When told it would mean if he lied then he would be in trouble, Salazar repeated: “I would have to speak to my lawyer about that.”

(Not replying to poster above but in general) - a few comments:

1. It needs to be reiterated - the attention-seeking and vindictive argument is BS. Why on earth would the Gouchers or Magness want THIS kind of attention? Why would about 30 athletes and former athletes step forward?

2. There are a few truly phenomenal coaches in the US, Vigil, Gags, Wetmore, and none of them ever attracted this kind of negativity and suspicion with regard to their methods.

3. The massage therapist John Stiner. Does his ex-wife who worked with him corroborate his story (Sarah)? It's believable.

4. There are no safety nets in American track and field. Anyone who speaks out against NIKE and USATF is committing professional suicide. Even 'on-the-cusp' 28:30 10K guys have to work. Elite athletes are scared because a) NIKE can sue them into bankruptcy, and b) USATF can ban from them its meets with its goon tactics. See old threads on the shenanigans of John Chaplin.

5. Have you ever thought of the ramifications of trying to take on an entity like NIKE and its team of powerful lawyers? The Gouchers and the others would be sued into homelessness.

6. Someone needs to take a closer look at why Centro was missing tests last year when the thread blew up here. I sense there is something hidden there.

plume-de-nom wrote:

1. It needs to be reiterated - the attention-seeking and vindictive argument is BS. Why on earth would the Gouchers or Magness want THIS kind of attention? Why would about 30 athletes and former athletes step forward?

Intelligent people are not making the "publicity-hound" argument. All variants of it are mindless on their face.

As for why John Stiner's ex-wife has been silent, well, see your #4.

One argument that appears to be popular among non-troll, non-brain-dead observers is this one:

"Salazar was up front about testing the testosterone cream on his sons. He even told USATF about the experiments, and never hid his Androgel. Would a guilty man flaunt these things?"

The answer is a resounding yes. Of course he would.

If you were planning to use "I was sabotaged!" as an excuse for a positive drug test, wouldn't you want the people doing the testing to know that you were supposedly taking steps to safeguard against such a thing, so that if your athlete did piss hot, you could refer back to your "experiment" and say, "This is exactly what I was talking about"?

Those who see Salazar's being forthcoming about these "experiments" as pointing toward him being on the level about them are either extremely credulous or not considering the matter at any length. A person operating an ongoing doping program is not going to neglect covering his ass in any way possible at every step. And even if you don't think Salazar is doing any outright cheating these days, he has made careers as both an athlete and a coach of pushing the limits, thinking of the next possible unexploited means of gaining an edge, and in general being unabashedly Machiavellian.

I am not saying that Salazar is clearly guilty on account of any of these things, only that it's laughable to see them as bolstering his claims of playing fair.

...and say, "This is exactly what I was talking about"?

Your Britishness shows through here. Why do you care about what happens in American athletics?

If you were planning to use "I was sabotaged!" as an excuse for a positive drug test, wouldn't you want the people doing the testing to know that you were supposedly taking steps to safeguard against such a thing...

The grey-zone program works like this: Apply the maximum amount of banned "stuff" that keeps testing results below trigger-limits. This is a lot of "stuff", not an amount that could be applied without someone knowing about it. A saboteur would only need to apply a small amount of "stuff" to knock athlete's level above the trigger-limit. So, if the trigger-limit is 4:1, the coach applies "stuff" to get the athlete to 3.9:1; then a saboteur adds 0.2 to push the athlete to 4.1:1. That is why Salazar is so paranoid if someone touches his athletes after a race, and before they are tested.

Can't deal with rational argument, just sling mud and attack the person.

Seems like the only drones are the ones reflexively worshipping at the altar of Kara Goucher.

Just another ad hominem wrote:

Seems like the only drones are the ones reflexively worshipping at the altar of Kara Goucher.

Guys beat me up all of the time. I love picking on women because I am strong than them, and it makes me feel like a real man.

You have to be hysterically laughably deluded to believe that a PR company is replying to inane jabberings on what is undoubtedly a throughly irrelevant and inconsequential forum.

People persist in believing that this is somehow possible. The latest social research on this ability demonstrates clearly that it's impossible to detect from "body language" whether someone is squirming because they're lying or squirming out of the frustration of being wrongly accused of something.You can ask an elite athlete who's been accused of doping, "Are the allegations against you true?" and that athlete may produce an awkward, halting, stuttering denial. It may be because he or she is lying; it may be because he or she is frustrated and/or embarrassed by having to deny false allegations. It's impossible to tell.Similarly, Yes, people really can lie without being detected.

Interviewers.... wrote:

The USADA interviews take words, squirms, and body language into consideration. It is part of an interviewer's job to look for signs of failure to tell the truth.

Volvic Jupiter wrote:

You have to be hysterically laughably deluded to believe that a PR company is replying to inane jabberings on what is undoubtedly a throughly irrelevant and inconsequential forum.

Can you believe, my PR firm pays me to write posts like this? :-)

Interesting Quotess wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo0QBCuYZcc

Kara's response. I fully believe her and I know the truth will prevail.

\

If anyone has been threatened a simple filing of a police complaint could be put forth. If its legitimate something would happen, if not well we call it paranoia.

Funny she has not spoke about the the claims of Adam being a jerk and over involved husband in her running career.

Pure BS wrote:

If anyone has been threatened a simple filing of a police complaint could be put forth.

She didn't say "threatened with bodily harm" or anything that would necessitate police involvement. If someone told you that if you ever again post stupid things on Letsrun, he'll tell the world that you've falsified all of your PRs, would you call the cops?

Pure BS wrote:

Funny she has not spoke about the the claims of Adam being a jerk and over involved husband in her running career.

Exactly what legal or WADA codes would these "offenses" violate?

Just another ad hominem wrote:

Can't deal with rational argument, just sling mud and attack the person.

Seems like the only drones are the ones reflexively worshipping at the altar of Kara Goucher.

What are these "rational arguments" against Kara and Adam Goucher? Or if you prefer, in support of Salazar's defense against the Gouchers' alcugations?

I get that they so far haven't claimed that they saw seen banned PEDs used in the NOP, on themselves or anyone else. That's obviously different from them saying that they did see such things and later being exposed as liars.

I get that she hasn't yet said everything she plans to say and that some people find this not only frustrating but somehow inappropriate.

I get that some people are dim enough to believe that because the Gouchers are well past their best running years, they're trying to hog the spotlight to make up for this, even if that spotlight obviously means being shredded by a legion of nameless Internet termites.

Why have the Gouchers, and Kara in particular, become such targets of vitriol? They are two people out of maybe 25 or more who have spoken out against Salazar either publicly or to regulatory agencies or both. It might help if I add that it's perfectly easy to simultaneously dislike them and believe them. Do people think that Kara has lied to the press? If so, on what basis? (Please don't link to any of the chapters in Salazar's black-fantasy novella unless you're prepared to explain in some detail how it withstands real scrutiny.)

Why are people claiming that all pro-Salazarian posters are from the UK? What's that about?

KMB wrote:

Why have the Gouchers, and Kara in particular, become such targets of vitriol?

Because she is going to reveal something that Salazar is deathly afraid of. She said so this weekend. The attacks against her increased on Monday. Today, the attacks have diminished. It is rather easy to figure out that the severe bulling was a paid for adventure.

question? wrote:

Why are people claiming that all pro-Salazarian posters are from the UK? What's that about?

Not all, most of them. Yes, UKers, and many of them have been obvious.

based on what, though? IP? Or am I just bad at detecting UK English.

question? wrote:

Why are people claiming that all pro-Salazarian posters are from the UK? What's that about?

I know right.

It astounds me how stupid people are here, especially the KMB poster. Alberto did absolutely no wrong. Kara is lieing. Steve is lieing. Stiner is lieing. KMB is probably a buddy of Steve's.

Can we lock this thread now?

Karas Nose wrote:

Can we lock this thread now?

This usually works for us at Frued. Unfortunately, we can't get bloody access to letrun.com to do it ourselves.

In quieter reflective moments KMB is going to sit back and ask himself the question, why the feck did I waste hours on this thread?