"OK. I'm not sure I agree with where this may be going, but it makes sense."My principal point is pretty straightforward and not "going" anywhere it terms of implicating anyone. Often we (and I'd include myself) embellish things or engage in hyperbole carried away by the moment, and we are led to utter falsehoods, but not intentionally, and thus, by my lights, are not lies (self-deception is a powerful condition). And sometimes we get so caught up with matters that are so important to us that we get caught up in a narrative and lose sight of various things. Has this happened to Kara Goucher? Maybe. Has this happened to Salazar? Maybe. So it's not simply a matter that either this person is lying or that person is lying. Human psychology is a bit more complex than such a simplistic, dichotomous understanding
KMB wrote:
Montesquieu wrote:KMB--Embellishment, exaggeration, hyperbole, self-interested, special pleading, a desire to control a situation, defending oneself, dramatizing a situation--all of these lead to a false depiction of things without there being (intentional) lying.
Furthermore, on a certain crude level we can distinguish between a statement of fact and a statement of explanation and/or meaning. Ultimately this distinction breaks down, by as a fast and ready expedient it is helpful.
On the level of the statement of facts, there is a surprising amount of overlap between Salazar on the one hand, and Kara Goucher and Magness on the other.
What tends to happen, however, in accusatory circumstances, is that the latter, statements of meaning or explanation, are conflated with the former, statements of fact. (I could give many examples if need be.)
OK. I'm not sure I agree with where this may be going, bit it makes sense.
Montesquieu wrote:
The virtue of Salazar's response is that he mostly keeps these two things distinct.
I agree that he in many instances divorces his explanatory remarks from factual statements, in the sense that in his "open letter" he asserts a number of things as fact to lead off his various sections, only to then offer "Exhibits" that either fail to support these statements or, on a careful reading, even contradict them. In other words, he's weaselly, which is not a synonym of virtuous. But somehow I don't think this is what you meant...
Montesquieu wrote:
The problem with Goucher's interview after the 5000 is that she rambles, which lends itself to embellishment, and conflates (perhaps) what she actually claims to have witnessed and what she inferred was taking place.[/qoute]
Of course, this idea itself, as I'm sure you would freely admit, is an inference on your part. I'm far less concerned about the less-than-Churchillian expository tidbits that what Kara did say with unvarnished clarity. And she did say on no uncertain terms that she'll soon have real, and presumably damaging, information to provide. If she fails to live up to this, then she'll be criticized for it even more than she's been criticized unfairly, and rightly so. I don't think this will happen, but I'm no Nostradamus. Then again, neither was Nostradamus. He was more like a Sylvia Brown who didn't use the Internet to fleece people. Anyway...
[quote]Montesquieu wrote:
About the embellishment, when she says (and I think this is exact), "I have been harassed since 2011; harassed." Do you really think she has?
I have no idea what sort of behavior rises to her personal definition of the term. I've seen a number people say that Christians will be "persecuted" as a result of the SCOTUS decision concerning same-sex marriage, but I assume Kara puts the bar a little higher. I think that at the very worst, even if she's calling impositions that other people would view as comparatively trivial "harassment," this doesn't mean she's actually lying, and it certainly has no bearing on anything of substance between her, Salazar and the NOP.
Montesquieu wrote:
And she testified before USADA in 2013. Are we to believe she did not tell them all she knows such that she went back to them recently and is willing to give even more evidence (maybe this comes from others, though)?
I think your parenthetical mark is on point, and on top of that, if you assume that one or both Gouchers knowingly used PEDs while part of the program, it would make sense that she would come forward first and disclose only certain details, and only later offer more details -- possibly implicating herself or Adam in the process -- if her anger toward Salazar reached a point at which preferred seeing him punished to keeping the Goucher name pristine. So yes, I can see someone being only partially honest at first with an intimidating authority such as USADA only to be more honest later, and not merely owing to the scenario I just outlined. I'm sure she knew she'd get to meet with USADA personnel more than just the one time.
Montesquieu wrote:
And then when asked about certain matters--she falls back on claims about what will come out in the future working with reputable news agencies. This might seem a bit duplicitous. Indeed, here she sounds like NFL and NBA players who after being implicated in some wrongdoing claim that when the facts come out in the future we'll see what really happened . . . but we know they never do. And here I want to underscore "sounds like," and why people might be skeptical (and I did check on line to spell it the American way rather than the English way lest I be accused of being the latter!) about her.
I fully understand why people are skeptical, and why they think that she needs to put up or shut up (any agreement she has with USADA to limit her public comments notwithstanding). But again, I'm asking for examples of clear-cut lying from the many (or maybe it's exactly four -- no way to tell in this unaccredited mental hospital) people who accuse her or Adam or both of lying. It's fair to say, "She hasn't disclosed anything truly damning to the public," but unfair to say that this should have already happened or that it would have already happened if she had the goods on her former coach.
Montesquieu wrote:
Finally, if you do a search of all available threads on LetsRun looking for "Drama Queen," it's quite amazing how many hits over many years point in the direction of Kara Goucher. She does, you must admit, have a certain reputation.
Mayhap, but I wouldn't put a whole lot of stake in any reputation earned or meted out on this message board. I just did a site-specific Google search for "salazar AND liar" that produced 2,150 results, with fewer than 50 of these being tied to the BBC and Pro Publica stories and their aftermath.
