Is Rupp prepared to testify under oath? "We'll see."

Vyhhbggjvgjbu wrote:

Didn't Lance lie under oath. Was there any consequence for him? Did he go to jail or something?

Why couldn't Galen also lie under oath?

What's the difference. There doesn't seem to be any consequence for it.

What's worse: lying under oath, or refusing to testify in the preliminary stages of the investigation? Lance lied and didn't get caught for another 7 years; Rupp won't even lie about it.

Perkunas wrote:

Reporter: "Would you testify under oath?"

Kara: "I would welcome that opportunity." [emphatically and without hesitation]

Rupp: "eh, we'll see...you know they haven't, uhh, .... we'll see whatever we'll cross that bridge when we get there I guess."

Rowbury also dodged when asked this question, saying she didn't want to speak in hypotheticals.

coached answer? wrote:

Rowbury also dodged when asked this question, saying she didn't want to speak in hypotheticals.

maybe she meant "hypodermics"

There's an enormous difference between testifying against someone else (which would be Goucher's circumstance) and testifying in defense of oneself. The latter has all kinds of ramifications in terms of sanctions and punishments that the former does not. This is why anyone who is in the latter position and who has any brains would surely consult an attorney about exactly what one is committing oneself to in agreeing to take an oath, in actually taking an oath, etc. And please don't be naive and think, "well, just tell the truth and if you're innocent you have nothing to fear."

coached answer? wrote:

Perkunas wrote:

Reporter: "Would you testify under oath?"

Kara: "I would welcome that opportunity." [emphatically and without hesitation]

Rupp: "eh, we'll see...you know they haven't, uhh, .... we'll see whatever we'll cross that bridge when we get there I guess."

Rowbury also dodged when asked this question, saying she didn't want to speak in hypotheticals.

"he's one of the most pathetic individuals in the athletic world"

Wow, how sad!

You are so blinded by your hate and jealousy of Rupp you have lost all sense of common decency. You spew hateful words and personal attacks against a athlete.

Good luck brother I hope you find some peace!

Montesquieu wrote:

And please don't be naive and think, "well, just tell the truth and if you're innocent you have nothing to fear."

Only liars have something to fear. You really are rather naive Monte Sq. You sully the name of the real Montesquieu.

Alberto won't testify under oath. Why do you think Rupp would?

I'm as honest as anyone that I know, and I would not testify under oath, which would pure and simple be harassment of my personal life, and no one's business but my own.

It wouldn't surprise me if both of them are doing the same thing on this issue - both testify or neither one does.

When asked if he'd testify under oath, Salazar says he'd have to ask his lawyer:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/28/mo-farah-warned-team-mate-alberto-salazar-revelations

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6592865

wtf????? wrote:

Come on dude, quit it. So somebody isn't very good at talking to the media means they have been controlled all their life to the point of being stupid and pathetic? There are charismatic people like Nick Symmonds who give great interviews and are good at answering questions on the fly. Then there are guys like Galen who are probably a bit shy or introverted and struggle being in front of so many cameras and recorders.

This isn't saying he's clean or dirty, but that he's just not good at interviews.

He is very different off camera. Not everyone is comfortable in front of a camera. He's sincere, well spoken, sharp, funny, nice, polite and a gentlemen.

Everything that some of you unhappy self-hating, morose, feces bits of the internet comment board cesspool, will never be. (tip o the hat to the NY Times).

"Uhm, uh, we just want to say that, uh, we believe in a clean sport. And uh my uh Alberto is like a second father to me and, uh, these past few weeks have uh been uh really hard on us, but uh we just want to race and do our best and uh win. Can I have my Xbox game now?"

wtf????? wrote:

Come on dude, quit it. So somebody isn't very good at talking to the media means they have been controlled all their life to the point of being stupid and pathetic?

Let's cut to the chase, sad as it may be. Rupp is little more than a sheltered man-child who Alberto has been molding into a human equivalent of a thoroughbred racehorse since he was in jr. high school. He does what he is told, takes the pills he's supposed to take, completes the workouts that he's supposed to run, receives the shots he's supposed to receive, and repeats what he's supposed to say...or at least attempts to as best as his limited communication skills permit...and receives a reward at the end when he does well. In the few instances that he is EVER permitted to speak for himself on camera, in addition to being incapable of completing a coherent sentence he's also completely deferential to whatever the hell Alberto told him and doesn't exhibit even the slightest sign of an independent thought. And saddest of all, he seems to have parents who have placed their complete trust in Alberto while convincing themselves that their son, whom Alberto has used for his medical experiments for over a decade, is their perfect little poopykins angel who could never do any wrong while Saint Alberto himself is some sort of ultrareligious parent-figure that they themselves were incapable of ever providing him. The result is that Rupp remains completely sheltered from both the culpability of his own actions and from the real world to the point that his overprotective handlers would NEVER let him testify under oath on anything unless he was forced to.

That's why he also amended his statement to the media today to indicate that he'd sign a sworn affadavit as opposed to - you know - actual testimony where he'd be cross examined.

It is indeed funny how all the focus is on Salazar and much less on Rupp.

If you think back at Ben Johnson, 95% of the focus was on Ben. Even though it was Charlie Francis who made it mandatory to take PEDs if you were going to train with him. The whole club was on PED. Ben was probably younger than Rupp when he was caught. Yet the whole focus was/is on Ben.

Same thing with Lance, the whole focus is on Lance.

Somehow, we still think of Rupp as a 16 y.o., a naive child, even though he's almost 30 y.o.

J.R. wrote:

I'm as honest as anyone that I know, and I would not testify under oath, which would pure and simple be harassment of my personal life, and no one's business but my own.

You're not a professional athlete, or anywhere near competing on national teams representing the US.

If you are, details of your substance use are very much USADA's business)

Salazar and Rupp's fear of going under oath speaks volumes. (While those they call liars welcome the opportunity.)

A Duck wrote:

He is very different off camera. Not everyone is comfortable in front of a camera. He's sincere, well spoken, sharp, funny, nice, polite and a gentlemen.

Everything that some of you unhappy self-hating, morose, feces bits of the internet comment board cesspool, will never be. (tip o the hat to the NY Times).

Try again in English, please, U of O.

An Educkation wrote:

A Duck wrote:

He is very different off camera. Not everyone is comfortable in front of a camera. He's sincere, well spoken, sharp, funny, nice, polite and a gentlemen.

Everything that some of you unhappy self-hating, morose, feces bits of the internet comment board cesspool, will never be. (tip o the hat to the NY Times).

Try again in English, please, U of O.

Once again A Duck is pretending to be an UO insider. I bet half the NOP and UO athletes have restraining orders against the nut job wannabee. What a pathetic Loser you are in your make-believe pretend world.

Monte is naive wrote:

Montesquieu wrote:

And please don't be naive and think, "well, just tell the truth and if you're innocent you have nothing to fear."

Only liars have something to fear. You really are rather naive Monte Sq. You sully the name of the real Montesquieu.

Montesquieu is exactly right. Defending oneself in the court of public opinion against slanderous accusations is extremely stressful and dangerous for the defendant and relatively easy for the accuser.

I have personally been the target of a public smear campaign, and I thought I was ready for it. I thought "I'm a decent guy. I didn't do anything wrong. This can't hurt me. People will see the truth." I was wrong.

I always laugh at the naivete of those who say "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!". The underlying assumption that allows you to be so wrong and so self-righteous at the same time is that you assume the attackers are searching for the truth.

Most people aren't. They are trying to destroy someone else to improve their position, gain power, or simply to exact vengeance for perceived wrong. Or even if independent parties pursue the truth, how can it come out in such a toxic emotionally charged atmosphere?

Another assumption I want to challenge directly is the idea that "everyone does it", supported by the Lance Armstrong epic disaster. Well, after having personally been accused of doing something "that everyone does", and having the certain knowledge that I did NOT do it, I can tell the world that not EVERYONE does it! I wish I could pass that knowledge on to everyone else, but I think you have to live it to know it.

Cynicism is justified, but should not be used to declare all suspects guilty at the first sign of suspicion. There is a possibility that everything is as AlSal said it was. I'm not convinced either way yet, but I do see the witch hunt going on, and that puts me in AlSal's camp until further proofs are provided.

Think a little wrote:

J.R. wrote:

I'm as honest as anyone that I know, and I would not testify under oath, which would pure and simple be harassment of my personal life, and no one's business but my own.

You're not a professional athlete, or anywhere near competing on national teams representing the US.

If you are, details of your substance use are very much USADA's business)

Salazar and Rupp's fear of going under oath speaks volumes. (While those they call liars welcome the opportunity.)

Only a very stupid person would come to the conclusions you do.

wtf????? wrote:

Come on dude, quit it. So somebody isn't very good at talking to the media means they have been controlled all their life to the point of being stupid and pathetic? There are charismatic people like Nick Symmonds who give great interviews and are good at answering questions on the fly. Then there are guys like Galen who are probably a bit shy or introverted and struggle being in front of so many cameras and recorders.

This isn't saying he's clean or dirty, but that he's just not good at interviews.

This ^

Rupp's not good in front of a camera. And some folks don't like him. None of that means that he can't think for himself.