Goucher releases statement: Further evidence will only be shared with USADA.

YAWN!!!

The USADA will drop the massive perma-ban hammer on the Oregon Project's head.

This is basically over. She waited this long to give us that? She's just trying to get her 15 minutes and it's done now

Well so much for that. Seeing as USADA knew about all of these problems since 2011 and did exactly....NOTHING, I guess that's what we should expect in the future.

Kara should know this. Maybe she has nothing else of value to disclose.

So, now that no public evidence is coming out this whole thing will be slowly forgotten until USADA is done with their investigation.

I wonder how quick USADA will move on this. Will they try to finish their investigation before worlds?

Will they release information from their investigation if there are no sanctions?

Let's assume there really is more evidence. She was talking a big game about sharing it before, right? So why the change?

Is she afraid of more character attacks against her? Maybe now that the media story got usada's attention, no more public outcry is needed? Maybe she expected more NOP people to come forward with new evidence after USAs, and that never materialized? Maybe the other evidence is incriminating to other athletes besides Galen, whose image Kara might want to protect?

This seems like an odd change in tactics, and honestly, at first glance, in my eyes, it lends credibility to AlSal. She was so eager to share before, but she didn't say a single new thing in that message; everything in there was already said weeks ago. I guess we'll just have to see how the presumably ongoing usada investigation pans out.

Calling all exegetes and practitioners of the dark arts of hermeneutics! Tell us what this means:

"I have ultimately decided that it won’t help the USADA investigation if I share any further evidence publicly, so any new knowledge will be shared to USADA alone."

I'm especially intrigued by the phrase "new knowledge." Whence will this new knowledge come? Will she find it in her attic? Will someone whisper it to her in an underground parking garage? Will she bite into a madeleine and experience it flooding back from her past?

---

ya..... wrote:

Such a cry baby! This is just laughable:

"What prevented me from coming forward in 2011 was fear of further retribution after already being suspended by Nike for giving birth to our son."

Right, so now we are saying "we're only reporting directly to USADA" but she feels the need to make up more lies. Is anyone here really going to believe Nike is anti-family? It's one thing to make the "illegal activity" claims but another to say they don't support mothers. I bet many other Nike athletes will have a much different story there.

To me it sounds like she just wants to get the last punch in a bratty way. Just when I thought she couldn't be more classless..

---

---

Maternity leave in professional running is rare. A pregnancy is still frequently treated as if it were an injury, and women can experience a pay cut or not be paid at all if they do not compete for six months. During that period, they often remain bound to sponsors in exclusive contracts that can last upward of six years. Because the athletes are independent contractors, they are not covered by laws that protect employed women in pregnancy.

---

This woman has just lost all credibility.

1. It was her, not Nike that decided this needed a bigger audience than USADA. She's the one causing a disturbance for her fellow athletes, not Nike. She's using this as an excuse on why she never delivered what was promised at Nationals, and she still hasn't delivered it. Now that she started a street fight she is claiming that it is best if she only talks to USADA. She wants it both ways.

2. Nike did not suspend her for being pregnant. This statement alone makes me think she is not an honest, but is a spiteful, person. In this day and age, and living in California, every company with over 5 employees would know this is completely illegal and creates huge (as in HUGE) liability. IMO This is simply not true. If it were true, Kara would be a millionaire now and not out social media-ing her middle aged women's clothing sponsor.

Good riddance.

Attending track meets while watching Capriotti and Starks strut around while berating fellow coaches & athletes is always a joy. It's no wonder this is swept out with yesterday's old newspapers when entire careers are on the line.

---

Gurgle wrote:

---

ya..... wrote:

Such a cry baby! This is just laughable:

"What prevented me from coming forward in 2011 was fear of further retribution after already being suspended by Nike for giving birth to our son."

Right, so now we are saying "we're only reporting directly to USADA" but she feels the need to make up more lies. Is anyone here really going to believe Nike is anti-family? It's one thing to make the "illegal activity" claims but another to say they don't support mothers. I bet many other Nike athletes will have a much different story there.

To me it sounds like she just wants to get the last punch in a bratty way. Just when I thought she couldn't be more classless..

---

I couldn't find anything contemporaneous with her pregnancy about being suspended. My guess is it is more along the lines of the fact that she had a contract that was heavily tied to performance, and she was not performing during that time. It was touched on a bit in this article that includes quotes from Goucher: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/sports/for-pregnant-marathoners-2-endurance-tests.html

---

Maternity leave in professional running is rare. A pregnancy is still frequently treated as if it were an injury, and women can experience a pay cut or not be paid at all if they do not compete for six months. During that period, they often remain bound to sponsors in exclusive contracts that can last upward of six years. Because the athletes are independent contractors, they are not covered by laws that protect employed women in pregnancy.

---

Anyway, none of this seems to relate to doping, it is more about her displeasure with her treatment at Nike after having a child.

---

First of all, based on past reports from Goucher, Fleshman and Rothstein-Bruce it's typical for shoe company contracts to not cover athletes when they're pregnant. Thus, I don't see how this gets interpreted as justification for expecting Nike to drop her for reporting illicit activities. Further- as an aside- my job can't fire me for having a child, but it's FMLA NOT my employer that pays me during 3 months of maternity leave. Point being- shoe companies are not so different from other employers.

Second, why promise more info and not give it? If she had further knowledge then why wouldn't David Epstein have presented it in his ProPublica pieces?

I just don't get why people accept her alluding to issues without providing evidence. Even the latest thinly vailed insult to Nike over taking issue with something- why not just say what happened? It's not that I doubt that Nike can be absurd or unethical, but I am not going to boycott a company because some woman on Twitter made a passive aggressive non-specific statement.

And finally, I would just ask Kara about this on Twitter, but it seems like anything short of a high five would count me as a "hater," and I'd rather not be bullied by the aptly named flock.

Correction- short term disability that pays me on maternity leave.

---

Boca baton wrote:

First of all, based on past reports from Goucher, Fleshman and Rothstein-Bruce it's typical for shoe company contracts to not cover athletes when they're pregnant. Thus, I don't see how this gets interpreted as justification for expecting Nike to drop her for reporting illicit activities. Further- as an aside- my job can't fire me for having a child, but it's FMLA NOT my employer that pays me during 3 months of maternity leave. Point being- shoe companies are not so different from other employers.

Second, why promise more info and not give it? If she had further knowledge then why wouldn't David Epstein have presented it in his ProPublica pieces?

I just don't get why people accept her alluding to issues without providing evidence. Even the latest thinly vailed insult to Nike over taking issue with something- why not just say what happened? It's not that I doubt that Nike can be absurd or unethical, but I am not going to boycott a company because some woman on Twitter made a passive aggressive non-specific statement.

And finally, I would just ask Kara about this on Twitter, but it seems like anything short of a high five would count me as a "hater," and I'd rather not be bullied by the aptly named flock.

---

"Out of respect to my fellow runners celebrating their USA meet and teammates racing overseas, I delayed talking about this subject a couple weeks so that more positivity could be focused on the amazing track performances in the US and abroad that deserve full attention."

When you read the rest of the statement, you realize how silly this supposedly altruistic person is. She is still delaying talking about the subject. Had she released this non-statement the day after AS, it would have made ZERO difference.

---

Boca baton wrote:
Second, why promise more info and not give it? If she had further knowledge then why wouldn't David Epstein have presented it in his ProPublica pieces?

---

---

How quick? wrote:

I wonder how quick USADA will move on this. Will they try to finish their investigation before worlds?

Will they release information from their investigation if there are no sanctions?

---