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

Kara has already been proven to be wrong on details of her accusations which under oath could be called perjury. No one with a brain would volunteer to go under oath. Simply getting a date wrong could get you in trouble. It is not the burden of the accused to prove innocence. It is the burden of the prosecutors to prove guilt. Nothing in this episode looks worthy of the govts time to invoke a legal proceeding...just more grandstanding by Kara. I predict if she was under oath and asked about her doping she would take the fifth.

Salazar admitted testing Performance Enhancing Drugs (controlled substance: testosterone cream) on his own children. Who provided these drugs and for what intended purpose? Was a human subjects research form completed. Who authorized/supervised this research? Several heads will roll over this. It\'s a major violation of drugs and research procedure involving human subjects. The doctor who provided the meds for this is screwed! One will blame the other, but their both screwed really.

There is no 'of course.' WHen Kara was asked if she'd go under oath, she immediately said yes. When Alberto was asked, he said he'd have to ask a lawyer.

Under oath simply means you'll face a perjury charge if you lie. I don't know why you need a lawyer to explain that to you.

I had to laugh when I read your last sentence as it's so desperate to call others desperate.

"But asking questions "under oath" has no meaning in and of itself. What context? "

Everyone past 3rd grade knows what under oath is. Again, Kara would go under oath immediately.

Honestly, when I read the title of this thread, I thought someone was trolling. I was like, "even if i was guilty as hell, i'd tell a reporter I'd go under oath". Salazar and the NOP need to hire a much better publicist.

From A PR standpont, Salazar's response was a disaster.

As someone explained, when you are totally free and feel as if you've got nothing to hide, you don't need a lawyer or publicist, you just speak out.

Rather than under oath, I'd rather see a lie detector test. I'd have two questions only for alberto.

1) Did you ever run androgel into Galen Rupp?

2) DId you ever coach someone on how to get an IV?

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate exactly the point I am making. That is poetry.

Ladies and gentlemen, the standard by which to judge whether a person should seek a lawyer before questioning "under oath" (whatever the hell that means in this particular situation) is now whether Kara Goucher would answer questions under oath. If you are ever asked if you would answer questions "under oath", just declare "Yes" because "What Would Kara Do?" If not, then you are obviously guilty..............of something.

As far as a PR disaster, I am not seeing this issue getting much traction anywhere exept this site and the message boards here and the reporting and attacks seem kind of desparate to me. Again, there is certainly some smoke and there may be a fire but I thought Alberto did a good job answering the allegations in his response.

rojo wrote:

There is no 'of course.' WHen Kara was asked if she'd go under oath, she immediately said yes. When Alberto was asked, he said he'd have to ask a lawyer.

Under oath simply means you'll face a perjury charge if you lie. I don't know why you need a lawyer to explain that to you.

From A PR standpont, Salazar's response was a disaster.

A PR disaster yet, but Goucher's response doesn't mean as much to me as it might appear either. I she going to answer any and all questions without consulting a lawyer at all? She might, but at this point I'm not sure her answer is much different than Salazar's other than being 100% better from a PR standpoint.

rojo wrote:

Everyone past 3rd grade knows what under oath is.

Rojo, since you have such a good grasp on the situation, can you explain exactly how "going under oath" works in this scenario? Who would put Salazar under oath? Where? Are the legal ramifications the same as in a criminal case?

Oh, and please do not consult a lawyer before answering. Since it is so obvious.

Floyd Pink wrote:

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate exactly the point I am making. That is poetry.

Ladies and gentlemen, the standard by which to judge whether a person should seek a lawyer before questioning "under oath" (whatever the hell that means in this particular situation) is now whether Kara Goucher would answer questions under oath. If you are ever asked if you would answer questions "under oath", just declare "Yes" because "What Would Kara Do?" If not, then you are obviously guilty..............of something.

As far as a PR disaster, I am not seeing this issue getting much traction anywhere exept this site and the message boards here and the reporting and attacks seem kind of desparate to me. Again, there is certainly some smoke and there may be a fire but I thought Alberto did a good job answering the allegations in his response.

Your poetry is pure UK: pure Freud PR toy-soldier. Your weak typos were giveaways. Your other errors you will have to figure out on your own.

Why have you not registered your name?

Your level of the testimony conducted under the circumstances of this case is incredibly weak.

If any of this is true, and if the DEA gets involved, Alberto is toast. Fortunately for him, the DEA has bigger fish to fry than a coach and a small handful of elites athletes

I watched an interview with Galen a few nights ago and he kept repeating

"I'm not gonna lie". Seems like that statement has been "coached" out of him and the new catch phrase is "I have nothing to hide"...I wish I could believe that!

I really don't mean to be harsh, and I wouldn't if this website were not yours, but you really are childlike and thoughtless in so many ways, and you most certainly have not been involved in any legal or quasi-legal proceedings. Let's keep this simple. First, does one actually "testify" before USADA or does one simply offer "evidence"? Second, if one does testify, does USADA ask one to take an oath? Third, if one does testify, does USADA allow one to have an attorney by one's side (in certain Title IX hearings--think of the Laura Kipnis case--one is not)? Fourth, does USADA recommend one have an attorney with one? Fifth, as an independent, non-governmental, but established by Congress, governing body, what punishments can USADA levy against one? If one takes an oath (presumably to tell the truth), does USADA have specifiable, determined punishments they can levy if one doesn't; or can they recommend to law enforcement certain punishments? Who decides if one has not told the truth? What if one mistakenly doesn't tell the truth--not a lie, but a clearly demonstrable unintentional falsehood: are there any punishments that can be applied to that? How do witnesses work if you agrees "to take an oath"? Is one allowed to call witnesses in defense of one's claims? This is just the tip of the iceberg of the questions one has to consider. Anyone called to testify (oath or no oath) before any legal or quasi-legal body in which the resulting actions might be gravely antithetical to one's own interests who doesn't consult an attorney is a fool. Salazar didn't know what agreeing to take an oath committed him to, so he gave a very prudent answer. I don't know whether USADA deals in the business of oaths? I don't know exactly what it would mean to agree to that and surely neither does anyone else who is urging Salazar to jump into the breech. I'm a university professor. If some administrator came to me and said there's been some charge made against you; we'd like to hear you're side of it; we're going to ask you to take an oath, etc. Well, however innocent I am, I would immediately say I'd have to consult an attorney.Lastly, in the circumstance at hand Goucher would be the accuser and Salazar the one accused. If you don't see the difference between those positions, and why the latter has to be vastly more cautious than the former, I wish you a great deal of luck in life, because you'll need a great deal of it.

WWKGD: a motto for living--fantastically hilarious. I wish I had thought of that.

Floyd Pink wrote:

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate exactly the point I am making. That is poetry.

Ladies and gentlemen, the standard by which to judge whether a person should seek a lawyer before questioning "under oath" (whatever the hell that means in this particular situation) is now whether Kara Goucher would answer questions under oath. If you are ever asked if you would answer questions "under oath", just declare "Yes" because "What Would Kara Do?" If not, then you are obviously guilty..............of something.

As far as a PR disaster, I am not seeing this issue getting much traction anywhere exept this site and the message boards here and the reporting and attacks seem kind of desparate to me. Again, there is certainly some smoke and there may be a fire but I thought Alberto did a good job answering the allegations in his response.

When the athletes he coached to abuse prescription drugs for performance purposes start suing Salazar and/Nike the truth will come out.

obvious dude wrote:

As someone explained, when you are totally free and feel as if you've got nothing to hide, you don't need a lawyer or publicist, you just speak out.

copied from the Rupp under oath thread

The opposite is true. 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.

Thanks. Hopefully, Alberto doesn't get double-dog dared to testify under oath. We will have a real legal quandary then!

Montesquieu wrote:

I'm a university professor. If some administrator came to me and said there's been some charge made against you; we'd like to hear you're side of it; we're going to ask you to take an oath, etc. Well, however innocent I am, I would immediately say I'd have to consult an attorney.

Why? This is the part I don't understand. If you didn't do anything wrong how can you incriminate yourself?

Or worse--placed under double secret probation.

Floyd Pink wrote:

Thanks.

Hopefully, Alberto doesn't get double-dog dared to testify under oath. We will have a real legal quandary then!

Montesquieu wrote:

WWKGD: a motto for living--fantastically hilarious. I wish I had thought of that.

Thread Follower wrote:

Montesquieu wrote:

I'm a university professor. If some administrator came to me and said there's been some charge made against you; we'd like to hear you're side of it; we're going to ask you to take an oath, etc. Well, however innocent I am, I would immediately say I'd have to consult an attorney.

Why? This is the part I don't understand. If you didn't do anything wrong how can you incriminate yourself?

1) Because you do not have to be actually guilty of anything in order to be charged and found guilty of something. So, once someone has been charged with something they are always well advised to get legal advice. Only the miraculously naive could think that our legal system is so perfect that the innocent never get convicted.

But the more important and fundamental reason is

2) Because it is the duty of all of us, as blue-blooded Americans, to preserve our fundamental right to say "FUCK OFF!" to folks nosing into our business.