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

Lawyer Up Y'all wrote:

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

This is already in the works. Some of the athletes will pool resources and use the same lawyer. Salazar has already said enough to sink him. Rupp has said enough to sink him. Farah set a trap for himself. Centro, well is Centro, and walk into an obvious trap because he think the trap would snare him as stepped into a noose and pulled the cord taut.

The only reasonable interpretation of the reporter's question is "If called to do so, would you testify under oath in a court of law or in the court of arbitration in sport?"

For most people, the answer would just be a simple yes. But for others, there is an important distinction between court of law and CAS...one has real teeth, the other not so much.

runDirtyrun wrote:

This just posted on Buzzfeed in the U.S. blah blah

So interesting. It's morons like you who pollute this site with unstoppable irrelevant quoting. Try to formulate a sentence of your own.

gwalkerrun wrote:

The only time a person testifies under oath is during a legal procedure, usually in court. Since the allegations go back a decade or more, simply getting a date wrong or something like that could techically get you in trouble. I would not testify under oath unless forced to as a result. Remember, the burden of proof is on the accusers. It is not the burden of the accused to prove innocence. Kara has already proven herself to be wrong on details. I am guessing she would plead the fifth if adked if she doped. Regardless, nothing in this entire episode seems to be leading anywhere where anyone will be under oath.

Let me ask you a question. If you were arrested for a crime you did not commit, or charged in a civil case involving property damage in which you truly were not involved, would you go to court with an attorney or not? However, the best answer I could give to your question I can't, for it would involved discussing legal cases that my own university (and no doubt countless other universities) have been embroiled in in which the most innocent and seemingly innocuous statements are turned on their heads, and all of a sudden one looks guilty of something else if not the matter at hand. The truth of things is not transparent, and falsehoods can be made to appear true. For this reason I'm very careful about things I put in university e-mails, for they are subject to discovery.If you have any questions about this watch the first episode of that surprisingly good NBC show from this spring, American Crime.

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?

I'm sorry, but your responses here are way over the top. Let's consider exactly what has happened. A member of the media confronted a couple of principals in ongoing story-- principals who have accused one another of lying-- and asked them if they would be prepared to repeat what they have said "under oath" (in essence, simply asked them how committed they were to their version of the truth).The very source of this question (a reporter) and the vagueness of the question (under oath where? in what context?) would have made it the easiest (and most sensible) thing in the world to simply and immediately answer "yes, I would".

What exactly would Salazar have risked if he had said "yes" to this to the reporter? Given the context, how could he have ever been held to account for his answer? If it ever looked like he might be asked to make good on his pledge, he could still consult his lawyer at any time, or else just refuse to say anything, citing particulars that had come to light since the question was originally posed, etc., etc. Simply answering "yes" to this reporter's question would have entailed zero risk, and would have bolstered his credibility.

DiscoGary wrote:

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."

Details or it didn't happen.

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of a federal criminal investigation and/or eventual charges.

Something that has been pointed out is Salazar's rather bold admission that he applied testosterone cream to his son. Testosterone is a schedule III drug subject to federal control and prosecution.

http://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml

Whether or not you believe Alberto's "sabotage prevention" explanation, it is all but certain that his son did not have a prescription for testosterone.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/25/allegations-alberto-salazar-response

"ProPublica have since spoken to Brown, who said he did not prescribe a controlled substance for Salazar’s son or other research subjects as part of an experiment. “No, absolutely not,” Brown said. “I didn’t do that, and would not do that.”

That means that Alberto appears to have illegally distributed a schedule III drug during that test. This could definitely open Alberto up to serious consequences if the DOJ decided to pick up the case. This is somewhat similar to how Barry Bonds trainer, Greg Anderson, got caught up in the BALCO case and ended up doing time.

If the DOJ were to pick up the case, the critical testimony would not come from Alberto, who would almost certainly, and understandably, take the 5th. The critical witness would be Alberto's own son who likely would not be facing charges himself. I suppose the son could be guilty of possession but I imagine the DOJ would offer immunity in exchange for testimony regarding Alberto.

Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't matter what explanation is given for the test. The fact that AS conducted it and his son didn't have a prescription is a de facto violation. AS and the NOP medical team/ consultants don't have a whole lot of room to maneuver. If AS conducted the test without MD approval/ prescription , Alberto broke the law. If AS got some doctor other than Dr. Brown to sign off on the test and prescribe meds to Alex Salazar, that doctor likely broke the law himself or at least the acceptable guidelines for steroid prescriptions.

If Alberto ran the test as he said he did, there is, or at least was, a paper trail at the Aegis lab Alberto references in his response. The feds could start a serious investigation solely on the information that came out in the last month. If they find out doctors were involved in distributing testosterone for non-medical purposes, I would not be surprised to see people start to roll as licenses and livelihoods are put on the line.

To be arrested for a crime I did not commit seems a little harsh. If I was innocent, I would have no trouble settling with the public defender, or being able to prove my innocence in pre-trail hearings on my own.

For starters the Anti-NOP crowd twists everything to fit their narrative ("history major" rojo being a prime candidate). Sal doesn't reply "he's guilty"...he then replies "he's guilty" Do you honestly believe for a second this would do anything? Hell letsrun would've put a "countdown" clock until Al Sal was "under oath".

Their is nothing to gain by agreeing to this.

Furthermore ...this is a big charge. Take a patient measured response is called being an adult

There's a really simple reason that Al has to think about the answer while Kara doesn't: only Al would have a choice. The accused can elect not to take the stand. Anyone else simply receives a subpoena and has to show up. Does it really surprise people that someone who has to say "yes" answers more quickly than someone who can say no?

This whole thread doesn't even make sense. Under what oath? He's not on trial. Where is this oath taking place? A random court room? Under what charge? I'm all for exposing NOP but this oath business is just nonsense. Alberto clearly doesn't hold himself accountable to Kara's higher power so let's find something he can actually be charged.

Expert Psychometrist wrote:

not a chance wrote:

He's a very intelligent and capable guy.

Salazar compensates for his inherent lack of smarts by putting a ferocious amount of energy into cheating, lying and being an obsequious turd.

I know big words like obsequious are a lot of fun to use, but it's best to check their meaning prior to using. This will help alter the impression people have of you as being a moron.

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?

Ask Martha Stewart.

Thread Follower wrote:

To be arrested for a crime I did not commit seems a little harsh. If I was innocent, I would have no trouble settling with the public defender, or being able to prove my innocence in pre-trail hearings on my own.

Read this.

flashmob wrote:

This whole thread doesn't even make sense. Under what oath? He's not on trial. Where is this oath taking place? A random court room? Under what charge? I'm all for exposing NOP but this oath business is just nonsense. Alberto clearly doesn't hold himself accountable to Kara's higher power so let's find something he can actually be charged.

Rojo shoudl be chiming in any minute to provide answers to these questions. All off the top of his head, of course. Because everyone from the 3rd grade on understands what it means to go under oath.

Rojo, where are you???

Since 1973, 150 have been exonerated and released from death row!!! And that's from death row (the ones who were still alive, that is). Additionally, since 1989, over 300 other people who were convicted and were serving time were exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence. Now these are the numbers of people exonerated. Do you think it's possible there are many more people who have been wrongly convicted and are still incarcerated? So if you want to go ahead on your own, more power to you.

But my more general point--apart from the question whether USADA ever requires one to take an oath (this seems to come out of a question that a British journalist made)--is that when claims are being made against someone, and they are of a serious nature, an attorney is always a good starting point. And I should add that my wife and I have always advised our children (college age) that if the police ever want to question them for anything, that shouldn't answer any questions without having their mother (my wife is an attorney) present. I'm rather skeptical that governmental bodies and various regulatory agencies are only interested in truth and justice. There are often an array of various other considerations that mitigate against those.

Montesquieu wrote:

I'm rather skeptical that governmental bodies and various regulatory agencies are only interested in truth and justice. There are often an array of various other considerations that mitigate against those.

Rojo sure isn't interested in truth or justice.

flashmob wrote:

Alberto clearly doesn't hold himself accountable to Kara's higher power so let's find something he can actually be charged.

LOL ... some many posts written by the same small group using different name, none which are registered.

Alberto is not a higher power, that is unless you consider the person paying the Freud PR firm's fee for the attacks being made on this website a higher power.