Wejo pwn3d in epic fashion by Jason Richardson

Slippery Skin wrote:

Yes, Wejo annoying an athlete after an event is similar to a lawyer in a courtroom. They certainly deserve the same amount of respect. You guys have a good point. Brojos are legitimate journalists who have proven themselves to be fair and professional.

You're stretching the analogy a little far.

No but if block was a true friend he would not be present at their meets. If you were convicted of trafficing drugs would you go and hang out with your friends at events where it is illegal to use said drugs, events that have been marred by the use of said drugs? If you would then I would question what kind of friend you are.

Slippery Skin wrote:

I mean, Block is an idiot and I am not trying to defend him, but to think that they should disown the guy is kind of fierce. I mean, don't you have any friends that have done stupid things? Are you going to stop associating with a buddy if he gets a divorce? I mean, isn't that besmirch the reputation of a social & religious custom in which you participate.

Well, yes, if the response of the athlete were something along the lines of, "Look, Mark made a mistake, he's paying for his mistake, but he's been and remains a friend of mine," etc., etc., that would be one thing. My impression, however, is that that is not the sort of response the questions have been engendering.

Rather, the defensive/hostile reactions we seem to being seeing in response to the questions regarding block strike me as more akin to what we saw with the Lance Armstrong/Filippo Simeoni situation at the 2004 Tour de France, involving Simeoni's accusations pertaining to Italian doctor Michele Ferrari (with whom Armstrong has long had a professional relationship).

I should note, too, that if my hypothetical buddy to whom you refer is getting a divorce because he was cheating with my wife -- that is to say, his actions were harmful to me -- our friendship would be at an end. If I'm, say, a clean 200 meters runner, and my agent, ooach, whatever, is facilitating the doping of other 200 meters runners against whom I'm compete, how do I not feel harmed and betrayed by that? How do I remain on friendly terms with him?

Think of it this way: I'm a CPA. That's how I make my living. What do you think it would do to the public's confidence in me and, ultimately, my profession as a whole if I were regularly associating and doing business with convicted financial fraudsters... the Enron execs, for instance? Do you understand how that would be problematic for me? Don't you see how that would be damaging to the profession?

I get it. You have provided a good example and I agree with you. I guess I just think that these folks do not view the Brojos as journalists, and therefore don't want to give them the time of day.

Slippery Skin wrote:

Yes, Wejo annoying an athlete after an event is similar to a lawyer in a courtroom. They certainly deserve the same amount of respect. You guys have a good point. Brojos are legitimate journalists who have proven themselves to be fair and professional.

And by not updating the site, they come off as extremely unprofessional. Seriously. For as much as this website is worth, I would invest in a new logo and website design.

CPA wrote:

Think of it this way: I'm a CPA. That's how I make my living. What do you think it would do to the public's confidence in me and, ultimately, my profession as a whole if I were regularly associating and doing business with convicted financial fraudsters... the Enron execs, for instance? Do you understand how that would be problematic for me? Don't you see how that would be damaging to the profession?

This kind of thing happens all the time. Our politicians are in bed with felons and people with ethics violations constantly. It affects them not one bit. This is not a liberal/conservative thing either. it's both sides. Big business is the same way. it is actually a great analogy but proves the opposite point you were trying to make.

What exchange does this thread stem from? I am missing information. When did Richardson confront Wejo?

Not Montano wrote:

CPA wrote:

Think of it this way: I'm a CPA. That's how I make my living. What do you think it would do to the public's confidence in me and, ultimately, my profession as a whole if I were regularly associating and doing business with convicted financial fraudsters... the Enron execs, for instance? Do you understand how that would be problematic for me? Don't you see how that would be damaging to the profession?

This kind of thing happens all the time. Our politicians are in bed with felons and people with ethics violations constantly. It affects them not one bit. This is not a liberal/conservative thing either. it's both sides. Big business is the same way. it is actually a great analogy but proves the opposite point you were trying to make.

Um, actually this kind of thing does not happen in the CPA profession. Trust me, if I were doing business with convicted fraudsters and that fact became a matter of public knowledge, I would lose every last client I have, would likely be reported to my State Board, and would subsequently lose my license to practice.

toodarnloud88 wrote:

Slippery Skin wrote:

Yes, Wejo annoying an athlete after an event is similar to a lawyer in a courtroom. They certainly deserve the same amount of respect. You guys have a good point. Brojos are legitimate journalists who have proven themselves to be fair and professional.

And by not updating the site, they come off as extremely unprofessional. Seriously. For as much as this website is worth, I would invest in a new logo and website design.

They update the website every day.

CPA wrote:

Um, actually this kind of thing does not happen in the CPA profession. Trust me, if I were doing business with convicted fraudsters and that fact became a matter of public knowledge, I would lose every last client I have, would likely be reported to my State Board, and would subsequently lose my license to practice.

I'm beginning to think you're not really a CPA. Let me help you out. When someone is convicted of a crime they do not lose their rights to own or run a business. Many felons are doing quite well for themselves. All of these successful felons have accountants to help them with their books and taxes. These accountants all have other clients as well. You really have no clue do you?

Not Montano wrote:

CPA wrote:

Um, actually this kind of thing does not happen in the CPA profession. Trust me, if I were doing business with convicted fraudsters and that fact became a matter of public knowledge, I would lose every last client I have, would likely be reported to my State Board, and would subsequently lose my license to practice.

I'm beginning to think you're not really a CPA. Let me help you out. When someone is convicted of a crime they do not lose their rights to own or run a business. Many felons are doing quite well for themselves. All of these successful felons have accountants to help them with their books and taxes. These accountants all have other clients as well. You really have no clue do you?

I am an audit partner in a large CPA firm, not some unlicensed hack bookkeeper or accountant. There's a distinct and profound difference, as I am actually bound by professional standards and regulations that if violated, could result in license termination and/or litigation.

The Engagement Acceptance and Continuance requirements under The Quality Control Standards, as promulgated by the AICPA, state the following: "The firm should establish policies and procedures for the acceptance and continuance of client relationships and specific engagements, designed to provide the firm with reasonable assurance that it will undertake or continue relationships and engagements only when the firm

a. is competent to perform the engagement and has the capabilities, including time and resources, to do so; (Ref: par. .A11)

b. can comply with legal and relevant ethical requirements; and

c. has considered the integrity of the client and does not have information that would lead it to conclude that the client lacks integrity. (Ref: par. .A12–.A13)

So, in summary, professional standards preclude me from associating or doing business with crooks. The reason I cited the Enron case is because it relates to an audit failure involving one of the largest financial frauds ever perpetrated, in which public trust was violated. For me to accept an audit engagement with a known fraudster would cast doubt on my own integrity and make a mockery of the audit profession.

CPA wrote:

I am an audit partner in a large CPA firm, not some unlicensed hack bookkeeper or accountant. There's a distinct and profound difference, as I am actually bound by professional standards and regulations that if violated, could result in license termination and/or litigation.

I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I am sure they want to dump Block's sorry ass, but can't because he has dirt on them. Their reputation, marketability, and income potential are being harmed. A professional in any career would cut ties with someone causing such harm. The athletes have dirt on Block too, but revealing it will harm them too. What we have is a stale mate. However, it will all come out eventually.

Keep up the good work letsrun.com!

ignorant maroon wrote:

What exchange does this thread stem from? I am missing information. When did Richardson confront Wejo?

CharmingCharlie wrote:

What the hell does "pwn3d" mean?

It means the OP is a refugee from DyeStat.

ignorant maroon wrote:

What exchange does this thread stem from? I am missing information. When did Richardson confront Wejo?

"Confront" is the wrong word. I asked Jason Richardson about his association with Mark Block here:

Slippery Skin wrote:

I get it. You have provided a good example and I agree with you. I guess I just think that these folks do not view the Brojos as journalists, and therefore don't want to give them the time of day.

Both Block and Richardson answered my questions. I'm a credentialed journalist at the Olympics Games. Richardson I asked in a private setting with probably 5 other journalist around. I asked Jeter in the main press conference that is before hundreds, broadcast to all the journalists here, and it picked up by world wide TV feeds. I'd bet Richardson or Jeter couldn't have identified me until I asked my question. With Richardson I identified myself as being with LetsRun.com. With Jeter I just asked the question.

They don't give Olympic "E" (journalist) credentials away. They are hard to get. The credential says "JOURNALIST" on it. We on LRC have made references to the "mainstream media", but that's a thing of the past. We're all media. The Olympic credential is in a validation of what we do at LetsRun.com.

The role of journalists is not to make athletes comfortable. That's what PR firms are for. Track is so minor in the US it seems like the athletes think the media is supposed to be rooting for them.

The response from other journalists here has been great. Taking the time out to say something encouraging about my questions means a lot and shows they respect what I did.

Just yesterday a journalist in the States from a major paper emailed to say, "Just wanted to heap on more praise for your tough questions to Carmelita Jeter and Jason Richardson. That they think these questions are inappropriate in any way is probably to be expected, but no less ridiculous. It’s a completely relevant question."

The thing is if you think about it is the question really that uncomfortable or unreasonable? Asking why you are associating with a man banned from the sport for 10 years? It may be uncomfortable for them but why should it be? Bolt was asked about drugs yesterday and he just answered the question. Yohan Blake was asked about his drug suspension and he answered the question.

If Richardson and Jeter are uncomfortable in hanging out with Block at track meets, great. If they want to hang out with him and have him follow them around the world while banned, that is their right as well. People will then ask questions if that is appropriate.

They don't have to stop being friends with him, but they might want to says, "Hey why do you need to follow me around everywhere."

wejo wrote:

They don't have to stop being friends with him, but they might want to says, "Hey why do you need to follow me around everywhere."

Exactly! Thank you for your efforts.

Since doping is THE MAJOR RED FLAG for track, hanging out with guys convicted of conspiring to dispense PEDs is about the DUMBEST thing you can do, even if Mark Block is your favorite drinking buddy.

If an athlete wants to be taken seriously about not using PEDs, a great place to start would be to stop hanging around dudes who were integral to the biggest (known) doping scandal in sports history (turtle soup aside). Continuing to hang out with criminals raises those red flags, and it should.

If you keep hanging around with criminals, it's natural for people to wonder why. When your sport's ruling body bans someone for 10 years, you look like a cheat for continuing the relationship. There are plenty of agents out there who haven't been banned by the USATF/IAAF. Find one of those guys.

I look at it like Lance's relationship with Michele Ferrari - the guy's a known doping doctor, you (Lance) are under constant suspicion of doping, so what do you do? Well, the LAST thing you do is keep going to see the guy.

If you want people to accuse you of using PEDs, by all means, go ahead and hang out with people convicted of peddling them. The company you keep...