A few criticized Rojo for his question. One said he'd be fine with the question if LetsRun had been consistent on the matter. Here is Rojo's reply to that.
We have been very consistent since day 1 at LetsRun. We've asked doping questions or let the messageboarders ask doping questions from the moment this website was founded.
Also in the same year, when I started coaching at Cornell, a freshman on the team from Oregon came up to me at the first practice and said, "Alberto Salazar does not like you guys."
Why? Because people were talking about doping at Athletics West on the messageboard.
We've been 100% consistent on doping. We ask the questions that need to be asked whether you are white (Galen Rupp, Salazar, etc), black (Regina Jacobs, Justin Gatlin, etc.), male, female, American or Kenyan.
It was a good question. And Rojo phrased it correctly - it was obvious as soon as the race finished there will be many skeptics, haters, doubters. I am one of them. Rojo gave Ruth a good chance to refute and respond to critics. Unfortunately a combination of language barrier and camera shy prevented much of a response from happening.
How is this a good question? If a reporter asks a clean athlete "are you doping?" they will answer no. If a reporter asks a dirty athlete "are you doping?" they will also answer no. Does Rojo think he's just going to Perry Mason her into confessing with one question?
I'm not a fan of Rojo by any means (besides helping to create this flawed yet glorious website), but I agree with atf above in that it was phrased very well (imho perfectly). It's a question that has to be asked just to see not what the response is (which will always be no as you say) but the how. The big problem is that based on a number of interviews I've watched, Ruth's English seems to be very poor, so I wouldn't expect anything more than the uncomfortable response she gave, as she may have understood it to be an attack. I've been misconstrued many times trying to speak a foreign language even when I spoke that language well, so her response is perfectly acceptable to me. It's probably why KBekele used a translator almost all the time or why ElG was very uncomfortable speaking English.
"Ruth, unfortunately, in recent years, there’s been a number of doping positives in Kenya. What would you say to someone who says when they see 2:09:56, ‘This is too good to be true. I have questions about it. Some people may think that the time is too fast and you must be doping. What would you say to them?"
"I don’t have any idea. You know people must talk, but…people must talk, so I don’t know."
I wonder how they would feel knowing that a lot of people suspect his brother of being a drug cheat? It would make for an interesting twist in the dialogue. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
It was not a fair question. If Let'sRun thinks her performance was aided by banned substances than do the work as journalist and investigate the issue.
That is what is needed here. To ask questions on pure speculation with absolutley no evidence is not helpful to the process. This is an issue of having some journalistic integrity.
I’m just curious. Was there as much skepticism and pure vitriol when Radcliffe ran her 2:15? It stood for 15 years, an unfathomable fast time, and we prop her up as a role model. Yet today, every great performance ‘must be doping’. What a sad statement of how much we have devolved, such that our first reaction is not one of celebration, but one of distrust and perhaps, envy.
Comparing Jakob's 7:17 to this is idiotic. He didn't come out of thin air like Kiptum or this woman. He has been doing this for 10-12 years and ran 3:31 1500m as a 17 year old. His times are a normal trajectory. Just a Jakob hater, not from a country that like Kenya who has had over 300 cheats in the last 8-9 years. Throwing Jakob in this just devalues the conversation and demonstrates an extreme bias.
I'm sorry, if you think Chepngetich came out of thin air, you just haven't been paying attention. I'm not asserting that this run is or isn't legitimate, but hypothetically speaking, if a woman were to legitimately run 2h09, she's exactly the type of athlete I'd expect to do it. She has a history of running insanely aggressively and is self-coached. This kind of performance would require someone who has fundamentally different beliefs about the limits of performance than virtually everyone else.
You're right, she's been a top-tier HM and marathon runner for several years.
But to go from 1:04/2:14 to sub-2:10?? You've gotta be joking if you think she's "exactly the type of athlete" to do it. Unless you have inside knowledge on her doping regimen.
I could understand this take if he was remotely consistent.
He’s not, he’s a biased excuse for a journalist who acts impulsively based on emotion.
Yeah (sarcasm), it's not like I haven't asked doping questions or let the messageboarders ask doping questions of Americans from the moment this website was founded.
Also in the same year, when I started coaching at Cornell, a freshman on the team from Oregon came up to me at the first practice and said, "Alberto Salazar does not like you guys."
Why? Because people were talking about doping at Athletics West on the messageboard.
We've been 100% consistent on doping. We ask the questions that need to be asked whether you are white (Galen Rupp, Salazar, etc), black (Regina Jacobs, Justin Gatlin), male, female, American or Kenyan.
The only people doing poor jouralism are these rags writing about my questions. I did not make a doping "allegation" or "accuation." I just asked her what would she say to doubters.
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
I’m just curious. Was there as much skepticism and pure vitriol when Radcliffe ran her 2:15? It stood for 15 years, an unfathomable fast time, and we prop her up as a role model. Yet today, every great performance ‘must be doping’. What a sad statement of how much we have devolved, such that our first reaction is not one of celebration, but one of distrust and perhaps, envy.
I think you answered your own question largely:
Even at the time of Radcliffe's run, many fans of the sport found it to be a suspicious accomplishment. However, in the context of that time, many more people unironically wore Livestrong bracelets and believed he was clean.
Unfortunately, the experience of having so many of the best endurance athletes be exposed as dopers makes any world record performance seem suspicious. It is sad but it is also good that we are now no longer as gullible as we were before. Even as a fan of Jakob, for instance, when he destroyed the 3k record I enjoyed it but if he were to be exposed as a drug cheat I would be unfortunately unsurprised but that is the world we live in.
I don't usually agree with rojo, and I don't like the people on this board that think every single fast time done by an african runner in history has been a doped one [ while simultaneously believing that when those same times are easily surpassed by white European or US runners that those faster times are legit. See: Coevett].... but....
I see absolutely nothing wrong with Rojo's question within the context it occured.
I could understand this take if he was remotely consistent.
He’s not, he’s a biased excuse for a journalist who acts impulsively based on emotion.
Yeah (sarcasm), it's not like I haven't asked doping questions or let the messageboarders ask doping questions of Americans afrom the moment this website was founded.
Do you remember what I did in 2002? I asked Regina Jacobs much more difficult questions.
Also in the same year, when I started coaching at Cornell, a freshman on the team from Oregon came up to me at the first practice and said, "Alberto Salazar does not like you guys."
Why? Because people were talking about doping at Athletics West on the messageboard.
We've been 100% consistent on doping. We ask the questions that need to be asked whether you are white (Galen Rupp, Salazar, etc), black (Regina Jacobs, Justin Gatlin), male, female, American or Kenyan.
The only people doing poor jouralism are these rags writing about my questions. I did not make a doping "allegation" or "accuation." I just asked her what would she say to doubters.
(1) We remember you constantly giving Shelby a free pass, which you do so even now
(2) "afrom"?
(3) as wow as that's so great that a freshman in college is making you feel better about yourself. Was he/she of age?
(4) You haven't been consistent on doping. Example: Shelby Houlihan
(5) you misspelled the word "journalism". JFC
(6) How are they "rags" for writing about your questions? These articles don't slam you for asking these questions, they're only saying that you did. THIS IS JOURNALSIM (or "jouralism" as you seem to think it's spelled
(7) "accuation"?
(8) "I didn't do anything, I was just asking questions! But also it was journalism!" So which is it?
Yeah (sarcasm), it's not like I haven't asked doping questions or let the messageboarders ask doping questions of Americans afrom the moment this website was founded.
Do you remember what I did in 2002? I asked Regina Jacobs much more difficult questions.
Also in the same year, when I started coaching at Cornell, a freshman on the team from Oregon came up to me at the first practice and said, "Alberto Salazar does not like you guys."
Why? Because people were talking about doping at Athletics West on the messageboard.
We've been 100% consistent on doping. We ask the questions that need to be asked whether you are white (Galen Rupp, Salazar, etc), black (Regina Jacobs, Justin Gatlin), male, female, American or Kenyan.
The only people doing poor jouralism are these rags writing about my questions. I did not make a doping "allegation" or "accuation." I just asked her what would she say to doubters.
(1) We remember you constantly giving Shelby a free pass, which you do so even now
(2) "afrom"?
(3) as wow as that's so great that a freshman in college is making you feel better about yourself. Was he/she of age?
(4) You haven't been consistent on doping. Example: Shelby Houlihan
(5) you misspelled the word "journalism". JFC
(6) How are they "rags" for writing about your questions? These articles don't slam you for asking these questions, they're only saying that you did. THIS IS JOURNALSIM (or "jouralism" as you seem to think it's spelled
(7) "accuation"?
(8) "I didn't do anything, I was just asking questions! But also it was journalism!" So which is it?
Yep. My primary criticism of rojo is how inexplicably lenient he has been on Shelby despite a positive test and everyone who is remotely reasonable believing she’s doped.
I applaud him for asking the questions and not enabling the way the rest of running media has, but until he gets it right with the white American doper with the pretty smile, it’s all bs and bias to me
(1) We remember you constantly giving Shelby a free pass, which you do so even now
(2) "afrom"?
(3) as wow as that's so great that a freshman in college is making you feel better about yourself. Was he/she of age?
(4) You haven't been consistent on doping. Example: Shelby Houlihan
(5) you misspelled the word "journalism". JFC
(6) How are they "rags" for writing about your questions? These articles don't slam you for asking these questions, they're only saying that you did. THIS IS JOURNALSIM (or "jouralism" as you seem to think it's spelled
(7) "accuation"?
(8) "I didn't do anything, I was just asking questions! But also it was journalism!" So which is it?
Yep. My primary criticism of rojo is how inexplicably lenient he has been on Shelby despite a positive test and everyone who is remotely reasonable believing she’s doped.
I applaud him for asking the questions and not enabling the way the rest of running media has, but until he gets it right with the white American doper with the pretty smile, it’s all bs and bias to me
I could understand this take if he was remotely consistent.
He’s not, he’s a biased excuse for a journalist who acts impulsively based on emotion.
Yeah (sarcasm), it's not like I haven't asked doping questions or let the messageboarders ask doping questions of Americans from the moment this website was founded.
Do you remember what I did in 2002? I asked Regina Jacobs much more difficult questions.
Also in the same year, when I started coaching at Cornell, a freshman on the team from Oregon came up to me at the first practice and said, "Alberto Salazar does not like you guys."
Why? Because people were talking about doping at Athletics West on the messageboard.
We've been 100% consistent on doping. We ask the questions that need to be asked whether you are white (Galen Rupp, Salazar, etc), black (Regina Jacobs, Justin Gatlin), male, female, American or Kenyan.
The only people doing poor jouralism are these rags writing about my questions. I did not make a doping "allegation" or "accuation." I just asked her what would she say to doubters.
Try not to dance around the subject rojo. The issue people have with you is your bias with Shelby and you know it. Sure you’re hard on Salazar and on Regina, but why are you giving someone who tested positive so much cover?
It's a valid question. According to all her previous races 2:12-2:15 was where she should be. She's 3 minutes+ faster, which is almost 6 minutes faster than her best.
Things she has going against her: (1) Coach / team that has been linked to doping in the past.
(2) Huge improvement from 1/2 marathon 2 month prior and marathon the year before.
(3) Lots of problems in Kenya recently related to drugs and testing.
Things she has going for her:
(1) All of her (recent) races are WA Label Road Races, which means they should be following strict international standards as far as anti-doping goes.
(2) Her improvement has been consistent with excellent results from 5K and up.
(3) No history of positive tests.
(4) Her training is pretty well documented.
All elite athletes should be prepared to field these types of questions.
Rojo did absolutely nothing wrong here. It's part of our sport and an athlete who tries to portray doping questions as anything other than par for the course needs to take a step back.
It's a valid question. According to all her previous races 2:12-2:15 was where she should be. She's 3 minutes+ faster, which is almost 6 minutes faster than her best.
Things she has going against her: (1) Coach / team that has been linked to doping in the past.
(2) Huge improvement from 1/2 marathon 2 month prior and marathon the year before.
(3) Lots of problems in Kenya recently related to drugs and testing.
Things she has going for her:
(1) All of her (recent) races are WA Label Road Races, which means they should be following strict international standards as far as anti-doping goes.
(2) Her improvement has been consistent with excellent results from 5K and up.
(3) No history of positive tests.
(4) Her training is pretty well documented.
All elite athletes should be prepared to field these types of questions.
spitting facts ..
busts her butt, documented training, no positives (like the 200 Kenyans before busts), races hard,
Yeah (sarcasm), it's not like I haven't asked doping questions or let the messageboarders ask doping questions of Americans afrom the moment this website was founded.
Do you remember what I did in 2002? I asked Regina Jacobs much more difficult questions.
Also in the same year, when I started coaching at Cornell, a freshman on the team from Oregon came up to me at the first practice and said, "Alberto Salazar does not like you guys."
Why? Because people were talking about doping at Athletics West on the messageboard.
We've been 100% consistent on doping. We ask the questions that need to be asked whether you are white (Galen Rupp, Salazar, etc), black (Regina Jacobs, Justin Gatlin), male, female, American or Kenyan.
The only people doing poor jouralism are these rags writing about my questions. I did not make a doping "allegation" or "accuation." I just asked her what would she say to doubters.
(1) We remember you constantly giving Shelby a free pass, which you do so even now
Yep, this wasn't a good look from a "tough on doping" reporter, rojo. She tested positive and you drank up the same lame excuses you'd blast any other non-"All American Girl" for giving.
"It was my boyfriend's semen" would have been just as believable.
It is really odd to me how much criticism he is getting for asking those questions. NOT asking them would be a prime example of journalist not doing his/her job.
All of us that follow the sport wants these questions to be answered as well.
Right. Plus, it was not an accusatory question, the way it was phrased. (Sometimes Rojo's phrasing could be better.)
Instead, the question was an opportunity for an athlete to address the inevitable questions/claims of folks who will say "well, lot of dopers in Kenya lately, how do we know you're not one?"