Pretty fair .... wrote:
For example, he should have had the Gouchers stay focused on what they experienced and not speculate on Galen.
Agreed. Anyone can speculate. The inclusion of random speculation or even specific speculation shows an agenda and reduces the story to a mechanism to defame rather than a story to uncover the truth.
J.R. wrote:
rojo wrote:It's good to know they have a total badass hunting down dopers in sport.
Reaganomics wrote:
hahahahaha... yeah, because what the world needs is someone else who begins with a "Doping is bad!" approach rather than asking "What would be the best approach to addressing the issue of drugs in sport?"
The reasoning is very simply drug promotion, with the total absence of rational thought.
Brojos plastered a story on the front page a couple of years ago about a guy who had cancer, was constantly taking drugs that were supposed to save him and get rid of the cancer, but then the guy died, from the drugs.
So the message is simple in 2 parts, (1) take the drugs if you're sick, and they will probably kill you but take them anyway and (2) don't take drugs if you're competing, because the drugs will make you faster, even though they're much more likely to kill you and probably won't help you at all, but we've set up all these bogus drug agencies to try and promote that they do.
You don't understand medicine and you don't know how science works.
Assistant grip wrote:
Another Option wrote:No. He just provided a simplistic answer to a real question.
I'm interested if there's anyone on these boards that actually works at the level of interactions shown in the movie and how they would compare much of what happened in the "hollywood action movie" and what they have experienced.
You can approach any dialogue with the assumption the other person is an idiot and make condescending comments or you can assume the best of intents and move forward with informed dialogue. Clearly there's too much of the former and too little of the latter, but one can always hope...
I would agree except for the fact that the we are talking about a hollywood movie. I would NEVER expect truth or facts from a movie because that is not what they are for. Movies are for entertainment and making money. That is all. Turning this into an intellectual debate is a waste of time unless you can show that the movie was based on, and stuck to, facts with no hollywood glamorization.
Great. So it is clear that you and the other guy actually have no knowledge of this industry and were indeed just condescending to the Sicario viewer because he derived something from - gasp - a dramatic film.
Out of curiousity, do you apply the same approach to literature? Most fictional writers spend years researching the settings and context of a given book. A good recent example with runnering content would be The Illegal. I feel bad for you if you don't think you could learn something from fictional literature - or cinema.
ryan foreman wrote:
I thought the accuracy was fine. At least he was backing it up with direct quotes. And in fairness to him, he said Salazar didn't respond to various questions he had. In contrast, he had all sorts of sources coming out of the woodwork to speak out against Salazar.
I just think he had the classic blindspot journalists can have. Not considering enough that his sources have their own agenda and they may be withholding information that puts Salazar and Rupp in a better light.
It amazes me what people think is and isn't a story. LIke yesterday, Colin Cowherd ripped the AL Jazeera report as it didn't have anything on Payton - just Ashley Manning. In my mind, it's a major story that Payton Manning received HGH off label - that's illegal. It's incredibly amazing to me that that allegation hasnt' been denied by the mannngs.
With Epstein, yes the Goucher's speculated but we had a) off lable use of prescription drugs b) picture indicating Rupp was on testosterone in hs and now c) admission by Salazar that he doped his own child with steroids.
Do we know if Payton or Rupp used? Nope. You can draw your own conclusions. I mean back in the day Gary Condit was having an affair with a young intern who ended up dead. Many thought he killed her - he didn't. It just looked very bad for him to be having an affair with someone who ended up dead.
All of these stories go the same. Journalists report. The public says it's ridiculous until WADA bans people. Then people believe it. Anyone with a brain new Lance was dirty. No one believed it until WADA issued their ban and even then it didnt' take hold until a few days/weeks when Nike finally dropped him. With the Russians, ARD issued their report. It didn't get big until a year later when WADA issued their report.
With Rupp and Payton, nothing will happen unless there is a ban.
rojo wrote:
It amazes me what people think is and isn't a story,
So I'll just post more of the same drivel here to try and make it sound like something that it isn't.