top Canadian coach calls out drug cheats beating his athletes

I understand that some people did wrong. And I get that there is a principle at stake and agree that athletics should be about fair play and abiding by the rules. But the more I read people's complaints about the carding fiasco and the Speed River behind-the-scenes dealings the more I think SB and his supporters are setting themselves up to win the battle but lose the war. Maybe you've achieved all you need to on this front. Perhaps it's time to move onto the next battle?

interested bystander, for what reason do you choose to remain anonymous?

From the first communication, I've asked AO to release details publicly. Boyd has done the same re: the appeal. If you think we're falsely accusing people of fraud, you should at least acknowledge that we're - in your, anonymous, opinion - trying to prove ourselves wrong by uncovering the full story.

-Weiler

interested bystander wrote:

SB wrote:2. She knew the claim was false and did not bother to point this out to the appeals committee. Hence, yes, fraud.

The balance or probabilities is on 2.

OK, so you are saying she probably committed fraud.

I gather you are well aware that claiming something like this exposes you to possible action for slander (or is it libel on a message board?), if your accusation is false?

It seems to me that your behaviour in all this is at least as bad as what you propose has been done by others. If, that is, she did not commit or support a fraud. Which strikes me, on the balance of probabilities, as the more likely truth, speaking frankly (but without the conviction of actual knowledge) as an interested but uninvolved bystander.

That I have not been threatened in any way openly using the word "fraud" (however petty) to describe what went on here (and I haven't) ought to tell you something. We have tried asking everyone involved very reasonable questions and have received a variety of equally inadequate responses-- including, for the most part, no response at all. I think we're at the point that we can justifiably speak of fraud and cover-up (again, however petty in the larger scheme of things). At this point I would actually welcome someone calling me on this legally, because it would force the issue.

And the contributor who said I (we) may be at the point of "winning the battle but losing the war", what exactly are you talking about? There is no battle and no war, unless it's for simple fairness and integrity in sports admin, which I'm certain the vast majority of people in our sport completely support. If someone else thinks they're being singled out for attack and feels the need to come up with some kind of retaliation, I will deal with that as it comes. And I will take the high road in doing so.

In the end (and the end always comes sooner than we expect), all we have is our integrity. People who pull this kind of petty crap, who openly disrespect the larger sport community, and who then hide in the shadows, will have to be satisfied with simply winning, because they will not leave the field with any respect.

SB wrote:That I have not been threatened in any way openly using the word "fraud" (however petty) to describe what went on here (and I haven't) ought to tell you something.

That you haven't (yet) been served tells us nothing. Does Sue Wise know you've been publicly calling her a fraud? Sometimes it takes time for things to percolate. Lawsuits always arrive at inconvenient times, and rarely expected.

Weiler, I choose to remain anonymous because I can. This is a fairly inflammatory discussion and I don't feel like getting any of it stuck on me. Kudos to you for your bravery, which evidently exceeds mine. BTW are you with Boyd in saying Sue Wise has committed or supported fraud?

BTW, if anyone DID commit fraud, I'm 100% on board that they need to pay. From what I can glean from the discussion, I doubt anybody's actions have risen to the level of actual fraud, but if they did, throw the book at them. And bravo to you guys for putting yourselves in possible harm's way to achieve that end. I am NOT that brave.

interested bystander wrote:

I am NOT that brave.

No shit!

He wants equality and ethics. I think Canadian runners and coaches are top athletes. He is an advocate for his hard working athletes. For those whom have survived and accomplished without cheating.

Full Definition of credulity

: readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence

SB wrote:No shit!

Yeah, no doubt, I am a coward. And you are brave. But probably also foolish in your blatant disregard for your own security.

Don't get me wrong; part of me admires you for biting into this issue. While on the one hand I very strongly believe no actual fraud has occurred, I can at the same time see it's likely somebody has either bent rules or at least taken (unfair?) advantage of the system. You can't always fault people for that, though, as sometimes it just means they were more perceptive than you and could see the holes in the system and then set out, intelligently, to make use of those holes. But kudos for making it an issue.

All that said, you've been careless in your choice of words. "Freedom of speech," as it is recognized in the US and Canada, is not an absolute right. You do not have the right to libel or slander and claim "free speech" as a defence. I don't know Sue Wise, so I don't know what's going through her mind, but I know if I were your target (impossible in this case, I haven't got any remote connection with any of the parties involved), you would have already heard from my lawyer.

It's one thing to debate people vigourously (and even unpleasantly) in public, and I think most people have come to accept that message boards and other forms of cyber-discussion bring out the worst in most people; but it's quite another to cross the line and outright call somebody a fraud.

Anyhoo, I wish you the best in fixing the system, and I also hope the statement of claim never crosses your thresdold. Good luck!

Bi-Stander please leave now. This is a dog fight and you are a pu$$y with your lawyer BS.

You and your lawyer can go back to playing princess dress up.

The big dogs got this one covered.

4ustander wrote:

Bi-Stander please leave now. This is a dog fight and you are a pu$$y with your lawyer BS.

You and your lawyer can go back to playing princess dress up.

The big dogs got this one covered.

Oh yeah? Make me...!

Haha, you people crack me up, telling me to shut up on an anonymous public message board. Wishful thinking, my friend. :-)

I have never, and would never, defend myself on the basis of "freedom of speech". I have reasonable grounds for believing that people made knowingly false claims, or knowingly supported false claims, in return for government $. I don't have to be correct; I just have to have had reasonable grounds for making the accusation.

But as I said, no one, least of all me, wants to or will go to court over any of this. The dollar amounts just don't justify it, nor does the potential damage to anyone's reputation (I would bet).

The point all along has been to expose the truth as far as possible, so that the stakes are raised for anyone trying something like this in the future (and this group has become pretty notorious over the past few years when it comes to promoting the interests of its athletes and program at the expense of the sport community as a whole-- it does not play well with others, to say the least!).

There is so little public money for sport that we need to ensure that the playing field for winning it is absolutely level. What you call "intelligently making use of holes in the system" I see, in this case, as akin to doping to win a few hundred bucks in a local road race.

Both instances involve exploiting flaws in a system (no testing in one instance and the possibility of "bending" the rules in the other), and both involve taking small sums of money at the expense of people who are attempting to play by the rules (and getting to follow your own seasonal racing plan while everyone has to go to the expense and hassle of making sure they run the requisite championship events IS an advantage when it comes to winning this funding and optimizing one's performance at the same time).

That you think asking simple questions and connecting the dots on this is so terribly brave says rather a lot about how it is allowed to happen in the first place. People like the SR leadership just love the fact that there are plenty of timorous people like you in the world. I can assure you, while you are thinking "prudence" they are thinking "chump".

P.S. I'm pretty sure I know who you are. But, don't worry, I won't out you.

All I want to know is where does Oldster play in to all of this?

We're mid-April and the Athletics Ontario Quest for Gold page says "updates to the Quest for Gold 2016 – 2017 Criteria will be uploaded to the AO Website in April 2016, stay tuned for more details."

http://athleticsontario.ca/quest-for-gold/

AO carding criteria is usually released by now.

Actually this would be akin to doping to win a few thousand bucks in a local road race

[quote]SB wrote:

I have never, and would never, defend myself on the basis of "freedom of speech". I have reasonable grounds for believing that people made knowingly false claims, or knowingly supported false claims, in return for government $. I don't have to be correct; I just have to have had reasonable grounds for making the accusation.

quote]

You might want to review defences to defamation. You might get away with fair comment, but your facts better be correct, otherwise the fair comment defence fails.

Your constant badgering might also be considered malicious, which neuters the fair comment defence as well.

*Not a lawyer, and not legal opinion.

Trackie exile wrote:All I want to know is where does Oldster play in to all of this?

oldster on trackie = SB on LetsRun = Steve Boyd, an opinionated old dude, decent open runner in his day, outstanding masters runner, good coach, Daniels acolyte, thorn in the side of many (and whether this is good or bad depends entirely on your point of view)

Actually, I don't think SB's words constitute libel from anything I've seen in these two threads. His wording has always made it clear that from the current available evidence it appears there was fraud but that he cannot be sure. That's not libel, as it falls under the rules of fair comment. He's stating his opinion, and that opinion is based on facts that can be proven, and regardless of what some of you may think it is fairly clear that his comments have not been made maliciously.

But by the definition of fraud, and you can check the Criminal Code for this if you'd like, you'll find it in sections 361 and 380, this so-called "bending of the rules," if legitimate, likely does constitute fraud under the Canadian Criminal Code. It may be a small matter, and it may seem petty, but so does shoplifting and that's still a crime.

The whole "you should just drop it" thing that some people on here have is typical. It's the same kind of attitude that people use to allow all kinds of morally questionable and sometimes outright terrible things to happen. You ignore petty crime, like shoplifting, or the drug dealer living next to you, and the spousal abuse you know is happening two houses down. And it escalates a very long way sometimes. Everybody has their own tolerance level, but it's also a social thing. If your neighbours also ignore it, then why should you be the one to stand up? There used to be a higher tolerance level for Speed River, and for the governing bodies, but they've eroded those a lot over the last while, so this is what they get. You can only take advantage for so long before someone decides to say no.

The stakes involved are approximately $5000 per athlete, so if you want to compare with shoplifting, just be sure to indicate that the shoplifted item or items are about $5000 value. Petty compared to major corporate fraud, sure but not compared to stealing a candy bar.