So purposefully going out of your way to diminish other runners and prevent their records from being ratified over many years is less bad than taking a tainted supplement on accident and accidentally cutting a course? One thing is purposeful the others being accidents (which have been proven).
Come on now. Every performance enhancing cheat uses that excuse.
That is what was found to be the case by the judge. So the judge is making excuses for her? Someone who is an elite triathlete tested many many times over a number of years? Ok, I mean either way I am not sure what Ashley Paulson even has to do with Camille Heron other than the fact Camille has accused Ashley of cheating at Badwater.
I foresee a time when any mention of Camille's name will get a post deleted, just like it you mention Mike Rossi now
There are currently 6 threads about this on the first page. I know we complain about heavy-handed moderation, but that sure isn't happening with this situation.
TxRunnergirl went so far as to try a provoke Holt by calling him a ‘they’….Chads unite and cancel her from this forum!
just a classic example of a bully getting caught and pretending to be a victim. unfortunately for camille, she's so delusional that everyone saw thru it immediately
Wikipedia has never been a completely reliable source of information for this exact reason. I thought that was common sense.
I've never understood this take. Sure, vandalism happens on Wikipedia and people make bad edits, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia!". That includes you. If you don't agree with a specific point in an article and have the ability to fix it, then make it better. You can't say it's unreliable without offering to address the unreliability.
The vast majority of edits are made by experts and nerds in their fields of study getting overly-pedantic about what details should be included in an article. Read the "Talk" page of most articles to see the pedantism in action. Provide a better way to getting at most accurate and updated source of truth we have as a human society, than nerds arguing about topics they're experts in.
Wikipedia has never been a completely reliable source of information for this exact reason. I thought that was common sense.
I've never understood this take. Sure, vandalism happens on Wikipedia and people make bad edits, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia!". That includes you. If you don't agree with a specific point in an article and have the ability to fix it, then make it better. You can't say it's unreliable without offering to address the unreliability.
The vast majority of edits are made by experts and nerds in their fields of study getting overly-pedantic about what details should be included in an article. Read the "Talk" page of most articles to see the pedantism in action. Provide a better way to getting at most accurate and updated source of truth we have as a human society, than nerds arguing about topics they're experts in.
Yes, if nothing else, this incident demonstrates that Wikipedia has robust controls in place. It's striking that even something as insignificant as the page of a relatively obscure ultrarunner (how much more niche can that be in the scheme of things?!) was the subject of pretty quick and stringent editorial controls by unbiased editors. (Oh wait, I meant "editorial controls by biased cyber bullies who who severely impacting Camille's mental health" LOL)
Her mom came after me too... the other day on a thread. I wonder if it was actually her and not her mom now that I think about it. All so bizarre - who has this kind of time? Shouldn't she be running or something?
Wikipedia has never been a completely reliable source of information for this exact reason. I thought that was common sense.
I've never understood this take. Sure, vandalism happens on Wikipedia and people make bad edits, but those are the exceptions, not the rule. "Anyone can edit Wikipedia!". That includes you. If you don't agree with a specific point in an article and have the ability to fix it, then make it better. You can't say it's unreliable without offering to address the unreliability.
The vast majority of edits are made by experts and nerds in their fields of study getting overly-pedantic about what details should be included in an article. Read the "Talk" page of most articles to see the pedantism in action. Provide a better way to getting at most accurate and updated source of truth we have as a human society, than nerds arguing about topics they're experts in.
I think you are giving Wikipedia more credit than they deserve (and I mean the editors)
She is still listed as a participant in the Spartathon. I am a little surprised at that. As the defending champion and course record holder, she usually would be getting a very warm reception. Instead, I am sure she is getting a very cold reception from the race officials and her fellow competitors.
