I don't see the problem.
I don't see the problem.
webfoot wrote:
Very clear from the article that Cain is talking about the pig-tailed Mary Decker.
So there is a good and a bad Decker? And Cain, a professional runner (a young one, but still) would not know anything about the bad Decker?
webfoot wrote:
You are one of those people who views the world in black and white, I know your type.
I think you are currently viewing the world all white.
I can understand Cain would say she admires Decker. But not putting it like "I like her for X and Y, in spite of her doping" gives the impression she thinks doping is fine. At least, call that clumsy. And hope she does not really mean that doping is fine.
The real problem here as I see it is that Rojo/LetsRun, claim to promote the sport, but when the get an passionate young lady in the sport, one with the potential to inspire thousands of teens and get them hooked on the sport, instead of pointing all the good things she said in her interview, they harp and make headline status of the one thing she said they don't like. That is not promotion of the sport, its trying to get it to conform to your standards through editorializing and cyber bullying.
A more reasonable journalist would have pointed out all the positives along with the one negative. But maybe like the National Enquirer, LetsRun would like to lead with controversy so they can sell higher dollar ad space.
So Rojo, which is it, are you trying to promote the sport or get the most $ for add space. It's your website so you decide what you want, but at least be honest with your readers.
You have stated multiple times that message board is separate from the rest of the site. That the rest of the site is for reporting and promotion of the sport and the message board is for opinions. But you bleed over your opinions to the front page at every turn. Mary Cain gives several good in-depth interviews and the one thing you pick to highlight as quote of the day is the 1 thing you disagree with (while failing to mention anything good). That is not fair and balanced journalism, that is Rojo making a point based on his opinion. Shouldn't that be kept to the message board not plastered on the front page headline?
I'm sure Galen and Mo and the rest of the elite world wants to know should they treat you as journalists or tabloid sensationalist when they see you at races. Should NYRR give you press passes or should they treat you like paparazzi. Your actions are making it very hard for most to get a clear read on that, seems like you want it both ways
She was called little Mary Decker by a track announcer when she was in the eight grade. Mary Decker is the greatest female runner in US history. Many people didn't even know Decker had failed a test at the end of her illustrious career. Why is it so hard to understand that she would admire her? If someone was calling an eighth grade baseball player the next David Ortiz do you think he would like it?
your over the top obsession with all things 'doper' is embarassing. Stop - it makes you look bad..
Our friend Rojo is most certainly consistent, although extreme, in his opinions of Mary Decker.
grox wrote:
webfoot wrote:Very clear from the article that Cain is talking about the pig-tailed Mary Decker.
So there is a good and a bad Decker? And Cain, a professional runner (a young one, but still) would not know anything about the bad Decker?
webfoot wrote:
You are one of those people who views the world in black and white, I know your type.
I think you are currently viewing the world all white.
I can understand Cain would say she admires Decker. But not putting it like "I like her for X and Y, in spite of her doping" gives the impression she thinks doping is fine. At least, call that clumsy. And hope she does not really mean that doping is fine.
You entirely missed my point. There is no black and white. No one is perfect. The most vocal judgmental people tend to be intellectually lazy and ideologues. She/He bad. She/He good.
What do you think of the Iraq war hero who picks a fight and kills another guy in a bar? That was a bad thing to do, so he must be bad. But wait, he was a war hero and put his life on the line to save his team in Iraq. So he must be good, but how can that be if he's bad. This conflict causes the Rojo brain to explode.
Getting back to the Letsrun website... Sensational headlines and name calling is so much easier to increase traffic than real reporting. I imagine more people have looked at this thread than the fine articles Letsrun did on regional XC. Facts and nuanced issues are just too darn hard and the reward is low.
J.R. wrote:
Cain is probably not wrapped up in drugs like the Brojos.
Mary Decker was a very fine runner, who had an outstanding career.
This^. I always thought Mary Decker was essentially our female equivalent of Jim Ryun. She never scored an OG medal, but she was damn competitive internationally and was competing against highly doped Europeans...long before she ventured to the dark side. She had her issues and wasn't always the most professional, but she was a hellava competitor and wasn't afraid of anyone. Not a bad role model in my opinion.
explainer of reality wrote:
Get over yourself already.
Seriously.
This right here.
Your joking I hope. Most people in the running community didn't know Decker failed a test until years after when the internet took off, let alone the general sports fan.[quote]molasses wrote:
One of the biggest doping busts in our sports history.
Journalist or Tabloid Writer wrote:
The real problem here as I see it is that Rojo/LetsRun, claim to promote the sport, but when the get an passionate young lady in the sport, one with the potential to inspire thousands of teens and get them hooked on the sport, instead of pointing all the good things she said in her interview, they harp and make headline status of the one thing she said they don't like. That is not promotion of the sport, its trying to get it to conform to your standards through editorializing and cyber bullying.
A more reasonable journalist would have pointed out all the positives along with the one negative. But maybe like the National Enquirer, LetsRun would like to lead with controversy so they can sell higher dollar ad space.
So Rojo, which is it, are you trying to promote the sport or get the most $ for add space. It's your website so you decide what you want, but at least be honest with your readers.
You have stated multiple times that message board is separate from the rest of the site. That the rest of the site is for reporting and promotion of the sport and the message board is for opinions. But you bleed over your opinions to the front page at every turn. Mary Cain gives several good in-depth interviews and the one thing you pick to highlight as quote of the day is the 1 thing you disagree with (while failing to mention anything good). That is not fair and balanced journalism, that is Rojo making a point based on his opinion. Shouldn't that be kept to the message board not plastered on the front page headline?
I'm sure Galen and Mo and the rest of the elite world wants to know should they treat you as journalists or tabloid sensationalist when they see you at races. Should NYRR give you press passes or should they treat you like paparazzi. Your actions are making it very hard for most to get a clear read on that, seems like you want it both ways
I think you misunderstand the point of letsrun. We aren't trying to blindly promote the sport to the masses. LetsRun is a site dedicated to serving people who are already fans fo the sport.
You are totally wrong about the $$$$. If I wanted dollars, i wouldn't say a critical word every about Mary Cain or anyone.
I pucker my lips up and get access to them and then charge people $20 to watch that access.
To me that's not journalism, it's paid promotion. If you want a site that acts basically as paid promotion pieces for individuals, shoe companies, colleges and/or events, then go to flotrack.
Often times, the real world is full of uncomfortable truths and I get some people like yourself don't like hearing it. People don't like to hear that Barry Bonds is dirty. It's so much more fun if the 70+ homers is real. They don't like to hear that their local mayor is a drug addict or their pastor an adulterer.
It's so much better if Regina Jacobs, who runs workouts with HSers and her beloved little dog, is legitimatelhy setting American records at age 40. What an inspiration!!!!
But it's fake and not true.
-Rojo
PS.I'll admit I have a tendency to be too negative at times. Pointing out the one flaw, instead of the 5 good things but doping is something i basically have ZERO tolerance for.
That being said, you are guilty of the same thing you accuse me of doing. We paid people to work for 15-20 hours yesterday working to bring you a homepage where running was treated as front page news. Where the 62 team NCAA xc meet was treated like the 64 team NCAA basketball tournament. And you get this info for FREE.
And you criticize us for making an editorial comment about an up and coming star saying her role model is a drug cheat?
Why can't you focus on the positive?
webfoot wrote:
You entirely missed my point. There is no black and white. No one is perfect. The most vocal judgmental people tend to be intellectually lazy and ideologues. She/He bad. She/He good.
I didn't read Rojo's comments as "Cain is bad", just as "what she said is shocking". If you are referring to Decker instead, well... doping is doping, even if a national idol did it. I understand why many think being caught once casts a shadow over a whole career.
Actually, what I don't understand is how people who are very knowledgeable about running can still believe anything can be done at the top level without PEDs. (Maybe they _know_ they ran close to world class times clean and believe someone can run slightly faster than that just as cleanly. Unfortunately, the only times _I know are clean_ are mine and they are not good, so I can't rely on that to hope elite times are legitimate. Many simply say such or such person could not possibly have cheated out of blind faith.) With this in mind, dopers did something wrong and should be blamed for it. But the responsibility is spread over the whole system. Treating the few who get caught like criminals is not fair in my opinion.
Rojo, thanks for responding and admitting to having a tendency towards being too negative at times and you are correct that is a fault I myself am guilty of as well.
But while you obviously dislike Mary Decker and tarnish her whole career (can make a case either way) for a positive test at the end of it. Mary Cain is not Mary Decker and so to dwell and only promote the one aspect of what she said seems overly harsh. Especially without knowing what she knows of Decker, that she is only 17 yrs old, and that she didn't list her as her primary role model.
I just think it would have been fairer if you had talked about or mentioned some of the other thing she said (many of which I thought were excellent and mature and positive for the sport), in addition to the on thing that is questionable.
I applaud your zero tolerance of drug cheats. But don't try and crucify a 17 yr old because she mentions someone who was a drug cheat in a lengthy interview. Separate your disdain for drug cheats with a a few words from a young teenager not use to giving interviews.
I don't expect Flotrack type positive sound bites from LetsRun and that is some your appeal. But I don't expect negative only reporting about innocent young women, just because they inappropriately mention someone you disdain.
I ask for a balance and I think you'll find it rewarding as well. The world is not all black or all white and neither should how we perceive it or how we report on it.
On my side, I'll try and implore the same philosophy on my views of LetsRun. Fair enough?
1) I think its entirely possible Mary Cain doesn't even know Decker has a doping conviction on her record.
2) Hopefully, someone points that out to Mary C and she re-examines Mary Decker's career and the choices she made.
3) I believe Mary Decker was a doper. My belief from all the people I've talked to over the years, is that the Mary Decker doping story has not been truthfully told.
wejo wrote:
1) I think its entirely possible Mary Cain doesn't even know Decker has a doping conviction on her record.
2) Hopefully, someone points that out to Mary C and she re-examines Mary Decker's career and the choices she made.
3) I believe Mary Decker was a doper. My belief from all the people I've talked to over the years, is that the Mary Decker doping story has not been truthfully told.
All very possible points. So maybe start a tread or post a story that points that out and asks Cain to relook at what she said and then in the same story or thread or in a seperate one point out all the positive, mature things Cain had to say as well. So that we aren't only reporting negative about Cain when it's Decker you have dislike for.
Whoa, why are you people all over Rojo about this? Valid points I think. One of the responsibilities that goes along with being a professional athlete is being very mindful how you handle interviews, and what type of image you want to portray as she is now a role model to other young girls. Mary Decker was a cheater long before she got busted. Yes, she was doping in the 80s during her prime and the whole world saw her lack of sportsmanship. It is a total joke that she is in the USATF hall of fame with a doping violation. Seriously, that's a problem! The only reason she was never busted earlier is because of NIKE. She is not someone who should serve as a role model. Nothing against Mary Cain, but she is now in the spotlight where everything she says will be disected.
Dick Brown coached her wrote:
Slaney was a self centered Diva. She was very demanding and her behavior on and off the track was atrocious. She was as far as you can possibly get from being a role model.
So in other words, she was the Nick Symmonds of her era!
Hey-O!!!
kitty bar the door wrote:
look at Wejo, talk about an example of someone who had poor coaching that held him back until JK developed him.
Why isn't Rojo in an uproar about this?
Journalist or Tabloid Writer wrote:
wejo wrote:1) I think its entirely possible Mary Cain doesn't even know Decker has a doping conviction on her record.
2) Hopefully, someone points that out to Mary C and she re-examines Mary Decker's career and the choices she made.
3) I believe Mary Decker was a doper. My belief from all the people I've talked to over the years, is that the Mary Decker doping story has not been truthfully told.
All very possible points. So maybe start a tread or post a story that points that out and asks Cain to relook at what she said and then in the same story or thread or in a seperate one point out all the positive, mature things Cain had to say as well. So that we aren't only reporting negative about Cain when it's Decker you have dislike for.
Cain does not read LRC Why? She says "adult men writing nasty things"
You cannot be serious. Mary Decker rose to world prominence at 14, was too young to compete in the 1972 Olympics, was injured for the 1976 Olympics, could not compete in 1980 because of the boycott, and tripped in her big shot after 12 years in 1984 at the Olympics. However, her career was non-pareil. She won double gold at the inaugural World Championships in 1983 in 1500m/3000m, leading nearly every step of the way in each race against powerful doping Eastern Europeans during the strongest period of systematic doping. If she was doping via her drug cheat husband, she was able to win in the all-drug race. If she wasn't doping, then she was incredible. Later, injuries hurt her, but she was dominant in the U.S. from 800m to the highest distance they let women run on the track then for many years. Decker is the only proper comparison for Cain, who is herself already current or past American junior record holder at several distances and high school record holder at 800m/1500m/mile/3000m/2M/5000m. If not Decker, then who else?