I respect your ballsy approach, Rojo. However, if they came to you, all the more reason to have taken your foot off the gas a bit. Clearly they wanted to develop some rapport, so it would have been a good opportunity to get some good information.
I respect your ballsy approach, Rojo. However, if they came to you, all the more reason to have taken your foot off the gas a bit. Clearly they wanted to develop some rapport, so it would have been a good opportunity to get some good information.
This is great.
Whether he used before or not, possession ought to be enough for a lifetime ban.
Zero tolerance.
There are plenty of runners running clean and wanting to move up.
Start testing all their hair, every year.
If your from CA you would knowMo Trafeh. He was big time in the day following Ryan Hall.
Also you should know him because about 30% of letsrun picked him to make the 2012 Olympics in the marathon. And he was one of the 5 guys who actually was in the race with a real chance to make the team.
This is sad news to me, but if am not surprised by it. The guy basically fell off the map after high school then re-emerged straight to the top with 1:01 half marathons.
A Duck wrote:
Whether he used before or not, possession ought to be enough for a lifetime ban.
Is that really a rule? You can now get threatened a lifetime ban for posession of EPO? Didn't think it was that strict.
disapponted wrote:
So LaCour thinks "Your questions were understandably insulting to Mohamed", I wonder if LaCour and Mohamed think followers and those involved in running/T&F feel insulted.
Mr. LaCour was going to say a bunch of lawyerly bullshit not matter what -- that's his job. The questions Robert asked were fundamentally legitimate ones, but the problem, as others have pointed out, is that neither Robert nrt anyone else who works for this site has even close to the level of journalistic sophistication required for a task such as this. Having a platform like a popular (in terms of traffic if not in terms of perception) platform does not automatically grant the owner(s) license to fire off incendiary questions under the aegis of "hard-hitting" reporting. It's as if the editors of the New York Times responded to news of, say, Rick Perry coming out of the closet with misguided salvos like, "Mr. Perry, people have long called you 'light in the loafers' and 'queer bait.' Any thoughts on that?" and "You've been seen in the company of ex-boy band members and their groupies. Ever gobble any of their knobs?"
Someone you could take inspiration from, in all seriousness, if you give half a shit, would be John Brant, the man who has written a slew of fantastic and well-crafted pieces on the sport over the years, but most pertinent to the Trafeh affair wrote the RW story about Hellebuyck. He handled it with class and depth, not with the interpersonal and writing skills of a richly intoxicated Gawker.com wannabe frantically thumbing through an online PDR.
Disappointed wrote:
I honestly thought he was busted already--this was so obvious for years.
It is really hard to detect epo when you cycle on and off during competition and out of competition. Even if tested during OOC, you have to almost get lucky and catch them with in a few days. Since Mo did his training in a remote area and in a country without a relaible AD program and the athletes would know a day in advance when testers were coming made the chances of getting caught an acceptable risk. I was never sure he was a doper, you just can't go by one big race becasue Ryan Hall made a big jump as well, but one year Mo was able to string together an amazing month of about 3-4 long distance races that made him look really-really good or suspect. Also, he was never able to hold his form for a complete season, he would run some incredible road times in April, but could not run that same time on the track at USATF's come July. He would go away for a few months and come back strong again in the fall. Not that this necessarily means anything, but he never seemed to enjoy his victories, but I thought it was because he had a chip on his shoulder because of all PEDS talk.
it isn't that strict. He's had other people rat him out but just never got caught at races, so this was actually a fluke good luck thing for usada, but they've had info/intel on him for some time now. notice he hasn't been racing as much, I'll bet they were testing him more the last few years. because of the prior evidence, however small it may be, it gives them enough to legitimately use the threat of life for this time.
Le Foot wrote:
A Duck wrote:Whether he used before or not, possession ought to be enough for a lifetime ban.
Is that really a rule? You can now get threatened a lifetime ban for posession of EPO? Didn't think it was that strict.
The GIGO Gecko wrote:
disapponted wrote:So LaCour thinks "Your questions were understandably insulting to Mohamed", I wonder if LaCour and Mohamed think followers and those involved in running/T&F feel insulted.
Mr. LaCour was going to say a bunch of lawyerly bullshit not matter what -- that's his job. The questions Robert asked were fundamentally legitimate ones, but the problem, as others have pointed out, is that neither Robert nrt anyone else who works for this site has even close to the level of journalistic sophistication required for a task such as this. Having a platform like a popular (in terms of traffic if not in terms of perception) platform does not automatically grant the owner(s) license to fire off incendiary questions under the aegis of "hard-hitting" reporting. It's as if the editors of the New York Times responded to news of, say, Rick Perry coming out of the closet with misguided salvos like, "Mr. Perry, people have long called you 'light in the loafers' and 'queer bait.' Any thoughts on that?" and "You've been seen in the company of ex-boy band members and their groupies. Ever gobble any of their knobs?"
Someone you could take inspiration from, in all seriousness, if you give half a shit, would be John Brant, the man who has written a slew of fantastic and well-crafted pieces on the sport over the years, but most pertinent to the Trafeh affair wrote the RW story about Hellebuyck. He handled it with class and depth, not with the interpersonal and writing skills of a richly intoxicated Gawker.com wannabe frantically thumbing through an online PDR.
Have to agree with the general consensus that the LRC questions were not phrased well (understatement). I think the worst part was the following:
Many die-hard running fans were also doubting your performances long before this as well (
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4368346). In fact, I called a coaching acquaintance of mine today and asked him, “If I say the name Mo Trafeh to you, what is the first thing that comes to your mind?” His response was, “I heard he was on drugs in high school.”
You could probably dig up a PED speculation thread for any athlete in track and field. Then you mention that your friend's friends said that Mo might have been on drugs in high school. This flimsy non-evidence just makes it look like you have an axe to grind.
rojo wrote:
Why do I need to do tact? I want the truth.
You need tact because Mo is under no obligation to answer your questions. You are not a lawyer and Mo is not on trial. Tactfulness and directness are not mutually exclusive things.
UC Bear wrote:
the mode of inquiry comes off as rather bush league. There are better ways to frame the questions that are still effective and critical.
This question, for instance, seems to presume guilt, and is clearly sardonic in tone:
"2. You do realize that your story line is something that most people will find hard to believe, right?"
Here are some interviewing tips:
) ask him about things he may actually want to talk about. Gray-area PED's for example. Maybe he thinks the better-sponsored elites have an unfair advantage that justifies his own poor-man's doping and would have an interesting answer.
) don't put him on the spot. Never ask a question he wouldn't start answering within 2 or 3 seconds if you put a microphone in his face. In person, stumping the subject gets meaningless answers, particularly praise to religious deities from event winners. Via text it either ends the interview or gets a vetted, candor-free response.
) follow-up on things he's already said or written. Your best bet for a good response is from the stuff he's already got well-formed thoughts about. "Why do you think anti-doping was singling you out?" If you're lucky, he might just tell you who else he thinks they should have been after.
) take what you can get. If he thinks you're just out to get him to rat on everyone, he'll clam up. You don't need names. "How widespread do you think EPO use is today?" "How did you expect it to affect your performance?" "What modern PED's do you think are more effective than EPO?"
The GIGO Gecko wrote:
disapponted wrote:So LaCour thinks "Your questions were understandably insulting to Mohamed", I wonder if LaCour and Mohamed think followers and those involved in running/T&F feel insulted.
Mr. LaCour was going to say a bunch of lawyerly bullshit not matter what -- that's his job. The questions Robert asked were fundamentally legitimate ones, but the problem, as others have pointed out, is that neither Robert nrt anyone else who works for this site has even close to the level of journalistic sophistication required for a task such as this. Having a platform like a popular (in terms of traffic if not in terms of perception) platform does not automatically grant the owner(s) license to fire off incendiary questions under the aegis of "hard-hitting" reporting. It's as if the editors of the New York Times responded to news of, say, Rick Perry coming out of the closet with misguided salvos like, "Mr. Perry, people have long called you 'light in the loafers' and 'queer bait.' Any thoughts on that?" and "You've been seen in the company of ex-boy band members and their groupies. Ever gobble any of their knobs?"
Someone you could take inspiration from, in all seriousness, if you give half a shit, would be John Brant, the man who has written a slew of fantastic and well-crafted pieces on the sport over the years, but most pertinent to the Trafeh affair wrote the RW story about Hellebuyck. He handled it with class and depth, not with the interpersonal and writing skills of a richly intoxicated Gawker.com wannabe frantically thumbing through an online PDR.
HA! Winner!
In my opinion that's where it seemed a bit insulting. I'm a fairly objective observer of the sport. Claiming that he was long suspected without any proof isn't substantial to me. If there was, that was the time to include it.
Otgerwise I respect that you asked hard questions, some I hadn't thought to ask, but some of the wording could have been a bit more polite, professional, and organized.
With all due respect rojo (yes I really do respect you and letsrun), some people have brought up a great point about creating a source and how helpful that could be.
Since your stance is so hard on helping to create a cleaner sport this could be a really good opportunity for you (letsrun). I'd rec eating your pride and admitting you may have been a bit harsh/rushed/whatever for the sake of patching things up and creating an open dialogue even if you don't feel that you were.
Why? Well I bet Mo has a lot of info. I'd do what is necessary to learn what he knows :). I'd love to know the answers to the questions you posed!
Rojo's questions are EXACTLY why I like this site.
No BS, no subtlety, straight to the point. Saying just what every weary fan is thinking.
Yes, he could have opened some 'dialogue', but what do you morons think he would have got in return for some 'softer' questions?
More and more lies is the answer.
Those are the questions that needed asking. He didn't answer them - his choice. His lawyer says he's offended. Tough shit, shouldn't have cheated then lied through his teeth about it.
Well done Letsrun.
Rojo's questions were fine.
The most bothersome part of this story is that he got caught at the airport, not via a failed test. Not surprised by this, but it just reiterates the point that passing tests does not equate to being clean.
I have no problems with the questions posed to Trafeh, that are directly related to his drug use. His initial statement wasn't good enough. Hard to believe the first time he purchased EPO he was busted. Does every pothead get busted right away?
I do however have a real issue with dragging you Lagats name into this. That shows a lack of class and was unnecessary. I hope Lagat or Coach Li never give you an interview in future.
curt kobaine wrote:
Look, rojo, I'm not blaming you for your goals. I share those goals. I want to see cheaters busted; all of them, even busts who might hurt the sport. But I think you missed an opportunity to create a real source with those questions.
There are differences of opinion in this thread as to whether rojo's approach was the right one. Good points from both rojo and curt kobaine. However, I don't think this is necessarily the end of it, or rojo's only opportunity to dig deeper with Trafeh. At the moment, maybe not ... Trafeh is going to have a lot on his plate for the next few days/weeks, and probably doesn't feel like subjecting himself to a beating any more than USADA is already giving him. However, give him some time and he'll likely open up. I bet with a little more friendly behind-the-scenes dialog, he'll see rojo's questions in a different light and be more responsive. As rojo points out, this is the only place anyone cares about his accomplishments. Trafeh will hopefully come to see rojo's seemingly harsh questions as representative of let-down fans' who visit this page.
Stay connected with this rojo. I predict you'll get your chance to engage with Trafeh sooner or later.
Tommy2Nuttz wrote:
Hard to believe the first time he purchased EPO he was busted. Does every pothead get busted right away?
Why is it hard to believe? Trafeh passed all of his drug tests because (occams razor comes to mind) perhaps he was clean?
If a pothead buys his first baggie then goes to the airport with it does it surprise you that he would get caught? No different from Farah.
My question is why would he try to pass prescription drugs through airport security? That's dumb.
curt kobaine wrote:
"Your questions were understandably insulting to Mohamed. To be frank, an objective person reading your questions would think that you had some sort of personal resentment against him. Not as if this is a story and you were doing your job, but that you subjectively have ill-will towards him."
This is 100% correct. Those questions had zero tact. Did you guys even discuss what questions to ask and how to ask them, or did you do that completely on a whim?
I agree. The questions were not presented by a professional journalist. Some nameless losers on an internet board and your coach friend dont exactly qualify as people whos opinion he should be concerned about.
I get your anti doping stance but being tactless comes off as more TMZ than NYT.
I giggled when the lawyer stated that Mo was insulted by the questions. Drug cheats are lower than dirt. How much money / championships did he win? How do the 2nd place finishers feel about Mo being insulted? I think that they would have a few choice words for him. Mo's cheating not only hurt himself but he hurt many others out of what they deserved. They should make Mo give the prize money to the rightful owners!