Wejo - you need to produce evidence or retract your statement

Neideck has nothing to do with Wiley, and Wiley has nothing to do with Neideck. As stated, Neideck spews as the mouth about how he doesn’t coach Wiley. It’s also clear that Wiley DOES work with Roark and communicates only with Roark. If anyone watched at NAIA XC nationals and last years track national/US champs, Roark is the one traveling and working directly with Wiley.

That's by far the most accurate take. It wouldn't matter at all to the doping dunces. They hang out here all year long and assign guilt wherever needed. It's like prosecutors who refuse to believe exculpatory DNA on someone they wrongly convicted decades ago.

As long as Wiley continues on her current trajectory, none of it matters. The chirpers here are a fraction and they are irrelevant. It only seems like a significant slice because Wiley is still comparatively unknown and has never made a big ticket senior American team.

Once she gets there, NBC will spotlight the athlete. Wiley's personality will take care of the rest. The rants and disbelief here will be priceless.

The sterling endorsement of one of the most obtuse doping apologists on this board. Well done.

And to be clear, you have to be clinically braindead imho to think this athlete is on the level. But to a certain segment who refuse to admit doping in the wider sport, they have to be apologists for all of it. That is why Houlihan had such support on here from the East Africa corp. Everyone in the sport knows. Just a few diehards on here who refuse to confront the general rot cannot admit it.

Admittedly I haven’t caught up entirely with this scandal yet….and although it’s more taboo in the running community, you’d be surprised how prevalent some form of testosterone therapy is amongst the general population of aging(and nowadays young) men.

Obviously being associated with an athletic program and getting a prescription one is unwise and completely suspect. But when viewed outside the lens of our small running community, and instead the larger lens of modern America? Not that crazy.

Maybe a bad take because I haven’t read into this scandal too deeply but just a quick note.

Astro, you definitely think she’s 100% guilty without having the type of evidence that would typically be required to reach a 100% conclusion, imho. So, then people who think the odds are 85-90% (which is still really high) you are calling brain dead apologists! You make it into some sort of purity test that appears divided when it really isn’t.

What kind of pushback are you looking for, astro?

Phenoms bro, I replied to you earlier today, but it got deleted! I think it must have been deleted accidentally bc I didn't break any forum rules, and I actually recognized how you were likely correct due to experience that you have that I do not. Did you get a chance to see it?

I find it funny I had nothing to with it getting deleted and after now reading it I'm realizing why one or maybe multiple people reported the post. How did I set you off that much, you had to be this passive agrressive?

Weird. You must be a mod? It was deleted earlier snd now it is back on page 3.

Of course, you are not quoting the whole post. Earlier in this thread I likened the Wiley interview (and availability on this site) to child porn because I personally find it repulsive. You then said that I lack all credibility to have this view. So, you don't find it distasteful. I am not being passive aggressive. I am conceding that people can see things different based on their life experience. I think it was extremely gross, and it is light comical reading to you. Both can be possible, no?

You didn't set me off at all. The availability of that report that should have been redacted to a much greater extent and should have protected the victim/witness from the online abuse and humiliation (and the subsequent distribution of it) is what sets me off. I totally understand that there are people who consume that sort of content (and worse) and have no trouble with it.

* see things differently

More to the point... If you are not into that kind of thing (which would make your comment make sense to me), then the pushback that I would be looking for is the explanation for why you find my sincere view (that the interview is very bad) "lacks all credibility".

I state my opinion. I even prefaced it IMHO. Did the same with Houlihan. In fact I said the same for Houlihan. There again, how could people not know, despite all the "undertrained" nonsense? It is not exactly rocket science. But for four years there were only well founded suspicions, not hard evidence. Heck until the Berlin wall came down no one could prove the East Germans were doping, nor Ma's Army until that confession letter, nor Armstrong until the DOJ went scorched earth, not Jones until Balco. Denialism is based on how hard direct evidence is to obtain even when there is every red flag in the book and commonsense gets highly strained. Cases very rarely wrap up in a neat bow like Chemusto. I am stating my honest opinion. When I see a bona fide magical unicorn I will let everyone know. But there aren't any in this sport. Sorry.

Where did I allude to being a mod? Sometimes post are auto deleted by reports then restored by mods. Why are all these assumptions coming from? I never gave any viewpoint on any interview or police report.

The police report and its details don't live rent free in most mature adults heads. I would like to most people who read the news story or excerpts of the report at the time it was released forget what happened.

You're child porn comparison is just wack. You're delusional. Not sincere.

What kind of pushback are you looking for, astro?

There’s a difference between making an assumption and asking a question. I asked if you were a mod (see the question mark). You seem to know a fair amount of the behind the scenes workings of this message board. I was unaware that it was common practice for mods to restore posts after they have been deleted. Apologies.

To get back to some common ground, as I mentioned earlier, I’ve come around to your way of thinking that the sexual portions of the police report (that obviously should have been redacted to a much greater extent so that her identity would be impossible to reveal) along with the subsequent promotion of it would most likely fall under online sexual abuse or harassment and not child porn. She provided those intimate details under the belief that the interview would be in strict confidence and that her identity would never be divulged. Did she consent to it being disseminated nationwide? Besides being a victim in other ways (which she may contest), she has also clearly been a victim of online sexploitation. If not, what specific aspects do you disagree with?

We evidently have differing viewpoints on the degree of the sexploitation that has taken place. You think I must be insincere because you think it’s just not any biggie. In my opinion the voluminous amounts and types of porn that you almost certainly consume has desensitized you so that your internal compass that is supposed to point towards basic decency is broken. People with an ongoing porn habit often (unbeknownst to them) have been significantly conditioned towards the sexual objectification people (likely women and children, in your case). At this point, you can’t even begin to imagine a person being disgusted by the sexploitation that has occurred because to you it’s just a complete nothing burger compared to the extent and frequency of degeneracy required to maintain your dopamine level.

Getting back to the OP. Any follow-up (apology or admit their error) from Journalism 101 regarding their demands and the proof from wejo that Lauren did admit that Nick had EPO and testosterone? Lauren also made these statements with her lawyer by her side and without coercion.

Journalism 101 was very confident and aggressive, claiming that the statements were "factually incorrect." It's unfortunate that Journalism 101 can't admit they were misled or uninformed.