Yes, Rojo, Epstein is an investigative reporter; and yes, both with and without Selena Roberts, he has done important work in the past. But that he has, doesn't mean his work in the case at hand is good--indeed, I think it's part investigation and part advocacy, and the latter often undermines the former. Sy Hersh did extraordinary investigatory work at one point in his life. His most recent work on Bin Laden, as figures such as Peter Bergen show, did not live up to the high standards that he himself helped establish. Everything else notwithstanding, one thing that troubles me is how quickly he responded to Salazar. Anyone whose trade and craft is careful analytical thinking and writing takes time to construct any response to important criticism--and Salazar's response, however well or poorly it was constructed, is important. Second, at the end of his response, he tosses in gratuitously a remark of Areson that Salazar dispensed prescription drugs like candy. I'd like to know from Epstein whether he pressed her on that assertion and whether he thinks it at all credible. It struck me as absolutely incredible, and prejudicial. That causes me to doubt things in his original article. However, more to the point, as we are finding with all the responses and counter-responses, the same facts admit of various explanations. In science, often we are not interested in the overt facts: we are interested in how to explain them. The latter is very hard to do. Unfortunately, many on this board are not careful thinkers--duh, a bit obvious, no? But for those of us who are old, and go back to the days, first, of Ryun and Lindgren, and then Shorter and Billy R., but then the dark days of distance running in America when we couldn't even get one marathoner to meet the standard, and then we see what Salazar has done for running, including bringing Schumacher to Oregon, amazing things really (and if you don't realize the extent of his extraordinary influence in American distance running, both as a runner and a coach, you need to read a little bit), if he is guilty of cheating and malfeasance, the standards of proof must be pretty high, and it will be a very sad day in our sport, and not an occasion to celebrate, if indeed USADA and/or WADA find such to be so. In this regard, one should watch the film "12 Angry Men"--the original 1957 version.And by the way, someone posted using a similar handle to mine, which is password protected, using Montesqueiu and not my Montesquieu. Thanks.