GF> wrote:
I can honestly say (and I don't say it lightly, as I've generally been a fan of his work) that this article made me lose respect for Jonathan.
The inability to recognize bias here is astounding -- take, for example, his own question:
I think it's clear why he would feel the need to include this question and the subsequent explanation: Anyone who has followed the work of LetsRun for any extended amount of time knows that this is an unusually supportive response to a doping ban. So, indeed, it's likely a question that many of us had in one form or another.
The explanation itself, though, is where he loses me:
I get it. This is fair.
You didn't think you were educated enough on individual/case to write an article.
Fine.
But you go on to say that:
No, it's not. At all, actually.
You spent three paragraphs explaining how your proximity to the people involved here (hearsay in "watering holes" and all) allowed you to frequently hear the sentiment that "I’d be surprised if she was doping."
Maybe if you hung around establishments in Kenya you'd find equal amount of blind faith (or "respect") for the athlete, coach, and training group involved in Kiprop's case.
It's all so ridiculous. You can't say that one explanation is more "plausible" because you're more familiar with its details and the people involved. If you had the same level of familiarity with the other cases, maybe they'd become even more "plausible" to you.
You're clearly biased toward Shelby -- you haven't even heard the full story yet and you're already making a case for her innocence, for crying out loud!
Embarrassing.
+1. A dreadful piece of work from JG. In truth it hurts Houlihan more than it helps her, it’s riddled with contradictions and half truths.