Paging Shelby Houlihan and RoJo. Paging RoJo and Houlihan to the irony suite.
So do you think that they should give both athletes a pass, or just Coleman? I think they should have been much harder on Shelby, but that doesn't mean that they should continue making the same mistake forever to satisfy your need for consistency. They should absolutely not let Coleman dictate what questions he can be asked. Missing multiple tests is very serious, which is why it results in a ban.
Don't play Coleman's game of pretending it's no big deal.
No one ever said give Coleman a pass. In fact, he hasn’t.
He served his suspension and has been asked about it by countless journalists for YEARS. Asking him the same exact question that he’s already been asked before FOR YEARS is bad journalism.
It would be like if in 2028 from now they were interviewing Katir after a race and asked him about doping in 2024. That’s not tough journalism. That’s childish bullsh*t
That is what he should ask, but not what he will ask.
I thought it through further this morning and it dawned on me what the problem is...
In most secure news companies, there are departments and categories.
There's the owner or CEO, sometimes a CFO and maybe a COO.
Then there are the editors, who sometimes are the journalists themselves.
Then, there are the journalists if the editors are publishers.
The specific categorical journalists are trained in asking certain questions on particular subjects to people, but these journalists are known as journalists who represent a company.
Jim Acosta doesn't own CNN. Nate Burleson does not own ABC. You can go on and on in this idea.
Conversely, letsrun doesn't provide this, which is likely very insecure to the top athletes. It's strange to have the owners and their associates be the only and final journalists representing a company since most of these top athletes run for a shoe company sponsor with a specific corporate structure.
When there is no direct corporate oversight because the company is the same people who write the stories, any athlete has to be wary of any information given because they would not know what is made of it. As a result, there's nobody higher or more influential to effect change if there are complaints about how the information is represented.
In this regard, it looks independent enough to resemble paparazzi, and, coupled with a "free speech" style message board that is moderated with the assumption that top athletes don't read it and it's okay to say whatever about top athletes because of free speech, it makes perfect sense why they are not answering letsrun.
Most PR people should direct their athletes to more respectful, reasonable and respectable publications.
LRC … is a small business group of what ..4 people? Of course the nearly sole proprietorship (2 twin brothers), of LRC isn’t cnn, fox, abc, msnbc, oann. So because of that you define their style as dangerous or malicious; while the other large network news agencies lob in softball questions and play nice. I don’t agree with the JoBro’s on much but it’s their choice to ask/do what they want. We are all supporting their website, until there’s another better alternative all you are is another opinionated user of this site. Apples to oranges.
Actually siding with LRC here. Coleman is an obvious doper. You can't miss 3 tests & be clean. & the sport doesn't really care. He serves a short ban & then it's not like meets don't invite him/pay him. He's right back on the world stage winning medals. If LRC doesn't ask about it, does any media outlet do it or do they act like that stuff never happened? The tv coverage doesn't mention it. He should have to answer tough questions.
That's great when it was newsworthy and the story hadn't been hashed and rehashed. What is LRC adding to the conversation now by asking?
I thought it through further this morning and it dawned on me what the problem is...
In most secure news companies, there are departments and categories.
There's the owner or CEO, sometimes a CFO and maybe a COO.
Then there are the editors, who sometimes are the journalists themselves.
Then, there are the journalists if the editors are publishers.
The specific categorical journalists are trained in asking certain questions on particular subjects to people, but these journalists are known as journalists who represent a company.
Jim Acosta doesn't own CNN. Nate Burleson does not own ABC. You can go on and on in this idea.
Conversely, letsrun doesn't provide this, which is likely very insecure to the top athletes. It's strange to have the owners and their associates be the only and final journalists representing a company since most of these top athletes run for a shoe company sponsor with a specific corporate structure.
When there is no direct corporate oversight because the company is the same people who write the stories, any athlete has to be wary of any information given because they would not know what is made of it. As a result, there's nobody higher or more influential to effect change if there are complaints about how the information is represented.
In this regard, it looks independent enough to resemble paparazzi, and, coupled with a "free speech" style message board that is moderated with the assumption that top athletes don't read it and it's okay to say whatever about top athletes because of free speech, it makes perfect sense why they are not answering letsrun.
Most PR people should direct their athletes to more respectful, reasonable and respectable publications.
LRC … is a small business group of what ..4 people? Of course the nearly sole proprietorship (2 twin brothers), of LRC isn’t cnn, fox, abc, msnbc, oann. So because of that you define their style as dangerous or malicious; while the other large network news agencies lob in softball questions and play nice. I don’t agree with the JoBro’s on much but it’s their choice to ask/do what they want. We are all supporting their website, until there’s another better alternative all you are is another opinionated user of this site. Apples to oranges.
Main thing is, their lame ass, censoring, and thread deletion. This is the Internet for god sake…. if a poster can’t take what they’re reading just close the effing eyes.
No one ever said give Coleman a pass. In fact, he hasn’t.
He served his suspension and has been asked about it by countless journalists for YEARS. Asking him the same exact question that he’s already been asked before FOR YEARS is bad journalism.
It would be like if in 2028 from now they were interviewing Katir after a race and asked him about doping in 2024. That’s not tough journalism. That’s childish bullsh*t
They harp on some things but if its one of *their* people with "questions" about whatever (not necessarily doping) swirling around..., shut that sh!t down, bro! Not just no journalism on their part, no discussion allowed.
So do you think that they should give both athletes a pass, or just Coleman? I think they should have been much harder on Shelby, but that doesn't mean that they should continue making the same mistake forever to satisfy your need for consistency. They should absolutely not let Coleman dictate what questions he can be asked. Missing multiple tests is very serious, which is why it results in a ban.
Don't play Coleman's game of pretending it's no big deal.
This right here is what we're dealing with: an obvious straw man argument.
The argument is not that a whereabouts violation is not a serious matter, it is, but rather, why does LRC (as an organization and RoJo as an individual) treat that violation differently than any other drugs violation. More specifically, why is one athlete treated differently than another.
Now you would have those that point out this double standard as excusing the whereabouts failures and minimizing the actions of Mr. Coleman. That is not the case but you create that strawman so as to move the argument away from where it started: the double standard.
Now if you really believe that that line of questioning several years after the fact is reasonable, shouldn't it be used for every athlete? Shouldn't all athletes who have violations (be them positive tests or whereabouts violations) be treated the same i.e. be told they should be tested everyday and asked for years about their transgressions? And why is RoJo singling only one athlete out about it while excusing another who tested positive.
Now again I ask you, is it about the principle or is it about the person?
Everything you had described makes LRC more interesting. I am not interested in feel-good questions, PC debates with medallists, etc. What would they say? I ran a great race, got out of the blocks fast and finished strong? We could see that. We are interested in the answers to open, or even somewhat insinuated questions - what do you say to the fact that 80% of the knowledgeable fans do not believe that you are clean?
That´s not rasism, that is just consequence of his doping ban. It stays with him forever, regardless whether he is white, green or black. He has gotten banned, it is not an opinion, it is a fact. If he does not want to be reminded, he can change careers, and sell cars, or whatever.
Keep your activism for your classes, Mike. You might score with coeds, but you sound like someone with an agenda. Here is a suggestion - start your own website and be more "current". I guarantee you, you'll fail miserably.
Everything you had described makes LRC more interesting. I am not interested in feel-good questions, PC debates with medallists, etc. What would they say? I ran a great race, got out of the blocks fast and finished strong? We could see that. We are interested in the answers to open, or even somewhat insinuated questions - what do you say to the fact that 80% of the knowledgeable fans do not believe that you are clean?
That´s not rasism, that is just consequence of his doping ban. It stays with him forever, regardless whether he is white, green or black. He has gotten banned, it is not an opinion, it is a fact. If he does not want to be reminded, he can change careers, and sell cars, or whatever.
Keep your activism for your classes, Mike. You might score with coeds, but you sound like someone with an agenda. Here is a suggestion - start your own website and be more "current". I guarantee you, you'll fail miserably.
Agree with this. The main problem with this website is the douche who keeps deleting threads and comments.