A few criticized Rojo for his question. One said he'd be fine with the question if LetsRun had been consistent on the matter. Here is Rojo's reply to that.
We have been very consistent since day 1 at LetsRun. We've asked doping questions or let the messageboarders ask doping questions from the moment this website was founded.
Also in the same year, when I started coaching at Cornell, a freshman on the team from Oregon came up to me at the first practice and said, "Alberto Salazar does not like you guys."
Why? Because people were talking about doping at Athletics West on the messageboard.
We've been 100% consistent on doping. We ask the questions that need to be asked whether you are white (Galen Rupp, Salazar, etc), black (Regina Jacobs, Justin Gatlin, etc.), male, female, American or Kenyan.
What about Jakob has he been critical of him or asked him questions about doping? I don’t recall. Seems like there might be some preferential treatment there.
Maybe the reason Rojo is being criticized is that his question is so boringly predictable and unenlightening.
I agree it is a "predictable" question, but if you are a lawyer, you still have to ask the defendant, "did you or did you not commit the crime you were accused of?" Of course the defendant is going to deny it, but how they deny it can be very, very revealing to the jury.
The problem in this scenario is that Ruth C. doesn't have the English skills and Chicago organizers might not have had the Swahili translators on site to make a real discussion possible.
Nonetheless, the question needs to be asked so we can see how the athlete, coaches, managers, agents, and sponsors respond.
Maybe the reason Rojo is being criticized is that his question is so boringly predictable and unenlightening.
I agree it is a "predictable" question, but if you are a lawyer, you still have to ask the defendant, "did you or did you not commit the crime you were accused of?" Of course the defendant is going to deny it, but how they deny it can be very, very revealing to the jury.
The problem in this scenario is that Ruth C. doesn't have the English skills and Chicago organizers might not have had the Swahili translators on site to make a real discussion possible.
Nonetheless, the question needs to be asked so we can see how the athlete, coaches, managers, agents, and sponsors respond.
Ruth is NOT in the position of a defendant, as she has NOT been arrested, much less charged with a crime. Since you say the question “needs to be asked,” are you left inconsolable when Jakob runs 7:54 and 7:17 and he is not asked if he is doping? Jakob is not asked because either it has been asked or answered before or the journalists want to maintain access, because Jakob is “one of us,” meaning a white male and therefore more deserving of respect in the eyes of the establishment. Let us be real here.
Jakob does not come from a country with 150 distance runners currently suspended.
Jakob is not a woman running as fast as the best Americans.
Anti-doping in Norway is not bankrupt with no tests performed since the start of August.
Jakob ran 3 seconds faster with super shoes, wave lights, a mondo track than a WR set nearly 30 years ago. (that's around 0.4 second a lap faster than Komen, yet you think the likes of him and El G running 1 second faster a lap than Coe and Cram just 15 years before with no new tracks, shoes, or training methods were clean).
Jakob does not come from a country with 150 distance runners currently suspended.
Jakob is not a woman running as fast as the best Americans.
Anti-doping in Norway is not bankrupt with no tests performed since the start of August.
Jakob ran 3 seconds faster with super shoes, wave lights, a mondo track than a WR set nearly 30 years ago. (that's around 0.4 second a lap faster than Komen, yet you think the likes of him and El G running 1 second faster a lap than Coe and Cram just 15 years before with no new tracks, shoes, or training methods were clean).
What parts of the above do you not understand?
Jakob is more of an outlier than Ruth. White runners have not shown they can run as fast as East Africans, except for Jakob. He is the only one. But you racists, and you know you are one, attribute it to his and his father’s advantage in intelligence and training methods. Tell me who is the second fastest white runner at 3000m?
Jakob does not come from a country with 150 distance runners currently suspended.
Jakob is not a woman running as fast as the best Americans.
Anti-doping in Norway is not bankrupt with no tests performed since the start of August.
Jakob ran 3 seconds faster with super shoes, wave lights, a mondo track than a WR set nearly 30 years ago. (that's around 0.4 second a lap faster than Komen, yet you think the likes of him and El G running 1 second faster a lap than Coe and Cram just 15 years before with no new tracks, shoes, or training methods were clean).
What parts of the above do you not understand?
We all understand you making excuses for the white guy, Coevett.
It was a good question. And Rojo phrased it correctly - it was obvious as soon as the race finished there will be many skeptics, haters, doubters. I am one of them. Rojo gave Ruth a good chance to refute and respond to critics. Unfortunately a combination of language barrier and camera shy prevented much of a response from happening.
For those who think it was a good question, I'm wondering what do they consider would be a good answer?
What can she possibly say that won't sound like what every innocent and guilty athlete alike would say, or has already said?
At its core, the question isn't about Chepngetich, but about what a selected group of fans are prepared to believe and disbelieve, selected on the basis of doubting a performance can be clean, and who implicitly believe (on what basis?) that only doping can produce the best performances?
What can she say to change the minds of a group of people who stopped listening to what athletes say?
For the athlete who just achieved what every athlete strives to achieve with a lifetime of training, it's a lose-lose question.
Saying "I don't know" and "people will talk" seems like a good response.
Comparing Jakob's 7:17 to this is idiotic. He didn't come out of thin air like Kiptum or this woman. He has been doing this for 10-12 years and ran 3:31 1500m as a 17 year old. His times are a normal trajectory. Just a Jakob hater, not from a country that like Kenya who has had over 300 cheats in the last 8-9 years. Throwing Jakob in this just devalues the conversation and demonstrates an extreme bias.
All that means is he's been doping since he was a teenager,which is what many of us believe.17 year olds cant run 3.31 naturally.There is nothing normal about that.
It was a good question. And Rojo phrased it correctly - it was obvious as soon as the race finished there will be many skeptics, haters, doubters. I am one of them. Rojo gave Ruth a good chance to refute and respond to critics. Unfortunately a combination of language barrier and camera shy prevented much of a response from happening.
For those who think it was a good question, I'm wondering what do they consider would be a good answer?
What can she possibly say that won't sound like what every innocent and guilty athlete alike would say, or has already said?
At its core, the question isn't about Chepngetich, but about what a selected group of fans are prepared to believe and disbelieve, selected on the basis of doubting a performance can be clean, and who implicitly believe (on what basis?) that only doping can produce the best performances?
What can she say to change the minds of a group of people who stopped listening to what athletes say?
For the athlete who just achieved what every athlete strives to achieve with a lifetime of training, it's a lose-lose question.
Saying "I don't know" and "people will talk" seems like a good response.
Wow! First time I have ever agreed with any of your arguments. Wonders truly never cease.
When the burrito eating athlete was banned, the questionner and a few others incessantly went out of their way to claim the athlete was innocent, not once did they ask the same type of questions as they asked this Kenyan runner. One can only wonder why.
As the Kenyan becomes the first woman to break 2:10, the running world is left wondering if the performance was down to her undoubted talent, hi-tech super shoes, modern energy drinks or something else
We've been 100% consistent on doping. We ask the questions that need to be asked whether you are white (Galen Rupp, Salazar, etc), black (Regina Jacobs, Justin Gatlin, etc.), male, female, American or Kenyan.
For those who think it was a good question, I'm wondering what do they consider would be a good answer?
What can she possibly say that won't sound like what every innocent and guilty athlete alike would say, or has already said?
Exactly. It's tiresome because it accomplishes nothing, aside from allowing Rojo to burnish his credentials as a crusading amateur journalist and anti-doping vigilante.
It's neither courageous nor enlightening to ask a question when everyone already knows what the response will be.
We all understand you making excuses for the white guy, Coevett.
Given the habit of the doping apologist shills here to post in the same thread under different names with low content spam comments, the Brojos should really consider making doping threads, or at least important ones like this, registered users only.
For those who think world record holders are (may be) clean, ask yourselves:
a) What time could they run if doped? E.g., Ruth a 2:05-2:07? Paula back then a 2:11-2:13?
b) Why did no doper - however super-talented and hard-trained - come close to those times?
Some of us think that a PED may not even exist for the marathon, that would make these clean elite runners faster. The questions already presume too much.
There is no reason to think they would run their best marathon any faster doped. They might even run slower due to adverse side effects, or less efficient training from a wrong focus.
I'm asking myself, who is the fastest known doper in the women's marathon? Unless I'm missing someone, isn't it Shobukhova at 2:18:20 and Jeptoo at 2:18:57?
I'm asking myself why haven't any known dopers run faster than what Paula ran in 2002, when she ran 2:17:18 in Chicago?
Why do some think doping is a good explanation for these faster times, let alone the only one?
Wow! First time I have ever agreed with any of your arguments. Wonders truly never cease.
When the burrito eating athlete was banned, the questionner and a few others incessantly went out of their way to claim the athlete was innocent, not once did they ask the same type of questions as they asked this Kenyan runner. One can only wonder why.
There is no reason to think they would run their best marathon any faster doped.
Are you for real? What a stupid, clueless remark. There are so many reasons to think so, note for example
1) The science/scientists, on record with e.g. up to 3% via blood doping, up to 1 minute over 10k.
2) The coaches, e.g. Canova and Salazar both estimating a 2 minute gain in the marathon.
3) The athletes. E.g. Flanagan (also a coach now) claiming that Jeptoo's success in Boston was due to doping.
4) The many many successful dopers in the marathon, from Olympic Champ Sumgong to countless majors winners like Jeptoo, Cherono, Wanjiru,... to 2:02 runner Ekiru.
5) The fact that Radcliffe's pre-ABP WR of 2:15 wasn't even approached by anyone for over 16 years (until supershoes).
6) Radcliffe's super blood history (in competition hgb jumps of over 20% concurring with ret-% decreases of 20%, indicative of the typical 1 L blood transfusions).
The World Anti-Doping Agency’s unanimous decision, if upheld, would exclude Russia from the 2020 Olympics, but many Russian athletes could be unaffected by the decision.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.