Mark Wetmore's Letter to the Editor

They're not. Anyone who has ever met Art would say the same thing.

Wrong. Try it namey.

Even if they are they have to prove what they said is true. They made the statements that the accused is refuting. If false, they will lose.

This libel thing is just silly in this context, overwrought posts nonwithstanding.

Libel only applies to statements of fact, not opinions. Most posts on a thread like this are quite clearly just the opinions of the posters.

To win an award in a libel case, you generally have to show both that a statement claimed to be factual is a) wrong, and b) the person who made that statement knew or should have known it was wrong.

But even that isn't enough - you also have to show that the untrue "fact" caused you harm, like in the economic sense rather than the "hurt feelings" sense.

So enough with the drama - nobody is going to get rung up for libel for anything posted in this thread.

So would the OP like to share, is he in fact The Art Siemers?

It just seems to make too much sense.

-running scenster

-37 years old

-college coach

-knows CU runners and Jay Johnson

The poster said "in fact". Read much?

1) Post your real name and email address.

2) Make a false statement about either coach that you say is a fact, but can be proven otherwise.

3) I will copy this thread, which I already have, and mail it to both coaches and the university.

4) Buckle up buttercup, you're in for a rough road. Good luck getting to the court after being subpoenaed. By the way, you'll have to pay that part on your own.

5) Translation: You lose:(

If they don't give a rat's a** about you, what you said, and how it has affected them on a board read by thousands,....then you're safe. As others have said, it has happened as I was on a hobby website where action was taken. You are too hard-headed and arrogant to understand.

If Wetmore or CU are even remotely rational, they won't give a flying fig about anything in this thread. Why on earth would they?

"Excuse me your honor. I have taken offense to something that 'ripping farts' wrote on an internet forum about my coaching abilities. I would like to ascertain his identify and sue him for slander."[/quote]

I laughed so hard at this. So funny to think of that happening.

99% of the posts here don't make it past your step #1, so that pretty much sinks it right there.

And even overlooking that, very few posts (if any) on this thread meet your step #2 either. I mean, what could I say about a coach that would qualify as a fact (not opinion) that could be proven wrong? You could mis-state the accomplishments of their runners, I suppose, but other than that ... what?

And even overlooking that, your steps don't add up to a libel judgement - you have to show that the statement(s) harmed you, generally in an economic sense, as I said.

Have we met?

comprehension gal wrote:

The poster said "in fact". Read much?

That phrase doesn't automatically mean what follows is a statement of fact. For example:

"In fact, you're an idiot."

Clearly a statement of opinion.

I did read back through this (lengthy) thread and couldn't find the post you were referring to. Feel free to repost the relevant bit.

Otherwise I have to ask ... think much?

CO law wrote:

Accept Colorado has an anti nepotism law.

OK, OK, I accept it. You don't have to be so pushy. Sheesh!

berol wrote:

If Wetmore or CU are even remotely rational, they won't give a flying fig about anything in this thread. Why on earth would they?

If CU is remotely rational they will start giving a flying fig very soon about the Wetmore-Burroughs relationship and its ramifications in that little workplace that is CU track and field. For all the talk of lawsuits in recent posts on this thread, this one is one they should be concerned about.

We could discuss the merits of Wetmore vs. Johnson as coaches all night long to little avail. Wetmore-Burroughs, on the other hand, has everything to do with equity in the workplace. While the standards of coaching quality are a little fuzzy, the standards of what passes for workplace equity aren't nearly so fuzzy. And people actually litigate over workplace equity.

Not Ryan Deak wrote:

Why was Harkrader's success under Wetmore stymied, punctuated with lengthy periods of injury, compared with how he ran in high school? He was breaking Goucher's course records as a high school senior and then ran nowhere close to how Goucher ran while at CU.

Care to fill us in on which of Goucher's course records Harkrader broke? Harkrader was good and may have actually got a Goucher course record by some odd chance, but I have my doubts. Please do not invoke Harkrader's state meet race time his senior year--that course was famously short (not to mention that Goucher never ran that course).

Now, back to our regularly scheduled mudfest...

Try making sense. Thanks.

abby willikers wrote:

So you're not up to par then, right? Keep trying, those big words will give you confidence yet.

Goucher's state meet record. Fine, if you want to play semantics and say it wasn't the exact same course then whatever. Harkrader beat Ryan Deak (not me, obviously) easily that day, too, so it's not like he had the record and win just handed to him by way of a downhill course and watered-down competition.

I do think it's interesting that McCarthy, despite his gilded reputation as purported in this thread (I agree, I always like his posts), would credit the Lydiard style training for Harkrader's successes prior to CU yet faults genetics alone for the injuries while at CU. Get real, both his genetics and his training brought him both success and injury. For such a supposed control freak, Wetmore lets his runners have an awful lot of free reign to run themselves into the ground by running too hard on easy days. Hopefully Burroughs has helped to put the kibosh on the rampant eating disorders that used to plague the women's team and that Wetmore was if not encouraging then doing little at all to prevent.

So would the OP like to share, is he in fact The Art Siemers?

It just seems to make too much sense.

-running scenster

-37 years old

-college coach

-knows CU runners and Jay Johnson

Doesn't make sense unless Art forgot he is 38 years old.

Not Ryan Deak wrote:

Why was Harkrader's success under Wetmore stymied, punctuated with lengthy periods of injury, compared with how he ran in high school? He was breaking Goucher's course records as a high school senior and then ran nowhere close to how Goucher ran while at CU.

Because Harkrader was never nearly as good as Goucher and broke Goucher's record on a course that was pancake flat and nearly 300 meters short.

Goucher dominated FL as a senior and was great as junior. Harkrader was never comparable to Goucher.

It's not semantics. That course was 300 meters short. I measured it more than once with a wheel and with a GPS. In addition, I ran the mf'er I think 5 or 6 times, and they kept lengthening it every year, and even the last time I ran it it was still 120 meters short. It was the only course I ran slower on each year (as they lengthened it).

Anyway. Not semantics. Three hundred meter short course. It's also worth noting that I believe Goucher ran his record in a snowstorm.

Secondly, things are bad at CU. A lot of the runners have been unhappy with Wetmore in the last few years. A lot of people don't like Wetmore or Burroughs, and a lot of people claim Wetmore doesn't give nearly the effort to his runners as he used to--or at least not to the runners not named Jenny Barringer. However, you can't really deny his coaching talent. If he wants to develop a great team, I think he will do it, I just think he has other things on his mind these days and has lost a bit of the fire we used to see in him.

Jay Johnson was a necessary recruiter because Wetmore doesn't connect with younger kids. He might not be the best in the nation, but he got some very good recruits while he was at CU, and he was a very likable and energetic guy that we could relate to, and CU doesn't have that anymore. A lot of the runners there can't relate to Wetmore and Burroughs, and a lot of the recruits have trouble with it as well. So even if Jay Johnson wasn't the best coach, I think his presence is missed in the intangibles.

That said, CU is still recruiting a lot of talent, they just are panning out. Tebo and Medina were both top-notch talents, and if they were running like one would think Wetmore runners of their caliber would run, CU would be right in the top three or four in the nation like usual. But instead, they aren't, and the B-class runners that Wetmore has made into All-Americans have become the top guys for CU. Wetmore does great things with mediocre talent, but in order to be in the upper echelon, he needs some of his stars to perform, and they simply haven't in the last few years.